The Sacred Sacraments of Contemporary Feminism

Though owners of the "Common Consent" blog no longer deign to permit me to comment on their inane observations, I still read with some interest, and even fascination from time to time.

I should add that at one time I took the trouble to bypass the security system at "Common Consent", but once I had access again, I found that I had little to say that would have made any impression in that forum.  They obviously think very highly of themselves.

This week there was an interesting post about someone's divorce experience.  The story itself was a rather boring tedious repetition of all the agonized dramatic breast-beating tearful pathetic melodrama that is commonly staged in nearly every divorce.  My interest was drawn by what was NOT mentioned.  In considering all the implications of divorce, the post and comments were careful not to mention one thing.

Before the beginning of a certain epoch, the divorce rate per marriage was relatively low.  The rate began to go up in the '60s, roughly doubled in the '70s, and peaked in the '80s.

The falling-off of the rate since then probably relates to the contemporary social trend to abjure marriage altogether, more than any tendency toward avoiding divorce.  In social trends, marriage decline from that watershed point led to corresponding gradual decline in every related statistic.  Judging by the popular media coverage, the only people still wanting to get married are Hollywood celebrities and homosexuals.  Both groups seem predisposed to casual divorces and other associated trends.

In fact the divorce trend seems to fit rather nicely with several other social trends.  No coincidence that trends in marriage rates, divorce rates, birth rates, and abortion rates correspond so closely.

My impression is that divorce is one of the sacred sacraments of feminism.  The application of this ubiquitous and vociferous world-view began to be popularized at the end of the '60s, and continues through the present. The popularity of the feminist social trend is reflected in the sudden increase of these rates.  It reflects a destructive and pernicious philosophy that challenges the foundations of heathy human society.

The toll of every feminist "victory" brings the world one step closer to the extinction of the human race.

Children of Divorce

I've put up a number of links on my personal web pages about divorce. But this article looks interesting by itself.

In online discussion I sometimes find this topic examined, and many of the participants express the sentiment that in cases of Temple marriages that are terminated by divorce, the children "follow the mother".

I've never heard any satisfactory explanation for that reasoning, nor do any who echo the idea know of any provenance. They just heard it somewhere.

Here's an authoritative quote that seems to address the subject:

As to the next question, “What happens to the children in the next life when there has been a cancellation of sealing of the parents?” it is understood that in the case of a cancellation of the sealing of the woman to the man, this does not cancel the sealing of the children to the parents, since they were born in the covenant, which is a birthright blessing. They remain in the status of the sealing to their parents and can never be sealed to anyone else. The decision as to with whom they will go will be determined by the Lord in the hereafter. Regarding being born in the covenant the General Handbook of Instructions states, “Children born in the covenant cannot be sealed to anyone, but belong to their natural parents. This rule is not altered by adoption, consent of the natural parents, request of the child after becoming of age or death of the natural parents.”

It should be kept in mind that to be born in the covenant is a birthright blessing, and that if a child remains worthy in this life of celestial blessings, regardless of the actions of his parents, he is assured of that birthright and is guaranteed eternal parentage. One’s worthiness in this life through living the gospel and keeping the commandments, in this as in all things, is the key to eternal life. (Elder James A. Cullimore,  Q&A: Questions and Answers,” New Era)

April 2007 General Conference : Divorce

Elder Dallin Oaks delivered the only comprehensive overview of this subject that I have ever heard from church authorities. To me, this is an indication that divorce as an issue has now reached a level of general concern among the brethren. Divorce is no longer a personal or private matter, over whether we each choose to maintain our marriages and families. As Elder Oaks asserts, it touches most all of us in some way.

The wide incidence of divorce is evidence of failure of the option of an essential "escape hatch" from marriage. It touches most families in the church

The very concept of marriage is in peril, because divorce is so commonplace.

In our culture, one popular idea is that marriage is only a private relationship between consenting adults, terminable by either. It seems easier to sever a marriage relationship with an unwanted spouse than a job with an unwanted employee.

Today some young people shun marriage. Some withhold full commitment.

Modern prophets warn that looking at marriage as a mere contract is an evil meriting severe condemnation.

