Divorce & Remarriage

[prisonchaplain]

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.

You and Leah seem to have misconstrued my counsel quite badly. Leah mentioned in open forum she has experienced this--so perhaps it's understandable the quick reaction. Perhaps you've had family experience it too. So, let me say for the 3rd or 4th time:

1. Physical abuse (any) should lead to immediate separation. Safety is first--especially for kids.

2. Repentance does not mean a one-time "come to Jesus" moment.

3. Counseling is not a 1 or 2 time visit with the bishop. It's a many months process.

4. Only the victim can decide if s/he will trust him. Those counseling him or her should urge caution, and not bringing the abuser back too soon.

Finally, in my clumsy attempts to guess at why Jesus did not specify abuse as an exception, I tried not to make abuse seem minor or tolerable. Apparently I failed, as some took my words that way. I see it as equal in seriousness to unfaithfulness. However, it's of a different character, and Jesus did not address it directly. So, the common approach seems to be separation, followed by an offer of reconciliation only after repentance and serious counseling, so that the victim is convinced.

[slamjet]

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.

Flippant, no. Simplistic maybe. The last many posts underline that it's more complex than to wait until the requirements of abandonment are satisfied. Relationships are just not neat and tidy affairs that fit into their respective slots. They're messy and complex. So I would ask the victim, like I have many times before "what do you want, and what are your expectations for this relationship and the future?" If neither answer can be answered, then they need to be separated until they can work it out (I'm talking about cases of infidelity, abuse and such, not run at the mill "he won't put down the toilet seat" stuff).

I know in my case, she needed to take care of the kids and protect them from the consequences that were quickly starting to pile up on me. So she answered those two question as such: she wanted to take care of the children, and her expectation was that it would be detrimental in the environment I created for myself and because of that, her priority had to shift to the welfare of the kids. She made the right choice to divorce and take the kids. They are now thriving in the environment she made for them. But I know that was not an easy decision for her to come to.

Can it be said that I abandoned her, I'm not sure. I knew I had to change, I was on the track to change. But it took years and years before I changed enough to become functional again. It's messy, but it worked out for the best for all involved.

Now to my point. There were those ecclesiastical leaders who were expecting us to stay together and were shocked and disappointed at our divorce. It almost seemed they lost interest. Definitely in her welfare because she moved out of the area. Perceptually in my welfare because there would be no happy reconciliation. But, as is constant in the LDS church, there was a change in leadership and these new leaders took an intense interest in my situation and in me. Thus, I'm close to re-baptism. But as far as reconciling with my ex, not going to happen. But we both moved on. We're both content and we get along fine with each other. I believe it is because I accepted what I had done and as she made the hard choices to take care of the family, I saw where the priority needed to lie and did not object and stand in the way.

So I've seen it from a couple of levels and I'm convinced that the best thing to do is to be the sounding board, ask the right questions to help them think through it, allow them to come to a determination about the future of their relationship and be a loyal support for both in their decision. They know each other much better than any ecclesiastical leader does. So to say that there are thresholds as to when to call a relationship reconcilable or over has it's place, and can be used as guidance on their part. But it should not be used as a law nor as a determining factor on the leaders part. It's their call, not ours. Ours is to love them both and remind them that no matter what was done, or what is decided, God will always love them. There is nothing they can do to mess that one up.

[NeuroTypical]

Thanks for starting the thread, PC, and thanks for explaining your church's position on it. It's so much better to go to a direct source, than to hear about it from someone critical.

[Guest]

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.

There's a part of me that wishes that people who had been engaged in adultery could not be sealed to each other. Armchair logic dictates to me that there would be less messing around goin' on if people knew that there would be no option for eternal marriage in those circumstances. But again, I know that I don't understand the reasons behind those decisions, and I'm sure there are reasons. I also recognize that I'm not as forgiving a person as I need to be and hope to be someday. I'm glad that Heavenly Father is more merciful than I've learned to be so far.

[Carl62]

Prisonchaplain, since you believe that adultery is one of the main grounds for divorce in your church (and I agree!), how do you feel about getting a divorce if a spouse is looking at porn since Jeus clearly stated that if a man looks on a woman with lust in his heart has then committed adultery? Do you view this the same as the actual act of adultery? Just curious.

[Guest]

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

Well, it is factually correct that divorce is not legal in the Philippines so you can't change your marital status. But, it is not correct that they can't "move forward with their lives". It implies that nobody can move forward unless they're living with a spouse.

