"Spiritual Infidelity"?????

[_Yoda]

Bsix has started an interesting thread on MAD. He used the term "spiritual infidelity" when referring to an apostate spouse. It's an interesting choice of terms.

Here are his comments from the thread. I thought I would throw it out here for some insights as well:

In the case of a sincere temple marriage in which one partner chooses to stop believing and practicing Mormonism...does the still faithful Latter Day Saint spouse have the moral right to end the marriage if they want?

Is that a terrible thing?

Is it insensitive?

Is it placing a love of God and heaven over a love of an apostate spouse?

Is the desire to have an eternal family justification to end a marriage and break up a family?

Is ending such a marriage justified because to continue puts the faith and eternal welfare of children at risk?

Is divorce for such a reason an act of bigotry?

Is spiritual infidelity as justifiable reason for divorce as adultery, failure to support, abandonment, abuse?

Are views on this subject tainted by the believing (or unbelief) of the beholder?

I would not automatically advocate divorce in the case of an apostate spouse. Each situation is different. However, in cases where a temple marriage was entered into with sincerity and eternal promises made, I can see where apostacy is a form of infidelity as cruel and betraying as sexual infidelity. I can see a believing spouse desiring to move on in their desire to find a spiritual spouse.

[_truth dancer]

In the case of a sincere temple marriage in which one partner chooses to stop believing and practicing Mormonism...does the still faithful Latter Day Saint spouse have the moral right to end the marriage if they want?

Like people just suddenly decide to stop believing. What nonsense. I have yet to hear one person suggest they choose to stop believing.

People can get a divorce for whatever reason they want... believing different things about the mysteries of life is a stupid a reason as wanting to have different color paint in your kitchen. Unbelievable that someone cares so little about marriage and family and children they would think it appropriate to divorce a spouse because they don't believe the same things. WOW!

Is that a terrible thing?

Ummmm YEAH!

Is it insensitive?

It shows how little one cares for their spouse, family, and children.

Is it placing a love of God and heaven over a love of an apostate spouse?

It is placing complete nonsense and religious elitist selfishness over the love of God, family, spouse, children, family.

Is the desire to have an eternal family justification to end a marriage and break up a family?

Lets see.... a woman stays married to her non-believing spouse and gets assigned to another man as a polygamous wife in the CK... OR, a woman gets a divorce, lives as a single mother, destroys her family, harms her children and gets assigned to anohter man as a polygamous wife in the CK. OK then....

Is ending such a marriage justified because to continue puts the faith and eternal welfare of children at risk?

Huh? If a woman gets a divorce all of a sudden the non-believing father is out of the picture? WHAT? Are you kidding? This makes no sense to me at all. Children will be with the mom half the weekends, half the holidays, half the summers... The children will be with their father the other half of the time. This thought is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Is divorce for such a reason an act of bigotry?

I don't even know what to call it... selfishness? Eliticism? Over the top religiosity? Fundamentalism? Being STUPID?

Is spiritual infidelity as justifiable reason for divorce as adultery, failure to support, abandonment, abuse?

Ohhhh please. Spiritual infidelity? Believing something different is spiritual infidelity? WOW... and someone is putting differences of belief in the same catagory as abuse and abandonment. You have got to be kidding!

Are views on this subject tainted by the believing (or unbelief) of the beholder?

I know plenty of great couples where one is a believe and one is not. They are happy, healthy, respectful couples with great families. Any man or woman who would divorce their spouse because of difference of beliefs doesn't care about their spouse, family, or children.

I would not automatically advocate divorce in the case of an apostate spouse. Each situation is different. However, in cases where a temple marriage was entered into with sincerity and eternal promises made, I can see where apostacy is a form of infidelity as cruel and betraying as sexual infidelity. I can see a believing spouse desiring to move on in their desire to find a spiritual spouse.

And what about the couple who are married as agnostics and one joins the church... OMG get a divorce. You changed your mind. You believe differently than do I. I want nothing to do with you. You are cruel and betrayed me. Wow.... pretty unbelievable!

~dancer~

[_Yoda]

Hi, TD! :)

Your views and mine are virtually the same on this issue.

I was, actually, glad to see that most of the staunch TBM's were on "our side of the camp" on this one.

Jullian made a point of chiming in that "the family Trump's"....so kudos to Jullian on that one!

There was another point made that I do agree with. If the non-believing spouse insists on squelching the believing spouse's right to attend Church, insists on bringing alchohol into the home against the other spouse's wishes, etc. then it becomes a problem of respect, which could, obviously lead to marital problems, but that's a separate issue.

[_harmony]

Bsix has started an interesting thread on MAD. He used the term "spiritual infidelity" when referring to an apostate spouse. It's an interesting choice of terms.

Here are his comments from the thread. I thought I would throw it out here for some insights as well:

In the case of a sincere temple marriage in which one partner chooses to stop believing and practicing Mormonism...does the still faithful Latter Day Saint spouse have the moral right to end the marriage if they want?

Is that a terrible thing?

Is it insensitive?

Is it placing a love of God and heaven over a love of an apostate spouse?

Is the desire to have an eternal family justification to end a marriage and break up a family?

Is ending such a marriage justified because to continue puts the faith and eternal welfare of children at risk?

