Divorce justified?

[Guest mormonmusic]

Yes, and sometimes the escape is death.

[Maureen]

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.

I disagree. I think he is saying that some people may have the capacity to stay in a marriage due to illness and some people do not have that capacity. And who are we to judge those people who do not? Leah, you had that capacity and endured, but would you insist that everyone do as you did, or would you give them the choice to choose for themselves what it best for them and what they are able to endure.

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.

I'm referring to your situation of loosing your husband too soon. That is the sad part.

M.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Maureen

[gtg166v]

One thing that is being missed in all this is that Pat Robertson IS NOT SAYING divorce them, leave them, and have nothing to do with them.

He said that you still need to love them. Make sure they are taken care of, either by yourself, or by a care-giver. Visit them. Continue to love them. But it is okay to move on, because your relationship with that person is dead.

We are counseled that it is not good for man to be alone. I would argue that if you are married to someone who does not know you, has no memory of you, that you are alone.

I am NOT saying that one SHOULD divorce someone, what I suggest is that it is possible for the Spirit might, or might not, tell someone to move on.

Personally, this is a reason to allow polygamy. I could never divorce my wife. (Though i have given my wife permission to if I ever get Alzheimer's. I wouldn't want my wife to go through that.) But why can't someone be married to two people. One who was the love of their life and to whom you continue to take care of, but another to have as a companion? At the end of the day, I would do what the Spirit would tell me to do.

[pam]

Let's remain on topic. Let's not taking this thread into the virtues of polygamy. For now it is against the standards of the church. 'nuff said.

[gtg166v]

Let's remain on topic. Let's not taking this thread into the virtues of polygamy. For now it is against the standards of the church. 'nuff said.

So is divorce (against the standards of the church), yet we are discussing it.

My suggestion of allowing polygamy was not directed to the church picking up polygamy again, rather why shouldn't the state allow it-in this circumstance? It is a solution for how one partner could continue to love their life long spouse (eternal companion) without terminating their legal status (marriage) together, while being able to move on.

The reply was entirely "on topic". What do you do when a loved one has Alzheimer's?

It could be possible that this is a challenge that God has provided both partners and the healthy one is NOT to remarry or "move on". But since God's laws are not in conflict with the idea of having multiple spouses (it has been allowed under certain circumstances), I would say this MAY be one of those times.

I also don't think that allowing polygamy under these circumstances requires allowing polygamy in other circumstances.

But not being in this situation, I cannot fathom the difficulty of this challenge, nor would I presume to speak in absolutes for what others should do.

[pam]

I also don't think that allowing polygamy under these circumstances requires allowing polygamy in other circumstances.

I don't see why not if you want to use the logic you have used? Why is this disease any different than any other terminal illness that many couples and families have to face together? The disease is different but the struggles are the same. What of someone that is paralyzed from the neck down? Many would argue that this couldn't possibly be a complete marriage without many of the physical aspects that go along with it. Yet many wouldn't think of giving up on a spouse where the mind is still active but the body isn't.

You give in to allowing one, and the fight to allow others quickly follows.

[pam]

So this is the point I need to bow out. As I mentioned early on in this thread..I lost my dad to Alzheimers. I watched him go from the strong, healthy, spiritual man that I knew to someone I didn't know or didn't even know me. This topic is too sensitive to me. Best I keep my mouth quiet now. :)

[gtg166v]

The difference is that with other terrible diseases, cancer, paralysis, etc. there is still a relationship that can be had. The relationship is not "dead". If one partner does not KNOW the other, how can you say there is a relationship?

I am also not speaking to one circumstance (Alzheimer's), but to one principle (end of ENTIRE relationship). Perhaps a coma would also be a circumstance. "Loosing the physical aspects of a relationship" is not the same as there being NO relationship.

I've never been worried about the argument that if you allow one you allow everything. I believe we should live our lives according to correct principles and govern our lives accordingly. Yes, this libertarian philosophy is used to justify actions not in harmony with God. But I'd rather give people the ability to chose for themselves.

