Do they really love you?

[Bsix]

I don't think you would label a Catholic who joined Mormonism and caused tension in their marriage guilty of 'spiritual infidelity'.

Actually, I would accept a Catholic believer feeling as if their spouse who joined the LDS Church...or any other Church as having committed spiritual infidelity.

If the basis of this theoretical Catholics' marriage involved a sincere religious marriage covenant...then the partner who breaks the covenant has broken a marriage vow as much as if they had committed sexual infidelity. Now, I don't know the religious degree that exists in a Catholic marriage...so I can't judge. However, the concept applies.

In today's ever secularized culture, religion and religious covenants are viewed as less and less significant and meaningful. As such, the religious significance of marriage tends to suffer in the eyes of those who support pluralism.

For sincerely religious people (not just Mormons), a faith-based marriage founded upon shared eternal goals is as significant as any other marriage covenant.

Regards,

Six

[Hoops22]

Actually, I would accept a Catholic believer feeling as if their spouse who joined the LDS Church...or any other Church as having committed spiritual infidelity

.

And there it is.

[bluebell]

I think the above scriptures make that clear, don't you?

But now here we go with, "well, what if he's beating his wife and kids, etc., etc., etc.," which then is quickly translates into "well, if one leaves the lds church, then that's like abuse - it's spiritual abuse" or whatever.

No, the Bible is clear. Leaving the lds church, or sbc church, or lutheran church is not grounds for divorce.

So, it's 'clear' that the bible teaches no divorce, except of course, where it's obvious that the bible isn't teaching against divorce, such as with abuse?

[bluebell]

.

And there it is.

There 'what' is?

Bsix said that he agrees that a Catholic might rightly feel a spouse who abandoned Catholicism for mormonism has having committed spiritual infidelity. What's worth a one-liner retort in what Bsix said?

I must be missing something.

[dblagent007]

I know lot's of churches I would forbid my wife from attending.

You "forbid" your wife from doing things?!!??!?!

I never forbid my wife from doing anything. We discuss things and she listens to my input, but ultimately she makes her own decisions. I am not her master.

[Jaybear]

You "forbid" your wife from doing things?!!??!?!

I never forbid my wife from doing anything. We discuss things and she listens to my input, but ultimately she makes her own decisions. I am not her master.

My wife promised that she would honor and "obey" me, but I have never held her to that pledge.

Some husband and wives take that pledge literally, as is there prerogative.

In fact, some people would even refer to such a relationship as a "traditional" marriage.

[Garden Girl]

Hello Hoops... hope you had a good Christmas and are now looking forward to the new year...

1) head of house... he started out as the head of an LDS household with all the covenants and implications of the marriage and belief system. Now suddenly because he changes, he expects the household to change? And tries to force his changed views on the family that once looked to him as that head, their spiritual leader of the home.

2) No hoops... I don't think it is trivial at all...

I love New Year's Eve... it is filled with hope, excitement, anticipation... I think of it as one of my blank canvases, just waiting for me to raise my brush and begin the strokes that will form this new year. May yours be filled with health and all things good....

GG

[toon]

My opinion (which, as a quasi-bachelor isnâ??t worth much):

There are deal-breakers in every relationship. One personâ??s deal-breaker might seem extremely trivial and petty to me, while one of my deal-breakers might seem trivial and petty to someone else.

I very much doubt I would divorce someone for leaving Mormonism any more than Iâ??d divorce them for becoming a reformed Jew. At the same time, it would be extremely hard to stay with someone who decided to become an ardent NASCAR fan.

When I was single, here were some of my deal breakers: bad credit and poor fiscal management, a dysfunctional family, substance abuse and dependency, weight, annoying friends, a victim of abuse, inability to hold a job, a major physical or mental disability or illness. (Feel free to judge me for being shallow, but I have what I think are my own good reason for each of them.) Of course, you don't always know those things when the relationship starts, and as a relationship progresses, some become less and less of a deal breaker. Still, there were some that would always be a deal breaker up and to marriage.

For example, i would have never considered marrying someone with chemical dependency issues. I would have had no problem immediately walking away from a romantic relationship the minute I found out about it. (That's not to say that I would abandon the person and not try to help. Just that I would no longer consider a romantic relationship with her.)

