I have serious issues with this attitude in the church and statement's like this:

[Viking]

This is what I call the literalist, "true believer" point-of-view.

If you see Church teachings in the very simplistic and literal way that Clackamas has outlined above, then you surely would divorce an inactive spouse.

I call it the "I really don't understand Christianity" view

[Viking]

If, of course, you believe that the decision is so simple as trading trauma for temple marriages. For all you know, the kids might be so bitter about dumping dad for the church that they want nothing to do with the temple. There is room even in the literalist viewpoint for dissent on the argument at hand.

Now this is a first class post. My kids will be here one day

[All-American]

My argument is that two active parents isn't necessarily a predictor of exaltation of their children. Do you disagree?

I guess I would also argue that clackamas deserves a crisis of faith one day accompanied by a wife who decides to divorce him on that basis as well. Then again, I suspect he is 25 and deserves some slack and my righteous anger should likely be directed instead at the souls who raised him to be so shallow at this point in life.

Merry Christmas and here's to a great 2010

I don't think anybody is arguing the point you're disproving. And I wouldn't mind if clackmas never had to deal with the crises you wish upon him.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is what I call the literalist, "true believer" point-of-view.

If you see Church teachings in the very simplistic and literal way that Clackamas has outlined above, then you surely would divorce an inactive spouse.

I suppose if want to get extremely literate and simplistic, you would kill your kids as infants to ensure their salvation in the celestial kingdom.

As for the divorce issue, you would also have to believe that your kids would survive the trauma of the divorce unscathed and the remaining spouse would magically find a balm-of-Gilead replacement. And that said replacement would treat the kids well and would not have his/her own unique set of issues to deal with. You would also need to hope that your kids don't eventually realize that the castoff mom/dad is really a kind, loving person and has been treated unfairly and thus turn their back on religion due to the damage and heartache that was caused.

Yowza.

[All-American]

I call it the "I really don't understand Christianity" view

Of course, "Christianity" advocates that the only acceptable grounds for divorce is infidelity. We're not quite there, either.

[CardiacCoug]

I call it the "I really don't understand Christianity" view

Sure, I agree.

Didn't Christ say that the Sabbath was for Man and not Man for the Sabbath? To me, destroying your family in pursuit of exalting Temple Ordinances seems like something the Pharisees would have promoted.

Of course, Christ also said that your should forsake your family to follow Him -- proving once again that you can find a scripture to support whatever view you would like to promote in a given situation.

[Viking]

I don't think anybody is arguing the point you're disproving. And I wouldn't mind if clackmas never had to deal with the crises you wish upon him.

Clackamas is clearly arguing the other side irmao

[CardiacCoug]

I suppose if want to get extremely literate and simplistic, you would kill your kids as infants to ensure their salvation in the celestial kingdom.

As for the divorce issue, you would also have to believe that your kids would survive the trauma of the divorce unscathed and the remaining spouse would magically find a balm-of-Gilead replacement. And that said replacement would treat the kids well and would not have his/her own unique set of issues to deal with. You would also need to hope that your kids don't eventually realize that the castoff mom/dad is really a kind, loving person and has been treated unfairly and thus turn their back on religion due to the damage and heartache that was caused.

Yowza.

Nicely explained. Fanaticism and literalism suck, that's for sure.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I've mentioned this story before, but it's on point with this discussion, so allow me to repeat it. While I was serving as bishop, an inactive, married LDS woman became reactivated and very devout. Meanwhile, her non-LDS husband was away on a nine-month tour of duty on an aircraft carrier. When he returned, he was dismayed by the change in his wife, and she became resentful that he wasn't on board with her new devotion. She was considering giving him an ultimatum that either he be baptized or she would bolt with their three-year old son. Both of them came in for an interview and asked what they should do.

Much to the woman's stunned dismay, I sided with her husband. Before his tour, things were fine; then he comes home to a very different (although arguably much better) woman. Who could blame the guy for being a bit bummed? She pleaded her case, noting the importance of temple marriage and all of the saving ordinances. It occurred to me then, and I haven't changed on this, that life (including the eternities) is a very long marathon. Far more important (and this may be blasphemous, but I'm sticking it to it), than total adherence to Church practice in the near-term is having unconditional love and respect for one's spouse and family. I realize this invites rationalization and a trip down the proverbial slippery slope, but on balance, I think in dealing with an inactive or NM spouse, it's far more important to focus on loving each other than any external practice. Certainly, if one's spouse is abusive, addicted or adulterous, then one can head for the door. But if the spouse is sincerely trying to be a better person and build a better family, even if those efforts don't include total fidelity to Church activity, then don't break up a family.

BTW, a few years after the aforementioned couple had moved from the area, I got a call from the guy, thanking me for what little help I had given, and inviting me to his baptism. Such a result won't occur in all instances, of course, but I'm convinced that couples truly devoted to each other, even with varying levels of activity, will always be better off if they put the other first.

[wuapinmon]

I think that divorce because someone leaves the Church is wrong-headed, and certainly goes against the whole concept of eternal families. If you love someone, and they lose their faith, is your love for that person inextricably bound/wound into their faith in the Gospel?

