A spouse is coming out with Gender Dysphoria - Divorce OK or not?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, priesthoodpower said:

I wouldnt be so close minded, after all, many critics of our church say we are delusional to believe that our prophet speaks face to face with God.

I have never in my life been actually present to hear a more perfect and clear example of having such an open mind that your brains fell out.

[zil]

6 minutes ago, priesthoodpower said:

I wouldnt be so close minded, after all, many critics of our church say we are delusional to believe that our prophet speaks face to face with God.

I'm not being closed-minded, I'm being consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ.  The closest that allows me to come to this woman's beliefs is that the spirit of the earth is speaking to her, and she's mistaking it for individual rocks.  Mental illness and evil spirits deceiving her are far more likely. I doubt the Father ever intended for us to be able to communicate with the earth.

[Snigmorder]

50 minutes ago, priesthoodpower said:

I wouldnt be so close minded, after all, many critics of our church say we are delusional to believe that our prophet speaks face to face with God.

But we don't believe our prophet speaks face to face with God. We believe he receives revelation for the church and holds the keys. Whether or not Christ appears to him is Christ's business. And I doubt it's all that often anyway, if at all (I doubt there's any data on the theophanies of the contemporary prophets, so I can't confirm this.)

[Fether]

@Carborendum

 

11 hours ago, eddified said:

My purpose in posting this is to find out what the community thinks the poor wife's valid options are...

I'm NOT asking about the gender issues, at least not directly. In this thread I do not wish to discuss this from the point of view of the person suffering from gender dysphoria. I'd only like to see what the community has to say if they put themselves in the wife's place in this story. Please discuss.

 

It doesn't. I'm and I'm not trying g to make it. My comment was in response to the OP.

[Rob Osborn]

11 hours ago, eddified said:

Spouse coming out with Gender Dysphoria - how to handle it? Divorce OK or not? (Not my spouse.)

I just read this article:

Title: Former Mormon leader is building a new life -- as a woman

Link: http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/faith/former-mormon-leader-is-building-a-new-life--/article_cf474980-6cb2-5282-97fe-0da9e068f585.html

My summary: This person was a former stake president, who struggled their entire life with gender dysphoria. This person has now been excommunicated for "being a woman". This person has not stopped attending church, and apparently wishes to be re-baptized. This person also attends church with this person's wife.

My purpose in posting this is to find out what the community thinks the poor wife's valid options are. I've heard some in this forum say something along the lines of, if there is no abuse, addiction, or adultery, then divorce shouldn't be considered a valid option. I'm just wondering if in this case of a husband & former LDS stake president, dressing up as a woman and taking hormones, etc, and being excommunicated, .... would this be a valid reason for divorce?

I'm NOT asking about the gender issues, at least not directly. In this thread I do not wish to discuss this from the point of view of the person suffering from gender dysphoria. I'd only like to see what the community has to say if they put themselves in the wife's place in this story. Please discuss.

To be clear, I'm not asking what the wife should do. That's another question entirely -- it's up to her and God what she "should" do. I'm only asking what you would consider the valid options for her -- is divorce on the table, or should it be off-limits in this case?

I have a hard time believing that this change came about by him living by the commandments of God. Of course divorce is on the table but its up to them to decide. He is living in a sinful state.

[a mustard seed]

1 hour ago, zil said:

I'm not being closed-minded, I'm being consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ.  The closest that allows me to come to this woman's beliefs is that the spirit of the earth is speaking to her, and she's mistaking it for individual rocks.  Mental illness and evil spirits deceiving her are far more likely. I doubt the Father ever intended for us to be able to communicate with the earth.

A good litmus test is how does her being able to talk to rocks bring her closer to Christ?

I cannot remember it very well but there was something in a lesson in Gospel Principles when we learned about the gifts from God(speaking in tongues, healing, etc.) and how the adversary tries to mimic them with cheap imitations. There was a difference and a way to tell and it had to do with who was being glorified or helped by the gift. Like the "gift of tongues" where people gibber gabber and scream incoherently, the purpose of this state wasn't to bring anyone closer to Christ but to draw attention to the individual doing it. So, someone who can talk to rocks, I'd really ask what that communication does to benefit her or other people to bring them to the gospel of Christ.