I believe we should not constrain the Spirit. Maybe the Spirit would never tell someone to divorce or marry another in these cases. But maybe it would. (Polygamy HAS been allowed previously, why? To allow people to take care of others. All of this is based on love, not selfishness.) Who are we to make laws that prohibit these actions? (Again, I am speaking of state-allowed polygamy, not church -allowed polygamy. But church-allowed polygamy was only stopped because the state didn't allow it. I'd be curious to see what how the church would react if the state-allowed it. And if the state allowed it, I would not fault the church for continuing to disallow it, I see that as God addressing the issue.)

At the end of the day, we will be judged by God, there is no need for us to get too involved. If someone "uses" divorce or remarriage to selfishly justify leaving a challenge, they will answer for it.

But I am open to the idea that God would be merciful and allow the suffering, healthy spouse a helpmate to endure life's trials.

[Vort]

If our doctrine taught marriage that survives only "until death do we part", Pat Robertson's ideas might make a lot more sense. After all, marriage in that case is a mortal institution only, and if the person's mind dies, that's pretty much death. The marriage is effectively over anyway. Not saying I believe this, but one could make a reasonably convincing argument in that direction. Thinking of marriage as an eternal institution changes perspective on this issue.

[LissaH]

When a spouse has Alzheimer's disease, specialists agree that they need all the adoring assistance they can get. However, as Christian Broadcasting Network chairman Rev. Pat Robertson told “700 Club” viewers Tues, separating from a partner with Alzheimer's is sensible (Pat Robertson says divorcing Alzheimer’s patient is OK). He went on to convey he wouldn't “put a guilt trip” on the non-Alzheimer's spouse, since the disease is “a type of death”. Oh, this is hard. Sometimes a spouse is the only person the Alzheimer person will recognize.

[prisonchaplain]

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.

I would never second guess a family decision to place a person in a care facility. Further, I would label as sin any gossip and inappropriate opinion-sharing from church members.

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!

And this is where I disagree. My wife is my wife, "til death do us part" or "for time and eternity." Either way, that is non-negotiable. That is my promise and hers. Is the young like to say, "WORD!" Divorce is not an option. If you choose to associate with a religious community, and you violate the agreed to doctrine of that fellowship, by, for example, breaking marriage vows, then you will indeed face judgment for your sin. I won't condemn your soul, but I will condemn your decision.

My wife and I recently took out long term care insurance, for the very reasons you give. We do not be a burden to our children, and I do not want to be one to my wife. If I acquire Alzheimer's I hope and pray my wife will place me in a care facility, and visit as she can. May my children continue to enjoy their lives and families, and spend a few moments with me as they are able. I'd hate to become a burden and cause them the kind of psychological trauma you mention.

But divorce is not an option. That is the hard line, set by scripture.

[prisonchaplain]

If our doctrine taught marriage that survives only "until death do we part", Pat Robertson's ideas might make a lot more sense. After all, marriage in that case is a mortal institution only, and if the person's mind dies, that's pretty much death.

They might...but to be clear...THEY DON'T. Robertson's views have been roundly rejected by nearly the entire evangelical community. Mortal/temporal or immortal/eternal, marriage was established by God, as part of the creation. We do not permit it because of debilitating illness. We specifically prohibit it. Eternal marriage may have its many merits, but in this instance, it simply offers an afterlife hope. It shouldn't change the decision.

Here is an example of evangelical reaction: Pat Robertson Repudiates the Gospel | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Edited September 21, 2011 by prisonchaplain

[Traveler]

...

My wife and I recently took out long term care insurance, for the very reasons you give. We do not be a burden to our children, and I do not want to be one to my wife. If I acquire Alzheimer's I hope and pray my wife will place me in a care facility, and visit as she can. May my children continue to enjoy their lives and families, and spend a few moments with me as they are able. I'd hate to become a burden and cause them the kind of psychological trauma you mention.