I love my wife far more than her activity level in the Church. If a counselor told my wife that she should divorce me if I didn't return to activity, there would be words, strong words, exchanged between the two of us (me and the counselor) (I am active and hold a temple recommend).

[Viking]

I should say it is disingenuous of me to say that my divorce was all one issue (church). It was clearly more than that. But it was the catalyst for finale and if not for her view, I suspect we might still be hitched.

[byu71]

I've mentioned this story before, but it's on point with this discussion, so allow me to repeat it. While I was serving as bishop, an inactive, married LDS woman became reactivated and very devout. Meanwhile, her non-LDS husband was away on a nine-month tour of duty on an aircraft carrier. When he returned, he was dismayed by the change in his wife, and she became resentful that he wasn't on board with her new devotion. She was considering giving him an ultimatum that either he be baptized or she would bolt with their three-year old son. Both of them came in for an interview and asked what they should do.

Much to the woman's stunned dismay, I sided with her husband. Before his tour, things were fine; then he comes home to a very different (although arguably much better) woman. Who could blame the guy for being a bit bummed? She pleaded her case, noting the importance of temple marriage and all of the saving ordinances. It occurred to me then, and I haven't changed on this, that life (including the eternities) is a very long marathon. Far more important (and this may be blasphemous, but I'm sticking it to it), than total adherence to Church practice in the near-term is having unconditional love and respect for one's spouse and family. I realize this invites rationalization and a trip down the proverbial slippery slope, but on balance, I think in dealing with an inactive or NM spouse, it's far more important to focus on loving each other than any external practice. Certainly, if one's spouse is abusive, addicted or adulterous, then one can head for the door. But if the spouse is sincerely trying to be a better person and build a better family, even if those efforts don't include total fidelity to Church activity, then don't break up a family.

BTW, a few years after the aforementioned couple had moved from the area, I got a call from the guy, thanking me for what little help I had given, and inviting me to his baptism. Such a result won't occur in all instances, of course, but I'm convinced that couples truly devoted to each other, even with varying levels of activity, will always be better off if they put the other first.

You are my kind of Bishop. My current home teacher up until 5 years ago never came to church. He was early 60's in age and one of the nicest people you would ever meet. Helped me out in a couple of situations having to do with my yard and house. He had a very nice, very active wife and teenage daughter.

Never asked him the details, but 5 years ago he started going to church actively. He is still the great guy he always was. I would guess his wife is happy she didn't throw him out when he was inactive.

I am just against labeling. One size fits all if you know what I mean. Like you said, it is a long haul.

[CardiacCoug]

I've mentioned this story before, but it's on point with this discussion, so allow me to repeat it. While I was serving as bishop, an inactive, married LDS woman became reactivated and very devout. Meanwhile, her non-LDS husband was away on a nine-month tour of duty on an aircraft carrier. When he returned, he was dismayed by the change in his wife, and she became resentful that he wasn't on board with her new devotion. She was considering giving him an ultimatum that either he be baptized or she would bolt with their three-year old son. Both of them came in for an interview and asked what they should do.

Much to the woman's stunned dismay, I sided with her husband. Before his tour, things were fine; then he comes home to a very different (although arguably much better) woman. Who could blame the guy for being a bit bummed? She pleaded her case, noting the importance of temple marriage and all of the saving ordinances. It occurred to me then, and I haven't changed on this, that life (including the eternities) is a very long marathon. Far more important (and this may be blasphemous, but I'm sticking it to it), than total adherence to Church practice in the near-term is having unconditional love and respect for one's spouse and family. I realize this invites rationalization and a trip down the proverbial slippery slope, but on balance, I think in dealing with an inactive or NM spouse, it's far more important to focus on loving each other than any external practice. Certainly, if one's spouse is abusive, addicted or adulterous, then one can head for the door. But if the spouse is sincerely trying to be a better person and build a better family, even if those efforts don't include total fidelity to Church activity, then don't break up a family.

BTW, a few years after the aforementioned couple had moved from the area, I got a call from the guy, thanking me for what little help I had given, and inviting me to his baptism. Such a result won't occur in all instances, of course, but I'm convinced that couples truly devoted to each other, even with varying levels of activity, will always be better off if they put the other first.

Awesome. I don't remember that story so I'm glad you retold it. To me it's a no-brainer that family is more important than religion -- to think that religion is more important amounts to fanaticism.

[byu71]

Awesome. I don't remember that story so I'm glad you retold it. To me it's a no-brainer that family is more important than religion -- to think that religion is more important amounts to fanaticism.

Don't know if things are different now, but in the sixties when on my mission we were instructed not to teach a family, including the wife, without the husbands permission.

[UtahDan]

It occurred to me then, and I haven't changed on this, that life (including the eternities) is a very long marathon. Far more important (and this may be blasphemous, but I'm sticking it to it), than total adherence to Church practice in the near-term is having unconditional love and respect for one's spouse and family.

I endorse this. I have said this before, but so little is known about what happens after this life that it seems crazy to me to forgo happiness in this one for that reason alone.