 

Not to get off topic though. I found myself in a similar situation. It wasn't the sole reason for my inactivity but one of the contributing factors; my following my ex-husband in an attempt to love him and support him in the way he needed to be. Turns out, taking God out of the relationship, there's not a enough love just between two people to sustain you both in sin. I echo what others have said; if there is a desire for righteousness, then stay and support. If the spouse is going to follow the "dream/delusion" then it is putting yourself in the hole with them to stay. The potential for corruption of the self and both falling away is very high. As others have stated the pull of this particular malady is very strong; to help someone come back from that without sacrificing your own testimony in the process and being won over by normalization, is a strong soul indeed.

[Bad Karma]

11 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

The "big three" of divorce are often considered to be abuse, adultery, addiction.  Sounds like a fourth has some acceptance here - not keeping a mental illness under acceptable control.  

I hope this doesn't sound snarky.  I have no snark to offer here.  I'm a fan of the three "a"'s, and am just glad I don't have to make a decision like this.

I'll chime in here in the spirit of forgiveness. 

Abuse: Not all persons perpetuating abuse are "abusers", and those that have perpetuated abuse when called to repentance, such a marriage is subject to the lord's will, whatever that entails, I'd say the victimized spouse would know what that is one way or another and very much between heavenly father and the injured spouse. I am not going to delve into situational discourse here. Abuse is ugly, more often than not, the wife and husband both need to go to jail. All too often the female half gets away with felony spousal battery and gets away with it based on gender.  

Adultery: How sad a thing, adultery. Such hurtful betrayal it is. It is often the destroyer of both marriages and families, leaving the innocent and guilty wounded in the heart for the rest of their lives. I've seen the aftermath, divorce the end, and at times, out of a VERY lengthy separation, weeping couples exchange "I love you", to find their marriages restored when I was certain they were toast.

Odd, very odd and hard to understand things happen and happen too often. Some do it out of evil, some do it out of mental illness, some do it because they feel entitled. ALL can be saved from that life. It's not for me to say what that spouse should do, yet I think if it is a repentant soul, maybe throwing that MAN a lifeline, he's still a man regardless of what he's done to change it, (DNA doesn't lie) If that man is unrepentant, heavenly father will be taking issues up with that "whatever" he wants to be. 

"And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon" - Mr. Scott (Star Trek)

 

 

[NightSG]

5 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

she feels that in a previous lifetime she was a rock.

How would that even work?  Rocks don't die.

[eddified]

11 hours ago, NightSG said:

How would that even work?  Rocks don't die.

Well how would you know? You've never even talked to one!

[zil]

12 hours ago, NightSG said:

How would that even work?  Rocks don't die.

And what happens when you hit it with a hammer and it splinters into pieces?  Split-spirit disorder?

[anatess2]

23 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

My understanding, from an admittedly brief look at the DSM-V (Psychology's primary diagnostic tool) is that gender dysphoria is most often treated by allowing for steps that will resolve the dysphoria. A man may wear panties once a month, and that is enough. Another may wear makeup once a week, inside his home. Another might shave his chest,etc. Only a very small % end up insisting they need an operation to physically change their apparent gender. So, they short and mid-term solutions would seem to be the very difficult patient process of walking with a spouse through therapy. I'd insist on a therapist that was both flexible and faith-sensitive. Only in a very few of these situations would a spouse have to face the decision of what to do if the dysphoria results in a need to consider divorce.

This is not the route that "the experts" in the field are currently taking.  They're treating dysphoria with hormone therapy to aid in transitioning.  The word on the experts field is that they have a lot of "success".

