http://johnpavlovitz.com/2015/09/12/please-stop-telling-me-i-cant-criticize-the-church/

There are lots of reasons that people get divorced. Some are good reasons and some are bad. But divorcing someone simply because they decide to discontinue participation in the church and say that they no longer/don’t believe in the LDS doctrines (nothing more nothing less) is a bad reason.

As for this idea that people who claim that their spouse left them because they stopped believing/participating in the LDS church being exaggeration, I don’t know. It could very well be that people who claim they felt an overwhelmingly powerful spiritual feeling confirming to them that the church’s truth claims were true were exaggerating as well. But I choose to take people at their word, first, and then if evidence emerges that contradicts or downplays what that person was saying, then I’ll accept that that person’s claim as an exaggeration.

And lastly, nothing against you personally. I just think that you aren’t understanding my ideas very well.

Silly people who don’t acknowledge the primacy of family and who make unfaithful threats are not justification for saying the covenants loved ones had entered into weren’t real.

I’m not sure whether I would find something to agree with you on if we were conversing in person, but it seems you are determined to diametrically oppose me in this forum.

As I reflect on the history of divorce in my family, one sister divorced her Muslim husband for being a bad Muslim (drinking, financial mismanagement, and the fact that his persistent disregard for her was causing her to experience rage. Thus she mindfully decided to end the relationship). In another case, a sister married two men, the first a sceptic, the second an atheist. They both abandoned her, the second one explicitly because she was a believer. I left my first husband because of adultery, physical abuse, and financial incontinence (on his part).

When people tell you of the reasons their spouses have left, is it not possible that they might be exaggerating? Telling you the reason they know will elicit your sympathy? Or at the least failing to admit to acts that would not show them to have been martyrs to the evils of Mormonism? For that matter, perhaps they were so wrapped up in their paradigm that they did not recognize the other behaviors contributing to the failure of their marriage. Or perhaps they had misunderstood history, such as the reasons Zina Huntington left Henry Jacobs, presuming that it is acceptable in Mormon circles to trade up when a spouse isn’t all you might wish.

At the least, it appears that you do not regard Mormon covenants to be of any particular validity relative to any other covenant. There we will have to agree to disagree.

All that said, I think there clearly are in a modern context good reasons to divorce someone short of adultery.

Getting back to the metaphor I think there are good reasons for the Church to want to divorce someone. Apostasy as a kind of adultery are the obvious ones. I think however the analogy, since it is just an apology will break down in some situations.

Brad (77) I suspect many here are assuming a perspective were the covenants are real. So I’m not sure the analogy to deciding between LDS or Islam is terribly apt. Of course we all must decide if the church is true. And for many struggling with that may lead them in and out of the church. That’s completely understandable. (I’ve no idea what the current stats are, but there was one study back in the 80’s that found 40% of active members had been inactive at one time)

Jesus’ Kingdom may not be of this world, but neither is it a mere club, where members may wander in and out without consequence.

In most areas of the world where there is an LDS congregation, people do just that. On my mission in Brazil, I knew a large number of people who were active for a bit and maybe held a calling, and then went inactive for a little while. Some missionaries and bishoprics acted very sternly with them, but often times this would backfire and turn the person away from the church even more. However, a good number of missionaries and bishoprics were kind and loving and extended invitations to return. I don’t speak for these people who stand to suffer little to no social consequences for going inactive. Instead, I speak for those in the Mormon belt and areas with somewhat large and deeply rooted congregations in the US and Canada who face potentially very large social costs for going inactive. They fear being ostracized by friends and family, threats of divorce from spouses, being treated as a traitor, and being told that they were better off dead than inactive (not uncommonly heard in LDS wards, and I personally know people who have been told this by offended parents) all because of a bad understanding of LDS doctrine on covenants. The LDS church claims to have divine authority to arrange for covenants to be made between humans and God. In LDS doctrine, making the covenant and living up to it qualifies an individual for salvation in the celestial kingdom when he/she dies. That’s it. If they don’t live up to the covenant, then they may face God’s punishment in the hereafter (live in the telestial kingdom, terrestrial kingdom, or in rare cases, banished to outerdarkness). The idea is that you don’t know when you are going to die, and you don’t know exactly how God might punish you later for not living up to the covenant, so it is best to be worthily living up to the covenant at all times. By not living up to the covenant, we take the risk of not being saved in the celestial kingdom, sure. But it is not much different from the risk we are taking by not converting to Islam. If the Muslims are right about God, then all LDS people are damned to an eternity in hell for sure (especially because they believe the heretical doctrine of Jesus being God’s son). And of course, if the LDS church isn’t actually representing God, the covenant that it arranges for individuals to make is absolutely meaningless.

