Divorce justified?

[prisonchaplain]

I don't understand his viewpoint. He is an Evangelical pastor (or at least he ran CBN, a big Christian broadcasting network which had him preaching and leading prayers). I just don't understand his justification for divorce with this. I'm trying, but I'm still lost to his viewpoint.

Also keep in mind that, while he headed this vast network, Robertson is not a pastor, does not have theological or ministerial training, and was likely just giving his own opinion, based largely on empathy for the spouses of those with dementia. And again, he's wrong.

[Spartan117]

You must realize that many people do not agree with his opinion; I'm sure members of his own church do not agree with him.

I can't wait for Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell to be reunited.

[Dravin]

I really don't want to take this off topic but I just can't let this go. Please explain to me how Pat Robertson's opinion proves that the LDS church is true. You must realize that many people do not agree with his opinion; I'm sure members of his own church do not agree with him. So how does someone's opinion on one matter prove that something of a different matter is true?

M.

Are you suggesting non-LDS Christianity isn't a monolithic group that agrees 100% with any non-LDS Christian who makes the news?

Edited September 15, 2011 by Dravin

[Maureen]

Are you suggesting non-LDS Christianity isn't a monolithic group that agrees 100% with any non-LDS Christian who makes the news?

Yes, somewhat - any person Christian or not will always have their opinion.

M.

[Guest gopecon]

I don't think this was evidence of the truthfulness of the LDS (or any other church). It does call the reliability of Mr. Robertson's spiritual insights into question. If there is a message for LDS here, I think it is the reassurance that modern revelation should prevent one of our leaders from saying something like this. I think this is what Iggy was getting at.

[BenRaines]

I have never given much account to what Pat Robertson says anyway.

Ben Raines

[beefche]

I don't think this was evidence of the truthfulness of the LDS (or any other church). It does call the reliability of Mr. Robertson's spiritual insights into question. If there is a message for LDS here, I think it is the reassurance that modern revelation should prevent one of our leaders from saying something like this. I think this is what Iggy was getting at.

So, it doesn't "prove" that the Church is true, but it "proves" our leaders won't say anything off the wall? Really?

[Vort]

So, it doesn't "prove" that the Church is true, but it "proves" our leaders won't say anything off the wall? Really?

Don't be absurd. Pat Robertson's statement does not prove the Church is true. BYU's victory over Utah on Saturday proves the Church is true.

[slamjet]

Don't be absurd. Pat Robertson's statement does not prove the Church is true. BYU's victory over Utah on Saturday proves the Church is true.

The things you hang your hat on

[Guest mormonmusic]

I think this is a deeply personal decision. A person should consider their capacity to live with someone with Alzheimers, the impact on their own mental health and happiness, the intensity of the love they have for the person, the impact on their Alzheimer-ridden spouse of staying or leaving, the legal and financial impact, their interpretation of their covenants, and how they feel as they pray about the decision. These are not easily determined without actually living in the situation and knowing oneself.

As you know from other threads, I'm concerned when we try to come up with answers to questions like these that "paint everyone with the same brush". We are complex human beings, and we are all different. And we must ALWAYS be on guard about being too judgmental when people make decisions that on the surface seem wrong to us.

Someone once said:

"When you go to heaven, you will be VERY surprised who you will see there. And many people will be shocked to find YOU there too".

Let us all love each other, and stop judging people simply because we think we have a common set of values. In a huge number of cases, we are incredibly different from each other, and multiple solutions to the same problem are likely completely acceptable to God who knows us personally.

Edited September 16, 2011 by mormonmusic

[Saldrin]

Pat Robertson says that in the case of Alzheimer's, one is justified in divorcing.

Pat Robertson says Alzheimer's makes divorce OK - Yahoo! News

Agree or disagree?

for myself I disagree, because for myself, if i truly love someone caring for them is no big issue.

[Guest gopecon]

So, it doesn't "prove" that the Church is true, but it "proves" our leaders won't say anything off the wall? Really?

Pat Robertson saying anything does not prove anything about our Church. As he is held up as an evangelical Christian leader, we can contrast this type of statement to ones our leaders have said about marriage and see that they hold up quite favorably. Can you find "off the wall" statements from our modern, media aware leaders? Possibly, but I honestly rather doubt you'll find anything that seems to fly this far in the face of scripture and the clear meaning of the marriage vows.

