Divorce & Remarriage

[Windseeker]

We choose how we react to situations we are in. I'm not saying divorce doesn't hurt or take some time to get over, but its not a life ending/depressed for the rest of your life/never get over it experience -- unless you let it be.

We all have responsibility in how we handle our trials, whether they are caused by someone else or not. But it doesn't remove the consequences from those who's decisions created those trials.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Windseeker

[Vort]

I didn't say that it did, but we have the freedom to choose how it affects us. I'm on my 2nd marriage myself, first marriage ended before I became LDS but everything I did after the divorce date was all MY choice, and not because of what my ex-wife did that caused the end of our marriage. Yes, my life changed at that point, but I chose how to deal with it and no one is responsible for my choices except me. Yes, I moped around blaming her for a while, but then I picked myself up and got on with my life. Met my current wife at an LDS singles site in '98 got married a few months later and still going strong.

We choose how we react to situations we are in. I'm not saying divorce doesn't hurt or take some time to get over, but its not a life ending/depressed for the rest of your life/never get over it experience -- unless you let it be.

I agree with this. People need to take control of their own lives and work out their own destiny rather than blame the meanies that mistreated them earlier in their lives. But that is not quite what you said before.

[mnn727]

I agree with this. People need to take control of their own lives and work out their own destiny rather than blame the meanies that mistreated them earlier in their lives. But that is not quite what you said before.

Its what I have been saying and meaning all along

[Vort]

Its what I have been saying and meaning all along

Meaning, perhaps, but not saying. In one example, you suggested that perhaps Eowyn was upset that repentence was possible, which of course was not even close to what she was saying (and no one other than you seemed to take that meaning from what she wrote). In another, you claimed that a woman's suffering for her husband's infidelity and destruction of their family somehow ceased at the very moment the divorce was finalized. When I pointed out the flaw in your statement, you inferred that I rejected the very existence of our freedom in handling life events.

If this has been your meaning all along, then I agree with you, but I think you would do well to take more care in your responses. It sounded for all the world like you were saying something completely different.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Vort

[mnn727]

One might not be directly responsible but still accountable to some degree if the spouse they leave ends up marrying someone who say for example sexually abuses one of the children of that marriage. None of that would have happened if you would have stayed married.

That would be a poor choice by the person marrying the abuser.

Again, its not the ex-spouses fault that you dated and then married an abuser.

Without getting too personal, I don't even blame my ex-wife 100% for her cheating, had I been a better husband to her she might not have looked elsewhere for what it was she thought she was missing in our marriage, I accept at least 50% of the blame there myself. (she could have reacted to it differently however)

Edited March 8, 2012 by mnn727

[mnn727]

In the first example, you suggested that perhaps Eowyn was upset that repentence was possible, which of course was not even close to what she was saying .

I gave 2 options there, not just one.

[prisonchaplain]

Would "abuse" fall into the unfaithfulness category?

M.

No. However, it would likely lead to the abandonment one. We would encourage anyone in a threatening environment to get to safety (along with kids), and then to file for legal separation. Then reconciliation would only be considered after the perpetrator sought counseling and showed steps towards true repentance and rehabilitation. Since most abusers would find such demands humiliating, they would balk, and file for a divorce themselves. At this point, the victim is abandoned and free to remarry.

Also, some pastors would look at serious abuse as a kind of abandonment, on its own merits.

[prisonchaplain]

This is one I have some difficulty with. A dear friend was married in the temple and had 5 children. She's a good, sweet woman. Her husband cheated on her. They divorced, he and his mistress went through the repentance process, and now the two of them are married and sealed in the temple, living happily ever after. My friend is still alone. She finished raising the kids alone, and now that her kids are grown she lives alone, through no fault of her own. It's hard with my mortal myopia to understand the justice in that.

In terms of church discipline, most of our pastors would refuse to officiate a wedding between the perpetrator of the cheating and his adulteress. Chances are that he would leave our church, and find one where people did not know him. He would spin a tale for the pastor, and likely get married and live as you said. On the other hand, at least he would have faced spiritual warning, and would have had to leave his home church.

[prisonchaplain]

So....abuse would not be a reason? Would a wife be counseled to stay with a husband who was abusing her...or her children?

What about in situations where one spouse is an alcoholic or drug addict who makes no effort to get clean and sober?

These generally lead to abandonment, though we would like recommend separation, holding out the hope of rehabilitation and reconciliation.

[slamjet]

These generally lead to abandonment, though we would like recommend separation, holding out the hope of rehabilitation and reconciliation.

I just cannot accept this. It just goes against everything that I learned and experienced. Rehabilitation, if (and that is a big IF) a perpetrator gets help, then it's a multi year process, possibly a decade or more. And what is the wife who has all these kids to do, wait? And what about the trust factor? There is forgiveness, and also learning wisdom from doing so. The wisdom that the spouse can no longer trust and live with the perpetrator with any amount of comfort.

