Do they really love you?

[talisyn]

The problem I've seen (in my personal life and the lives of some of my friends) is when the spouse leaves the LDS Church he/she tends to act like a kid at Cancun on spring break with his/her first jello shot. It's not a pretty thing, and it makes the 'faithful' spouse miserable. I went to sunny Cali with my daughter to avoid the whole fallout, but I imagine a trip to Europe on the offending spouse's tab would work as well. And it is an offense unless treated right. These things are suppose to be talked about long before hand, no one suddenly wakes up one day and says to themselves 'I don't think I believe in latter-day prophets anymore'.

[Hick Preacher]

I was LDS for 17 years of married life- active in LDS Church for most of those married years.

I was Married in the Temple to a good LDS woman.

I left the LDS Church after explaining my change of religious views over a five year period.

When I left-- the wife noticed the social changes in our lives-- so she divorced me. It was not due to a change in faith or religious conflict between the two of us at all.

It was all due to the social consequences it was having on her. She lost social status due to me leaving.

She also lost economic status- because of the impact leaving the LDS had a short term effect on my career and earning power. We did not have fights over my religious views either--- she saw the consequence and coldly left and divorced me. And that was the end of it.

I think my leaving would not affect all LDS women the way it did my Ex-Wife. But my Ex-Wife viewed my leaving the LDS social system as ruining her social life-- and she did not want to tolerate that.

Alas, her new life did not work out anyway-- she is now a drunk and has a drunk Jack Mormon husband. So My Ex-wife did not readjust into the LDS system as a divorced and single LDS woman either---

Down the road,--I remarried a Woman who was raised as a fifth generation LDS person-- she too prevoiusly left the LDS Church and is an Evangelical Christian.

[talisyn]

I was LDS for 17 years of married life- active in LDS Church for most of those married years.

I was Married in the Temple to a good LDS woman.

I left the LDS Church after explaining my change of religious views over a five year period.

When I left-- the wife noticed the social changes in our lives-- so she divorced me. It was not due to a change in faith or religious conflict between the two of us at all.

It was all due to the social consequences it was having on her. She lost social status due to me leaving.

She also lost economic status- because of the impact leaving the LDS had a short term effect on my career and earning power. We did not have fights over my religious views either--- she saw the consequence and coldly left and divorced me. And that was the end of it.

I think my leaving would not affect all LDS women the way it did my Ex-Wife. But my Ex-Wife viewed my leaving the LDS social system as ruining her social life-- and she did not want to tolerate that.

Alas, her new life did not work out anyway-- she is now a drunk and has a drunk Jack Mormon husband. So My Ex-wife did not readjust into the LDS system as a divorced and single LDS woman either---

Down the road,--I remarried a Woman who was raised as a fifth generation LDS person-- she too prevoiusly left the LDS Church and is an Evangelical Christian.

You were married to a social climber for 17 years and then toss her like a bone to the people on this religious site as an example of a good mormon woman. Nice....

[bluebell]

I don't care what the bible teaches about divorce, if my wife started to beat me or sexually cheat on me, I wouldn't hesitate to divorce her. Those passages were written 2000 years ago in entirely different culture and time where women were treated as property and had little say in anything including whom they married. I support the Church's position on divorce.

Hoops is the first Christian i've ever 'met' who believes, if have understood him correctly, that the bible teaches that about divorce, so it's not so much an issue of not caring what the bible says about it, but interpreting it differently.

I personally do not believe that God teaches, in the bible or anywhere else, that divorce is never justified. His example to us on sacred covenants has always been that if someone breaks their side of the covenant, then the other person is no longer bound by those promises either. Obviously, at least i think to most Christians it's obvious, the righteous justifications for divorce, or the breaking of a marriage covenant, would be rare, of a VERY serious nature and only with the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

[dblagent007]

You were married to a social climber for 17 years and then toss her like a bone to the people on this religious site as an example of a good mormon woman. Nice....

I believe Hick has been called out on his exmo credentials before. His stories of his former Mormon life just don't seem quite right.

[Hoops22]

I don't care what the bible teaches...

