Lesbian Couple Divorce to Join the Church

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I guess my point is:  divorce is hardly different in kind from leaving family behind if that interferes with discipleship.  Just another species of taking up the cross.

That metaphor of "taking up the cross" in the ears of people who saw others nailed up and tortured to death as a regular "thing" should give us all pause:  it isn't supposed to be easy.  It's supposed to be hard and heartbreaking, but ultimately rewarding because  ...  how can you not?

That makes sense to me, with the caveat that if one has taken on obligations, legal or otherwise, to care for dependent children, one would still be bound to honor those obligations even if the marriage ended. I should think the Church would teach that to individuals. 

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And what about any of the children involved in these marriages?

Consequences.  The children bear the consequences of their parents' choices, alas.  I wish it didn't have to be.  But there it is:  let's not fall into the trap of imputing the "choice" to the Church for the consequences born by the child of the erring parent; the fault should be recognized as falling solely on the one making the bad choice.

Those imputing fault to the Church lack clear reasoning.  The Church is the ref, not a player in this drama.

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That makes sense to me, with the caveat that if one has taken on obligations, legal or otherwise, to care for dependent children, one would still be bound to honor those obligations even if the marriage ended. I should think the Church would teach that to individuals. 

I imagine they would.  The innocent victims of parents' poor choices cannot be further victimized [to split an infinitive] in the repentance process.  All consequences have to be addressed, including and especially the security and well-being of the children.

[Darren10]

One thing is for sure, regardless what the Church officially teaches "to divorce", it did actively annul many Mormon marriages after polygamy was formally banned. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I guess my point is:  divorce is hardly different in kind from leaving family behind if that interferes with discipleship.  Just another species of taking up the cross.

That metaphor of "taking up the cross" in the ears of people who saw others nailed up and tortured to death as a regular "thing" should give us all pause:  it isn't supposed to be easy.  It's supposed to be hard and heartbreaking, but ultimately rewarding because  ...  how can you not?

People who get married make vows to each other.  The church is generally not going to teach anyone to break a vow (a mutual decision to divorce would be different than having one person just up and decide to leave against the wishes of the other) so that one person can be baptized.  

Also, when children are the ones impacted, then yes, it's a different thing than just deciding to 'take up the cross'.  

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Consequences.  The children bear the consequences of their parents' choices, alas.  I wish it didn't have to be.  But there it is:  let's not fall into the trap of imputing the "choice" to the Church for the consequences born by the child of the erring parent; the fault should be recognized as falling solely on the one making the bad choice.

Those imputing fault to the Church lack clear reasoning.  The Church is the ref, not a player in this drama.

I highly doubt that the church leaders would ever advise a married couple to divorce when there are children involved.  That would include couples in a polygamous marriage and in a SSM.  I think you are completely wrong here about this.

Edited August 24, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

People who get married make vows to each other.  The church is generally not going to teach anyone to break a vow (a mutual decision to divorce would be different than having one person just up and decide to leave against the wishes of the other) so that one person can be baptized.  

Also, when children are the ones impacted, then yes, it's a different thing than just deciding to 'take up the cross'.  

Exactly.

[USU78]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Also, when children are the ones impacted, then yes, it's a different thing than just deciding to 'take up the cross'.  

The Savior didn't apparently think so.  Has He changed His mind?

[USU78]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

People who get married make vows to each other.

There's a concept in law of the illegal contract.  You cannot sue me, for example, if I renege on a promise to off your husband for pay:  the very substance of the contract makes it unenforceable.

With homosexual marriage, we have an analogous situation from the Church's perspective:  vows given and gotten concerning a subject matter that is per se sinful are null.

Logically, however, a homosexual marriage partner needing support from his/her partner, upon divorce should be required to be supported by the partner as part of that partner's repentance process in order to ameliorate bad consequences of the partners' bad choice.  Neither the State, the Church or the families of the partners should shoulder that burden.  Having any of those come in and have to provide support would be inimical to that partner's repentance.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The Savior didn't apparently think so.

When did the Savior speak about a circumstance when it is necessary to divorce (especially if there are children involved)?  Do you have a reference? 

[USU78]

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I highly doubt that the church leaders would ever advise a married couple to divorce when there are children involved.  That would include couples in a polygamous marriage and in a SSM.  I think you are completely wrong here about this.