But divorce is not an option. That is the hard line, set by scripture.

I am trying to understand what is going on in this discussion. Not that I disagree with you but is not puting someone "away" even in a "care facility" at least in part kind of a devorce?

Sometimes I wonder - what would Jesus do? Put someone "away" when they become difficult to deal with? Sometimes I think our society looks to much to the "easy" solution rather than the reality of what is happining. Maybe if we were more involved with our families the question of burdon has little or nothing to do with the answer. It is almost like saying - if you become a burdon - I do not want to deal with you; so I am at least honest enough to not expect you to deal with me if I am a burdon.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

I am trying to understand what is going on in this discussion. Not that I disagree with you but is not puting someone "away" even in a "care facility" at least in part kind of a devorce?

Depends why you do it. If we're talking about dropping off your 'inconvenience' and forgetting about them, sure I can see that. But sometimes a home, or the spouse aren't equipped (and I'm talking about stuff like medical training or being physically able themselves to care for you) to deal with the needs of the ill. It's great if in home care can be arranged but such isn't always the case.

Sometimes I wonder - what would Jesus do?

Well going by the scriptural example he'd heal them and it'd be a non-issue.

[prisonchaplain]

I am trying to understand what is going on in this discussion. Not that I disagree with you but is not puting someone "away" even in a "care facility" at least in part kind of a devorce?

Sometimes I wonder - what would Jesus do? Put someone "away" when they become difficult to deal with? Sometimes I think our society looks to much to the "easy" solution rather than the reality of what is happining. Maybe if we were more involved with our families the question of burdon has little or nothing to do with the answer. It is almost like saying - if you become a burdon - I do not want to deal with you; so I am at least honest enough to not expect you to deal with me if I am a burdon.

The Traveler

In the story of the Good Samaritan, I suppose it could be said that this "good" guy was really not so good. After all, he did not stick with the battered victim. He put him away, in an inn--not even a care facility.

I see a world of difference between divorcing a spouse with an illness or disease versus placing them in a care facility. I can only speak for myself, but if I were the person suffering dimensia, I would want my wife to visit me, pray for me, love me...but not to forsake the care of our daughters, nor her workplace, simply so that she could wear herself out providing the kind of care that trained workers can do so much better, and with so much less effort. Home care can be an option--perhaps for most. However, this is where I would draw the other line--the one that says, this is a family decision, and I have no judgment to offer.

[pam]

I am trying to understand what is going on in this discussion. Not that I disagree with you but is not puting someone "away" even in a "care facility" at least in part kind of a devorce?

Sometimes I wonder - what would Jesus do? Put someone "away" when they become difficult to deal with? Sometimes I think our society looks to much to the "easy" solution rather than the reality of what is happining. Maybe if we were more involved with our families the question of burdon has little or nothing to do with the answer. It is almost like saying - if you become a burdon - I do not want to deal with you; so I am at least honest enough to not expect you to deal with me if I am a burdon.

The Traveler

Actually the reality in most cases is that a care facility can provide the kind of services that an individual at home can not. In the case of my parents, my mom's health is very poor as well. Both parents in their 70's. Trying to also care for someone who was in the late stages of Alzheimers 24/7 was impossible. At that point they've lost all sense of hygiene (they don't even know how to use the bathroom). In order to preserve some of my mom's health it was the best decision possible. Sure there is myself and 3 siblings. But we also have full time jobs and our own families to care for as well.

It was not a case of considering my dad a burden, it was trying to provide the best possible care and attention that was needed. In the late stage, Alzheimers patients require 24/7 care.

[Guest mormonmusic]

And this is where I disagree. My wife is my wife, "til death do us part" or "for time and eternity." Either way, that is non-negotiable. That is my promise and hers. Is the young like to say, "WORD!" Divorce is not an option. If you choose to associate with a religious community, and you violate the agreed to doctrine of that fellowship, by, for example, breaking marriage vows, then you will indeed face judgment for your sin. I won't condemn your soul, but I will condemn your decision.

