For some reason the formatting is off a bit. Oh Baron?

The perspective of having such a high commitment to the marriage is interesting. When we add the idea that our eternal life and fullness of salvation are linked to our spouce, it puts things on a whole other level. We MUST work things out. We MUST get along. There are MUCH more important things going on here than the daily events.

On the other hand I know of a couple (a relative) that has an unhealthy marriage. It is kinda sad to watch. I have hear the wife say that whe would get a divorce if it were not for the obligation to stay married. It is my opinion that the husband uses this to his advantage to continue the subdtle abuse that goes on.

Is a certain divorce rate a healthy thing? Is it always bad? Perhaps time to review Elder Oaks talk from last conference again. Here.

Fixed...

Just to play 'devil's advocate' in a way (and Elder Oaks talk more or less agrees with this), we should note that divorce will ALWAYS exist...and should always exist, too. Having NO possibility for a divorce at all (1) violates free agency, and (2) would bind together truly tragic situations. Obviously, divorce is far too common and casual, but there are still circumstances where divorce is necessary...and 'proper', even, where one or both parties need to be separated for their own physical, emotional (and spiritual) health.

My parents are divorced: they certainly could have tried harder to stay married...but they're also both happier now than they ever were during their marriage, so what can you say?

Since Sam Walton died it appears that there is nothing that Walmart won't sell. While he was alive there were actual standards, especially the promotion of items made in the US. Now that the kids have taken over, they are only concerned with making larger profits and so have shifted to items made almost exclusively in China.

Ahhh, many have thought that the all-powerful beast of Revelations would be the leader of some European nation. What foolish thought! No, my friend, the beast's power is not political, but economical; and he shall reign over the world as president of...Walmart. Uniting with Nike, the pagan goddess of victory who's swatches - the mark of the beast - are already everywhere, the beast now has fully-functional battle station compounds in every neighborhood, filled with 7 years worth of supplies. Watch and beware! (wow, I'm almost starting to believe this myself).

1. Are you really saying people shouldn't be able to get divorced?
2. You may not know this, but divorce rates in the USA have been declining in the last couple of decades.
3. You may think divorce is incompatible with Mormon teachings, but divorce was actually common in the early practice of "celestial" marriage. I believe Wilford Woodruff was divorced five times...that's high even by Hollywood standards.

ed, don't take an accusatory position that isn't articulated in the original post. I can't express how frustrating it is to post something and have someone say, "Are you really saying (something I didn't say)?"

Paradox never said #1; she also never said what you say in #3 - and putting it terms of 19th Century paradigms that no longer exist is intellectually obtuse, at best.

This post highlights two very simple facts: 1) divorces are getting easier and easier to justify and obtain, and 2) the principles of the Restored Gospel can inspire someone who otherwise would be susceptible to that ease and help keep them from succumbing to it.

Amen, Paradox. Keep that personal commitment; the difference in divorce rates are real and powerful and indicative - even with those who probably should divorce and don't.

"we should note that divorce will ALWAYS exist...and should always exist, too."

Actually, divorce is not the way of the Lord, as mentioned in Elder Oaks' talk:

“Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matthew 19:8–9).

The kind of marriage required for exaltation—eternal in duration and godlike in quality—does not contemplate divorce. In the temples of the Lord, couples are married for all eternity. But some marriages do not progress toward that ideal. Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law. Unless a divorced member has committed serious transgressions, he or she can become eligible for a temple recommend under the same worthiness standards that apply to other members."

To me, this statement creates a sad image indeed. How disappointed our Heavenly Father must be when take His covenants so lightly. And just because the Lord provides a means for divorce in extreme cases does not make divorce permissible for all. Divorce, like it or not, is wrong because it is a broken promise to the Lord. And while divorce may be the lesser of two evils in cases of abuse, that fact doesn't take away the consequences of divorce for anyone involved, especially not children.

"1. Are you really saying people shouldn't be able to get divorced?"
I contemplate the possibility. I contemplate whether or not people would think so lightly of marriage if divorce wasn't such a viable option. And while my parents' relationship was certainly toxic enough to merit a separation; and if they had never parted ways, I might never have found the Church, I can't say that the end justifies the means in regards to their decision. And the fact that divorce was the best option in their situation does not make divorce excusable. As Latter-day Saints, we must never lose focus of the distinction between something that is excusable in extreme circumstances and something that is right. What I'm really saying is that divorce is wrong; excusable sometimes, and certainly forgivable, but still wrong.

"Having NO possibility for a divorce at all (1) violates free agency, and (2) would bind together truly tragic situations."
Does it really violate free agency when it was free agency that created the union in the first place? Especially within the Church, when we all know better? I can only speak from my experiences with my family, and I can say in all honesty that my father was never a wolf in sheep's clothing. He has pretty much been a jerk and an alcoholic for as long as my mother has known him. She chose to be with him anyway, and she had to live with the consequences of that choice. As Elder Oaks says, "The best way to avoid divorce from an unfaithful, abusive, or unsupportive spouse is to avoid marriage to such a person." You can't be bound to a jerk if you don't put up with people that are jerks; don't make excuses for him/her once, and you'll never make them twice.