I agree that we have agency. I don’t agree that agency means that a covenant made to God may be lightly ignored.

I would, in my own life, love all because from eternity they are worthy of love and honor, no matter what they have done in mortality.

There is certain kinds of talk that I read in the Expositor, written by my ancestor, that at times resembles what I read here. From disclosures not captured in the Expositor, I am aware that my ancestor (Austin Cowles) was co-ring-leader of a group of roughly 200 men who had sworn an oath to murder Joseph Smith, that they came very close to securing the secrecy of their oath by murder (murder of the two teenagers who refused to take the oath, the two who it turns out had been giving intel to Joseph).

Austin Cowles professed to love God, love the Book of Mormon, and be deeply committed to the principles of the gospel as restored by Joseph Smith. Yet he and others felt the time had come to separate themselves from the Church as led by Joseph (or so they said after they had already been excommunicated for undisclosed apostasy, all this following Joseph receiving intelligence regarding the murderous plot.

When I study the tale of Joseph’s death, I see the conspiracy’s fingerprints all over the event.

Jesus’ Kingdom may not be of this world, but neither is it a mere club, where members may wander in and out without consequence.

Austin Cowles family continued to love him, even while many of them continued to follow Brigham and the apostles to the west. As soon as it was known that sealings properly should join families together (rather than merely “sealing” Church members into a heavenly “family”), Austin’s three grand-daughters assembled their 20 children and went to the temple in 1900, having the proxy work done to seal themselves to Austin. And though I now know things about Austin that they never admitted, my heart is with theirs in hoping that Austin will overcome the hatred he harbored in life and embrace God’s grace, salvation, and the love of his family.

Going back to D&C 28, I don’t agree that this is a localized scripture that has no applicability to our times. I think this matter of modern members preaching against the Church and the prophet (Dehlin and others) and insisting on commanding the prophet (Kelly and others) is the reason for their various excommunications. In both the specific cases mentioned, the individuals were counseled for an extended period of time in hopes of reforming their rebellious views.

I see much more similarity between organizations (such as the Navy) and the Church that others here do. There is a certain level of bad behavior and lack of loyalty that warrants formal action, in my opinion. But everyone is accountable to God for their own views, so feel free to believe what you think is right.

You appear to have an issue with the idea that the LDS Church should be able to command any level of commitment from those who covenant with God

I have an issue with people who misrepresent the LDS church’s doctrine and encouraged approach. The doctrine of agency is a prime LDS doctrine. According to LDS church doctrine, every individual is free to choose. This mortal life is a probationary state where people are free to learn through trial and error without having to face God’s punishments immediately after they make a mistake. They are given time and space to repent. The church leaders and members are to invite people to participate and persuade them to believe, but not to use any sort of force or coercion whatsoever. The LDS church invites people to make covenants with God, but God alone has the right to punish. Some degree of social expectation placed on members by LDS leaders and other members is fine. In all organizations and societies, there is some degree of social expectation. However, it is problematic when these expectations are raised to the extent that members feel the need to shame, ostracize, divorce, disown, and shun those who no longer desire to participate by invoking the words, “but, you made a covenant!,” which I have heard time and again from friends, family, and believers said in reaction to news that someone discontinued participation. My point is that the LDS church is a strictly voluntary organization. I would think that such a proposition would be pretty self-explanatory, but I guess I stand corrected.

