Latter-Day Divorce

[_beastie]

A.I. - have things changed THAT much in the LDS church (re your statement LDS have become too casual regarding divorce). Back when I was an active member around 14 years ago, that was far from the case. Very few members of my ward divorced, and those who did seemed to feel "tainted". I endured an emotionally abusive marriage for 15 years because I was so afraid of the harm divorce would do, and knew others in similar situations. Divorce was practically taboo. Has it really changed that much?

[_asbestosman]

(cjcampbell Today, 11:34 AM Post #167) It is a sin. The Savior himself declared that those who divorce commit adultery.

NO, he did not. Did anyone challenge that erroneous statement?

No, because I don't see how it's erroneous.

"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. " (Matt. 5:32)

[_Jersey Girl]

For what reason is the divorced woman considered as being an adulterer? Why are you ignoring corresponding verses from Luke and Mark?

Jersey Girl

[_asbestosman]

For what reason is the divorced woman considered as being an adulterer? Why are you ignoring corresponding verses from Luke and Mark?

Must be because I'm trying to hide something. Come on Jersey Girl, why not explain your position instead of merely saying that the other one is wrong.

Looking at the other verses it appear that as long as one doesn't remarry (and doesn't marry the divorced) he/she is good to go.

I think that's a semantic distinction especially in light of "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. " (Mark 10: 9).

[_moksha]

Does God still hold with past biblical injunctions when the times change or is his position able to eternally progress as well?

[_Jersey Girl]

For what reason is the divorced woman considered as being an adulterer? Why are you ignoring corresponding verses from Luke and Mark?

Must be because I'm trying to hide something. Come on Jersey Girl, why not explain your position instead of merely saying that the other one is wrong.

Looking at the other verses it appear that as long as one doesn't remarry (and doesn't marry the divorced) he/she is good to go.

I think that's a semantic distinction especially in light of "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. " (Mark 10: 9).

My position? Sure, no problem. In my experience on primarily LDS boards, LDS tend to demonstrate minimal accountability for referencing scripture. When someone inquires as to why they appear to be ignoring corresponding portions of scripture or the context in which the verse appears, in my experience on primarily LDS boards, LDS respond by making idiotic jokes instead of answering serious questions that are posed to them or engaging in comparision of scriptures.

Does that help?

Jersey Girl

[_asbestosman]

My position? Sure, no problem. In my experience on primarily LDS boards, LDS tend to demonstrate minimal accountability for referencing scripture. When someone inquires as to why they appear to be ignoring corresponding portions of scripture or the context in which the verse appears, in my experience on primarily LDS boards, LDS respond by making idiotic jokes instead of answering serious questions that are posed to them or engaging in comparision of scriptures.

Does that help?

Jersey Girl

I meant your position on those divorce scriptures, but what you wrote helps anyhow. If you feel that I still fait to understand the context or meaning of those divorce scriptures, then I should like to know just what your interpretation of it is. Somtimes us guys really are that dense, and we need it spelled out bluntly instead of merely being pointed in the right direction.

I'm not trying to hide anything. I gave my interpretation as best I could.

[_Jersey Girl]

My position? Sure, no problem. In my experience on primarily LDS boards, LDS tend to demonstrate minimal accountability for referencing scripture. When someone inquires as to why they appear to be ignoring corresponding portions of scripture or the context in which the verse appears, in my experience on primarily LDS boards, LDS respond by making idiotic jokes instead of answering serious questions that are posed to them or engaging in comparision of scriptures.

Does that help?

Jersey Girl

I meant your position on those divorce scriptures, but what you wrote helps anyhow. If you feel that I still fait to understand the context or meaning of those divorce scriptures, then I should like to know just what your interpretation of it is. Somtimes us guys really are that dense, and we need it spelled out bluntly instead of merely being pointed in the right direction.

I'm not trying to hide anything. I gave my interpretation as best I could.

ab,

Nowhere in my posts did I say or even imply that you were trying to "hide" anything. Nowhere. Please stop reading into my posts what isn't there. My interpretation of the body of scripture that refers to divorce is that upon remarriage (or fornication) both male and female are considered in a state of adultery.

Now, if you were to ask me why Matthew doesn't contain the specific conditions upon which BOTH male and female would be considered in a state of adultery upon remarriage, I'd have to say "the scribes did it".

Jersey Girl
;-)

[_Alter Idem]

A.I. - have things changed THAT much in the LDS church (re your statement LDS have become too casual regarding divorce). Back when I was an active member around 14 years ago, that was far from the case. Very few members of my ward divorced, and those who did seemed to feel "tainted". I endured an emotionally abusive marriage for 15 years because I was so afraid of the harm divorce would do, and knew others in similar situations. Divorce was practically taboo. Has it really changed that much?

Yes, I'd say things have change a lot. Of course, it also depends on your social circle, but divorce is acceptable for any of the three "A"'s (abuse, addiction, adultery).

I was divorced after two years of marriage (no children) 25 years ago (temple marriage too) and it was tough. My Salt Lake relatives fixed me up with some nice young men from good LDS families, but in the LDS singles ward, being divorced was definitely a drawback for a second date. I ended up marrying a Southern Californian--in Southern Calif. divorce did not have the same stigma--and I've been married almost 21 years, so I've been on both sides of the fence.

I've seen the tides turn--my own divorce was definitely very much a hard thing--but since then we've had four other divorces in my immediate family. Each one was easier, to the point where my parents PAID for my sister's divorce and begged her to do it (he was emotionally abusive) and her Bishop was very supportive. Yes....things have changed. About five years ago our Stake Pres. was extremely concerned with a rash of divorces in the stake--the biggest concern was for couples with children. Then there is more at stake in salvaging the marriage.

[_Alter Idem]

More from MAD:

QUOTE(why me @ Apr 2 2007, 12:55 AM)
Well, this is the point. Since when is divorce a sin? I have never heard it discussed as a sin in the LDS church. And that was my point also. It is not a sin to divorce and if it is not a sin, why repent? And why be judged harshly for not sinning? Now I know that there are divorces where the divorce was unnecessary or that the person left with ill intent. Yes, that person needs to repent for treating another human being harshly. But when two people mutually decide to separate, where is the sin?

QUOTE (cjcampbell Today, 11:34 AM Post #167) It is a sin. The Savior himself declared that those who divorce commit adultery. General authorities have frequently upheld that statement. In our more 'enlightened' time (meaning more tolerant of sin) the Church has had to deal with many more divorced members, but it has never changed its stance.

I think Whyme is too close to the situation to be objective about this. While the church doesn't call Divorce "a sin", CJCampbell is right that the scriptures, and the Lord, did condemn it. That's why the Roman Catholic church takes such a hard line stand against divorce.

As Elder Oaks commented, we are like the Jews in Jesus' day. Divorce is allowed because we can't live up to a higher standard. I'm not saying that divorce shouldn't be allowed. I think it is necessary and a blessing in some cases, but I do think that members of the church need to be careful of falling into the easy divorce culture we find in our society today.

I believe Elder Oaks talk was intended to help couples think carefully about their decision to divorce so that marriages which might be saved, have a chance. Whyme wondered where the problem was when a couple mutually decided to divorce. No problem, except that it undermines the sanctity of marriage and a big problem when there are children involved. They will be effected by the divorce--they are the victims.