I tried to express what I believe to my friend whose daughter is going through the transition.  She asked me what I thought so I told her.  She said I'm disrespectful.  I don't think that's what she wanted to use.  I think she wanted to say hateful but was just trying to be nice.  There's no conversation to be had on that front.

[anatess2]

On 7/31/2017 at 0:26 PM, Anddenex said:

The bolded portion of NeuroTypical's comment is where the line would be drawn for me. If the spouse is actively still living the gospel, fighting the good (hard) fight, then I don't see any reason why divorce would be on the table. We all struggle with something, as long as we are moving forward we should allow the atonement to work for our spouse.

If the spouse comes out and is not willing to continue forward, then divorce would be on the table.

For what reason?  I see divorce as simply a way to have a "do over".  So you can go marry somebody else.  I can't understand why one would want to pledge eternity to somebody else after pledging eternity to another.

I believe that nothing in this world is forever but marriage is eternal.  So, the spouse is not willing to continue forward.  That's today.  I do not believe that is hopelessly unchangeable until death.  If the spouse leaves me, then there's nothing I can do about it.  But I will always strive to bring my spouse an inch closer to Christ in any way I can despite the choices he makes including his decision to leave me.

But eh.  That's just me.  I'm a dying breed.

Edited August 1, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

14 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I believe that nothing in this world is forever but marriage is eternal.  So, the spouse is not willing to continue forward.  That's today.  I do not believe that is hopelessly unchangeable until death.  If the spouse leaves me, then there's nothing I can do about it.  But I will always strive to bring my spouse an inch closer to Christ in any way I can despite the choices he makes including his decision to leave me.

I'm finding the arguments on both sides of this issue very compelling, and honestly I don't know what I would do given that situation.  However, I have to say here and in marriage topics generally, you have had a great influence on my thinking about marriage, Anatess.  More than once, in real life, I have told people, "I know this woman online, and she explains marriage like this . . . "   I'm beginning to think that as LDS who believe in eternal marriage and Christians who also believe in the solemnity of marriage (don't want to leave out PC or anyone else)...that without realizing it we are taking on some of the attitudes of the culture around us that treats marriage as something disposable, if necessary.  I think this because I ask myself the same question all the time about other topics.  (As a Liberal minded person iiving in a Liberal state, but in a church with mostly Conservative people, I wonder which culture is pulling on me more and which will bring me closer to Christ?)   So while I still don't know what I would do in this situation, I do think you make some compelling arguments.  

Edited August 1, 2017 by LiterateParakeet

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I'm finding the arguments on both sides of this issue very compelling, and honestly I don't know what I would do given that situation.  However, I have to say here and in marriage topics generally, you have had a great influence on my thinking about marriage, Anatess.  More than once, in real life, I have told people, "I know this woman online, and she explains marriage like this . . . "   I'm beginning to think that as LDS who believe in eternal marriage and Christians who also believe in the solemnity of marriage (don't want to leave out PC or anyone else)...that without realizing it we are taking on some of the attitudes of the culture around us that treats marriage as something disposable, if necessary.  I think this because I ask myself the same question all the time about other topics.  (As a Liberal minded person iiving in a Liberal state, but in a church with mostly Conservative people, I wonder which culture is pulling on me more and which will bring me closer to Christ?)   So while I still don't know what I would do in this situation, I do think you make some compelling arguments.  

I saw Hacksaw Ridge last night.  I was very moved by Doss's conviction and his strength in defending such conviction even in the face of extreme trials even as I disagreed with it.  I don't have to agree with Doss to see that he walked with God that day on Hacksaw Ridge.  Make sense?

[omegaseamaster75]

16 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

I wouldnt be so close minded, after all, many critics of our church say we are delusional to believe that our prophet speaks face to face with God.

Not to side track, but you don't believe this do you?

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

For what reason?  I see divorce as simply a way to have a "do over".  So you can go marry somebody else.  I can't understand why one would want to pledge eternity to somebody else after pledging eternity to another.