I work for the Navy…

Really scratching my head here. Psychopathy and sociopathy are not the default psychological states of those who don’t believe in institutionalized religion. Look at the intentional homicide rates of the least religious countries (Japan, France, Czech Republic) and you’ll find that they are among the lowest in the world. In fact, a great number of seeming psychopathic murderous acts have been committed by those claiming to be fervently religious (suicide bombers in the Muslim world, Anders Breivik, etc.). Furthermore if you’re comparing the navy (US navy?) to the LDS church, it is an apples to oranges comparison. The navy is under the command of the US government. Its mission is to provide defense for a country (mostly in the sea) and attack enemies when commanded. The LDS church is a non-profit organization that operates more or less privately. People are free to join and leave as they please. I should add that I do believe that in a great number of circumstances that people should be obligated to honor commitments. Soldiers who are commanded to take a tour of duty have to go, and if they don’t, they should be subject to punishments imposed upon them by military tribunals. But that is because I don’t believe in anarchy and I believe that just governments should exist and that they should have the right to raise up a military and collect taxes through force (albeit also by informing citizens of their rights). But the LDS church is not an earthly government. In fact, Jesus Christ, to the chagrin of many Jews during his time who sought political liberation from the Roman Empire, never aspired for earthly power. His kingdom is not of this world. God’s laws are applied after we die.

ji, cat got your tongue?

Clark, Jesus said wives should only be divorced of they committed adultery. Do you agree with that statement? If not, that’s a separate discussion about the applicability of scripture to modern times, which this probably isn’t the place for. If you do agree with what Jesus is reported to have said, then do you disagree that the church divorces itself sometimes for things that fall far short of adultery? If so, then the analogy breaks down, or you are saying that you don’t think the church is a righteous, Christ-following spouse. I think the latter, and its ramifications, are an interesting consideration, but from your posts, do not represent a view I normally associate with you.

Ji, once you agree that the metaphor of a covenant isn’t accurate, you can begin to question the fundamental underpinnings of the relationship without presumptions of whether they are good or bad. In doing so, as Clark suggests, even if you stick with the marriage analogy, some marriages need to be ended or changed.

I think Eve of Destruction’s question about the equivalent of a church-membership relationship counselor is a profound one.

Ji, what are your thoughts on the idea? Is there an equivalent to a marriage counselor? If not, should there be, to facilitate maintaining a healthy relationship, including promoting habits of affection from both parties? Or does it trouble you to think that this might be something other than an idealized, unchangeable covenant relationship? I’m really interested in what you think.

Meg, I think the problem with using anecdotes to classify groups of disparate people is that it never works. I am sorry that you had the trauma of having someone shoot people in the building you work in—that must have been incredibly frightening and painful. But that person, and anyone who goes and kills other people of her own initiative, are thankfully incredibly rare, and therefore not representative of anyone else, even if she shares certain views with other people.

Experiences like the one you had can easily color our views of everything, and I don’t blame you for relating many different things to it. But please, do not believe that all of humanity are just serial killers waiting to be uncovered. We aren’t.

I promise.

I descend from several people who were intimately familiar with Joseph and those of his followers who went west. I even descend from one of the two leaders who covenanted to murder Joseph (both of whom ended up with the Strangites). Speaking of Strang, he joined the Church at the same time the conspiracy to kill Joseph Smith gained momentum, the same month Thomas Sharp resumed editorship of the Warsaw Signal. So many of those who plotted against Joseph joined the Strangites that I tend to suspect anyone who joined that movement of having been involved in Bennett’s Spiritual Wifery.

You appear to have an issue with the idea that the LDS Church should be able to command any level of commitment from those who covenant with God. Is this honestly a stance that God Himself has asked you to propone?

I’m inferring that you haven’t been involved in any hierarchical organization where the power of the organization arose in part from the collective power of the members of the organization. If you have been a member of such an organization, did they take kindly to your assurances to fellow members of the organization that there was no need for order and fulfilling expectations? Did they like you questioning the fundamental legitimacy of the organization?

I work for the Navy and we’ve had a few of that sort. One of them took a gun into my building and shot several of his co-workers. It is from that perspective that I am suspicious of those who don’t acknowledge legitimacy of rules or the wisdom in supporting the legitimacy of an organization to which individuals have joined themselves.

Then again, if you aren’t actually a member of the LDS Church, then I can understand your questions regarding property order. But if that is the case, then perhaps you shouldn’t be presuming to instruct me on the meaning of LDS scripture.