Interesting. And predictable.

about divorce,

Is divorce somehow immune to God's wisdom?

if my wife started to beat me or sexually cheat on me, I wouldn't hesitate to divorce her.

Why would divorce be necessary?

Those passages were written 2000 years ago in entirely different culture

So.... it's not God's word?

and time where women were treated as property and had little say in anything including whom they married.

Seems like there are quite a few examples of women in the Bible who had a lot to say. And do.

I support the Church's position on divorce.

I'll support the Biblical position.

[rpn]

To the person who said he didn't know there was a list of approved reasons, I think abuse and adultery are the only things on it:

The Lord then described a higher law of marriage: â??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.â? (Matt. 19:9; italics added.) That is, in the spirit of a higher law, his statement suggests that those who divorce for reasons other than sexual infidelity and then marry someone else have unrighteously divorced, and they commit adultery; but the woman or man whose spouse commits adultery, thus breaking the marriage covenant, may choose to divorce the offending spouse and may marry again and not commit adultery.

The Lordâ??s disciples, apparently concerned about such a strict view regarding divorce, said to the Lord privately, â??If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.â? (Matt. 19:10.) The subject they referred to was divorce not based on infidelity. And on this subject, the Savior was calling attention to the seriousness of the marriage covenant, stressing that inconsequential differences are not acceptable to God as grounds for divorce.

Jesus said that all could not â??receive this sayingâ?â??the whole message of verses 4 through 9â??â??save they to whom it is given.â? (Matt. 19:11.) Obviously, he was referring to a law of marriage higher than some of the social practices of that time.

The first part of â??this sayingâ? is that ideally men and women were to marry and become â??one flesh.â? (Matt. 19:5.) The second part of the message is that they should remain married, or one flesh. (See Matt. 19:6.) The third part is that under some conditionsâ??infidelity of a spouse, for exampleâ??divorce is acceptable if the offended spouse desires it to be so. (See Matt. 19:9.) In the fourth part, he then referred to those who never marry or who become single for various reasonsâ??either through their own choice or because of matters beyond their choice. (See Matt. 19:12.) If he were speaking in our day, the Savior might identify other reasons why some do not marry or why some divorce. He concluded in verse 12 with â??He that is able to receive [this saying], let him receive it.â?

Although in Old Testament times only men could â??put awayâ? their spouses, the Lordâ??s words in Mark 10:12 (Markâ??s telling of the discussion) indicate a changing status for women. In the social system of Jesusâ?? time, apparently some men and women were divorcing their spouses with impunity for relatively insignificant reasons. Whereas in a higher law of marriage to which Jesus referred, men and women are equally responsible for the strength or dissolution of their union.

In these texts dealing with divorce, the sincere reader can discern the Saviorâ??s gentle flexibility and acceptance of divorce when it is clearly necessary. The reader can also see the Lordâ??s recognition of persons whose current societal circumstances are different from the celestial standard.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie has commented, â??Divorce is not part of the gospel plan no matter what kind of marriage is involved. But because men [and women] in practice do not always live in harmony with gospel standards, the Lord permits divorce [as in Mosesâ?? time] for one reason or another, depending upon the spiritual stability of the people involved. â?¦

â??In this day divorces are permitted in accordance with civil statutes, and the divorced persons are permitted by the Church to marry again without the stain of immorality which under a higher system would attend such a course.â? (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1973, 1:547.)

If our societies were on a higher plane, then, marriage covenants would be held in great, sacred trust; essentially, divorce would not exist or be considered except for truly serious reasons such as adultery. I would also suggest that in a higher system, with individuals living in harmony with all the Lordâ??s teachings, there would be no such serious problems and thus no divorce.

Unfortunately, our societies are less than ideal. Some persons do live in unbearably difficult marital circumstances, suffering as victims of spouse abuse, substance abuse, promiscuity, and other evils that are sometimes addressed through divorce as a last resort. In such cases, the Lord in his mercy â??permits his agents to exercise the power to loose [to authorize divorce] as well as the power to bind.â? (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966, p. 204.)