"3. I believe Wilford Woodruff was divorced five times...that's high even by Hollywood standards."
An interesting piece of history. But the circumstances of the early church and our contemporary society are almost too different to compare. In the early church, marriages had a different mindset and motivation behind them. Divorce and multiple marriages were a reflection of the transition of the Saints. Emmeline B. Wells is an excellent example of this contrast in interests. Her first marriage gave her the support necessary to move to Nauvoo after she converted to the Church at 14. Once her husband seemingly abandoned her, she married Newel K Whitney, which allowed her to move from Nauvoo to Utah with his family. After his death, she married again as a plural wife to Daniel Wells. Her motivations are not the same hedonistic, "you just don't meet my needs," that is so common among couples today. To make the comparison between the early Saints and the adulterers, alcoholics, and other such selfish failures that create circumstances for divorce today... I must insist that the comparison is apples to oranges.

divorce is not the way of the Lord...just because the Lord provides a means for divorce in extreme cases does not make divorce permissible for all

That's the point, though... Divorce is not 'good', but it is still necessary for it to exist, even just for those "extreme cases". Ideally, divorce would be non-existent, just like ideally prisons would not exist. But you can just imagine the horror if we eliminated prisons through legal means to try to meet the 'ideal'...without changing the reasons in the hearts of men for prisons to exist in society in the first place. Divorce as an institution exists, even in the Church, because the hearts of men require it.

While the amount of 'change' that happens during marriages is over-stated (in other words, the attributes that spouses complain about each other, saying 'He/she wasn't like this before we got married', are usually because they didn't look hard enough before they got married...) we need to note that because mankind has free agency to choose to mistreat their spouse and not fulfill their covenants, those spouses also should have free agency to leave, if necessary, without their own covenants becoming a prison because of someone else breaking theirs...

Is it possible that the existence of divorce can have a positive effect (however small) on behavior from an incentive standpoint? After all, I have the incentive to treat my wife well not just because 'it's the right thing to do', but because I know that she has the ability to leave me if I do not. If she were NOT free to leave--if no option of divorce was even possible--wouldn't that perversely make me MORE likely to mistreat her...since there's really nothing she could do about it? Obviously, 'quickie' divorces provides incentive in the opposite direction, but eliminating divorce entirely could have some equally disastrous consequences...

It's interesting how often humans feel the need to disagree over things about which they agree.

I thought that was the purpose of forums and blogs... :-)

MRKH

Actually the online Sociology of the Family class I teach for a community college in Washington is discussing this very issue in their threaded discussion. So it's difficult for me to read these arguments without issueing a GRADE!

Of course, in the class I can't address the spiritual implication, but the crux of the conversation is whether we as a society are served well or harmed by having such easy access to divorce. The question I posed was this:

Since the early 1970’s most states in the U.S. have permitted a “no-fault” divorce, so that any couple that decided they had “irreconcilable differences” could agree to dissolve their marriage simply by filing the appropriate paperwork and paying a fee. Some people believe that it is far too easy to get divorced, suggesting that there should be mandatory marriage counseling to try to save the relationship before any divorce be granted. Others say that this is foolish, because counseling will not be effective unless the participants genuinely want to go. What is your opinion on this issue?

Personally - I do support mandatory mediation/counseling as part of the divorce process. I am certain there are times when divorce SHOULD occur. But I think it should require some careful thought and communication to make it happen. Granted, some people would not engage in the process of counseling even if they were forced to attend. But I believe there are enough others who would benefit - either by gaining alternatives to divorce or else by encouraging a more amicable split.

As for the issue of what walmart sells... i heard some lady had posted a sale notice for her ovum on e-bay a while back - offering them up highest bigger who might purchase for invitro fertilization. Open commerce is a wacky thing.

I think counseling should be mandatory when children are involved. Period.

Just as a side note: I see dozens of people on a weekly basis in my work (I'm a mental health counselor). I primarily treat domestic violence perpetrators, sex offenders and drug and alcohol abusers in happy valley, Utah. You would think I would see little of any of those, but it's true. I see these kinds of crimes constantly. It is interesting to me to note (without judgment, when I can) that most of the individuals I see are children of divorcees. If I had to put a rought percentage on it, I'd say about 85% of the clients I see are children of divorcees. Does that mean all such children (regardless of the age the parents divorce) will end up criminals? Of course not. But there does seem to be (in my rough survey) a correlation. It is truly sad.

How has the church helped me? In the case of divorce, it has given me perspective. I don't believe my marriage is perfect, but my wife and I know we have to work daily for it to work. We also have the perspective to know it is worth working on.

Just another thought, years later...

The "White Pickett Fence" thing really is a myth. Having it as a model of a perfect marriage is damaging, because every marriage, especially the happy ones, is unique and deserves its own picture. I have a GREAT marriage, that's lasted 22 years so far. It's definitely NOT the typically portrayed white picket fence family, though.