[prisonchaplain]

Flippant, no. Simplistic maybe.

Two responses. First, there is no way, in this type of forum, not to sound simplistic. I tried to lay out our general counsel to a general problem. So many have personal experiences, that are specific. There are exceptions, nuances, mitigating circumstances. No short forum post can do anything other than offer seemingly simplistic guidelines.

On the other hand, I do see from this string that the LDS religious community seems to be more flexible about divorce. We evangelicals, married as we are to the Bible, and especially to Jesus' teachings, cannot so easily reconcile counseling divorce for reasons not specified in our Scripture. At the same time, most of us certainly have moved beyond blaming the victim, and calling for female submission to the male head.

It is interesting that the one apostle quoted held out the glory of exalted marriage, but permitted much greater flexibility for divorce.

[prisonchaplain]

Prisonchaplain, since you believe that adultery is one of the main grounds for divorce in your church (and I agree!), how do you feel about getting a divorce if a spouse is looking at porn since Jeus clearly stated that if a man looks on a woman with lust in his heart has then committed adultery? Do you view this the same as the actual act of adultery? Just curious.

If that were an exception, then we'd more or less have divorce on demand. After all, even looking twice at a pretty lady could technically meet that standard.

I doubt many pastors at all would counsel divorce because of pornography. On the other hand, we take it very seriously, and would call for a process of rehabilitation.

As an example, there was a youth pastor who became addicted to porn. He was semi-discovered, and then offered full disclosure. His wife chose to stand by him, and he went through a process of counseling and rehabilitation that took over a year. During that time, he was not allowed to do any teaching or counseling. To this day (years later) he has accountability partners, does not use a computer in private, and probably has other steps he's taken to prevent relapse.

So...no, a spouse would find little support in seeking a divorce because she caught her spouse viewing porn. On the other hand, it is serious, and does lead to discipline--especially for our clergy. Someone who refused to stop would be considered "backslidden."

[slamjet]

Two responses. First, there is no way, in this type of forum, not to sound simplistic. I tried to lay out our general counsel to a general problem. So many have personal experiences, that are specific. There are exceptions, nuances, mitigating circumstances. No short forum post can do anything other than offer seemingly simplistic guidelines.

And here I thought the Chaplain can do *almost* all things

You're right. My experience has been with the LDS church. I also have spoken with others of other faiths (on both sides) about their experiences with it and most had the view of "wife submit yourself to your husband" and "husband, just stop doing what you are doing." It gets me a bit uptight when the practical is set aside for scriptural expediency.

[mnn727]

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.

Families can be forever, why would you want a marriage that ends at death?

[mrmarklin]

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.

Hard to see the justice.................I agree.

Cheating was a dirtbaggy thing to do, but I see a lot of divorce in my line of work (not counselling related at all!) and my sense is that once all the facts are known, it's almost always a 50-50 deal. No one really knows what goes on behind closed doors so to speak.

Don't always look at the outward appearances or only ever only judge by hearing one side of the story.

If your friend is worthy she will get her reward, and the dirtbag and his mistress will get theirs too.

[prisonchaplain]

While I would agree that we can all ALWAYS do better in our marriages...communicate more...be 'ready' more easily...be more thoughtful, more romantic, financially wise, more understanding, and, of course, we can all help out around the house more--all that...I absolutely disagree that when one partner cheats, the other is almost always 50% responsible.

OK, I know...stories will abound of partners who refused marital favors, showed coldness after the first child, etc. There are exceptions and personal stories in abundance.

However, IN GENERAL, the cheater is 100% responsible for his/her actions. He made a covenant with God and his spouse. Even if the partner is failing somehow, that would not free anyone from the covenant with God.

[MormonMama]

I was married to my first husband when I joined the Church. We divorced a year later, for reasons having nothing to do with my joining the Church (he was actually very supportive and the ONLY family member who would come to my baptism!). Since he was never a member, we were not sealed in the temple.

9 years later I married my current husband. We have since been sealed in the temple. My bishop was aware of my prior divorce, but it was never a factor because I had not been sealed to my previous spouse.

Now, a friend of mine was sealed to her first husband and he ended up leaving her for another woman. Her sealing to him remained in force until she became engaged to her second husband. Because of the circumstances of her divorce and the fact that she and her first husband had not had children, her sealing to him was cancelled and she was subsequently sealed to her second husband. I don't know how that would have been affected if she and her first husband had children together.

