Latter-Day Divorce

[_moksha]

Dr. Daniel Peterson added this:

Was Elder Oaks too hard on divorcees?
Not nearly as hard as Jesus was.

[_Mister Scratch]

I found Elder Oaks's talk to be riddled with contradiction and mixed messages. Underscoring everything, of course, is the de rigueur insistence upon obedience and obeisance to the Church and its teachings. One of the more peculiar portions of the talk was this nugget, towards the end:

The best way to avoid divorce from an unfaithful, abusive, or unsupportive spouse is to avoid marriage to such a person. If you wish to marry well, inquire well. Associations through "hanging out" or exchanging information on the Internet are not a sufficient basis for marriage. There should be dating, followed by careful and thoughtful and thorough courtship. There should be ample opportunities to experience the prospective spouse's behavior in a variety of circumstances. Fiancés should learn everything they can about the families with whom they will soon be joined in marriage.

Here he seems to be describing a very thorough, high-standards approach to choosing a mate. (All of which seems contrary to other dictates from the Brethren about getting married ASAP, and not postponing it for academic and/or career goals). Look at what Elder Oaks (confusingly) says next:

In all of this, we should realize that a good marriage does not require a perfect man or a perfect woman. It only requires a man and a woman committed to strive together toward perfection.

(emphasis added.)

I also found this quote to be somewhat disturbing in its implications:

A woman who persisted in an intolerable marriage for many years until the children were raised explained: "There were three parties to our marriage—my husband and I and the Lord. I told myself that if two of us could hang in there, we could hold it together."

Basically, Oaks seems to be suggesting that women who are suffering just need to "suck it up" and put up with all manner of abuse. (It is quite interesting, in my opinion, that he never provides an example of a man who must endure.) This point is echoed again in the next paragraph:

The power of hope expressed in these examples is sometimes rewarded with repentance and reformation, but sometimes it is not. Personal circumstances vary greatly. We cannot control and we are not responsible for the choices of others, even when they impact us so painfully. I am sure the Lord loves and blesses husbands and wives who lovingly try to help spouses struggling with such deep problems as pornography or other addictive behavior or with the long-term consequences of childhood abuse.

Obviously, "porn addiction" tends not to be a problem that afflicts women. Thus, the talk seems more and more like a barely veiled address to women primarily, telling them that they must endure all manner of abuse from their priesthood holder husbands.

Next Oaks offers up this sick carrot:

Whatever the outcome and no matter how difficult your experiences, you have the promise that you will not be denied the blessings of eternal family relationships if you love the Lord, keep His commandments, and just do the best you can.

Huh? Not only do these women have to suffer from the men in their lives, they get stuck with the "blessings" of staying with them throughout eternity too? All in all, I thought this was amongst the most baffling of all the talks of this GC.

[_Jason Bourne]

I found Elder Oaks's talk to be riddled with contradiction and mixed messages. Underscoring everything, of course, is the de rigueur insistence upon obedience and obeisance to the Church and its teachings. One of the more peculiar portions of the talk was this nugget, towards the end:

The best way to avoid divorce from an unfaithful, abusive, or unsupportive spouse is to avoid marriage to such a person. If you wish to marry well, inquire well. Associations through "hanging out" or exchanging information on the Internet are not a sufficient basis for marriage. There should be dating, followed by careful and thoughtful and thorough courtship. There should be ample opportunities to experience the prospective spouse's behavior in a variety of circumstances. Fiancés should learn everything they can about the families with whom they will soon be joined in marriage.

Here he seems to be describing a very thorough, high-standards approach to choosing a mate. (All of which seems contrary to other dictates from the Brethren about getting married ASAP, and not postponing it for academic and/or career goals). Look at what Elder Oaks (confusingly) says next:

In all of this, we should realize that a good marriage does not require a perfect man or a perfect woman. It only requires a man and a woman committed to strive together toward perfection.

(emphasis added.)

I also found this quote to be somewhat disturbing in its implications:

A woman who persisted in an intolerable marriage for many years until the children were raised explained: "There were three parties to our marriage—my husband and I and the Lord. I told myself that if two of us could hang in there, we could hold it together."