....But divorce is not an option. That is the hard line, set by scripture.

See, I used to think this way -- exactly. To the point that when my wife was incapable of consummating our marriage, I stayed faithful ffor a very long time, and to the present. But then as we neared the 10 year point, I met someone. Someone I fell emotionally in love with, and totally conflicted inside about because being a Mormon, I have a strong moral code regarding emotional and physical fidelity.

I won't go into the details -- suffice to say I never did anything wrong other than defintely some wrong thinking as I worked alongside this woman on projects. While wrong thinking is also damnable, there was never any physical contact that was inappropriate, although I did reject a couple physical advances from her.

But one night I sat beside my bed praying about this problem that would not go away in my marriage, plus some other irritants my wife would not give up, as well as my wife's unwillingness to do what was necessary to solve the problem (dilators). I realized that in a matter of hours, I could have my own place, a fresh start, a neat home, hope of a new relationship after divorce, a new life. But even more than that, I realized that this love I was feeling for this other woman had the potential to threaten my salvation. I can't tell you the involuntary PULL you feel toward someone you admire when your marriage is a gaping hole, with repeated attempts to make it fulfilling having failed.

It was then I realized that either things were going to have to change, or I would be risking my Church membership and salvation if I stayed in the marriage. The pull was so overpowering to this other woman, and my resilience weakened; I knew I was close to the edge.

I told God this, and said that unless things changed in the near future (a matter of weeks), I was leaving and would initiate divorce proceedings. I had tried HARD for 10 years -- seven doctors, three counselors, and an operation, and yet nothing had changed. And now, this loyalty seemed to be on a collision course with personal transgression.

I had REAL INTENT, meaning, I meant it. At least by leaving/divorcing I could have the hope of a better life, and I would not be in a position to jeopardize my standing in the Church and my personal salvation. I could date and quell the deep need for meaningful friendship and eventually physical blessings when I was free to date and remarry.

I got up from my prayer resolved to give it a few more weeks, or it was over. I didn't tell my wife. It was in God's hands.

Shortly after, the situation changed. A doctor, when she heard about my wife's problem for the last decade, refused to believe her!!! For some reason, this made my wife ANGRY. She went at the exercises she was supposed to do with a vengeance, and the problem showed initial signs of leaving about two weeks from my prayer. Eventually we solved the problem completely, not long afterwards.

So, I think there are times when one's comitment to their marriage covenant and their personal salvation may well be in direct conflict. I would break my promise "until death do you part" or "for eternity" if my promise to obey personal laws of salvation were in conflict with keeping that promise.

I'm just glad in this case I didn't have to sacrifice either. I'm still married to my original wife, the other woman I later rejected outright in a kind of hurtful way to stop her advances, which hurt me personally, but it was necessary.

But I don't judge anyone for personal decisions to divorce ever again. WE don't know the facts, and painting everyone with the same brush is rarely ever a good strategy in my view. There is too much diversity of circumstances. Only God can judge, even on principles that appear "non-negotiable" to us mortals.

[prisonchaplain]

Without agreeing, perhaps folks reading Mormonmusic's account will at least have a bit of understanding towards why Robertson gave the counsel he did.

[Traveler]

I am still trying to understand. I have seen enough exceptions that I know better. There are no single answers - no one solution that fits all.

I thought to give the exceptions but now think better of it for reasons I will keep to myself. I am not sure this is the proper place. It has been said that very few of us can see the heart of others and that G-d looks upon the heart. I have mixed feelings about death. Not that I fear death, just the path that so often is followed to get many of us to death. For me there are many things worse than death and many of those things are directly on the path a lot of us must take to death because of various “beliefs”.

There is an attitude about death with which I strongly disagree. Perhaps disagree is the wrong word - perhaps I would be better understood if I said that I dislike or despise. I have been by the side of several individuals at their moment of passing and I am convinced that in truth we know so little that it seems to me that for the most part we are so caught up in our own feelings, desires, wants and hopes to be of any real help during those final moments. It is my honest appraisal that there are “others” that do understand (by experience), rejoice and cheer them on - more like at the finish line of a great and very completive race.