(To make a fair comparison I think we need to use leaders from the same era. You can mine the Journal of Discourses for quotes that may be hard to understand, but I guarantee that you can find lines from southern protestant preachers in the 1800's that few modern protestants would want to defend).

[beefche]

But, PrisonChaplin explained that Mr. Robertson isn't a leader of any church. PC said:

Also keep in mind that, while he headed this vast network, Robertson is not a pastor, does not have theological or ministerial training, and was likely just giving his own opinion, based largely on empathy for the spouses of those with dementia. And again, he's wrong.

So, he isn't like one of our Apostles. He's more like an unnamed TV/cable/radio Mormon political commentator who now has his own satellite TV station and who will make statements regarding something related to churchy stuff. And we all know that man makes some off the wall remarks.

[Blackmarch]

Pat Robertson says that in the case of Alzheimer's, one is justified in divorcing.

Pat Robertson says Alzheimer's makes divorce OK - Yahoo! News

Agree or disagree?

I'd have to disagree.

[Leah]

I think this is a deeply personal decision. A person should consider their capacity to live with someone with Alzheimers, the impact on their own mental health and happiness, the intensity of the love they have for the person, the impact on their Alzheimer-ridden spouse of staying or leaving, the legal and financial impact, their interpretation of their covenants, and how they feel as they pray about the decision. These are not easily determined without actually living in the situation and knowing oneself.

As you know from other threads, I'm concerned when we try to come up with answers to questions like these that "paint everyone with the same brush". We are complex human beings, and we are all different. And we must ALWAYS be on guard about being too judgmental when people make decisions that on the surface seem wrong to us.

Someone once said:

"When you go to heaven, you will be VERY surprised who you will see there. And many people will be shocked to find YOU there too".

Let us all love each other, and stop judging people simply because we think we have a common set of values. In a huge number of cases, we are incredibly different from each other, and multiple solutions to the same problem are likely completely acceptable to God who knows us personally.

If it is okay to abandon a spouse with Alzheimer's because we lack the "capacity" to live with someone who has that particular disease, or because it is financially difficult, the "intensity of their love", or any of the other reasons you gave, then wouldn't it be okay to abandon your spouse for ANY reason? Maybe I have the "capacity" to live with someone with a broken leg, but not diabetes or cancer? No, I don't have that "capacity". (Because...wow...that would require more on my part and why would I want to do more?) Or we should abandon a spouse because their illness is expensive? Or abandon them because we have "intensity" of love for the easier illnesses, but not the tough ones? We should abandon them for eternity simply because things got a little difficult in the mortal life?

My husband died two years ago Sunday. He had health issues for a number of years. They started even before we were married. He had a leg amputated just a few months prior to our wedding and died just before our first anniversary. I guess I should never have married him and I certainly should have abandoned him when his health took an unexpected turn - a terminal turn - after our marriage, especially because his mind started to go as well. I guess I could have simply said that I didn't have the "intensity" of love or the "capacity" for something THAT hard, but hey, give me a husband with a broken leg instead and I will stick around.

I was diagnosed with MS after he died. But I guess if he had been alive and healthy, it would have been okay for him to say..."I love you, but not THAT much, I'm outta here".

I don't see how it is okay to abandon a spouse in their time of need, just because that need might cause some inconvenience or hardship for us, or some ill-defined unhappiness.

[Maureen]

If it is okay to abandon a spouse with Alzheimer's because we lack the "capacity" to live with someone who has that particular disease, or because it is financially difficult, the "intensity of their love", or any of the other reasons you gave, then wouldn't it be okay to abandon your spouse for ANY reason? Maybe I have the "capacity" to live with someone with a broken leg, but not diabetes or cancer? No, I don't have that "capacity". (Because...wow...that would require more on my part and why would I want to do more?) Or we should abandon a spouse because their illness is expensive? Or abandon them because we have "intensity" of love for the easier illnesses, but not the tough ones? We should abandon them for eternity simply because things got a little difficult in the mortal life?

My husband died two years ago Sunday. He had health issues for a number of years. They started even before we were married. He had a leg amputated just a few months prior to our wedding and died just before our first anniversary. I guess I should never have married him and I certainly should have abandoned him when his health took an unexpected turn - a terminal turn - after our marriage, especially because his mind started to go as well. I guess I could have simply said that I didn't have the "intensity" of love or the "capacity" for something THAT hard, but hey, give me a husband with a broken leg instead and I will stick around.

I was diagnosed with MS after he died. But I guess if he had been alive and healthy, it would have been okay for him to say..."I love you, but not THAT much, I'm outta here".

