Latter-Day Divorce

[_asbestosman]

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.

I got that from when you said, "Why are you ignoring corresponding verses from Luke and Mark?" I interpreted that as an accusation that I was trying to hide what Luke and Mark wrote in order to further my agenda. Apparently you only meant to have me consider what they wrote (which I had, but didn't make clear).

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.

I agree with that interpretation.

[_Jason Bourne]

Pres. Faust said this in the April 2007 Ensign:

Divorce can be justified only in the rarest of circumstances. In my opinion, “just cause” for divorce should be nothing less serious than a prolonged and apparently irredeemable relationship that destroys a person’s dignity as a human being. Divorce often tears people’s lives apart and shears family happiness. Frequently in a divorce the parties lose much more than they gain.

Elder Oaks referenced this article in his talk. I wonder if "spiritual infidelity" qualifies as destroying a persons dignity as a human being. I think in most cases it does not.

[_Jason Bourne]

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?

There is a lot more divorce then there used to be among LDS.

[_moksha]

What do you guys mean by "Spiritual Infidelity"?

[_Jersey Girl]

ab

I got that from when you said, "Why are you ignoring corresponding verses from Luke and Mark?" I interpreted that as an accusation that I was trying to hide what Luke and Mark wrote in order to further my agenda. Apparently you only meant to have me consider what they wrote (which I had, but didn't make clear).

Nowhere on this thread have I stated or implied that you have an "agenda".

I...asked...you...a...simple....question.

and now I truly give up trying to communicate with people who choose to read my mind rather than read and respond to the actual words that I put on a screen before their very eyes.

No really.

Jersey Girl

[_Alter Idem]

ab

I got that from when you said, "Why are you ignoring corresponding verses from Luke and Mark?" I interpreted that as an accusation that I was trying to hide what Luke and Mark wrote in order to further my agenda. Apparently you only meant to have me consider what they wrote (which I had, but didn't make clear).

Nowhere on this thread have I stated or implied that you have an "agenda".

I...asked...you...a...simple....question.

and now I truly give up trying to communicate with people who choose to read my mind rather than read and respond to the actual words that I put on a screen before their very eyes.

No really.

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl, are you suggesting Jesus was misquoted? I don't believe he was and I don't believe Luke and Mark change anything.

Jesus was reminding the Jews that they knew what the original law was. They couldn't live it and Moses made exceptions. By Jesus' day, those exceptions had gotten to the point where a wife could be put away for very little reason. Jesus was telling them that this was wrong--even if their church removed consequenses or punishment for actions, it did not take away the eternal consequences or the damage which would come from their choices.

[_Alter Idem]

What do you guys mean by "Spiritual Infidelity"?

They are referring to when a spouse loses their faith. Some have suggested that this is grounds for divorce. From my understanding of LDS church doctrinces, I would say it is not.

[_Alter Idem]

Sigh...

I noticed on the other board that Kenngo gave some very excellent comments but, as usual, his remarks got lost. It would really help if everyone who discussed it had actually heard the talk and didn't just take their position from what others said he said.

[_asbestosman]

Nowhere on this thread have I stated or implied that you have an "agenda".

I know. I was only trying to tell you why I misinterpreted you.

I...asked...you...a...simple....question.

I see that now, and I'm glad to learn that's all it was.

and now I truly give up trying to communicate with people who choose to read my mind rather than read and respond to the actual words that I put on a screen before their very eyes.

Look, I've been raised with the expectation that I must try to read other's intentions. I'm decent at it when it's in my own family, but I see it's entirely inappropriate with you. In fact, I prefer your method of not playing mind games, so I thank you for that.

I know this isn't your fault, and I can't expect you to know this, but my family would word things differently if they didn't want to accuse me. They would have worded your question thusly: "What about the corresponding verses from Luke and Mark?" Notice that the word you has been removed -- thus taking their (hypothetical) tacit accusation away from me.

Anyhow, it is wrong for me to expect you to speak Asbestosman dialect. I'm just trying to explain why I misread you. It is not your fault. In the future I will not read between the lines from you. I'm happy to learn that I need not do so (and indeed that doing so is bad).

No really.

Jersey Girl, I apologize for misreading you and making bad assumptions.

[_ajax18]

I think the world is way to casual about divorce. I find it interesting that the Brethren are standing up against it, when modern morality seems to say you can divorce for any reason you want if children aren't involved. I wonder how long they'll be able to hold out and not just change with popular opinion and revert to the lesser law.