[Dravin]

While I would agree that we can all ALWAYS do better in our marriages...communicate more...be 'ready' more easily...be more thoughtful, more romantic, financially wise, more understanding, and, of course, we can all help out around the house more--all that...I absolutely disagree that when one partner cheats, the other is almost always 50% responsible.

OK, I know...stories will abound of partners who refused marital favors, showed coldness after the first child, etc. There are exceptions and personal stories in abundance.

However, IN GENERAL, the cheater is 100% responsible for his/her actions. He made a covenant with God and his spouse. Even if the partner is failing somehow, that would not free anyone from the covenant with God.

I think trying to split things up to fit into 100% is a flawed methodology. A cheater is 100% responsible for his failure to live up to their covenants and responsibilities and the other spouse is 100% responsible for their failure to live up to their covenants and responsibilities what ever they may be. We are responsible for our actions, if someone calls me names and I slug him I'm responsible for my actions not him. He may have contributed to my actions but they are still mine. That he failed to love and respect me and treat me how he would want to be treated does not give him ownership of my actions. Marriage is a little different in that it's a partnership but while I could see an argument that two people bear similar levels of responsibility for neglecting the relationship both own their individual neglects.

So:

Wife - 100% responsible for being a shrew.

Husband - 100% responsible for adultery.

Both - Bear some level of responsibility towards individual neglects that destroyed the relationship.

Edited March 10, 2012 by Dravin

[HEthePrimate]

It's really hard to divide blame sometimes. I have a friend who recently got divorced. For fifteen years his wife refused to have sex with him, and otherwise gave him the cold shoulder, for no good reason. Eventually he cheated on her, presumably because he wanted some intimacy in his life, and to feel appreciated. It was the wrong thing to do, and he was responsible for his actions, but one can understand why he did it.

His wife was upset. They talked to the bishop, and the man received Church discipline. Because he didn't want to lose his wife, and felt bad about what he had done, my friend repented and got back into the good graces of the Church. But in the end, his wife decided to divorce him anyway.

People are responsible for their actions. But I also think that people can and do influence other people, that we are not islands. While I do not condone my friend's sin, neither do I think his ex-wife is entirely blameless. One could make the argument that she, by not showing him an appropriate level of love, respect, and affection, broke the marital vows first.

[HEthePrimate]

The view of most evangelical pastors is that Christians may only seek divorce in cases of unfaithfulness or abandonment. Only in those instances should the victims be permitted to remarry. In reality, there are many couples on their second, some even their third marriage. I have no guess as to how many met what we would call the biblical standard.

What's the LDS doctrine on divorce and remarriage?

I married a divorcee. It didn't bother me--I knew that she loved me, and was no longer in love with her ex.

I am less concerned with the particulars of the biblical standard than I am with the main point of its message, namely, that marriage is worth a lot of hard work to make it succeed. It's not my business to condemn somebody who gets a divorce, and maybe gets remarried, even multiple times. My concern is that people build loving, stable relationships because that has a tendency to improve overall happiness. I oppose divorce in general, in that I encourage people not to throw away their marriages at the first sign of difficulty, but I would not force people to stay in a relationship they no longer want, or prevent them from entering into a new (hopefully happier) one.

The talk that Dallin Oaks gave a few years back was good: "Divorce." I was a bit surprised that a number of believing Mormons didn't like that talk, but I did like it because there really are people who give up too easily on their marriages.

[shdwlkr]

Blackmarch

I can only speak from my experience and yes there was a Bishop interview actually several because of how much the divorce and how it went affected me. No I did not seek the divorce it was her idea and she did things. She was remarried 24 hours after the divorce was final.

Will I ever get married again I would hope so as being alone stinks. My bishop even has tried to encourage me to think about getting married again. My issue is how to trust another woman again period. So many LDS sisters do so little to change my mind that it is mind boggling to even think there could be someone for me out there someplace.

Divorce in America is a joke you can get a divorce for almost any reason you can think of and most of the time it is just a way of moving up in social status for the individuals in the divorce. Divorce is just a way in some cases of admitting you are unwilling to deal with life's issues when they show up in a marriage and it is much easier to just call it quits and go find a new partner.