After marriage, however, was a different matter. I can't think of any of those "deal breakers," alone, as sufficient to justify abandoning the relationship, even if it had existed prior to the marriage but had not been disclosed. I would feel an obligation to make a serious effort to work through it. Continuing with the example, if after marriage I had discovered that my new wife had an addiction problem that she had hidden from me during courtship, I would feel obliged to work with her on it. I can see how such a problem could eventually ruin the marriage and lead to divorce, but that would not even be close to my first instinct.

I'm not quite sure how religion fits in there. While not listed as one of my deal breakers, it certainly was something I looked for in a spouse. And while I understand that many would never have considered marrying their spouse had they not been of the same religion, I have a much harder time seeing how a loss of faith, in itself, would be grounds for ending the marriage. I can see how the effects of it could cause irreconciliable friction, but I think marriage entails an obligations to, at a minimum, make serious efforts to work through it.

[Anijen]

My wife promised that she would honor and "obey" me, but I have never held her to that pledge.

Some husband and wives take that pledge literally, as is there prerogative.

In fact, some people would even refer to such a relationship as a "traditional" marriage.

As LDS we only believe that honoring/obey is predicated on the righteousness of the husband. If the husband is an adulterer then the commitment to H&O is not there.

[Bsix]

.

And there it is.

And there what is?

I don't know what you mean.

Regards,

Six

[katherine the great]

I'm surprised that there are so many people on this thread who equate loss of faith with apostasy. They are not the same thing.

[bluebell]

As LDS we only believe that honoring/obey is predicated on the righteousness of the husband. If the husband is an adulterer then the commitment to H&O is not there.

Not just with adultery of course either.

As LDS, we also believe that any man who attempts to-"exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, is no longer the 'head of the household' until he repents, as the scripture goes on to say-"the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

[mateo]

There is a great message board dedicated to supporting those whose spouses have non-believing/apostate spouses. It's called Faces East. This is for believing spouses who have non-believing spouses.

As one who was once a believer but is now a non-believer it has been very difficult on my DW. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I really wish I could believe in the church as I once did but I just can't, try as I have. It would make life easier in so many ways and I hate the heartbreak that I have caused my DW. However, we have worked through many problems and each have made concessions and overall our marriage is healthy and strong.

[Luigi]

Your thoughts, would you divorce someone over religion?

I would say that if there are not children involved a person who has lost his/her faith and a spouse who is devoutly religious should get divorced. I think initially each should try to see the other's point of view and see if they can embrace it but if not I think they should go separate ways. I think marriage can survive many differences of opinion but I think where that difference is of such day to day significance and involves the couple's time, resources and rearing of their children the amount of tension such a difference will create would be difficult to overcome and each member of the couple would probably have greater potential for happiness in finding a person with similar religious views. I also think though that it is unproductive and engenders bitterness to try and fault one or the other party in such cases (ie 'spiritual infidelity' of Bsix) and better to just accept that differences emerged which made the couple better off apart.

When children are involved though I think everything changes. The couple then owes it not only to themselves but to their offspring to make their marriage work. However it will only work with compromise and appreciating the view of the other. I think to insist that one partner control the other or the children (ie the children and both spouses must always go to Church and/or must always stay home) is unreasonable and there must be allowances for both views to be expressed and understood with the mutual agreement that the children at some point will be allowed to choose the view they wish to embrace (though I think any parent should be open and respectful to their child accepting a religious viewpoint and expression different from their own even if both parents share a religious view).

[katherine the great]

As one who was once a believer but is now a non-believer it has been very difficult on my DW. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I really wish I could believe in the church as I once did but I just can't, try as I have. It would make life easier in so many ways and I hate the heartbreak that I have caused my DW. However, we have worked through many problems and each have made concessions and overall our marriage is healthy and strong.

Your attitude has probably helped your wife immensely. I know people who think they would leave their spouse if they left the church, (or cheated on them, or hit them, etc.) but I guess that none of us really KNOW what we would do until we are actually in the situation. If a couple really love each other and are BOTH willing to do whatever they can to keep their marriage together, I think we can overcome most anything.

[Ms. Jack]

So here's a news story that gives food for thought along these lines. She's LDS, he's an evangelical Christian and runs a countercult ministry. He's not an ex-Mormon, but still. It amazes me that his wife can stay with him through that.

Yes, I know all cases are different and I don't like judging people, but when I read about stories like that, I really think some people just give up too easily.

[Scottie]

Speaking for personal experience here, I like to say that my divorce was caused by my loss of faith, which is true to a certain extent.