I believe that nothing in this world is forever but marriage is eternal.  So, the spouse is not willing to continue forward.  That's today.  I do not believe that is hopelessly unchangeable until death.  If the spouse leaves me, then there's nothing I can do about it.  But I will always strive to bring my spouse an inch closer to Christ in any way I can despite the choices he makes including his decision to leave me.

But eh.  That's just me.  I'm a dying breed.

Reason was clearly specified in previous comment, so I am not sure the point of the question. A woman/man who is repetitively being cheated on by a covenant spouse is not looking for a "do over." Even the Lord in the New Testament specified "fornication" as an option for divorce (note the word "option"). A woman who is repetitively abused by spouse (mentally or physically -- surely physically) is not looking for a "do over" when removing herself from harmful situation. These are just a couple scenarios that even the Lord, who surely sees "marriage as eternal," has given divine approval. People who are within "No fault" divorces, sure we would agree regarding your definition, but we aren't talking about a "no fault" divorce.

A spouse who is struggling but fighting the good fight (i.e. remains a member of good standing) divorce is not on the table. A spouse who is actively rejecting covenant (unrepentant), in this scenario -- changing sexual orientation (possibly even physically) -- sure, the spouse is able to put "divorce" on the table as the other spouse is not keeping any covenants, and is implicitly rejecting an "eternal marraige" by choice. This decision is between the spouses and the Lord who are in this situation, no matter what dying breed we consider ourselves.

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by Anddenex

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

41 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I saw Hacksaw Ridge last night.  I was very moved by Doss's conviction and his strength in defending such conviction even in the face of extreme trials even as I disagreed with it.  I don't have to agree with Doss to see that he walked with God that day on Hacksaw Ridge.  Make sense?

I haven't seen Hacksaw Ridge...   But I get the general idea.  

Edited August 1, 2017 by LiterateParakeet

[anatess2]

35 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Reason was clearly specified in previous comment, so I am not sure the point of the question. A woman/man who is repetitively being cheated on by a covenant spouse is not looking for a "do over." Even the Lord in the New Testament specified "fornication" as an option for divorce (note the word "option"). A woman who is repetitively abused by spouse (mentally or physically -- surely physically) is not looking for a "do over" when removing herself from harmful situation. These are just a couple scenarios that even the Lord, who surely sees "marriage as eternal," has given divine approval. People who are within "No fault" divorces, sure we would agree regarding your definition, but we aren't talking about a "no fault" divorce.

A spouse who is struggling but fighting the good fight (i.e. remains a member of good standing) divorce is not on the table. A spouse who is actively rejecting covenant (unrepentant), in this scenario -- changing sexual orientation (possibly even physically) -- sure, the spouse is able to put "divorce" on the table as the other spouse is not keeping any covenants, and is implicitly rejecting an "eternal marraige" by choice. This decision is between the spouses and the Lord who are in this situation, no matter what dying breed we consider ourselves.

 

But we're not talking about anything else here but the scenario of your spouse having gender dysphoria.  What is your purpose for putting divorce on the table?  So the spouse is not keeping covenants - you can say that about a lot of things - tithing, coffee, etc.  So why in this case would you put divorce on the table?  What's the end goal?

I am just curious.

I understand... say a spouse have a gambling problem.  In the US, the only way you can protect your assets from a spouse is through divorce.  That kind of thing.

[Anddenex]

Just now, anatess2 said:

But we're not talking about anything else here but the scenario of your spouse having gender dysphoria.  What is your purpose for putting divorce on the table?  So the spouse is not keeping covenants - you can say that about a lot of things - tithing, coffee, etc.  So why in this case would you put divorce on the table?  What's the end goal?

I am just curious.

I understand... say a spouse have a gambling problem.  In the US, the only way you can protect your assets from a spouse is through divorce.  That kind of thing.