[prisonchaplain]

Again...there are stories of shrews, of cold fish, etc. etc. However, my fear, is that in bringing up these exceptions, we give far too much comfort to the cheater. We also give unwitting support to the temptations some are currently facing.

If your spouse will not have marital relations with you, then there is a serious problem. Counseling may be necessary. If the person simply refuses and says they never will, you might even have a case of abandonment. If a spouse in unreasonable, combative (emotionally, verbally), or has simply morphed into an obnoxious individual, then we are indeed to try to win them over with the love of our Savior. It's almost like being married to an unbeliever, in that situation.

None of it excuses unfaithfulness. I am responsible for my loyalty and purity. After all, what if my spouse becomes ill and cannot "meet my needs?" And yet, they will live out their lives? Should I cheat, since they are not giving me my marital rights? Absurd! We all know this. In sickness and in health...

I understand the whole "two sides to every story" approach. However, I would suggest that there is precious little comfort for cheaters in my book.

[Dravin]

I understand the whole "two sides to every story" approach. However, I would suggest that there is precious little comfort for cheaters in my book.

I certainly agree with this. I don't think one will be able to stand before the judgement bar and claim the bad behavior of a spouse as justification for adultery. It's the whole two wrongs don't make a right situation. The spouse may find themselves being held accountable for any failings they had but that doesn't justify the adulterer.

[JudoMinja]

Again...there are stories of shrews, of cold fish, etc. etc. However, my fear, is that in bringing up these exceptions, we give far too much comfort to the cheater. We also give unwitting support to the temptations some are currently facing.

I whole-heartedly agree with this. Exceptions are and should remain rare, while divorce itself is nowdays common. Not everyone who's been through a divorce really fits into one of those exceptions. I think it is far too common for people to give up when more could have been done, when they should have been sticking it out through the "worst". People in general do not take commitments as seriously as we used to.

This ties in to the whole concept of ones "word" and what it is worth. In the Book of Mormon, there's a battle where the Lamanites end up surrounded by the Nephites. The Nephites stop the battle to talk terms of surrender, and one of their terms was that the Lamanites give their word that they would not ever come to battle against the Nephites again. The leader refused to give his word because he knew he would break it. The battle continued and after that leader was killed, the rest of the remaining living Lamanites were given the opportunity to surrender again. These gave their word and were allowed to leave the battlegrounds.

Every time I read this part I find myself absolutely amazed. Something like this would never happen in todays world. It would be absolute naivity and stupidity to take someone at their word for anything. Commitments, vows, covenants... they just don't have the same strength they used to. The only way we can get such strength back is by holding up our end- not commiting to something we won't keep.

Marriage truly is sacred. It is a covenant, a bond, a promise... that isn't meant to be broken. There was a time when people would die rather than break their word. I see two important things to learn from this and that we will hopefully all teach our children so that they can make better decisions than we have-

1- Be extremely careful what commitments you make. This was my biggest mistake going into my own marriage. I let my hormones make my decisions instead of my brain and the spirit. I ignored signs and spiritual promptings that should have made it obvious I needed to walk away and never make any commitment to my ex. This put me in a position where I ended up making a promise I couldn't keep. I sure tried my hardest. I put up with hell, and only left for safety reasons.

2- Hold out stronger, longer, and harder on the commitments you do make. Keeping your word is far more important than we realize. We should be doing everything in our power to make sure any promise we make is never broken. We are capable of more than we realize, if we will just hold out through the hard times with faith and hope that we will come out stronger. That if we hold tight to our vows and covenants in the darkness, such will lead us to the light.

While I consider my situation one of those rare exceptions where divorce was the better, safer, and more correct choice than remaining in a marriage, I also know that I am not faultless. I may have been a victim, but I had been careless in giving my word, in giving myself, and I'd ignored the spirit. If it weren't for the availability of the atonement and forgiveness, I'd be condemned right along side my broken marriage. I was in the wrong as much as my ex. What led to the decision to divorce was not something I could avoid stop or change, but if I'd been more careful about stepping into marriage in the first place it never would have been an issue.

There are certain things people should never have to endure, but we should also recognize that no marriage- no person- is perfect. Those of us who've been through divorce could likely have exercised more patience, more forgiveness. And we all need to be more realistic, instead of expecting our relationships to fit into some kind of ideal fantasy. It's going to take work. It's going to be hard at times. But our word should be strong.

