Divorce

[CommanderSouth]

How is it we believe in divorce when the NT seems to forbid it in cases of anything other than adultery?

I did some digging for other topics but couldn't seem to find anything (or I don't know what to search for...)

Thanks for the thoughts!

[Just_A_Guy]

Quite bluntly, we are living a lower law at present.

[Dravin]

Divorce - general-conference

[Vort]

How is it we believe in divorce when the NT seems to forbid it in cases of anything other than adultery?

I did some digging for other topics but couldn't seem to find anything (or I don't know what to search for...)

Thanks for the thoughts!

All the prophets during the restoration have upheld the practice of divorce, though I believe they all have also condemned it or at least rued its prevalence. In addition, all have maintained that it is not a celestial practice and that Jesus forbade it. As J_a_G says, it's basically a "lower law" that we, because of our weakness and foolishness, are allowed to live so as not to bring us under condemnation. But we are the dispensation of the fulness of the restoration, and I cannot believe that we will never be expected to live the law as preached by Jesus. But I have no guesses as to when such a thing might take place.

[jbeggs]

1 Corinthians 7:14-15 also seems to suggest that divorce is permissable when a disbelieving spouse abandons a believing spouse.

Some relationships are just plain dangerous to the life and health of parents and children. Some would counsel people in such relationships to remain in them no matter what, but I think this is contrary to Christian dignity.

[apexviper]

All the prophets during the restoration have upheld the practice of divorce, though I believe they all have also condemned it or at least rued its prevalence. In addition, all have maintained that it is not a celestial practice and that Jesus forbade it. As J_a_G says, it's basically a "lower law" that we, because of our weakness and foolishness, are allowed to live so as not to bring us under condemnation. But we are the dispensation of the fulness of the restoration, and I cannot believe that we will never be expected to live the law as preached by Jesus. But I have no guesses as to when such a thing might take place.

This lower law business doesn't work. Members of the church are expected to live the higher law. The Prophet Joseph Smith once said in order to get into the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom we will have to eventually keep every commandment. In other word, this has been the expectation since the Restoration began. There's no lower law for us as Latter-Day Saints. Its the higher law or bust. After one repents then you move on and are expected to keep every commandment. One thing I learned is we cannot use the excuse of "Jesus was perfect" for our sins. One thing modern revelation tells us is that Jesus also was born with the veil. He forgot everything as well. He had to relearn His mission while on the earth. This is why he had to "[grow] in wisdom" as Luke teaches.

[Just_A_Guy]

This lower law business doesn't work. Members of the church are expected to live the higher law. The Prophet Joseph Smith once said in order to get into the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom we will have to eventually keep every commandment. In other word, this has been the expectation since the Restoration began. There's no lower law for us as Latter-Day Saints. Its the higher law or bust. After one repents then you move on and are expected to keep every commandment. One thing I learned is we cannot use the excuse of "Jesus was perfect" for our sins. One thing modern revelation tells us is that Jesus also was born with the veil. He forgot everything as well. He had to relearn His mission while on the earth. This is why he had to "[grow] in wisdom" as Luke teaches.

This assertion is complicated by the fact that every prophet from Brigham Young through Joseph F. Smith (except, maybe, Lorenzo Snow) went through a divorce. Joseph Smith too, if you count the termination of his marriages to the Partridge sisters which was done at Emma's insistence.

[garryw]

every prophet from Brigham Young through Joseph F. Smith (except, maybe, Lorenzo Snow) went through a divorce.

I'm assuming that these divorces were initiated by the wives rather than the husbands. If that's the case, one could argue that the husbands kept the law and the wives violated it.

Brigham Young was divorced several times, and even jailed for refusing to pay alimony to an ex wife. Today his temple recommend would be witheld for not being current on alimony payments.

[NeuroTypical]

This lower law business doesn't work.

...

There's no lower law for us as Latter-Day Saints. Its the higher law or bust.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "bust". Could you clarify please? Are you saying anyone who gets a divorce won't make it to heaven?

[Just_A_Guy]

Brigham Young was divorced several times, and even jailed for refusing to pay alimony to an ex wife. Today his temple recommend would be witheld for not being current on alimony payments.

Well, some minor differences:

1) Young and Ann Eliza Webb were never legally married. Young had a valid legal argument that the divorce court had no jurisdiction to enter an alimony award.

2) Webb, as a plural wife, never had the kind of economic dependence on Young that a monogamous stay-at-home wife and mother develops on her husband.

3) Webb, as one of twenty-odd plural wives, was demanding one-half of Young's assets.

4) Young, as Presiding High Priest of the Church, held the sealing power.