When I lost my faith, it was one of my darkest times. Mormonism was at my very core. Everything I did was somehow influenced by Mormonism. When I lost that, there was a gaping hole left inside me. I was miserable. I wished so badly that I had never learned the things I did. I wished I could go back and remain in ignorance. But I couldn't, and I couldn't pretend to have a testimony or believe that the church was true. I was a miserable person to be around for about a year while I tried to figure out how to live my life without a testimony.

So, was it the fact that I was no longer a member, or was it that I became a bitter person? Unfortunately, of the few people I've known who have lost their faith, they become bitter towards the church. Part of this, I believe, is due to the fact that the family and members won't leave them alone.

Bottom line, nothing in this life is as simple as it seems. Cause and effect are everywhere and they run multiple levels deep.

[Scottie]

I'm surprised that there are so many people on this thread who equate loss of faith with apostasy. They are not the same thing.

Could you explain this?

[ERayR]

Well this works, as long as one assumes the Church is true. I don't think you would label a Catholic who joined Mormonism and caused tension in their marriage guilty of 'spiritual infidelity'.

Yes I would if both were devout catholics when they married and it was one of the underpinnings of their relationship. However, that said it is again up to the parties involved to decide what values to place on each of the variables.

Luigi it was a poor attempt at a cheap shot.

[ERayR]

I agree with and appreciate the comments by dblagent and Bsix... but I'll tell you one thing that makes me foam at the mouth... a spouse who loses faith, and then "forbids" the wife from attending or having anything to do with the Church... how does he even remotely think that he has a right to do so? To try and undermine their family's faith just because he lost his belief??

I don't know what I would have done had my husband not been so supportive when I returned to Church... after all, I was sort of the reverse scenario... he married a woman not attending Church, who loved to gamble occasionally, didn't keep the WoW, loved to golf on Sunday afternoons, etc etc, and suddenly 30 years later I become active again, including regular temple attendance. However, he did know my LDS history, and enjoyed our close association with my TBM folks...

the only serious hurdle was my paying tithing. He objected, and I told him as quietly and lovingly as I could that I was going to tithe on my pensions only...pensions that I worked full time for 30 years to earn. He didn't like it, but knew better than to push it (my being the loving and supportive, but strong, woman I was for over 30 years). So each month I quietly paid my tithing (we had had separate checking accts for years) and we didn't miss it... it was a non-issue.

The point is, I was not the same woman he had married or spent 30 years with in the sense that I now acted on my spiritual nature... I think he "got" that it was my upbringing within the Church that most contributed to my being who I was, and those values and standards that had attracted him...

I didn't try and push my religion on him... and he was supportive of me as he could be... it worked for us.

Garden Girl

What a beautiful relationship. I am sure it took you both a lot of hard work to build.

[Scottie]

Yes I would if both were devout catholics when they married and it was one of the underpinnings of their relationship. However, that said it is again up to the parties involved to decide what values to place on each of the variables.

Luigi it was a poor attempt at a cheap shot.

I think Luigi raises a good point. How often do we hear about how couragous an LDS convert was to lose their family and choose the gospel, yet a Mormon who leaves Mormonism has "torn his/her family apart".

[katherine the great]

Could you explain this?

LDS leaders define apostasy in terms of action, not thought. Apostates are generally defined as enemies of the church, not simply a person who has stopped believing in it's divine origin. A person can (and often does) stop going to church without turning against every principle the church stands for. If a person leaves the church, abandons all of it's teachings and starts publicly badmouthing the church and it's leaders and fighting against it, then they are an apostate. If every inactive and unbelieving member were considered apostate then there would be no effort to reactivate them.

[katherine the great]

Also, I think the book of Hosea has something to say on this topic.

[Jaybear]

LDS leaders define apostasy in terms of action, not thought. Apostates are generally defined as enemies of the church, not simply a person who has stopped believing in it's divine origin. A person can (and often does) stop going to church without turning against every principle the church stands for. If a person leaves the church, abandons all of it's teachings and starts publicly badmouthing the church and it's leaders and fighting against it, then they are an apostate. If every inactive and unbelieving member were considered apostate then there would be no effort to reactivate them.

So you are saying that someone who resigns is not an apostate, unless they publicly badmouth and fight against the church?

Interesting.

[Luigi]

I think Luigi raises a good point. How often do we hear about how couragous an LDS convert was to lose their family and choose the gospel, yet a Mormon who leaves Mormonism has "torn his/her family apart".

Amen.