posted
This link has to do with a historical context for when Jesus was asked "shall a man divorce his wife for any cause?" If true, it becomes clear that his answer -- that remarrying is adultery and furthermore divorce causes the wife to commit adultery-- is more along the lines of his "second mile" response. Divorce for "Any Cause"
P.S. Sorry if I lifted this from Hatrack, I'm pretty sure it was elsewhere, though.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has nothing to do with modern law, but with counsel that literalist churches are willing to give their adherents.
Though I was told last week that LDS (Mormon) leaders are never to suggest divorce under any circumstance, ever at all. I found that odd. Can they suggest someone read Doctrine and Covenants 42?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
My stepmother went through that. She was married for 32 years to her first husband and was miserable for about 25 of them. She spent ages in the bishop's office trying to figure out what to do and ultimately decided to divorce on her own.
But I think a bishop being barred from suggesting divorce is an excellent policy. If someone is in danger, then they should be seeing other counselors anyway and he can recommed them. They can suggest divorce. I'm glad there aren't bishops suggesting the breakup of families.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I think the deeper problem is that people in the church, women especially, have to be taught that they have a right to their own answers from God and are not constrained to what is allowed by husband or bishop. We have made some progress.
But yeah, if my mom had left when she should have, I'd never have been born so...
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have never heard a talk or a lesson in church or a church setting that implied anything other than each person has a right to their own revelation and a responsibility to seek for it.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I think a bishop being barred from suggesting divorce is an excellent policy.
I guess it depends both on how such a ban is worded and implemented. If the ban is such that Bishops are never the first one to suggest divorce, then I think thats OK. If a Bishop can't or doesn't recommend separation when peoples physical safety is in danger, then I think thats really bad. If someone comes to their Bishop and specifically asks for council regarding a divorce, I think it would be unfortunate and unwise if the Bishop can not offer support and comfort no matter how clearly a divorce is needed.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I think the deeper problem is that people in the church, women especially, have to be taught that they have a right to their own answers from God and are not constrained to what is allowed by husband or bishop. We have made some progress.
I've been a member of the church for over 4 decades and I have been taught this since my childhood. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and all the early church leaders taught not only that every member of the church had the right to answers from God, but also that they had the duty to seek and obtain personal revelation.
If there are any in the church today who are being taught otherwise, then we have regressed as a church not progressed.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's something you certainly will pick up if you're looking for it. It is not right out there in an article of faith or the Young Women's motto or the Relief Society mission statement.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think that all those talks about everyone seeking for personal revelation are irrelevant in figuring out what our religion teaches?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am unsure that such a ban exists for LDS bishops. My wife and I are both attending marriage counseling and meeting with our bishop. At the first visit, after both of us had explained the situation to him, he said that both of us need to decide what we want, and that if our goals are not compatible, it may be best to cut our loses now and seperate. That's as kind a way I can conceive of for saying, "You might want to consider divorce if all else fails."
As an aside, both of us have decided on securing our marriage.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: It's something you certainly will pick up if you're looking for it. It is not right out there in an article of faith or the Young Women's motto or the Relief Society mission statement.
If you look hard enough for something, you can find it even when its not there.
I know that there are members of the church who don't fully appreciate their own right and responsibility to receive personal inspiration and revelation. But that isn't because our scriptures and leaders aren't making every effort to teach us correct principles.
I know some members of the church (both men and women) who have some really messed up ideas about gender roles. But I also know that those ideas are not taught in our scriptures or by our general authorities.
As I said earlier, in my experience in the church the message that we must all, men and women, seek our own personal testimony, inspiration and revelation on issues relevant to our lives has come through loud and clear. Short of abandoning the idea of priesthood leadership altogether, I'm not sure what more the church can do to teach people that principle.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: that we must all, men and women, seek our own personal testimony, inspiration and revelation on issues relevant to our lives has come through loud and clear.
I'm just curious. Is this really a teaching of the LDS church? And what exactly does it mean?
posted
That is the doctrine of the LDS church. But along with it comes the principle of "stewardship" that we only receive genuine revelation on issues over which we have proper agency. This issue of stewardship is something a lot of people get confused on. Also, there are talks that say you can be a good church member and not be having frequent ecstatic spiritual experiences (I'm thinking of a talk by David Bednar, so fairly recent). Some revelations have bearing on decisions, like whether to move or who to marry. Others may be a witness that something we "believe" is really true. Other things we call revelations would be considered "conscience" or "intuition" by most people.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is this really a teaching of the LDS church? And what exactly does it mean?
Yes.
It means that we all have the right and can hold the expectation of personal revelation for ourselves and of inspiration of how to act concerning those entrusted in our care.
It starts with the Book of Mormon. In Moroni 10:4-5, it reads, "And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with dreal intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the gtruth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."
Nephi (in the Book of Mormon) asked his brothers, when they complained that they did not understand some scripture or revelation, "Have ye inquired of the Lord?"
Brigham Young talked about the necessity of every member gaining knowledge for themselves of the truthfulness of the things of God.
We are constantly instructed in lessons and in General Conference to pray about the scriptures and about our questions and lives to recieve answers concerning the things of God and what he would recommend for our lives.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: It has nothing to do with modern law, but with counsel that literalist churches are willing to give their adherents.
Though I was told last week that LDS (Mormon) leaders are never to suggest divorce under any circumstance, ever at all. I found that odd. Can they suggest someone read Doctrine and Covenants 42?
Who told you this? Cause I know bishops who have counseled people to get a divorce, where the bishop brought it up initially.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:never to suggest divorce under any circumstance, ever at all. I found that odd.
I'd actually be kinda surprised if that's how it worked because I generally think that nearly any faith hereabouts would recommend divorce in the event of things like, say, abuse.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pretty sure Brad Daniel's post removes all doubt as to whether LDS bishops do or do not suggest divorce.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for posting that article. It gives me a foundation to challenge some of what a gospel doctrine teacher was telling us in a class two years ago (if it comes up again). Having the background of what was commonly accepted teachings at the time the Bible was recorded really increases understanding that is otherwise lacking in our modern times as words and meanings have changed through the years.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Church authorities often have a very real counseling postion. Because of this trust I think they have an obligation to bring up divorce when parties in the marriage are facing real personal risk, both physical and emotional.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