Garry, I'm sorry you think your ex-wife treated you poorly. But your constant carping about alimony generally is starting to smack of misogyny.

[garryw]

Well, some minor differences:

1) Young and Ann Eliza Webb were never legally married. Young had a valid legal argument that the divorce court had no jurisdiction to enter an alimony award.

2) Webb, as a plural wife, never had the kind of economic dependence on Young that a monogamous stay-at-home wife and mother develops on her husband.

3) Webb, as one of twenty-odd plural wives, was demanding one-half of Young's assets.

4) Young, as Presiding High Priest of the Church, held the sealing power.

Garry, I'm sorry you think your ex-wife treated you poorly. But your constant carping about alimony generally is starting to smack of misogyny.

No worries mate. You are more than welcome to consider me a misogynist, as I consider myself one.

Now regarding your points:

1) This was the argument that Brigham Young's attorney made in court. However, the judge did not agree with the argument. He had a valid legal argument yes, but unfortunately the law is interpreted by judges, not litigants.

2) hard to know for sure, but irrelevant either way. Alimony is commonly awarded to multi-millionaire women these days. It has nothing to to with dependence.

3) Alimony is separate from division of assets. They are not the same thing. He was not jailed for asset division problems. Alimony is about future income.

4) of course, but I fail to see what this has to do with him refusing to pay alimony.

[Just_A_Guy]

No worries mate. You are more than welcome to consider me a misogynist, as I consider myself one.

I'm truly sorry to hear that. I think women are wonderful.

Now regarding your points:

1) This was the argument that Brigham Young's attorney made in court. However, the judge did not agree with the argument. He had a valid legal argument yes, but unfortunately the law is interpreted by judges, not litigants.

Are we looking at the situation from the modern perspective, or from the perspective of the participants?

From the modern perspective, I believe that the court was clearly wrong and would have gone down on appeal.

From the perspective of the participants, sure, that wasn't certain--but then, the Church's modern policy didn't exist; so why are you kvetching about Young's being in violation of it?

2) hard to know for sure, but irrelevant either way. Alimony is commonly awarded to multi-millionaire women these days. It has nothing to to with dependence.

As a legal matter, dependence and equalizing the parties' living standards (the latter, in a long-term marriage) is everything in modern alimony. There are a couple of older theories that are also being phased out (rehabilitative alimony, etc); but that's about it.

More to the point, if you insist on judging Young through twenty-first century ecclesiastical jurisprudence, then Webb's fiscal independence has has much to do with the reason for the Church's policy--that a woman who sacrifices her financial prospects for her marriage, has claim on her husband for support even after the marriage ends. The simple fact is: Ann Eliza Webb was married to Young for a mere five years, was already a divorcee when she married him, and enjoyed the support of Salt Lake's sizeable anti-Mormon community and very pricey attorneys during the divorce process.

3) Alimony is separate from division of assets. They are not the same thing. He was not jailed for asset division problems. Alimony is about future income.

Alimony is calculated based on the payor's ability to pay, which necessarily involves consideration of the payor's assets. And it's also worth noting that the temple recommend interview addresses not just alimony, but court-ordered financial obligations to family members generally.

4) of course, but I fail to see what this has to do with him refusing to pay alimony.

Only applies if you're trying to imply that Young did something morally wrong, or imply that the Church's current policy is flawed.

[garryw]

I'm truly sorry to hear that. I think women are wonderful.

Are we looking at the situation from the modern perspective, or from the perspective of the participants?

From the modern perspective, I believe that the court was clearly wrong and would have gone down on appeal.

From the perspective of the participants, sure, that wasn't certain--but then, the Church's modern policy didn't exist; so why are you kvetching about Young's being in violation of it?

As a legal matter, dependence and equalizing the parties' living standards (the latter, in a long-term marriage) is everything in modern alimony. There are a couple of older theories that are also being phased out (rehabilitative alimony, etc); but that's about it.

More to the point, if you insist on judging Young through twenty-first century ecclesiastical jurisprudence, then Webb's fiscal independence has has much to do with the reason for the Church's policy--that a woman who sacrifices her financial prospects for her marriage, has claim on her husband for support even after the marriage ends. The simple fact is: Ann Eliza Webb was married to Young for a mere five years, was already a divorcee when she married him, and enjoyed the support of Salt Lake's sizeable anti-Mormon community and very pricey attorneys during the divorce process.

Alimony is calculated based on the payor's ability to pay, which necessarily involves consideration of the payor's assets. And it's also worth noting that the temple recommend interview addresses not just alimony, but court-ordered financial obligations to family members generally.