Is divorce for such a reason an act of bigotry?

Is spiritual infidelity as justifiable reason for divorce as adultery, failure to support, abandonment, abuse?

Are views on this subject tainted by the believing (or unbelief) of the beholder?

I would not automatically advocate divorce in the case of an apostate spouse. Each situation is different. However, in cases where a temple marriage was entered into with sincerity and eternal promises made, I can see where apostacy is a form of infidelity as cruel and betraying as sexual infidelity. I can see a believing spouse desiring to move on in their desire to find a spiritual spouse.

That's one definition, I suppose (and I agree with both TD and Liz's comments). Another definition would be one spouse that ignores the other in order to excessively fulfill callings, bails on the family in order to be supportive of someone else (or several someone's) in the ward, places others' needs ahead of the family needs, spends family money on others to the extent that it places the family in bankruptcy or jeapardizes their welfare. I've seen that kind of "spiritual infidelity", and it's broken up some LDS families where both parties are strong in the gospel. A divorce attorney I spoke with at a conference once said that would be grounds for divorce.

[_Yoda]

That's one definition, I suppose (and I agree with both TD and Liz's comments). Another definition would be one spouse that ignores the other in order to excessively fulfill callings, bails on the family in order to be supportive of someone else (or several someone's) in the ward, places others' needs ahead of the family needs, spends family money on others to the extent that it places the family in bankruptcy or jeapardizes their welfare. I've seen that kind of "spiritual infidelity", and it's broken up some LDS families where both parties are strong in the gospel. A divorce attorney I spoke with at a conference once said that would be grounds for divorce.

That's definitely the "flip side" of the coin, Harmony.

I have seen this happen as well.

Bsix continues to be on a kick on that thread regarding equating a spouse's apostasy from the Church with sexual infidelity.

Beastie gave a very plausible, well-thought out answer, stating that if there are kids involved, the kids' needs should Trump the parents as long as there isn't abuse involved.

Bsix countered with the question of whether or not she would feel the same way about sexual infidelity. I loved her answer:

Would you feel the same in cases of sexual infidelity? If one partner decided on an open marriage and proceeded to engage in safe sex with partners outside the marriage? Would you advocate the spouses stay together for the sake of the children?

Of course that is complicated by the risk of STDs, so that has to be factored into the equation. But other than that real health risk, my answer would be similar to the one above. People do manage to live with practically sexless marriages, sad as it is.

So, generally, yes - like my answer above, it all depends on the home environment created by the difference. If the difference causes such serious disruption that there is constant conflict and anger at home, then divorce is probably reasonable. But if it's something that just causes private grief to the parents, and otherwise the home environment is stable and calm - it will probably harm the children to divorce.

So I guess it just depends on your priorities, in the end, and how much private grief you can tolerate without allowing it to poison the home environment.

I know it sounds rather cold and callous - but look, kids eventually grow up and move out and then you can focus more on just your needs. (generic you) Divorce - while at times a totally reasonable choice - is so potentially harmful to kids, that, in my opinion, once kids are involved, they Trump private needs.

I actually know more than one woman who divorced her husband due to sexual infidelity and then realized she'd created a worse situation with the divorce than the infidelity caused, and wished she'd just found a way to tolerate it, in retrospect.

[_Gazelam]

I would have to say it would depend on the individual cases. To what extent is the person apostate? Is he building anti-mormon websites? Does he/she simply have a problem with the current bishop? It all depends. If the spouse is preaching against the church to the children, then I would say get divorced. If its just a minor matter, then stay.

[_harmony]

I would have to say it would depend on the individual cases. To what extent is the person apostate? Is he building anti-mormon websites? Does he/she simply have a problem with the current bishop? It all depends. If the spouse is preaching against the church to the children, then I would say get divorced. If its just a minor matter, then stay.

To me, it depends on the believing spouse. Does he/she love their spouse? If so, then why would anyone even consider divorcing someone they love in order to chase some elusive "possible"? As long as there's a possibility that they can work it out (and many couples have), throwing away a marriage, especially one with children, is against those same temple vows they're so anxious to preserve.

[_Gazelam]

Because for most people in the church, its not about a "possibility", its about Fact

[_harmony]

Because for most people in the church, its not about a "possibility", its about Fact

There you go again, Gaz. There's 12 million people in the church, at least half of which are totally inactive or have forgotten they were dunked by some white boys. So there's no way you can say "most". Say "a goodly number" or "some" or "many". And most people in the church, even those who are totally active, don't think of eternity as a "fact". Even the prophets don't lay it down as fact (well, most of them... Brigham tended to overstep himself quite frequently, but that's another thread).

[_Jason Bourne]

I would have to say it would depend on the individual cases. To what extent is the person apostate? Is he building anti-mormon websites? Does he/she simply have a problem with the current bishop? It all depends. If the spouse is preaching against the church to the children, then I would say get divorced. If its just a minor matter, then stay.

If the unbelieving spouse is preaching against the Church to the kids and there is a divorce, the unbelieving spouse is will still almost always be involved with his/her children and thus can still preach against the Church. TD noted this above.

I agree with ALL TD wrote.

But I can see how, when the marriage in entered into when both believe and a temple marriage is made, how this could be viewed at least as some sort of breach in a marital promise.