Correct, and I have stated my "purpose" and thoughts on the subject. Here it is again,

Quote

"A spouse who is struggling but fighting the good fight (i.e. remains a member of good standing) divorce is not on the table. A spouse who is actively rejecting covenant (unrepentant), in this scenario -- changing sexual orientation (possibly even physically) -- sure, the spouse is able to put "divorce" on the table as the other spouse is not keeping any covenants, and is implicitly rejecting an "eternal marraige" by choice. This decision is between the spouses and the Lord who are in this situation..."

I don't know any other way to put then what I have shared -- purpose/reason --  three times now.

[eddified]

1 hour ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Not to side track, but you don't believe this do you?

What is your reasoning for asking this question? I don't understand what your issue is with @priesthoodpower's statement about the prophet.

[eddified]

@Anddenex, @anatess2, could it be that in a situation such as this (where your spouse is presenting themselves to the public as the opposite sex, and dressing up as the opposite sex, etc), that there isn't only one right option? Could there be more than one right option? The Lord lets us choose. Jesus gave the 12 Nephite disciples a choice about death and 3 of them chose something different. Not wrong, not right... just different.  Could it be that @Anddenex's view is not wrong, just different? Staying with a spouse no matter what is commendable. But clearly the Lord allows divorce under extreme cases, with no condemnation (as far as I can tell). Might these just be different choices, with one not being greater than the other?

[anatess2]

26 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Correct, and I have stated my "purpose" and thoughts on the subject. Here it is again,

I don't know any other way to put then what I have shared -- purpose/reason --  three times now.

I apologize for being dense.  So you're saying that your reason for divorcing is because your spouse is not keeping covenants.  That's a reason.  That's not a purpose.  Purpose and reason are not the same word although they are close in meaning.  Reason is why you did something.  Purpose is what you're trying to achieve.

Edited August 1, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

23 minutes ago, eddified said:

@Anddenex, @anatess2, could it be that in a situation such as this (where your spouse is presenting themselves to the public as the opposite sex, and dressing up as the opposite sex, etc), that there isn't only one right option? Could there be more than one right option? The Lord lets us choose. Jesus gave the 12 Nephite disciples a choice about death and 3 of them chose something different. Not wrong, not right... just different.  Could it be that @Anddenex's view is not wrong, just different? Staying with a spouse no matter what is commendable. But clearly the Lord allows divorce under extreme cases, with no condemnation (as far as I can tell). Might these just be different choices, with one not being greater than the other?

I never implied that Anddenex is wrong.  I simply expressed that I don't understand it.

[omegaseamaster75]

40 minutes ago, eddified said:

What is your reasoning for asking this question? I don't understand what your issue is with @priesthoodpower's statement about the prophet.

It's off topic so quickly, while I believe that our prophet receives direct revelation from God and his son Jesus Christ as needed my issue with the statement is that it may be misleading.  Being Prophet does not include a sit down face to face with the God head. This in no way reduces or diminishes their personal knowledge of God and Christ, I just do not think that the face to face description is accurate, and should not be told as such, many people visit these forums members and non members we should make efforts to be accurate.

[Just_A_Guy]

44 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

It's off topic so quickly, while I believe that our prophet receives direct revelation from God and his son Jesus Christ as needed my issue with the statement is that it may be misleading.  Being Prophet does not include a sit down face to face with the God head. This in no way reduces or diminishes their personal knowledge of God and Christ, I just do not think that the face to face description is accurate, and should not be told as such, many people visit these forums members and non members we should make efforts to be accurate.

I think we need to be careful with this.  Do I believe the urban legends about people walking by the door to the Holy of Holies while the prophet was in there alone, and purportedly hearing two voices in conversation?  I suspect that more often than not such tales tend to be hyperbolic, and that revelation comes to the Chirch leadership via the whisperings of the Spirit far more frequently than by dreams, visions, or corporeal manifestations of resurrected beings.

But, to definitively say that such manifestations cannot or do not happen, I think, puts us in the state of woe warned of by the prophet Moroni.  The doctrine of the Second Comforter is very much a part of our religion; and I believe we'd be surprised at just how many Mormons have received the sorts of encounters with divinity that we typically associate with prophets and apostles.