I don't see how it is okay to abandon a spouse in their time of need, just because that need might cause some inconvenience or hardship for us, or some ill-defined unhappiness.

Your situation is indeed sad Leah, but I have no idea how you have understood mormonmusic's post as saying "I love you, but not THAT much, I'm outta here"; because he didn't say anything close to that.

M.

[prisonchaplain]

I think this is a deeply personal decision. A person should consider their capacity to live with someone with Alzheimers, the impact on their own mental health and happiness, the intensity of the love they have for the person, the impact on their Alzheimer-ridden spouse of staying or leaving, the legal and financial impact, their interpretation of their covenants, and how they feel as they pray about the decision. These are not easily determined without actually living in the situation and knowing oneself.

As you know from other threads, I'm concerned when we try to come up with answers to questions like these that "paint everyone with the same brush". We are complex human beings, and we are all different. And we must ALWAYS be on guard about being too judgmental when people make decisions that on the surface seem wrong to us.

Someone once said:

"When you go to heaven, you will be VERY surprised who you will see there. And many people will be shocked to find YOU there too".

Let us all love each other, and stop judging people simply because we think we have a common set of values. In a huge number of cases, we are incredibly different from each other, and multiple solutions to the same problem are likely completely acceptable to God who knows us personally.

I struggle with this post because it seems that you do what Pat Robertson does--empathize with the spouse. That is so right and beautiful and Christ-like. Yet, in so doing, permission is granted to succumb to frustration and exhaustion. The end result is that loyalties are divided, and the diseased person gets care, but less devotion. The vow "in sickness and in health" was penned for just this type of circumstance.

My difficulty is that often church people see someone in this crisis, and we get uncomfortable. Rather than surrounding the spouse with love and support, we back off. Perhaps we are embarrassed, do not believe we know what to do, or secretly think the malady is contagious? Irregardless, the support is not extended, and frustration, bitterness and exhaustion arise.

What I wish Pat Robertson would have said was, "Church, we need to step up and help those struggling with this. Brothers need to come around this spouse and provide some added fellowship. Perhaps some could offer to sit with the person suffering from dementia, even for a couple of hours, so the spouse can have a break?

To cross the line and say, "No one can judge...this is personal...this is agency..." I'm sorry, but the Almighty does not give us that license. If we are promised we'll not encounter more than we can endure, then it means God can give us the strength to make it through. It does not mean we can give up when we are tired--even deeply so.

[Dravin]

Let us all love each other, and stop judging people simply because we think we have a common set of values.

You honestly feel that those who feel his advice is wrong wouldn't feel the same way except they think a bunch of other people agree with them? What a low opinion of the people in this thread you must have.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Dravin

[ADoyle90815]

I'm a non-LDS Christian who strongly disagrees with this person's opinion. After all, that vow "in sickness..." definitely applies to someone with Alzheimer's or other form of dementia. In an article about Robertson's comment, it was mentioned that feelings are usually one of the last things to go for someone with Alzheimer's, so the thought of divorcing someone is especially cruel. Even if the caregiver makes the difficult decision to put their spouse in a nursing home, it's usually because they realize that they're no longer able to provide the care they deserve, and they continue to visit the person they married.

[Leah]

Your situation is indeed sad Leah, but I have no idea how you have understood mormonmusic's post as saying "I love you, but not THAT much, I'm outta here"; because he didn't say anything close to that.

M.

In disagreeing with earlier posters who said it was wrong to leave, Mormonmusic stated "A person should consider their capacity to live with someone with Alzheimers, the impact on their own mental health and happiness, the intensity of the love they have for the person"" the legal and financial impact".

He is saying it is okay to leave an ill spouse if they lack the "capacity" to live with an ill spouse. He said it is okay to leave due to the "impact" their mental health and happiness" He said they should consider the "intensity" of their love. Seems pretty clear to me. Consider the "financial impact"? My husband's illness left me heavily in debt. Should I have left him to avoid that debt? Should money have been more important to me than my husband? One can decide they don't have the "capacity" to live with an ill spouse. One can decide to leave their ill spouse because their "mental health and happiness" is more important than that of the ill spouse, and one can also decide to leave if their love is not "intense" enough. Hence, I love you 'this' much, but not 'that' much. I will stay through x or y, but not z. The focus is a very selfish one.