Only applies if you're trying to imply that Young did something morally wrong, or imply that the Church's current policy is flawed.

Well, let me make my implication clear. It is that alimony, and the system that perpetuates it is morally wrong. Brigham Young is a saint, and I wish I had the courage he did to go to jail for what I believe in. I'm a pushover compared to him.

[Just_A_Guy]

It is that alimony, and the system that perpetuates it is morally wrong.

I, for one, think that it's morally wrong for a man to expect a woman to put her job on hold for twenty years or more in order to pay his tuition, raise his babies, and keep his house; then ditch her when the mileage starts to show, and expect her to finish out her life knowing her earning capacity will never be more than 40-50% of his own.

But that's just me.

[prisonchaplain]

I will admit that one of the surprises I stumbled upon at this site is that divorce is pretty much accepted. In my uninformed evangelical mindset, I assumed LDS, with the doctrine of Eternal Marriage, and focus so strongly on family, would have very low incidences. I wonder if part of the cause of division is that expectations are so high.

My own understanding is that divorce (and remarriage) is permitted for the innocent when there is adultery or abandonment. Even in those cases we do not discourage reconciliation.

When it comes to abuse (especially "mental" or psychological forms) we generally encourage safety first (leave or get the offender to leave). We encourage reconciliation, but only after assurance of safety is accomplished. Some pastors may look at abuse as a kind of "abandonment," though we're cautious with that potential slippery slope.

That said, there are plenty of families in my congregation on their second marriages. We are broken vessels whom God has chose to redeem, no?

[mnn727]

This lower law business doesn't work. Members of the church are expected to live the higher law.

So you're living by the rules of the United Order today?

[Vort]

So you're living by the rules of the United Order today?

The higher law of marriage and chastity is not the same as the law of consecration -- nor, I would add, is the united order the same as the law of consecration.

[apexviper]

So you're living by the rules of the United Order today?

Who said anything about the united order?

[mnn727]

Who said anything about the united order?

Its an example the higher law that we no longer are required to observe.

[apexviper]

Its an example the higher law that we no longer are required to observe.

I'm not talking about the united order. I'm talking about a law that IS in effect. You cannot use "this law changed" as an excuse for another law that is still in effect.

The practice of adultery was condemned by the Savior with the exception of adultery. Modern revelation includes abuse. However, in any case, we are taught that it is absolutely the last option.

"Divorce

When men and women marry, they make solemn covenants with each other and with God. Every effort should be made to keep these covenants and preserve marriage. When divorce occurs, individuals have the obligation to forgive rather than to condemn, to lift and to help.The sanctity of marriage and families is taught repeatedly in the scriptures. It has been reaffirmed by modern prophets and apostles. Despite the truths taught about the sanctity of marriage, divorce has become commonplace in the world. Because the family is central to Heavenly Father’s plan for His children, Satan seeks to destroy marriages and families. Because of the poor choices and selfishness of one or both marriage partners, marriages sometimes end in contention, separation, and divorce.

If, instead of resorting to divorce, each individual will seek the comfort and well-being of his or her spouse, couples will grow in love and unity. The gospel of Jesus Christ—including repentance, forgiveness, integrity, and love—provides the remedy for conflict in marriage.

Those who have caused a divorce through their own poor choices can repent and be forgiven. Those whose marriages have failed because of what others have done can receive strength and comfort from the Lord, who promised: ”Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. . . . For my yoke is easy, and my burden light” (Matthew 11:28, 30)."

That is the official stand. Final, not first, option. The first option, regardless of the situation, is to work it out with the help of the Savior. Nobody is beyond help. Nobody is hopeless. The Lord says "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Do not think of what "fool" means with modern definition. When used in the scriptures, "fool" means unredeemable. When someone determines a person is beyond help, the one making that judgment becomes in danger to losing their salvation. Thus Jesus' declaration of the consequence: shall be in danger of hell fire.

[justinc]

"Mk 10.2-13 bans divorce under any circumstances, while Mt 3.31-32 (and see Mt 1.9; Lk 16.18) permits divorce only in cases of "porneia," sexual impropriety (see Duet 24.1)." (Shira Lander, The Jewish Annotated New Testament, p. 298)

"to those caught in unhappy or failing marriages, [Paul] cites the norm of Jesus' own teaching: that divorce should not be countenanced, or, failing that ideal, a separated partner should not marry someone else ([1 Corinthians] 7.10-11). . . [To be noted however is that Paul was specifically addressing] the situation of the Corinthian believers. . . not obviously envisaged by Jesus' command. That is to say, the fact that one of the partners had not become a Christian made some difference." (James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, p. 696-697)