Comments on: Can Mormons get Divorced?

By: Thaddeus

Thaddeus — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 06:55:48 +0000

We don’t think they’re odd, if that’s what you’re implying…

Or do you mean “even” as in, they’ve finally “gotten even” or “broken even” with the oppressive Anglos? I don’t think that’s a question at all addressed by Mormon theology.

Maybe you’re asking whether we believe they are level-headed decision-makers. I suppose they are; maybe not every one. I’m sure most are good, honorable Americans, but an American’s ancestry isn’t the best indicator of “even-ness”.

By: aqua

aqua — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:08:13 +0000

do mormons think that african american people are even?

By: Bus

Bus — Mon, 18 May 2009 18:31:05 +0000

You are probably right Aaron, I doubt if God would utilize the geo/political boundaries to determine who is punished. It would be nice to think that only the sinners get their just rewards, but I’m reminded of the story of Abraham arguing with the Lord who is about to destroy a city.
But I’m getting off topic, I was originally just puzzling over why the church would stick its neck out on such a volital issue that would end up only bringing public condemnation on them?

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sun, 17 May 2009 14:35:26 +0000

Bus, when you said ‘Perhaps the Mormons don’t want California dealt with like the Lord dealt with Sodom in the Old Testament?’, are you saying that God would choose to destroy the entirety of California just because Proposition 8 was passed? I do not agree with that.

By: Bus Gillespie

Bus Gillespie — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 22:53:37 +0000

Diana – I must disagree with you, if you agree with me then you are a great critical thinker.
On another level, the Sunday School lesson today was about the establishment of the church as an official body. There were gathered together in that small home 50 baptised members, 6 of which signed the papers required by the State of New York to form a church. The thought I had was that there is a difference between the church and the gospel and we shouldn’t confuse the two. The church is an instrument the Lord uses to propogate his gospel message. It is a handy instrument both for the Lord and for the members. When Christ was teaching he apparently made some evangelists and some teachers, etc., but we don’t read about a formal church established during his three years of active preaching. It seems a bit more organized when Paul is sending off epistles to the various churches and when they are referenced in Revelations.
When the church was re-estabished on the earth in these days it was after such ordinances as baptism and sacrament were already being practiced. Today the church is a mega corporation that has to deal with a lot of chruch property, temples, and farms. As well as controlling the preaching of 50,000 young missionaries, run a world-class humanitarian project, and keep religion professors at three different universities from straying too far from the doctrine of the gospel. And it has to do all this while staying “established” in about 100 different countries. Sometimes it has to play by the rules of the existing culture but it never has to compromise the basic teachings of the gospel.

By: Diana

Diana — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:58:40 +0000

Well, I am definitely not the best critical thinker. But, Bus, I think you wrote your article very well. It just helped me step back and see the bigger picture of marriage. And it just encouraged me to be a little better. Sometimes that’s all I need.

By: dave

dave — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 01:08:24 +0000

I think Shawn is right. The easiness of divorce has caused a lot of people to treat marriage lightly. Marriage has always been a contract, both in the government (because it was a fundamental part of society) and with God. And as with all contracts, there were very few and very specific circumstances that allowed you to break the contract without severe consequences, (both from the government and from God). I think we’ve lost a lot of that mentality, and the phrase “irreconcilable differences” has become a get-out-of-jail free card: a way for us, like Shawn said, to match our need to cover up our selfishness in marital relationships. We need to be careful as church members to stick with the reasons for divorce that the Lord has provided, and not let the general standards of everyone else creep in.

On the question of whether there exist other valid reasons besides adultery, I definitely agree with Elder Oaks that things like abuse and abandonment are well within the Lord’s acceptable reasons. I ask myself: if He were here, would he seriously say “stay in your abusive or abandoned relationships?” I have a hard time believing he would, especially since His prophets have explicitly preached the contrary.

I come from a “broken home” myself, and I know a good number of Mormons who do also. From what I’ve seen, I think that the church does an exceptionally good job at judging acceptable circumstances for church divorce. But perhaps that’s just because the prophets and apostles are the ones who have to make the judgment call every time.

By: Bus

Bus — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:55:24 +0000

I know I could get castigated for this opinion but when the Church attempts to help people live the commandments it could be seen as an act of compassion for them.
Perhaps the Mormons don’t want California dealt with like the Lord dealt with Sodom in the Old Testament?

By: Shawn

Shawn — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:09:59 +0000

Thaddeus,

Good points. I will recognize them as such. But then why did we just spend millions of dollars as Latter-day Saints in trying to impose a Celestial law upon the citizens of California? We declared that marriage is only for a man and a woman in order to raise children. Any thing less than that was deemed unacceptable for our society and unfair to children. That was a Celestial position (and we were very vocal in presenting it as such). However, it denies the opportunity for consideration of circumstances beyond heterosexual orientation. Are we not therefore imposing a Celestial standard on terrestrial and telestial people?

I don’t see that your argument would allow for consistency across all our positions.

By: Thaddeus

Thaddeus — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:58:02 +0000

You are suggesting that we impose a celestial standard on terrestrial and telestial people. Government is not involved in enforcing tithes or making people fast. Celestial principles must be followed freely, motivated by love, and without compulsion.

Saints who know the Lord understand that divorce is detrimental. They do everything in their power to strengthen and maintain their marriages, because they know the Lord’s promises to them. And they are largely successful, but they arrive at happy marriages through understanding the Lord’s plan. It wouldn’t work if they were just told that they can’t divorce.

Do you think Elder Oaks was wrong to admit that there are circumstances beyond fornication that necessitate divorce?