Am I Justified to Leave for Lack of Love?

[Leah]

Sheesh, overly defensive much? All he did was question the source of and the methodology of the study. Fair questions really.

What a funny post. "Defensive"? What an odd comment.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm curious TFP, to what extent to you take this? Where is the line? Adultery is a scripturally defensible line to place divorce at, but I don't think it must get that extreme. I think something like absolute refusal to have sex and other forms of physical intimacy, refusal to acknowledge it as a problem, or refusal to attempt to address the issue and communicate with your spouse about the issue is getting there on the line where I would not judge someone in the slightest for their decision to divorce.

 

Well, as pointed out, it's not our place to judge anyone for their decision to divorce. I do not think it would be my place to take this idea to any extant for another. I can only apply it to my own life and the sanctity with which I hold my marriage covenants. So, me personally, if my wife refused to have sex with me ever again, I still would not leave her. In point of fact, I would consider throwing away my covenants for that a ridiculously selfish choice.

[The Folk Prophet]

There is no need to debate.

 

And yet then you proceed to demand that I debate, including the provision of references to support my ideas.

 

No thanks.

[jerome1232]

Actually if MoE says it's a good statistic then I'm willing to take his word on it. Frankly that is pretty sad. The link I provided says it's declines from .05 to .021 which is something I'd be willing to take at face value, if it's closer to .2 I believe that's alarmingly high.

I really think this whole thing is unrelated though. Obviously (well in my view) if you are in a marriage and your wife has an issue like that interfering with that part of the relationship, well, go get counseling and work on it. In the meantime the husband will have to be patient and long suffering.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Actually if MoE says it's a good statistic then I'm willing to take his word on it. Frankly that is pretty sad. The link I provided says it's declines from .05 to .021 which is something I'd be willing to take at face value, if it's closer to .2 I believe that's alarmingly high.

I really think this whole thing is unrelated though. Obviously (well in my view) if you are in a marriage and your wife has an issue like that interfering with that part of the relationship, well, go get counseling and work on it. In the meantime the husband will have to be patient and long suffering.

 

Jerome1232, one minute you statistics are from Satan and you could NEVER trust them.  And you flip because MoE said so?  I'm a missing some inside joke?

 

I really think this whole thing is unrelated though. Obviously (well in my view) if you are in a marriage and your wife has an issue like that interfering with that part of the relationship, well, go get counseling and work on it. In the meantime the husband will have to be patient and long suffering.

 

 

We can agree that this is not FOR SURE the problem.  But IMO, there is a high likelihood that it is related.  I'm curious though, you seem to imply "just go to counseling and take care of it".  I agree about counseling, but I'm wondering how long you think that will take.  I assure you counseling for sexual abuse is not a quick process.  

[jerome1232]

Well, as pointed out, it's not our place to judge anyone for their decision to divorce. I do not think it would be my place to take this idea to any extant for another. I can only apply it to my own life and the sanctity with which I hold my marriage covenants. So, me personally, if my wife refused to have sex with me ever again, I still would not leave her. In point of fact, I would consider throwing away my covenants for that a ridiculously selfish choice.

I don't know. I don't know. Is not wanting to live your life wondering what's so wrong with you that she won't touch you a selfish choice? Isn't her decision a ridiculously selfish choice? I can't imagine dieing and explaining to God why my wife suffered a marriage full of tears and in depression due to my choice to not ever have sex with *her* again. I wouldn't blame *her* for wanting out of that arrangement either.

A marriage in that state isn't being lived by covenants made in the first place imho. Can you throw away a covenant that's not being kept?

[jerome1232]

Jerome1232, one minute you statistics are from Satan and you could NEVER trust them.  And you flip because MoE said so?  I'm a missing some inside joke?

 

 

We can agree that this is not FOR SURE the problem.  But IMO, there is a high likelihood that it is related.  I'm curious though, you seem to imply "just go to counseling and take care of it".  I agree about counseling, but I'm wondering how long you think that will take.  I assure you counseling for sexual abuse is not a quick process.  

I overstated my opinion is all :) And yes, I understand, the effort is what's important.