The Traveler

[Guest mormonmusic]

I am still trying to understand. I have seen enough exceptions that I know better. There are no single answers - no one solution that fits all.

After years of thinking I knew absolutes, I now adopt this philosophy that the Traveler puts forward.

I try to live by the absolutes I feel may exist, in my personal life, but I agree with the Traveler that you can't paint everyone with the same brush. There are too many far flung exceptions that we can't see. Too often we make a judgment about whether someone is in the right or the wrong when we've thought about their situation for two minutes. The person making the decision may well have been enduring untold hardship for decades we aren't aware of, and can't empathize with, never having experienced it ourselves.

We have pea-brains compared to God. I will let him decide if what others did was right, while trying to do what I believe is right and good in my own microcosm.

[Traveler]

As I think on this. I have come to think that putting someone away is a type of divorce. PC talked about the Good Samaritan but I think that is a red herring to the question. The Good Samaritan did not have a marriage covenant with the person he helped.

But at the same time - putting someone away or going through a divorce or type of divorce is not always against G-d or his laws. One thing for sure, because it is difficult or inconvenient is not a reason to put someone away. But even at the other extreme - Why is euthanasia considered so different from sending someone to care facility, with a living will to, in essence, starve to death?

The Traveler

[Guest gopecon]

Traveler - I just don't understand how you can equate putting someone away to divorce. Nursing homes provide a level of care that many spouses (who are also getting along in years) just can't do. They are no panacea, but when people get to where they need to be lifted or helped around, their spouse is often not in any condition to do much. You could make an argument that the adult children should step in when possible. Now if someone is placed in one and never visited or called, then I might agree, but I don't think a lot of married people are being dumped off in homes so their spouses can live it up on the outside.

[Suzie]

I am really not sure what all the fuss is about. Pat Robertson shared his personal opinion. Who are we now to decide or try to paint all cases with the same brush and decide what makes a good reason for divorce and what doesn't? Every case is different, every person is different, every story is different...

[prisonchaplain]

As I think on this. I have come to think that putting someone away is a type of divorce. PC talked about the Good Samaritan but I think that is a red herring to the question. The Good Samaritan did not have a marriage covenant with the person he helped.

But at the same time - putting someone away or going through a divorce or type of divorce is not always against G-d or his laws. One thing for sure, because it is difficult or inconvenient is not a reason to put someone away. But even at the other extreme - Why is euthanasia considered so different from sending someone to care facility, with a living will to, in essence, starve to death?

The Traveler

I'm struck by an irony here. You hesitate to insist upon the spiritual community standard of no divorce, and yet seem to condemn those who use care facilities for their loved ones. Often the decision to use such a place is a mutual one. Also, I find the phrase "put away" pejorative, and probably offensive to some who have faced this.

How is a care facility different from a hospital? And, why the willingness to judge this decision, but the reticence about judging someone who would divorce, due to dimentia? What am I missing here?

[prisonchaplain]

I am really not sure what all the fuss is about. Pat Robertson shared his personal opinion. Who are we now to decide or try to paint all cases with the same brush and decide what makes a good reason for divorce and what doesn't? Every case is different, every person is different, every story is different...

I understand how this could come from folks without a religous community. However, in LDS and Pentecostal/Charismatic churches (Robertson is quite close to my denomination on just about everything) we do not approve of divorce because of sickness.

Some cases are gut-wrenching. Robertson reacted to that. However, despite his lack of theological training, or ordination, he is perceived as a spiritual leader. He is responsible for what he says, because he has taken it upon himself to teach. That's why his statement has gotten such a strong reaction.

Also...somebody help me here...am I understanding LDS doctrine incorrectly on this? Exactly what are the cases in which divorce is considered permissable?