I think that because churches in general are so geared towards fixing the sinner that the victim gets the shaft. It's a "well, he changed and has been forgiven, what's your problem?" The churches need to get their heads wrapped around the idea that the victim needs to have support too. And support that goes beyond a hug, a pat on the back, and a hearty "there, there, it will get better. You're husband's in rehab."

[prisonchaplain]

Slamjet, the churches have come a long way from the old, flawed counsel of "Just be obedient and respectful, and he'll come around." Jesus did not address abuse. He only addressed unfaithfulness and abandonment.

Yet, we do know that abuse is sin. It is also dangerous--sometimes life threatening. Further, you are likely right that in most cases, the end will be divorce. However, unlike unfaithfulness, with abuse, the issues have more to do with the perpetrator's anger, poor self-control, and sometimes, with baggage from childhood. There is usually no intentional violation of the marriage bond, but rather extremely poor relationship skills.

So...if there is hope, we would urge separation, followed by an offer of reconciliation--yes, only after significant progress in counseling and repentance.

And, let me be clear. In case of severe physical abuse, many pastors would see that there has been a kind of abandonment, and would go ahead and counsel divorce.

So, I hope what you read in my posts is not a flippant disregard for the victim. Rather, we attempt to uphold the sanctity of marriage, within the confines of Jesus' biblical exceptions, and yet to provide the best possible protections for those experiencing abuse.

[Leah]

These generally lead to abandonment, though we would like recommend separation, holding out the hope of rehabilitation and reconciliation.

"These generally lead to abandonment"? Really? Do you have any statistics/studies to back that up? That abusers tend to "abandon" their spouse? It's often the opposite, as a lot of abuse is about control, and when the victim tries to leave, she usually is abused more, and sometimes pays the price for trying to leave with her very life.

Would you really counsel your daughter to stay with a man who beat her on a regular basis? "Just hang in there, honey, maybe someday he will stop".

My first husband beat the daylights out of me on a regular basis. Even if he had managed to stop (he never did. Not with me, not with subsequent wives), I would not have stayed with him. The damage done was far too great. And to force my daughter to live with such a person? Not a chance.

I keep hoping the days of "But what did you do to make him hit you" are over, but it seems some will never see the light.

[Leah]

Slamjet, the churches have come a long way from the old, flawed counsel of "Just be obedient and respectful, and he'll come around." Jesus did not address abuse. He only addressed unfaithfulness and abandonment.

Yet, we do know that abuse is sin. It is also dangerous--sometimes life threatening. Further, you are likely right that in most cases, the end will be divorce. However, unlike unfaithfulness, with abuse, the issues have more to do with the perpetrator's anger, poor self-control, and sometimes, with baggage from childhood. There is usually no intentional violation of the marriage bond, but rather extremely poor relationship skills.

So...if there is hope, we would urge separation, followed by an offer of reconciliation--yes, only after significant progress in counseling and repentance.

And, let me be clear. In case of severe physical abuse, many pastors would see that there has been a kind of abandonment, and would go ahead and counsel divorce.

So, I hope what you read in my posts is not a flippant disregard for the victim. Rather, we attempt to uphold the sanctity of marriage, within the confines of Jesus' biblical exceptions, and yet to provide the best possible protections for those experiencing abuse.

Violence = "poor relationship skills"? That is such a minimizing of the reality, it's just stunning.

Violence is wrong. It is not a "relationship skill".

I see no sanctity in violence.

[Dravin]

PC, here is a talk by Elder Dalin H. Oaks on divorce that you might find some food for thought on LDS thinking: Divorce - general-conference

A quick excerpt that is probably most pertinent here:

The kind of marriage required for exaltation—eternal in duration and godlike in quality—does not contemplate divorce. In the temples of the Lord, couples are married for all eternity. But some marriages do not progress toward that ideal. Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law. Unless a divorced member has committed serious transgressions, he or she can become eligible for a temple recommend under the same worthiness standards that apply to other members.

[JudoMinja]

Violence = "poor relationship skills"? That is such a minimizing of the reality, it's just stunning.

Violence is wrong. It is not a "relationship skill".

I see no sanctity in violence.

Actually, I think PC is spot on there. I know that the reason my ex was violent was because he didn't know any better way to do it. That speaks of poor relationship skills, combined with a lack of self-control and warped sense of reality. He had an ideal in his mind of how marriage was supposed to work, how a wife was supposed to act, and when things didn't work the way he saw it in his mind he would get confused, panicky, angry, and instead of facing reality would try to make reality match what was in his head. He had no good example to follow, never new what it was like to have/see a good healthy relationship. How is one to learn good relationship skills without a good example?

I know that my ex wants to be better and probably could become a better man with some very intensive rehabilitation and counseling. At some point in his life, I sincerely hope that he does get the help he needs. I've seen and talked with several others who were once like him and have gone through the healing power of counseling and the atonement and come out better people. I like them, trust them, can talk with them easily. I consider them my friends.