You're arguing from ignorance, since homosexual marriage is such a new thing in the world we cannot know for certain the Church wouldn't so advise as a condition of repentance.

Support of children is a separate issue that you're conflating, and the Church has a long policy of denying full fellowship to those who won't/don't support their children.

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

When did the Savior speak about a circumstance when it is necessary to divorce (especially if there are children involved)?  Do you have a reference? 

Read up on my prior posts citing to what the Master is reported to have said about disciples who value family relationships over discipleship.

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You're arguing from ignorance, since homosexual marriage is such a new thing in the world we cannot know for certain the Church wouldn't so advise as a condition of repentance.

So, it is you who is arguing from ignorance.  We do have the record of what the church has apparently advised regarding polygamous marriages and I would imagine they'd do the same with SSM.   They treat the baptism of the children involved in both types of marriages in the same manner as well.

Do you believe a church leader would ever advise a married couple to divorce when there are children involved?  (Unless there is child abuse involved.)

Edited August 24, 2017 by ALarson
spelling correction

[Daniel2]

47 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

One thing is for sure, regardless what the Church officially teaches "to divorce", it did actively annul many Mormon marriages after polygamy was formally banned. 

Did it....?  Do you have a reference for that?

My maternal grandma was born in the Mormon Mexican Colonies in Guadalajara.  Her family histories are filled with stories about the hardship that my faithful polygamist ancestors endured after the Manifesto discontinued polygamy and they were forced to flee form the US territory of Utah to Mexico, where these polygamist members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ultimately founded the Mormon-Mexican colonies so that husbands/fathers could peacefully--and FAITHFULLY (as active members of the church living outside of the United States and it's associated territories)--live out the rest of their lives while being married to their wives and caring for the children... Needless to say, the younger generation didn't follow in their parent's marital footsteps, as polygamist marriages were discontinued...

Those are the stories that I've read and heard repeated at countless Family Reunions over the course of 30 years....

I've never heard that the LDS church 'annulled' the polygamist marriages of it's members post-Manifesto--just that the practice of performing plural marriages was being discontinued.

Can you provide some references to back up your facts, Darren?

D

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you believe a church leader would ever advise a married couple to divorce when there are children involved?  (Unless there is child abuse involved.)

Yes.  I have anecdotal evidence in confidence that it is done with heterosexual marriages [in the presence of abuse of spouse and/or child].  If we take the position that homosexual marriage is inimical to children's well-being [and it's no stretch to find such a position implicit in the Declaration on the Family], we could make a similar argument to the one you make in the part of your post I don't quote.

How wide-spread the advice is I cannot say.  Were I the Bishop of an abused woman or whose children are being abused by her husband, I certainly would advise her to get the 4377 out of the marriage as quickly as possible and, under the right circumstances, into a shelter with the kids.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Did it....?  Do you have a reference for that?

My maternal grandma was born in the Mormon Mexican Colonies in Guadalajara.  Her family histories are filled with stories about the hardship that my faithful polygamist ancestors endured after the Manifesto discontinued polygamy and they were forced to flee form the US territory of Utah to Mexico, where these polygamist members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ultimately founded the Mormon-Mexican colonies so that husbands/fathers could peacefully--and FAITHFULLY (as active members of the church living outside of the United States and it's associated territories)--live out the rest of their lives while being married to their wives and caring for the children... Needless to say, the younger generation didn't follow in their parent's marital footsteps, as polygamist marriages were discontinued...

Those are the stories that I've read and heard repeated at countless Family Reunions over the course of 30 years....

I've never heard that the LDS church 'annulled' the polygamist marriages of it's members post-Manifesto--just that the practice of performing plural marriages was being discontinued.

Can you provide some references to back up your facts, Darren?

D

None of my ancestor's polygamous marriages were annulled (from either side of my family).  They all went down to the Mexican Colonies to live just as you describe above. 

[Daniel2]

18 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You're arguing from ignorance, since homosexual marriage is such a new thing in the world we cannot know for certain the Church wouldn't so advise as a condition of repentance.

Uh... we can know for certain--the church and it's leaders simply have to clarify. It's been almost two years since the policy was announced.  How long do you think is reasonable for the church to decide whether or not it recommends getting divorced to get baptized is preferable or not...? 

