My lovely wife and I have recently crossed our 18th anniversary. We haven’t actually celebrated yet– we have a weekend at the Ritz-Carlton in Laguna Niguel awaiting us– but it’s enough to say we actually made it this far.
This wasn’t the first marriage for either of us; I’ve been married twice before and she once– temple weddings, all. My wife doesn’t appreciate it when I say we should get a revolving charge account at the temple. I’m not going to explain away my other two nuptials. They are so far in the past and I am no longer that person. I will say these earlier stumbles make me wonder if I will be held accountable for them even though I was never denied another temple marriage.
Take 3 Nephi 12: 31-32 for example:
31 It hath been written, that whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.
32 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whoso shall marry her who is divorced commiteth adultery.
Is this to say I have stripes waiting for me for remarrying a divorced woman? I just might if you ask the Church Educational System which fires any of its employees who get a divorce. Which means that, if Wilford Woodruff had been with CES, he’d have been handed his pink slip (and did he get stripes for his divorce?).
It may have been explained to me some time ago what was meant in 3 Nephi (and Mark in the NT), but I’ve long forgotten the answer. I have difficulty accepting that my mistakes– mistakes which I’ve apologized for and since corrected– are still going to leave glaring marks on my report card. It sure leaves a big scarlet “D” around your neck in the ward if it gets out you’re divorced. I don’t know what the sisters experience, but as a divorced brother, I felt soiled and unattractive. Some LDS women came right out and said they would not date me because I was divorced. This led me to go out and date non-Mormon women who weren’t so repulsed. I had no intention of courting them, but at least I could enjoy the company of a pretty, appreciative woman.
My wife and I traveled in different circles in our singles ward. She thought my group was “weird” and I thought hers was “full of itself.” Nevertheless, we both ended up at a pot luck at someone’s house; I was feeling impish and playfully struck up a conversation with her. To both our surprise, we started hanging out and the next thing I knew, I agreed to drive her Sonata with her to SLC. Although we were supposed to take turns, I drove the whole way non-stop, and when I met her family– and they heard of my vehicular chivalry– I earned the pet name “Super Dave” (her siblings still call me that).
Definitely, I’ve skinned my knees a few times coming to the point where I met my wife. And if it means getting stripes for the others to get to her, I say bring them on. And while we sometimes get on each other’s nerves, and have entirely different opinions about child-rearing and American Idol contestants, I can safely say, with no agenda…
Really, sweetie, you’re the best I’ve ever had.
11 responses so far ↓
1 Nebraska // Jan 20, 2008 at 4:14 am
In the April, 2007 conference Elder Oaks gave what I consider to be the definitive talk on divorce.
Basically, we’re not living the higher law of marriage – even though we have temple marriages.
I believe he is talking about all the members hearts, not just those who have been or will be divorced.
There you have it – No stripes for you, two of my brothers or my parents. We simply are not held to the standard of the higher law.
This was a subject I always wondered about ever since I read in the scriptures that a bishop can’t be divorced, yet one of my bishops when I was coming back to activity was divorced. I thought this was the most eye opening talk I have heard in a while.
2 David // Jan 20, 2008 at 5:12 am
Nebraska, I’m glad you brought up that talk. I thought I heard something like that recently, and you nailed it. It’s a comforting reassurance to have. Perhaps it was my embarrassment of being divorced (on top of the social stigma) that made me question where I stood. Thanks for the heads-up.
3 xoxoxoxo // Jan 20, 2008 at 5:14 am
This is a statement from Daniel H. Ludlow from a New Testament manual that I read once that made perfect sense to me (as I am also divorced and remarried-temple marriage both times). Just thought you might be interested.
“Remember the suggestion that all the scriptures pertaining to a topic should be considered before a final interpretation. Remember also that at least two of the scriptures mentioned that this law was given to them by Moses. Now let’s go back to the writings of Moses and read the exact words of the law.
Deuteronomy 24:1-2: ‘When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.’