Basically, Oaks seems to be suggesting that women who are suffering just need to "suck it up" and put up with all manner of abuse. (It is quite interesting, in my opinion, that he never provides an example of a man who must endure.) This point is echoed again in the next paragraph:

The power of hope expressed in these examples is sometimes rewarded with repentance and reformation, but sometimes it is not. Personal circumstances vary greatly. We cannot control and we are not responsible for the choices of others, even when they impact us so painfully. I am sure the Lord loves and blesses husbands and wives who lovingly try to help spouses struggling with such deep problems as pornography or other addictive behavior or with the long-term consequences of childhood abuse.

Obviously, "porn addiction" tends not to be a problem that afflicts women. Thus, the talk seems more and more like a barely veiled address to women primarily, telling them that they must endure all manner of abuse from their priesthood holder husbands.

Next Oaks offers up this sick carrot:

Whatever the outcome and no matter how difficult your experiences, you have the promise that you will not be denied the blessings of eternal family relationships if you love the Lord, keep His commandments, and just do the best you can.

Huh? Not only do these women have to suffer from the men in their lives, they get stuck with the "blessings" of staying with them throughout eternity too? All in all, I thought this was amongst the most baffling of all the talks of this GC.

Gee did he say just women in any of this? Nope.

You are on a roll. Nothing like reading between the lines.

By the way I did not think it the greatest talk but to read into it what you did is a bit much.

[_Mister Scratch]

Gee did he say just women in any of this? Nope.

Come now, Jason. You no doubt know that language communicates both explicit and implicit meaning. You also no doubt know about the Church's long history vis-a-vis women.

You are on a roll. Nothing like reading between the lines.

By the way I did not think it the greatest talk but to read into it what you did is a bit much.

The main thing I "read into it" was my opinion that it contained "mixed messages." Why does that strike you as being "a bit much"?

[_asbestosman]

The best way to avoid divorce from an unfaithful, abusive, or unsupportive spouse is to avoid marriage to such a person. If you wish to marry well, inquire well. Associations through "hanging out" or exchanging information on the Internet are not a sufficient basis for marriage. There should be dating, followed by careful and thoughtful and thorough courtship. There should be ample opportunities to experience the prospective spouse's behavior in a variety of circumstances. Fiancés should learn everything they can about the families with whom they will soon be joined in marriage.

Here he seems to be describing a very thorough, high-standards approach to choosing a mate. (All of which seems contrary to other dictates from the Brethren about getting married ASAP, and not postponing it for academic and/or career goals). Look at what Elder Oaks (confusingly) says next:

In all of this, we should realize that a good marriage does not require a perfect man or a perfect woman. It only requires a man and a woman committed to strive together toward perfection.

(emphasis added.)

I see no contradiction. Perhaps he should have better clarified things, but I understand the combination of the two to mean that you should be picky about the right attributes (namely faithfulness to the church) and not as picky about other attributes (how good a cook / handyman he / she is). I also see a difference between delaying marriage for a career and delaying marriage because you haven't found a potential candidate who is completely faithful to the church (and actually likes you).

[Analytics]

A woman who persisted in an intolerable marriage for many years until the children were raised explained: "There were three parties to our marriage—my husband and I and the Lord. I told myself that if two of us could hang in there, we could hold it together."

Basically, Oaks seems to be suggesting that women who are suffering just need to "suck it up" and put up with all manner of abuse. (It is quite interesting, in my opinion, that he never provides an example of a man who must endure.)

I grant that his story was not optimal in illustrating his indended point. Is he saying that marriage is only for children and once they're gone that divorce is free game? Reading between the lines in this example seems to indicate this, but that seems to contradict the rest of his talk. That's why I think this example wasn't the best for him to use.

However, nowhere do I read that women should endure all manner of abuse. You are imagining that. Instead I read that a spouse shouldn't destroy a marriage just because the other spouse is fat, leaves the seat up, doesn't take out the trash, forgets anniversaries, or that stuff. One shouldn't even automatically divorce in the case of porn. Do you think porn viewing is abusive? I think it's sick and sad, but I don't think it's in the same category as physical abuse, or even yelling / emotional abuse.

Whatever the outcome and no matter how difficult your experiences, you have the promise that you will not be denied the blessings of eternal family relationships if you love the Lord, keep His commandments, and just do the best you can.