Under the Law of Moses, remarriage for the divorced was considered adultery. Because of the hardness of our hearts, the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of this Celestial standard.

Many of those divorced are innocent victims, with firsthand experience of circumstances worse than marriage. Victims of desertion otherwise may have no way of looking forward and getting on with their lives.

The remedy for this problem is not divorce, but repentance. Often the cause is not incompatibility but selfishness. Divorce is not an all-purpose solution. It creates long-term heartache.

We do not give up on a marriage. If there is any hope of recovery, we seek help, again and again.

There are times when one spouse falls short, and the other is wounded. We must balance current disappointments against the good of the past, and the brighter prospects of the future. Don't treasure up past wrongs, reprocessing them again and again. Festering is destructive, forgiving is divine. Forgive wrongs.

Consider these observations of a wise bishop with extensive experience in counselling. Every couple recognized that divorce was not a good thing, but they all insisted that their situation was different. Worried about the children, but said it's worse for them to have us stay together and fighting.

We should be aware that there are three parties to our marriage -- the two spouses, and the Lord. If two of us could hang in there...

Love the Lord, keep his commandments, and just do the best you can.

He shall consecrate thine afflictions for thy gain.

Temple divorce II

Reiterating some thoughts shared elsewhere...

I am vitally interested in these questions. While I have implicit faith that Heavenly Father will eventually help us understand all the implications, I don't know exactly what a divorce means in terms of my temple covenants.

For myself, I suppose that civil divorce from a temple marriage is relatively meaningless, in the eternal scheme of things. This is an act intended to cover a situation that can only exist in this temporary state. I am thinking that perhaps Jesus' words about divorce in the New Testament have strong application to the idea of cancelling a temple sealing. He said that the followers of Moses were given permission to divorce only because they stubbornly and wilfully insisted. I don't believe this was to their credit, and the pervasiveness of divorce in our society has similar significance.

I prefer to think that I stand assured of the blessings that have been promised, if I keep myself worthy, regardless of the acts or worthiness of others. While I cannot imagine exactly how these blessings will come about, I trust that it is so. My temple covenants are eternal. They cannot be abrogated or compromised by decrees of civil law, nor by the faithlessness of others. It is a fundamental doctrine of the gospel that we are accountable for our own acts, and will not be punished for the misdeeds of others.

Yet it stands to reason that we could not have any kind of eternal relationship - as in my case, given the fact that my exwife and I could not even survive a couple of decades of trial here. Alma counsels that "this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God" and that the same spirit which possesses our bodies now will continue with us in the worlds to come. Our marital relations will not undergo some miraculous transformation at the last day. Impossible to guess now how these difficulties will be worked out, but they must be, and will be, eventually.

It may be that some of our struggle with a rationale for divorced and fragmented families stems from our inability to understand the real nature of celestial marriage. I suppose what we can picture now is a very simplified version of what life with Heavenly Father will really be. We strive to model our earthly families after the form and function of the celestial, as far as we can envision that environment. From my perspective, this is a good thing to look forward to-things can only get better. (And I find myself feeling as though they could not get much worse, just now.)

I will always wonder, though: If I was really a good person, perhaps these evil things would not have happened to me. During the time when I was happily married - and it was quite a long stretch - I often expressed in prayers my gratitude for such a good marriage. What can I say now? Thanks for the memories, it was good while it lasted? I just don't feel as if "Better luck next time" is a very comforting thought.

What is "temple divorce"?

The term seems to be rooted in Mormon folklore.

On divorce in Mormon culture from Encyclopedia of Mormonism

I have never heard a satisfying explanation for "temple divorce", and in fact I'm not sure the church even uses such terms formally.  Elder James A. Culimore considers this question in a 1975 Church publication.

Temples are not about divorcing. "Divorce" itself, it would seem, really has only temporal connotations, so in terms of binding covenants sealing for time and all eternity, it does not seem like the appropriate term.

I understand the church offers an administrative action referred to as "cancellation of sealing". But I am still not sure I understand what that means. How can an eternal covenant be "canceled"?

Do the participants kneel together at the same altar in the temple where their sealing was pronounced, and somehow un-promise?

Specific counsel from Elder Dallin H. Oaks somewhat illuminates this discussion, which frequently generates more heat than light.