Or do you think the Church (or God, whichever you believe is responsible for the policy) didn't consider that before announcing the policy?

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Yes.  I have anecdotal evidence in confidence that it is done with heterosexual marriages [in the presence of abuse of spouse and/or child].  

Exactly what I did not ask for.  Read my question again (I stated "Unless there is child abuse involved").

How about you try again?

Here's my question:

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you believe a church leader would ever advise a married couple to divorce when there are children involved?  (Unless there is child abuse involved.)

 

Edited August 24, 2017 by ALarson

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Uh... we can know for certain--the church and it's leaders simply have to clarify. It's been almost two years since the policy was announced.  How long do you think is reasonable for the church to decide whether or not it recommends getting divorced to get baptized is preferable or not...? 

Or do you think the Church (or God, whichever you believe is responsible for the policy) didn't consider that before announcing the policy?

I am astonished anybody would take the position that neither G-d nor His called servants would consider those inevitable effects.  Do you take that position?

As I posted above, the Church is the ref here, and the adults with children making bad choices who are responsible for the consequences suffered by innocents.

[Daniel2]

8 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Yes.  I have anecdotal evidence in confidence that it is done with heterosexual marriages [in the presence of abuse of spouse and/or child].  If we take the position that homosexual marriage is inimical to children's well-being [and it's no stretch to find such a position implicit in the Declaration on the Family], we could make a similar argument to the one you make in the part of your post I don't quote.

How wide-spread the advice is I cannot say.  Were I the Bishop of an abused woman or whose children are being abused by her husband, I certainly would advise her to get the 4377 out of the marriage as quickly as possible and, under the right circumstances, into a shelter with the kids.

I think it's clear from an LDS standpoint that each individual's, couples', and even LDS bishops' role to receive personal revelation for individual couples, and, as such, it isn't unrealistic or outlandish to think that there have been occasions in which local leadership has had the freedom and "the inspiration" (if that's your belief) to recommend divorce may be the best course in the face of tragically unfortunate circumstances....

But I don't think that's what's been discussed here.  Assumptions have been made that The Church, as a whole, has a stance/policy/teaching about polygamist marriages (that individuals in polygamist marriages shouldn't get divorced in order to get baptized) that may or may not be different than same-gender marriages.  We're trying to find out if there's any evidence of such a teaching from the church.  Hope that helps clarify.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

I am astonished anybody would take the position that neither G-d nor His called servants would consider those inevitable effects.  Do you take that position?

As I posted above, the Church is the ref here, and the adults with children making bad choices who are responsible for the consequences suffered by innocents.

So once again, do you believe the church leaders would advise a SSM couple to divorce if there are children involved (and no abuse present)?

Yes or no?

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Here's my question:   "Unless there is child abuse involved"

You left out abuse of spouse.  I was clarifying scope.  

Sheesh.

[USU78]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

So once again, do you believe the church leaders would advise a SSM couple to divorce if there are children involved (and no abuse present)?

Yes or no?

I don't know, but I suspect yes.  The Church isn't in the business of shielding people from the consequences of their poor choices.  The Church is in the business of teaching people correct principles and assisting them in seeking to ameliorate the consequences of their poor choices.

But then you already knew that.

[Daniel2]

10 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I am astonished anybody would take the position that neither G-d nor His called servants would consider those inevitable effects.  Do you take that position?

As I posted above, the Church is the ref here, and the adults with children making bad choices who are responsible for the consequences suffered by innocents.

I'm glad you agree that it's likely and logical that both "G-d" and "His called servants would consider these inevitable effects."  No, I wouldn't take a position that they wouldn't have.

That being said, why would you suggest that "homosexual marriage is such a new thing in the world" that "we cannot know for certain the Church wouldn't so advise as a condition of repentance"?

If, as we both presume, "G-d and His called servants" really did "consider those inevitable effects" before announcing the policy almost 2 years ago, why should the "newness" of same-sex marriage have any bearing on whether or not the Church would so advise or not?

Edited August 24, 2017 by Daniel2

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

  We're trying to find out if there's any evidence of such a teaching from the church.  Hope that helps clarify.

The question was already answered:  there's anecdotal evidence it may be happening, but how widespread it is isn't at all clear.

One thing is clear, to me at least:  the Church won't announce any official, always applicable policy until and unless it's darned good and ready.