Huh? Not only do these women have to suffer from the men in their lives, they get stuck with the "blessings" of staying with them throughout eternity too? All in all, I thought this was amongst the most baffling of all the talks of this GC.

You are again imagining that Elder Oaks said they'll be stuck with the man they hate. I see it rather as a promise that God will allow them to have a happy eternal marriage in the end, even if it means they are sealed (preferrably singly) to someone else (like a child who died before 8) in the eternities.

[_Yoda]

I grant that his story was not optimal in illustrating his indended point. Is he saying that marriage is only for children and once their gone that divorce is free game? Reading between the lines in this example seems to indicate this, but that seems to contradict the rest of his talk. That's why I think this example wasn't the best for him to use.

However, nowhere do I read that women should endure all manner of abuse. You are imagining that. Instead I read that a spouse shouldn't destroy a marriage just because the spouse is fat, leaves the seat up, doesn't take out the trash, forgets anniversaries, or that stuff. One shouldn't even automatically divorce in the case of porn. Do you think porn viewing is abusive? I think it's sick and sad, but I don't think it's in the same category as physical abuse, or even yelling / emotional abuse.

I didn't hear the talk, so I'm kind of at a disadvantage here. However, from what I read, Scratch, I have to agree with Asbestosman.

Where did Elder Oaks say that women have to put up with abuse?

[_Jason Bourne]

Come now, Jason. You no doubt know that language communicates both explicit and implicit meaning. You also no doubt know about the Church's long history vis-a-vis women.

Yes and yes and I saw no double meaning in Oaks talk that he was slanting against women in the slightest.

You are on a roll. Nothing like reading between the lines.

By the way I did not think it the greatest talk but to read into it what you did is a bit much.

The main thing I "read into it" was my opinion that it contained "mixed messages." Why does that strike you as being "a bit much"?

What I found a bit much was your implication Okas was telling women to put up and shut up when in an abusive relationship.

[_Mister Scratch]

Come now, Jason. You no doubt know that language communicates both explicit and implicit meaning. You also no doubt know about the Church's long history vis-a-vis women.

Yes and yes and I saw no double meaning in Oaks talk that he was slanting against women in the slightest.

You are on a roll. Nothing like reading between the lines.

By the way I did not think it the greatest talk but to read into it what you did is a bit much.

The main thing I "read into it" was my opinion that it contained "mixed messages." Why does that strike you as being "a bit much"?

What I found a bit much was your implication Okas was telling women to put up and shut up when in an abusive relationship.

Hi, Jason. Here is a quote from Elder Oaks's talk, once again:

A woman who persisted in an intolerable marriage for many years until the children were raised explained: "There were three parties to our marriage—my husband and I and the Lord. I told myself that if two of us could hang in there, we could hold it together."

(emphasis added)

I hardly think that "intolerable" is referring to the fact that this guy was a lazy oaf who wouldn't take out the trash. Oaks uses this woman as a positive example, for others to emulate. And, to back up a bit, it is important to remember the basic thesis of the talk, which was against divorce in all but the most absolutely dire situations. When one frames Elder Oaks's remarks within the larger context of commentary on abuse from GAs such as BKP and Richard G. Scott, it becomes quite clear that this most recent entry is saying, at base, "Put up and shut up."

[_harmony]

A woman who persisted in an intolerable marriage for many years until the children were raised explained: "There were three parties to our marriage—my husband and I and the Lord. I told myself that if two of us could hang in there, we could hold it together."

(emphasis added)

I hardly think that "intolerable" is referring to the fact that this guy was a lazy oaf who wouldn't take out the trash. Oaks uses this woman as a positive example, for others to emulate. And, to back up a bit, it is important to remember the basic thesis of the talk, which was against divorce in all but the most absolutely dire situations. When one frames Elder Oaks's remarks within the larger context of commentary on abuse from GAs such as BKP and Richard G. Scott, it becomes quite clear that this most recent entry is saying, at base, "Put up and shut up."

Why would anyone believe that God would want them to stay in a marriage that was unhappy? Man (and woman) is that they might have joy. "Put up and shut up" is just one more example of why this church is led by men. Because God wouldn't want his daughters to be miserable.