President David O. McKay stated, â??In the light of scripture, ancient and modern, we are justified in concluding that Christâ??s ideal pertaining to marriage is the unbroken home, and conditions that cause divorce are violations of his divine teachings. â?¦ There may be circumstances which make the continuance of the marriage state a greater evil than divorce. But these are extreme casesâ??they are the mistakes, the calamities in the realm of marriage. If we could remove them I would say there never should be a divorce. It is Christâ??s ideal that home and marriage should be perpetualâ??eternal.â? (Treasures of Life, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1965, p. 66.)

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoi..._&hideNav=1

[Hoops22]

Hoops is the first Christian i've ever 'met' who believes, if have understood him correctly, that the bible teaches that about divorce,

Most that I know believe this way. Different circles I guess.

so it's not so much an issue of not caring what the bible says about it, but interpreting it differently.

Actually, no, it's about caring enough about what the Bible reads to actually find out. Interpretations have nothing to do with it. That is always going to be the hidden ball trick.

His example to us on sacred covenants has always been that if someone breaks their side of the covenant, then the other person is no longer bound by those promises either.

I don't recall any such examples. Can you help?

Obviously, at least i think to most Christians it's obvious, the righteous justifications for divorce, or the breaking of a marriage covenant, would be rare, of a VERY serious nature and only with the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

Which means whatever we want it to mean as circumstances warrant.

[bluebell]

Most that I know believe this way. Different circles I guess.

I'm sure that's true.

Actually, no, it's about caring enough about what the Bible reads to actually find out. Interpretations have nothing to do with it. That is always going to be the hidden ball trick.

Hoops, we all know you are incapable of admitting that any other interpretation of the bible than your own could be valid-you don't have to keep proving it to us over and over again. In the future, just assume it's a given.

I don't recall any such examples. Can you help?

The Old Testament is a great place to start.

Which means whatever we want it to mean as circumstances warrant.

I'm sure to some people it probably does.

You've yet to answer the questions in my other post though-unless i've missed it. Could you please do so. I'm interested in your answers.

[Hoops22]

So, no matter what the man does (sexual molestation of children, emotional and physical abuse, flagrant adultery etc..)-the woman is never justified in divorcing him?

Correct.

And likewise, no matter what the woman does (sexual molestation of children, emotional and physical abuse, flagrant adultery etc..)-the man is never justified in divorcing her?

Correct.

You believe the bible teaches that, correct? (just making sure i'm understanding you right)

Correct. Can you point to anywhere in the Bible that teaches otherwise?

Your example will be Mt. 20:9 (I think). Jesus is speaking to Jewish audience and within the context of Joseph wanting to divorce Mary for fornication. This unique application could hardly be useful to gentiles today.

[Hoops22]

Hoops, we all know you are incapable of admitting that any other interpretation of the bible than your own could be valid

You don't know that at all. The reason I know you don't know is because I am in the unique position to know it's untrue.

The Old Testament is a great place to start.

Please do. You'll have a lot to do to justify your statement.

[Hick Preacher]

You were married to a social climber for 17 years and then toss her like a bone to the people on this religious site as an example of a good mormon woman. Nice....

I think viewing what I said as being married to a social climber is an extreme interpretation.People are social creatures. Going to Church with a husband who does not take the sacrament for several years, who used to be the Gospel Doctrine Teacher and in the Elders quorm presidency was socially awkward.Some people would not care much, but others are very sensitive to subtle social protocols, and view certain things as anti-social behavior. Career opps often depend on social status--- my social status due to by apostasy was lowered. This resulted in loss of income.It is an unfortunate revelation to discover that your spouse loves your pay check to the extent that if you do not perform in your career that he/she will move on. This goes hand in hand with other aspects of life that could not be eazy-- such as social akwardness-- or if a spouse were to suffer a disability- or get fat and ugly. Some people leave marriages due to such things too. Some people's "love" for another-- even in marriage is quite conditional.

I believe Hick has been called out on his exmo credentials before. His stories of his former Mormon life just don't seem quite right.

Yes- you are correct - I am a licensed Ex-Mormon in the State of Utah

[Bsix]

I'd be interested in hearing Hick Preacher's ex wife's side of the story.

Six

[Hick Preacher]

I'd be interested in hearing Hick Preacher's ex wife's side of the story.