This law, given through Moses, makes it absolutely clear that remarriage is possible after a legal, written bill of divorcement has been placed in her hands. However, if a husband simply puts his wife away or divorces himself (separates himself) from her without giving the written bill of divorcement, and if she then remarries and has sexual relations with her new partner, of course both of them commit adultery.
In summary, the word divorce, standing by itself in the New Testament, is not the legal term; the legal term is a written bill of divorcement.
The lives of millions would be blessed if these scriptures were understood correctly. We can see from this example why it is important to read and ponder all of the scriptures pertaining to a particular subject. No wonder the commandment is to ponder the scriptures, not merely to read them.”
One of those “plain and precious” things that are restored through modern revelation? I sure think so.
4 xoxoxoxo // Jan 20, 2008 at 5:15 am
P.S. Congrats on 18 years! That alone says much about your relationship!
5 Dave // Jan 20, 2008 at 5:34 am
Congratulations, Super Dave, you have obviously figured it how a successful marriage works. I wouldn’t worry about the CES Church, it’s the LDS Church that calls the shots. And the present LDS teaching on divorce is much more balanced than anything you related in the post. Here’s from “Divorce” in the gospel topics section at LDS.org:
Those who have caused a divorce through their own poor choices can repent and be forgiven. Those whose marriages have failed because of what others have done can receive strength and comfort from the Lord, who promised: ”Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. . . . For my yoke is easy, and my burden light” (Matthew 11:28, 30).
6 David // Jan 20, 2008 at 6:24 am
xoxoxoxo & Dave, thanks for the supportive words and references.
xoxoxoxo– That’s a great lesson there; to read & consider all scriptural references of a topic before settling on an interpretation. It’s so typical of us, isn’t it, to point to one reference and say, “see?” I will make a point of trying to exercise that way of thinking. Also, mucho gracias for the anniversary well-wish. There have been moments when I would think thoughts like the last verse of “Paradise by the Dashboard Light,” but only rarely and not for a number of years. *sigh*
Dave– I remember the influence my Institute teacher had on me at the U. of U. It pains me to think that institution was anything but in perfect line with what came out of Church headquarters– or that they got away with implementing that rule (divorcees getting canned). That said, thank you for the reference. I had to come up with a spiritual thought for PEC tomorrow and that Matthew verse embraces my heart.
7 xoxoxoxo // Jan 20, 2008 at 8:07 am
We all have those moments-usually because we aren’t where we are supposed to be mentally or spiritually…but “eternity” can seem waaaaaaaay too long in the glaring light of day once in a while. *grin*
8 Jim // Jan 24, 2008 at 3:47 am
David,
I don’t know if your blog is intended for people that you already know, so I hope you don’t mind my visiting and commenting here. I enjoyed the two posts that I read- you have a talent for writing.
Although it was probably said somewhat jokingly in the previous comment, I do wonder and even worry at times about eternity. I can’t say that I’m extremely or even mostly happy much of the time (mostly with my relationships), so I question whether that will change significantly in the next life. As xoxoxoxo said, eternity can seem like a long time.
I do find some comfort in these words from Brigham Young: “If that dissatisfied wife (or husband) could behold the transcendent beauty of person, the Godlike qualities of the resurrected husband (or wife) that she now despises, her love for him would be unbounded and unutterable….Could the dissatisfied ones see a vision, even, of the future glorified state of their husbands (or wives), love for them would immediately spring up within you, and no circumstance could prevail upon you to forsake them.” Discourse of Brigham Young, Oct. 8, 1861
Anyway, just wanted you to know that I have enjoyed your posts here and comments elsewhere and hope you don’t mind if I visit and comment here once in a while….
9 David // Jan 24, 2008 at 6:28 am
Jim,
This humble blog is out there for anyone to jump in, so thank you for making your visitorship known and I hope to hear from you again.