Edited October 30, 2014 by jerome1232

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't know. I don't know. Is not wanting to live your life wondering what's so wrong with you that she won't touch you a selfish choice? Isn't her decision a ridiculously selfish choice? I can't imagine dieing and explaining to God why my wife suffered a marriage full of tears and in depression due to my choice to not ever have sex with *her* again. I wouldn't blame *her* for wanting out of that arrangement either.

A marriage in that state isn't being lived by covenants made in the first place imho. Can you throw away a covenant that's not being kept?

 

So you read the marriage covenant as -- if my spouse doesn't live up to their end of the bargain, the covenants I made are no longer valid?

 

Hmm...I'm beginning to understand why divorce has become such a problem.

 

Like I said, it's not my place to say who and who is not justified in leaving their spouse. But as for me, I take my marriage covenants very, very seriously.

 

Divorce is simply not an option.

 

And, yes, I see the idea of leaving because of something I'M not getting as a selfish choice.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I overstated my opinion is all :)

 

I would never do that...at least I try not to do it more than once every couple hours, LOL.  I get it.  :)

[auzziegirl]

As you already said, not everything spoken by every prophet and/or apostle is doctrinal 

 

Where have I ever said this??????????

[auzziegirl]

 We are to be and stay married in this life by covenant and command, regardless of sex.

 

I have never demanded to debate with you. If you are going to say it is a commandment to stay married, and state your opinion as fact, I would like you to quote your sources.

Edited October 30, 2014 by auzziegirl

[The Folk Prophet]

Where have I ever said this??????????

 

Of course, I am sure that many people would go so far as to say that what the Prophets and Apostles say is also conjecture and non-doctrinal, but I am not one of those.

 

I was referencing this, ^ alluding to the idea that you stated "many people" believe this. Was that unclear? It wasn't meant to put words in your mouth. Just to indicate that you had mentioned such a concept and I was referring back to it.

 

I have never demanded to debate with you. If you are going to say it is a commandment to stay married, and state your opinion as fact, I would like you to quote your sources.

 

The tone coming your answers, which seems quite combative, has disinclined me from any desire to engage. But, so we're clear, the command part is to be married. The covenant part is to stay married. Beyond that you're twisting my meaning. Clearly there are justifiable divorces. The scriptures makes it quite clear what justifies divorce:

 

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." - Matt 19:9

[auzziegirl]

 

 

 

 

The tone coming your answers, which seems quite combative, has disinclined me from any desire to engage. 

 

 

I am sorry if I come across as combative. I taught at the university level for many years and sometimes fall into the academic, stringent form of engagement required for defending arguments. :)

 

I did read back on some of my posts earlier, and absolutely agree that I came across as more combative than what I had originally intended, and can certainly understand your hesitancy to engage.

 

Please accept my apology. I was in no way intending to come across the way that I did, and for that I am very sorry. Australians on the whole can be a little sarcastic, and unfortunately that doesn't translate well without voice inflection and facial expressions! If I ever come across as combative it is certainly not my intent. I appreciate your willingness to point that out to me, and if I come across that way again in the future I would hope that you (or any other poster) would again let me know.

 

I appreciate your willingness to continue to post, and again, I am sincerely sorry. 

Edited October 30, 2014 by auzziegirl

[BeenThereDoneThat]

So you read the marriage covenant as -- if my spouse doesn't live up to their end of the bargain, the covenants I made are no longer valid?

 

Hmm...I'm beginning to understand why divorce has become such a problem.

 

Like I said, it's not my place to say who and who is not justified in leaving their spouse. But as for me, I take my marriage covenants very, very seriously.

 

Divorce is simply not an option.

 

And, yes, I see the idea of leaving because of something I'M not getting as a selfish choice.

 

You certainly have the right to consider this a black and white issue in your own life, but you're most likely not in a marriage with very little physical affection. If you are, and you're sticking by your covenants anyway, more power to you. If you aren't however, saying that everyone else should do what you'd hypothetically do isn't reasonable. After all, the decision of one spouse to withhold affection from the other is also a selfish choice, even with extenuating circumstances. (Please note that I highly encourage counseling and therapy when those are needed.) Although you can continue to cleave to your covenants as a personal choice, and I know good people in bad marriages who have, God doesn't demand that you do.