My 'situation' is not sad. I loved my husband and stayed with him during sad and difficult times and much suffering for him. Staying with him wasn't sad, it was an honor and privilege and the right thing to do. What is sad if the fact that some believe it is okay to abandon an ill spouse....and some people do exactly that.

[pam]

Don't be absurd. Pat Robertson's statement does not prove the Church is true. BYU's victory over Utah on Saturday proves the Church is true.

I guess the church isn't true because BYU gave Utah a huge win. :)

[Guest mormonmusic]

ITo cross the line and say, "No one can judge...this is personal...this is agency..." I'm sorry, but the Almighty does not give us that license. If we are promised we'll not encounter more than we can endure, then it means God can give us the strength to make it through. It does not mean we can give up when we are tired--even deeply so.

At one time, I bought into the "not above our temptation to resist" argument, and then I read first hand accounts of people in trying circumstances in WWII. Many went into mental instability, insanity, and various stress disorders and mental problems that killed them because they simply could not handle the stress of suffering they were forced to endure. At different points in my life, I've experienced traumatic events that have pushed me deep into the depths of depression that I couldn't seem to get out of without medication (twice, for brief periods) in spite of REALLY trying. Both my brother and sister suffer the same thing, I found out after 10 years of all of us hiding it from the world.

At some level, our biology impacts our spirituality and ability to handle different stressors, and the threshold is different for different people.

I would add another factor to consider if divorcing and that is the level of care the person would receive elsewhere, compared to the level of care they would receive at home.

Also, in retrospect, I also want to be honest with myself qualify what I said -- I was thinking more about whether the spouse would continue to live with the person rather than stay married. I could see staying married out of loyalty and covenant-keeping, visiting the person in a care facility often, paying for comfortable circumstances and such -- particularly if there were other young family that might be traumatized by seeing the deterioration of a parent at home. I had children late in life, and my son, 8 was diagnosed with a nasty chronic disease at the age of 6. His view of the world is that it's unsafe and unfriendly. He's scared about things all the time, and won't stay in the house alone even if the rest of the family is simply outside on the front lawn.

I would hate to have him to watch me deterioriate around the house if I had Alzheimers, further reminding him of what a scary place this world is. I would rather I was in a home somewhere getting visits while he lived his life at home without my presence.

However if someone chose divorce in any circumstance, I would not go judgmental on them, recognizing that their set of life circumstances and personal experiences are far different than mine. I have not been appointed to judge -- let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

And I do think the Savior gave us that license to ultimately make our own decisions free of the proactive judgment of others -- that is why he said explictly "judge not the ye be not judged". Particularly when such decisions are none of our business. Another little concern I have -- more than once, because people in Churches have a set of common values, they think they have a right to pass judgment on other people's personal affairs -- without deep knowledge of all the variables impacting that person. They have no such right!

Edited September 18, 2011 by mormonmusic

[Vort]

I guess the church isn't true because BYU gave Utah a huge win. :)

Of course the Church isn't true because Utah beat BYU. Rather, the Church is true because, even after a disaster of that magnitude, there were no confirmed fatalities in Provo last night and there is still a stadium on the northwest corner of campus rather than a smoldering crater.

[pam]

Hey you are the one that said a BYU victory over Utah would prove the church is true. :)

[Vort]

If we are promised we'll not encounter more than we can endure, then it means God can give us the strength to make it through.

At one time, I bought into the "not above our temptation to resist" argument, and then I read first hand accounts of people in trying circumstances in WWII. Many went into mental instability, insanity, and various stress disorders and mental problems that killed them because they simply could not handle the stress of suffering they were forced to endure. At different points in my life, I've experienced traumatic events that have pushed me deep into the depths of depression that I couldn't seem to get out of without medication (twice, for brief periods) in spite of REALLY trying.

Speaking to the doctrine discussed above and not necessarily to any specific application being discussed:

I believe it is a commonly misunderstood doctrine that we will not and cannot be tempted above our ability to bear it. The doctrine appears to originate from 1 Corinthians 10:13:

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

The part in red is the part many people tend to overlook. The promise is not that God will refuse to allow us to experience temptation above our ability to withstand, but that we will be provided "a way to escape" before such temptation overcomes us.

Latter-day revelation buttresses this point. For example, Alma taught:

And now, my brethren, I wish...that ye would hearken unto my words, and cast off your sins, and not procrastinate the day of your repentance; but that ye would humble yourselves before the Lord, and call on his holy name, and watch and pray continually, that ye may not be tempted above that which ye can bear...

See also D&C 64:20 for an example of this principle in action.