Divorce justified?

[Suzie]

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.

And still is just his opinion, so people should take it as what it is. I am not supporting or rejecting his statement (I tend to disagree with most of the things he says). Having said that, he shared an opinion and I think he is entitled to it. If you believe otherwise, it is also fine but I don't think it is wise to try to paint all cases with the same brush.

Exactly what are the cases in which divorce is considered permissable?

I don't think there is a "list" that states what cases are permissible and what cases aren't. We may agree that cases where abuse is involved, etc are justified, having said that, I haven't read anything "official" where it states exactly what is considered permissible and what it isn't. And I am glad because I believe it's a very private decision that ONLY a couple should make after taking everything in consideration and analyzing their own situation.

[prisonchaplain]

I was quite surprised by your answer, Suzie. Frankly, it sounded "liberal." So, skeptical me, I went over to lds.org and found this:

Divorce - general-conference

The speaker urges repentance, rather than divorce, in most cases, but does indeed avoid listing any rules or firm guidelines.

In contrast, my fellowship approves of divorce only in cases of unfaithfulness or abandonment. Some might offer that serious abuse is a kind of abandonment, but more often than not, we would recommend separation, with the hope of future reconciliation (should the offender repent and seek convincing treatment).

http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4189_divorce_remarriage.pdf

Edited September 27, 2011 by prisonchaplain
add link

[Guest mormonmusic]

I was present when Dallin Oakes gave this talk. I think he makes some valid points about considering the cost of the aftermath (emotionally, and otherwise) and choosing wisely, as well as trying to stay together. But ultimately, there are no formal guidelines, only cultural norms that discourage it.

[prisonchaplain]

Thank you Suzie and MormonMusic. I've been wondering for some time why it is that LDS hold such a high view of marriage, and yet divorce seems relatively common (I realize it's signficantly lower than the national average).

In light of your lack of official limitations, I am wondering why so many were quick to chastise Robertson's counsel here--especially given his cautionary statements, and "my opinion only" disclaimer.

[Dravin]

Thank you Suzie and MormonMusic. I've been wondering for some time why it is that LDS hold such a high view of marriage, and yet divorce seems relatively common (I realize it's signficantly lower than the national average).

In light of your lack of official limitations, I am wondering why so many were quick to chastise Robertson's counsel here--especially given his cautionary statements, and "my opinion only" disclaimer.

Because people can have positions without having to be told by leadership to hold that position? Baring doctrine or official statements people operate based on their own understanding and extension of principles. In this case, while there is no official proclamation (that I'm aware of, though I'm inclined to think that's because it's not a common reason for divorce) declaring Robertson's counsel to be unacceptable plenty of people compile their understanding of the sacredness of marriage, the undesirability of divorce, and other understandings and voice their understanding on the acceptability of his advice.

People have been making simple declarative statements because there is a lot of mutual understanding happening between a lot of the LDS posters and they've not really expound on that common background. I suppose from the outside this makes it look like we have a secret 14th Article of Faith - "We believe divorce because of Alzheimers is wrong."

Edited September 27, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest gopecon]

PC - We DO hold marriage in high esteem and divorce is generally discouraged with exceptions for infidelity, abuse, etc. That said, there is only so much a church can or should do to "enforce" guidelines like that. In our case someone who has been divorced for more frivolous reasons may not be able to be sealed in the temple to future spouses without going to considerable trouble (I think the First Presidency must approve them). If a man abandons his family, he may also have his priesthood revoked (be told not to use it) or his temple recommend taken away (this could happen to a woman as well). We don't go out of our way to humiliate or scorn those who get divorced, we love them because we don't know the hearts or the situations of those involved. If there was sin, we hope that they repent.

[prisonchaplain]

gopecon...your church has done a great job of promoting the value and intended durability of marriage. It is one of your charitable contributions to the world. Also, I clearly understand the strong cultural forces in your movement against divorce being taken lightly.

I was simply caught by surprise that there were no formal restrictions. Have we not seen that play out here, with most finding Robertson's counsel reprehensible, but a few seeing wise mercy and graciousness in it?

[Guest mormonmusic]

I have heard of restrictions like divorce potentially limiting a priesthood holder's ability to hold certain offices in the Church. Plus, if he wants to get married again in the temple, there is a process he has to go through in order to get a clearance. I have never read these in the official policy books, but I have heard these restrictions have come into play from time to time in people's lives. Some people deny vehemently that being divorced will prevent someone from ever being a Bishop, but then, I've heard it CAN disqualify them from that office.

[Guest gopecon]

PC - with respect, what other type of formal restrictions are you looking for (beyond sealing restrictions and loss of priesthood/temple privileges)? While the LDS Church can be somewhat bureaucratic, in many things we follow the principle of "teaching correct principles and letting people govern themselves", knowing that they will have to answer to a just God for any sins that are unresolved in this life. I think that is what we see with regard to marriage and divorce.

[prisonchaplain]

Your question is very reasonable, GOPECON. My concern is not so much with enforcement, but teaching. For example, in evangelical churches the common limits for divorce are that it is allowed in cases of unfaithfulness and abandonment. The victim in these cases would be allowed to remarry, with church approval. Ironically, you probably have stronger enforcement...it was the ambiguity of the standard, and the suggestion that the decision is largely a matter of private conscience (agency?) that I found surprising.

[Carl62]

Isn't this quote coming from the same guy that believed that 9/11 was a punishment from God? I think Alzheimers is starting to set in on somebody and I don't think I need to say who.