 

Life is messy, and is mostly shades of grey. There aren't as many absolutes as some of us might prefer, and the challenge and purpose of mortal life is learning to properly excercise our free agency. In regards to marriage, there's rarely a completely right and a completely wrong side in human relationships. Yet those covenants we made when we were married in the temple are a two-way street. If one spouse isn't living up to them, in some circumstances dissolving the relationship and ending the covenants made with that person is the proper thing to do.

 

No one would argue that a spouse is bound by covenant to stay in a physically abusive marriage, for example. That may be the most extreme example I could give, but there are other types of abusive behavior that would also warrant ending a temple marriage. Withholding physical affection from your spouse batters their sense of self worth, their identity as a desirable, lovable person, and their view of how well they're fulfilling their expected role in society. Being rejected by the person you thought you would spend eternity with is heart-breaking, but if that rejection can't be fixed, no loving God would ever force anyone to remain married to someone who doesn't love them or treats them badly for eternity. That's a good definition of HELL.

 

It's extremely difficult to determine when you've put in enough effort to save a troubled marriage. It's a messy, shades of grey decision that requires prayer, consultation with your bishop, and acceptance of the consequences if you do choose to end it. If your spouse makes that decision for you and files for divorce, it's often more devastating, since divorce is the ultimate declaration of rejection. There are times when it's the proper thing to do, or the church wouldn't allow it, and certainly wouldn't annul sealings and permit second marriages in the temple.

[The Folk Prophet]

saying that everyone else should do what you'd hypothetically do isn't reasonable.

 

Hmm. Seems to me like I went out of my way to say just the opposite of that.

 

God doesn't demand that you do.

 

Well, that's quite a proclamation. Did God tell you that directly? Or was it just an angel? (I kid, I kid...) Seriously though, I'll go with auzziegirl's approach here. Support it. Back that statement up. Show me where God says that. Give me a scripture or two where that idea is taught. Because the scriptures I'm familiar with make it pretty clear.

 

Matt 19 -

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

 

If one spouse isn't living up to them, in some circumstances dissolving the relationship and ending the covenants made with that person is the proper thing to do.

 

I simply disagree. Save for the actual justification God did give for divorce scripturally. But I don't begrudge you your opinion.

 

No one would argue that a spouse is bound by covenant to stay in a physically abusive marriage, for example. That may be the most extreme example I could give, but there are other types of abusive behavior that would also warrant ending a temple marriage. Withholding physical affection from your spouse batters their sense of self worth, their identity as a desirable, lovable person, and their view of how well they're fulfilling their expected role in society. Being rejected by the person you thought you would spend eternity with is heart-breaking, 

 

I don't disagree with the principle in general that your presenting. I do, however, favor the sanctity of marriage over the reasons to get out. I believe that if the world approached divorce with the "it's not an option" attitude, then when it was necessary to make an exception to the rule, it would be obvious. As it is, (as I see it) discomfort (a normal part of marriage) gets too easily labeled "abuse".

 

but if that rejection can't be fixed, no loving God would ever force anyone to remain married to someone who doesn't love them or treats them badly for eternity. That's a good definition of HELL.

 

There are a few things wrong with this comment. First -- it's impossible to end up with someone who treats you badly for eternity. The very idea is silly. Everyone in the Celestial Kingdom will be perfect. No one who fails to live up to their covenants will qualify for the Celestial Kingdom.

 

Second -- this whole "a loving God would never want us to experience bad things" premise is false. God sent us to earth just exactly so we could experience bad things.

 

It's extremely difficult to determine when you've put in enough effort to save a troubled marriage. It's a messy, shades of grey decision that requires prayer, consultation with your bishop, and acceptance of the consequences if you do choose to end it. If your spouse makes that decision for you and files for divorce, it's often more devastating, since divorce is the ultimate declaration of rejection.

 

Agreed.

 

There are times when it's the proper thing to do, or the church wouldn't allow it, and certainly wouldn't annul sealings and permit second marriages in the temple.

 

This is a logical fallacy. The church allowing it has no bearing on whether it's proper or not. And the annulment of sealings and 2nd marriages is clearly the church's best effort to allow for repentance, not a justification for something they have preached against repeatedly.