However, I'm also with slamjet in that my ability to trust and have a good relationship with my ex is just absolutely broken. Even if he were to go through everything he needed to do to completely turn his life around, even though I have forgiven him... Our relationship can never be fixed. It passed a point where I, emotionally, would be completely incapable of healing with him. The fear of him has become an ingrained part of my being that no amount of kindness, softness, or change could fix.

[norah63]

What about that vow, 'for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, keeping

yourself only for your mate, from all others, till death due you part.' What God joins togeather, let not man put away.

I am just old fashioned enough to believe and keep a vow like this after 48 years.

Repentance is included to help through all the years.

[Carl62]

Violence = "poor relationship skills"? That is such a minimizing of the reality, it's just stunning.

Violence is wrong. It is not a "relationship skill".

I see no sanctity in violence.

Completely agree! So where does one draw the line on what is actual abuse and just "poor relationship skills"? Is just a black eye o.k. as long as there are no bones broken? As far as getting counseling for the abuser and rehabilitating him/her goes, that's almost a joke nowadays! How many countless times do you here of somebody abusing the other half only to apologize "I'm sorry, I'm sorry" over and over again then have that same person go through the same abuse not long after? What if there is alcohol involved? That's surely going to throw gasoline onto that fire! What about abuse to the children, physical or sexual? Should a spouse stay with someone who does that?! Rehabilitation of pedophiles is almost next to zero (if not at zero!). Would you want to have your child around a pedophile even if it is your spouse? So because of this, Jesus would not want you to divorce or allow you to remarry and be happy? I guess than I do worship a 'different Jesus' because mine would have a lot more sympathy and compassion then what I'm reading.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Carl62

[mnn727]

What about that vow, 'for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, keeping

yourself only for your mate, from all others, till death due you part.' What God joins togeather, let not man put away.

I am just old fashioned enough to believe and keep a vow like this after 48 years.

Repentance is included to help through all the years.

Should that hold true if you're married to an abuser? a cheater?

Why just 'til death due you part? why do you want a divorce then?

[Guest]

I like the Catholic marital covenant. Divorce is not allowed.

Abuse, adultery, shot-gun marriages etc., is handled by annulment (which is not divorce). An annulment basically states that the marital covenant was never valid in the first place.

And that's why I disagree with Dallin H. Oak's sentiment about the absence of divorce in Philippine law. Notice the vast difference in the general quality of family relationships between Filipinos and Americans. Of course, there is avenue for legal separation to handle cases like abuse, etc.

Edited March 9, 2012 by anatess

[Vort]

And that's why I disagree with Dallin H. Oak's sentiment about the absence of divorce in Philippine law.

Which sentiment is that?

[Guest]

Which sentiment is that?

This one:

When a marriage is dead and beyond hope of resuscitation, it is needful to have a means to end it. I saw examples of this in the Philippines. Two days after their temple marriage, a husband deserted his young wife and has not been heard from for over 10 years. A married woman fled and obtained a divorce in another country, but her husband, who remained behind, is still married in the eyes of the Philippine law. Since there is no provision for divorce in that country, these innocent victims of desertion have no way to end their married status and go forward with their lives.

Bold mine.

[Maureen]

...Why just 'til death due you part? why do you want a divorce then?

One way for a marriage to end is due to death of one of the marriage partners. In many cases that is looked at as a successful marriage. Divorce is something that happens when both partners are still alive. So, what do you mean by your 2nd question?

M.

[Vort]

This one:

Bold mine.

Thanks. What part is it that you disagree with? Is he factually incorrect?

[Jezebel2011]

PC, here is a talk by Elder Dalin H. Oaks on divorce that you might find some food for thought on LDS thinking: Divorce - general-conference

A quick excerpt that is probably most pertinent here:

Excellent excerpt to use

In our Ward, the husband of one couple and the wife of another had an affair, which led to divorce.

Both born in the Covenant, both had Temple marriages, the man had served his Mission from 19-21.

The two of them had a child together and got married not long after the child was born.

It has taken them 7 years to get their Temple Recommend back and their Endowment. So it can be done but does take a long time - rightfully so in my opinion.

.

[prisonchaplain]

Leah,

You seem to either be misreading the whole of my posts, or simply reacting to certain phrases that seem wrong. I do not find any room in marriage for physical abuse. There should be immediate separation. In severe cases, a few states' distance may be necessary. Additionally, the abuser does not get to come back simply for saying sorry. Sincere repentance would likely be followed up with intensive counseling--yes, probably for months.

What do you see as the alternative? Immediate divorce? Where is that line drawn. The marriage is 15 years old, debts have mounted, and he finds out wife has just bought a $200 ring. He slams his fist against the wall (makes a hole), and says, "If you ever do something like this again without my permission I don't know what I'll do?"

Would you call for an immediate divorce, label the guy physically abusive, and perhaps tell the defense attorney that victim feared for her life?

I know you do not necessarily mean that at all. Likewise, I'm not suggestion that violence is normal or acceptable in marriage. It's just that Jesus did not address it specifically, and we've come to see it as a serious manner that calls first for safety, second for repentance, third for counseling, and ultimately for either divorce because of abandonment, or reconciliation.