Six

Me too-- she just left-- did not complain much nor did she wish to have a conversation with me to explain why she was leaving. She just did it.

[cjcampbell]

Your thoughts, would you divorce someone over religion?

Generally, no. If, however, my spouse joined a religion that threatened our financial stability and the safety of family members, I see little choice. I could not in good conscience allow someone who holds community property with me to threaten family trusts or to give all our possessions to some guru in Oregon, for example.

Daniel Rawson, the brother of one of my ancestors, went west with the pioneers and marched with the Mormon Battalion, but his wife never followed him west. She instead became a follower of "the Negro prophet" (according to Rawson's autobiography) and eventually he had to abandon her. He married two other women and died a very old Patriarch with nearly 100 descendants, but he never stopped mourning the loss of his first wife.

[bluebell]

You don't know that at all. The reason I know you don't know is because I am in the unique position to know it's untrue.

I can only go off of what you project on here hoops. If you are projecting things about yourself that aren't true, then you might want to change the way you speak to those you disagree with so the real you comes through more often. I'm sure the real you is a very nice and fun person.

Please do. You'll have a lot to do to justify your statement.

The bible is full of examples that show that God often stops keeping His part of the covenant, when those who have covenanted with Him stop keeping their part.

There are those who would put forth that the unpardonable sin against the Holy GHost is an ultimate example of someone who broke their covenant with God to such an extent that God did not just stop keeping His part of the covenant for a time, but ended the covenant completely and forever.

[Hoops22]

I can only go off of what you project on here hoops. If you are projecting things about yourself that aren't true, then you might want to change the way you speak to those you disagree with so the real you comes through more often.

I don't think I project that at all.

The bible is full of examples that show that God often stops keeping His part of the covenant, when those who have covenanted with Him stop keeping their part.

1) That's God. 2) You wrote "always". 3) God kept his covenant with Israel, despiter her misbehavior.

There are those who would put forth that the unpardonable sin against the Holy GHost is an ultimate example of someone who broke their covenant with God to such an extent that God did not just stop keeping His part of the covenant for a time, but ended the covenant completely and forever.

Then they would be wrong. It doesn't mean that at all. The context is quite clear on this.

[Hick Preacher]

There are those who would put forth that the unpardonable sin against the Holy GHost is an ultimate example of someone who broke their covenant with God to such an extent that God did not just stop keeping His part of the covenant for a time, but ended the covenant completely and forever.

There are those who once thought if a Baptist went and joined the Methodists that an unpardonable sin against the truth of God, and God's covenants were committed. Those who believe that they have been betrayed or were in personal relationship with someone who committed such a crime-- if real or not-- may decide to take action to protect their assets. THis action could include: breaking relationships, breaking all legal ties shunnings , seizing of property-- and on and on.

Added-

After I became single-- I began to wonder about the dynamics of Marriage. Upon my study of the Psyc and Soc/Family studies Journals I could see that each marriage is unique in its bond. Some couples barely stay together. Some marriage partners constantly reevaluate staying or leaving on a frequent basis. While others would never consider leaving a marriage. Each marriage is different.

[bluebell]

I don't think I project that at all.

Nevertheless, it's how you come across quite a lot.

1) That's God.

Yes, i believe it mentioned that i was speaking about God.

2) You wrote "always".

I'm sorry if i was not more clear. I used 'always' to mean 'through-out scripture' or 'always through time'. I should have chose my words better.

3) God kept his covenant with Israel, despiter her misbehavior.

God covenanted with Israel that they would be blessed and protected if they kept their covenant. Israel did not keep their covenant, and God did not bless and protect them until they repented.

Then they would be wrong. It doesn't mean that at all. The context is quite clear on this.

You are wrong. It does mean that. The context is quite clear on this.

[Hoops22]

[quAnd I mean that!

[Teancum]

This is a truely hard and difficult issue. In the end, it is up to each partner to decide what they will do for themselves if faced with this situation.

Yes it is, for both parties.

I would never presume to tell someone what they would do. However, I would fully support a sincere believer if they concluded that the apostacy of their spouse was a marital deal-breaker.