 

Like I said, I don't disagree with the principle that there are abusive relationships where divorce is the right answer. Where I likely disagree is what should and should not be considered valid reasoning for divorce. But that is personal, and therefor, as I have also made clear, not my place to say for anyone but myself. And, personally, I wouldn't leave my spouse for lack of sex and would consider it breaking my covenant for selfishness. If someone else sees it differently, that's their business, their decision, and between them and God.

[omegaseamaster75]

Some quotes from Dallin H Oaks: 

 

There are many good Church members who have been divorced. I speak first to them. We know that many of you are innocent victims—members whose former spouses persistently betrayed sacred covenants or abandoned or refused to perform marriage responsibilities for an extended period. Members who have experienced such abuse have firsthand knowledge of circumstances worse than divorce.

 

When a marriage is dead and beyond hope of resuscitation, it is needful to have a means to end it. 

 

Latter-day Saint spouses should do all within their power to preserve their marriages. 

 

The meat and potatoes of the talk is that we should not get divorced. 

 

I have never contemplated divorce, however it is not off the plate. If my wife were to commit one of the three A's I would be gone.

[Connie]

Now is probably a good time to remind everyone of an excellent talk given by Dallin H. Oaks on the topic.  Article here:  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/divorce?lang=eng

[The Folk Prophet]

There are many good Church members who have been divorced. I speak first to them. We know that many of you are innocent victims—members whose former spouses persistently betrayed sacred covenants or abandoned or refused to perform marriage responsibilities for an extended period. Members who have experienced such abuse have firsthand knowledge of circumstances worse than divorce.

 

This is interesting. I wonder if he was consciously and purposefully alluding to sex when he said "marriage responsibilities".

[omegaseamaster75]

For the record Brigham Young was divorced more than ten times. 

[omegaseamaster75]

This is interesting. I wonder if he was consciously and purposefully alluding to sex when he said "marriage responsibilities".

We cannot know, I think however the way it was worded one "might" interpret it that way. I view sexual relations as a marriage responsibility.

[The Folk Prophet]

For the record Brigham Young was divorced more than ten times. 

 

That doesn't mean anything though. You'd have to show that Brigham Young chose to divorce those 10 times. His wives leaving him doesn't mean he supported divorce. We all know that Brigham and the church through it's history have allowed divorce. That's significantly different than supporting it.

[The Folk Prophet]

We cannot know, I think however the way it was worded one "might" interpret it that way. I view sexual relations as a marriage responsibility.

 

Right. But here's a question for you and others who see it this way (and I don't necessarily disagree)...

 

What about injury, disease, libido problems, etc.? Do they justify leaving because of the resulting lack of sex? And if not, how do we determine the root cause of the sexless situation? How do we know that the spouse who is not engaging isn't dealing with some sort of issue beyond their own choices? How do we know there isn't a chemical imbalance, a physical impairment, a mental or emotional disability, etc.?

[omegaseamaster75]

That doesn't mean anything though. You'd have to show that Brigham Young chose to divorce those 10 times. His wives leaving him doesn't mean he supported divorce. We all know that Brigham and the church through it's history have allowed divorce. That's significantly different than supporting it.

 

 

His wives may have chosen to leave him, how is that different from choosing to leave your spouse for failure to fulfill marital duties?  

[jerome1232]

Right. But here's a question for you and others who see it this way (and I don't necessarily disagree)...

 

What about injury, disease, libido problems, etc.? Do they justify leaving because of the resulting lack of sex? And if not, how do we determine the root cause of the sexless situation? How do we know that the spouse who is not engaging isn't dealing with some sort of issue beyond their own choices? How do we know there isn't a chemical imbalance, a physical impairment, a mental or emotional disability, etc.?

 

 

Perhaps it helps to explain it's not the lack of sex that is the heart of the issue in my mind. It's the lack of effort to fulfill your partner, to enrich your marriage. Lack of libido doesn't mean she can't make reasonable compromise, and there are ways without intercourse to make a compromise. I assume there are reasonable attempts and figuring things out, counseling and etc... I assume there are reasonable attempts at compromise from both parties.

Edited October 30, 2014 by jerome1232

[The Folk Prophet]

His wives may have chosen to leave him, how is that different from choosing to leave your spouse for failure to fulfill marital duties?  

 

I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that Brigham wasn't living up to his marital duties?

 

But...regardless...it's very different. You really can't see the difference between choosing to leave your spouse and your spouse choosing to leave you?