If everyone held to their commitments with the same strength, exercised the same patience and long-suffering, and worked to improve their own character I think we'd see far less divorce. While I strive to be more understanding of those who've been through it since I've experienced it myself, I think divorce is a blight on our society. It is a symptom of the real disease- the loss of morality and whatever aspect of character it is that made our word mean something.

[HEthePrimate]

Did I excuse him? No.

Maybe he should have divorced her for not being a good wife, rather than cheating on her. All I'm saying is why does it have to be 100% one person's fault and 0% the other's, as if each person operates in a vacuum?

[prisonchaplain]

Did I excuse him? No.

Maybe he should have divorced her for not being a good wife, rather than cheating on her. All I'm saying is why does it have to be 100% one person's fault and 0% the other's, as if each person operates in a vacuum?

I'm not judging the person you mention. It's not my place. HOWEVER, I would say that it GENERALLY has to be 100% fault because adultery is sin. It's not just a biblical guideline, or a spiritual suggestion that we do not commit adultery. It's one of the big 10.

If we understand that when we commit adultery we will be discipline by God, by our church, and sometimes by the courts, then many will think twice. Do I get counseling? Do I seek a church-sanctioned divorce, due to her abandonment of me (no physical relations for 15 years!)? Do I examine my own actions that might have led to this? Do I seek medical counsel for myself or her? Do I involve trusted brothers or sisters in the Lord--or even family?

Most people sin, or otherwise make poor choices for a combination of understandable reasons. It's easy, and proper to sympathize. We say, "If I was in that spot I'd be tempted too." However familiarity can breed content--and we must never be content with adultery, or other spiritual disobedience.

[HEthePrimate]

I'm not judging the person you mention. It's not my place. HOWEVER, I would say that it GENERALLY has to be 100% fault because adultery is sin. It's not just a biblical guideline, or a spiritual suggestion that we do not commit adultery. It's one of the big 10.

If we understand that when we commit adultery we will be discipline by God, by our church, and sometimes by the courts, then many will think twice. Do I get counseling? Do I seek a church-sanctioned divorce, due to her abandonment of me (no physical relations for 15 years!)? Do I examine my own actions that might have led to this? Do I seek medical counsel for myself or her? Do I involve trusted brothers or sisters in the Lord--or even family?

Most people sin, or otherwise make poor choices for a combination of understandable reasons. It's easy, and proper to sympathize. We say, "If I was in that spot I'd be tempted too." However familiarity can breed content--and we must never be content with adultery, or other spiritual disobedience.

You asked the question, "Do I examine my own actions that might have led to this?", which goes right along with what I'm saying. If his actions can influence her actions, then why couldn't her actions influence his? If we don't allow that, it smells of a double standard.

Yes, his choice to commit adultery was 100% his fault, of course. His wife's actions may have influenced him, may have given him excuses to have an affair, etc., but the final decision was his.

Another question to ask is, is it 100% his fault that the relationship fell apart, because he committed adultery? I'm not so sure, because many factors, including adultery, of course, can go into the destruction of a relationship. Things that he did might have contributed, and things that she did might have contributed. So maybe the end of their marriage was a matter of a 60%/40% shared responsibility, or 70%/30%, or whatever. The adultery may have made it more his fault than hers, in this case.

The adulterous affair is one issue, and the marriage is another, though obviously related, issue. One is clearly his fault, the other is not so clear.

[prisonchaplain]

Perhaps part of what makes my position difficult to understand is that in the vast majority of evangelical churches pastors will not counsel divorce unless there is adultery or abandonment. Those are the only two exceptions. My sense from this string is that LDS bishops are more open to consider other reasons.

To be clear, if there is danger, separation should be immediate. However, if there is fighting between the two, financial troubles, mild to moderate drug use, jail time, etc., we would go out of our way to encourage anything but divorce. Only if these other issues could lead to a compelling case of unfaithfulness or abandonment would we counsel divorce.

Our people know this. So, when one commits adultery, s/he knows that the one thing that can ruin a marriage has been done. We find that pretty reprehensible.

[Vort]

Perhaps part of what makes my position difficult to understand is that in the vast majority of evangelical churches pastors will not counsel divorce unless there is adultery or abandonment. Those are the only two exceptions. My sense from this string is that LDS bishops are more open to consider other reasons.

I am not an authority, but I have never heard of an LDS bishop counseling divorce except in the case of abuse. Not saying such has never happened, only that I have never heard of it.