I am not sure I would agree. It depends on the situation.

When two religious people enter into a vow of marriage based on mutually agree-upon religious values it is as binding on the marriage as the vow of fidelity. In fact, I consider the abandonment of the religious covenant to be a form of spiritual infidelity.

I think this is nonsensical. Again there are many variables. What if the spouse that no longer believes has good reasons? What if the believer refuses to explore the evidences that led the non believer to where they are? What if the religious vow was entered into without full disclosure by the religion of the things that could be a testimony challenger or destroyer? Does this not in some ways potentially negate the contract? Is the religion culpable for some of this as well?

Likewise with a marriage base on mutual religious convenant. If a one spouse commits spiritua infidelity through apostacy, the spiritual basis for the marriage has been violated. The marriage can be ended on that basis. It is up to the victimized spouse to decide if there is sufficient basis of hope, trust, and need to for the partnership of marriage to go on.

The question here is who is the victim? Perhaps both are. And again, more often that not, in the LDS Church the covenant is made without many fact that could persuade the parties to make different choices.

Lest you think this is a uniquely LDS concern, my mother-in-law told my wife this weekend that the reason that one of the main reasons her Methodist father sought a divorce from her mother was that she had stopped believing in Jesus Christ and no longer wanted to attend Church.

Stupid ideas are not the providence of LDS only.

The expectation of a mutual religious marriage covenant before God and witnesses is a very deep and significant thing to many people of faith.

This spiritual infidelity is also made much more difficult when the unbelieving spouse is openly hostile toward religion and influences the children in a negative manner.

I think open hostility is another matter.

Just as a spouse may still love a spouse who has committed adultery, a spiritually betrayed spouse may still love their unbelieving partner...but conclude that the spiritual infidelity is a deal breaker.

In most cases they would be wrong to end the marriage IMO. I think your position is radical.

It is up to each person to decide what they are willing to live with...or without.

Certianly

[Teancum]

Maybe this point has been made. But the Bible at least tells us that divorce is not allowed accept for sexual infidelity. Paul tells the believing spouse to stay with the unbeliever and that the believer might be the means to saving the unbeliever.

I think it a rare case where the believing spouse is justified in divorcing the spouse who has lost their belief. I do not think many Church leaders would encourage such council.

[jadams_4242]

So I read a comment in another thread that someone was threatened with divorce because the person had lost their belief in the LDS Church. My original thought was, their spouse doesn't love them, why stay with them?

Well it's complicated I suppose, family, kids, friends it can get messy, but why would you want to stay with someone who would divorce you because you stopped believing in the truthfulness of the LDS Church? To me, IMO, says the person doesn't truly love them. I presented the scenario to my wife who agreed, and asked if the person really did love them, why wouldn't they stick it out and try to help said person who has lost their belief to regain it?

I would only divorce someone I truly loved over a religion, if it became more problem and began to snowball into other areas of our lives.

A good friend of ours just resigned from the Church after he lost his belief in it, but his wife, loving him very much, respected his decision and they are still happily married, he even goes to church with her some times because he truly loves her and wants to spend time with her.

Your thoughts, would you divorce someone over religion?

To me heavenly fathers plan and the entire purpose of our being on earth in mortality would be undermined; everything we have worked for; everything i {we} know to be true; all reason for eternal expectations E;T;C... but having said this; i also have a family that everybody in the world does not have; they are my only reason for living; without a family and the truths that i know of in regards to eternity, I would seriously consider moving on.

[MatthewG]

Interesting. And predictable.

Is divorce somehow immune to God's wisdom?

Why would divorce be necessary?

So.... it's not God's word?

Seems like there are quite a few examples of women in the Bible who had a lot to say. And do.

I'll support the Biblical position.

Typical anti-mormon garbage taking what i said completely apart and twisting it to say what you want. Do you enjoy being a liar? Because what you have quoted, while they are my words, it is not what I said. I don't appreciate it either.

[shalamabobbi]

Your thoughts, would you divorce someone over religion?

Only if she refused to continue taking out the garbage..

(I apologise, I was feeling the need for a chuckle.. carry on.. )