As for earthly dissatisfaction, I have every confidence that the Lord will provide a union we will cherish in the eternal realm, be it with our current arrangement or another. From what I gather, it’s going to be a whole new ball game in the next life. For example, in the pre-existence– which lasted eons longer than our earthly existence, our parents were our brothers and sisters. What will they be after we pass through the veil? Food for thought. The only thing we need to do now is keep the eye on the ball, do all we can do for the kingdom of God on the earth (and our progression) and everything will result to our satisfaction.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
10 Mark // Jan 27, 2008 at 4:25 am
Many years ago, my first wife got involved with a guy at work and we divorced. When I learned of the affair, I visited the bishop seeking comfort and advice. The first words out of his mouth were, “You can repent of this.” Not knowing how to respond, I asked, “Repent of what?” I told him that I had not left my wife and expressed a willingness to work on the marriage even after the affair. She declined. How could I repent of her choices? The bishop said, “I do not know. All I know is that divorce is a sin, and you can repent of it.”
I experienced something similar to what you described for divorced men in the church. I saw myself standing on one side of a wide chasm. The rest of the church, the un-divorced, orthodox, members, standing on the other side. There was no way to cross this divide, even through repentance. Little was expected of me in the church. I accepted minor church callings and remained active in the church.
Later, I married a wonderful woman in the temple. She had a similar experience. Her husband had committed adultery and left the marriage. Most people who meet us are surprised that either of us have ever been divorced. We seem to be the classic orthodox, committed, mormon family. I thought I had finally crossed that “divide”.
I was called to be first counselor in a bishopric and served as first counselor under 3 successive bishops. When I was finally released, a ward member came up to me after church and said, “Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.” No one ever explained why I was passed over. I mentioned this in a discussion on the Internet and a stake clerk told me that Stake Presidents had received a letter advising them to stop referring divorced men as candidates for bishops. I checked this with my brother, who is a Stake President, and he confirmed it. He said there are exceptions, but they are rare. Apparently, divorced men can be called to the High Council and as Branch Presidents, but not to any calling that requires Salt Lake approval.
That chasm, as far as this life is concerned, is permanent.
While there is a great feeling of loss and separateness from the main body of the church, there are some blessings that come from this. I focus on my family. I also have a wonderful wife and some great kids. I view the church much more as just an organization, and it has much less influence on my choices today. My family really does come first now, before the church. I can say no to things that interfer with time with my family. If the family has something planned and the home teachers want to come over, I tell them no. I still see much value in these programs, but I no longer am concerned how church leaders may view these choices. I am much less concerned about appearance. Old habits die hard. I still wear a white shirt to church, but occasionally wear a blue one just for fun. My daughters bought me a tie that has a big black sheep in the middle of a bunch of white ones. While I get some funny looks from leadership, other brethren in the ward love that tie. I focus on seeking out those in the ward who are on the fringes, who have pain in their eyes, and try to lighten their burdens, at least temporarily.
I hope it is a whole new ballgame in the hereafter, but if it is a continuation of what happens in this life, I have my doubts. I just hope that Heavenly Father is the loving, merciful God I think He is.
11 David // Jan 28, 2008 at 4:58 am
Mark,
I talked to a single sister I home teach today about the difficulty of dating when I was divorced. She– also divorced– said she doesn’t have that problem, nor has she heard that problem coming from divorced friends of hers. I believe there is a double standard in LDS society when it comes to this; not that I’m particularly bugged since I have remarried and look to stay that way until one of us is toes-up.
As for not being able to be bishop, do you really feel this is a loss? I love my bishop, revere him and so glad I am not in his position. He would tease me, saying, “Laugh now, you’ll be in this chair someday.” If what you say stands, it sounds like I’ll be relieved of that blessing. Although, “counselor” sounds like a rich experience. That said, I suspect the edict that divorced brethren can’t be bishop is an administrative call and not necessarily one born from revelation. Perhaps the Church encountered some sticky situations regarding divorced bishops and decided to put out a blanket rule to rid itself of continuing headaches. Or, perhaps members felt a divorced bishop couldn’t be a good marriage counselor. Either way, I think a new ballgame is exactly what we have to look forward to.
You must log in to post a comment.