I have heard the same thing about divorce from clients – “I’d rather my spouse be dead than going through a divorce.”
Strong language. What would drive people to say something like this?
Much has been done at Mormon Stories (and elsewhere) on one spouse leaving the church or just experiencing a change in beliefs in marriage. There seem to be many couples who divorce or have significant marital problems related to loss of faith. How widespread do you think this is among Mormons? Is it a problem in other religions? While very important, I’m not very interested in how and why the church and/or the culture may influence marital problems around this issue. I’m wondering about the process of what happens for both partners.
All humans have a basic need for safe emotional connection with key others “from the cradle to the grave.” Couples rely on each other for comfort in times of distress, and draw strength from each other every day.
Some couples experience what is called an “attachment injury.” This occurs when one (or both) partners violate this expectation of safety and security. The injured partner has a new and damaged view of the partner they once thought they knew. This is not just your everyday marital problem. Attachment injuries often occur in cases of addiction and affairs, but not in every case. Spouses feel abandoned and betrayed in a time when they need security the most.
Some couples are able to make a newly mixed-faith marriage work. Others are not. For some it leads to divorce so fast that they don’t have a chance. I posit that what may be happening for many of these couples are attachment injuries.
For both partners.
Initially, I had only considered that the spouse who stays could be experiencing something like an attachment injury. However, I think it may be happening for the other spouse as well. Consider that a crisis of faith is already a huge loss. For some it can be scary. Now imagine, along with that that sense of loss and fear, your spouse has now rejected you and threatened divorce. You formally may have been able to trust your partner, rely on them in times of need, turn to them in distress.
Now you are going through ostensibly one of the biggest challenges of your life, and your spouse isn’t there to support you.
They can’t support you. They have also been significantly hurt.
Go ahead and toss around the blame. It’s completely understandable. It also doesn’t help.
How do people make this work? Is it possible to repair a marriage when both partners have been betrayed and abandoned in this way? Has anyone experienced this and managed to repair their marriage?
Wheat & Tares 
Doesn’t the gospel teach us not to ditch our spouse just because he or she is not a believer? According to the gospel laws and principles, then, would a spouse leaving the church even be considered to be a justifiable (guiltless) reason for divorce?
I would rather be dead than stay in a church I don’t jive with.
I would rather be dead than stay in a lifeless marriage.
When my now-ex left the Church, I stayed with him. That wasn’t a reason for divorce.
However, by rejecting something that was so much a part of me, he was also rejecting me. How can you fully love and trust someone who is, essentially, telling you that you are living a lie? If I had had a loving connection with him, his rejecting the Church (and his was more out of laziness than loss of belief) would certainly have damaged it.
It is even more so when you have banked your entire eternity on someone, only to have them kick it out from under you.
To me, anyways, his lack of faith was far more difficult to me than even his lack of loyalty or care for me. I believe that if he had had a relationship with God, we could have surmounted other challenges.
It’s more than a simple attachment injury, which from what you say, I read to mean a lack of support. It is a rejection of me and what I believe.
SR, I’m not quite following you. You say that his leaving the Church was not a reason for divorce. However, you later say that his leaving the Church meant that he rejected you by implication, and that — had your relationship been better — his leaving the Church would have “damaged” (broken?) it. So apostasy was not a reason for divorce, but had your relationship been healthier it would have been?
While I don’t know you or your marriage, I would say that, in general, it might be a little unfair to conflate rejecting (or not participating in) an institution with rejecting every member of said institution, even including one’s spouse. It’s a sword that cuts both ways; I know of a couple (husband was a non-member, wife was completely inactive) whose relationship went on the rocks when the wife started going to Church again. The husband had never had any interest in the Church and was resentful that now his wife wanted him to join, saying “I’m not the one who changed!”
Re SilverRain-
I don’t want to speak for Adam, but I think an attachment injury is more than just lack of support. I suspect attachment injuries are what lead to triggers – emotional cues that send a partner into a tailspin of hurt and emotional distress. They stem from a violation of emotional trust – not necessarily intellectual trust. They become the gaping wound that, if not repaired, will most certainly lead to cutting emotional ties.
Re Adam-
I think it is possible to repair. I think healthy emotional bonds can potentially overcome any attachment injury. I think the real question is whether or not those healthy bonds are strong enough. It seems to me that when the bonds are not strong enough one partner loses desire to work things out. At that point the relationship is over. No amount of therapy will repair a relationship in which one or both partners has no desire to try and repair it.
I also think, in this way, the religious background can, in some people, help to keep the relationship together. Some people take their covenants serious enough to do whatever it takes to make the eternal marriage work. Perhaps they take a long term view and hope that the disaffected spouse will come around in the next life.
#3 “It is even more so when you have banked your entire eternity on someone, only to have them kick it out from under you.”
So you blame your ex for this issue rather than see it as a critical failure of doctrine that places you in a situation you have little to no control over by accident of your birth as a woman? If your ex had remained a practicing member with or without doubts how would this have been different?
SR – “Itās more than a simple attachment injury, which from what you say, I read to mean a lack of support. It is a rejection of me and what I believe.”
jmb really described it well. I should have explained it better. An attachment injury is a profound and deep wound that can’t be easily healed. It fundamentally changes the relationship and the way you view your partner. What you described in the second half there is more like it – it can lead to feeling fundamentally rejected – often involves feeling betrayed, having the rug pulled out from under you, etc. To be more than that, and actually be an “attachment injury” it has to happen in a time of great need. We hurt each other all the time, but doing something big at a time when you are needed most can really damage things. For example, say you’re having some sort of crisis in your life, something really big. Say a family member was just killed in an accident. You need your spouse. You can’t reach him at work because he is “at lunch.” Later you find out he was at a hotel with the secretary. That, I think, would almost undoubtedly result in an attachment injury. Affairs don’t ALWAYS cause these injuries, but they often do. Same with addiction – it’s not the same for everyone.
“It is even more so when you have banked your entire eternity on someone, only to have them kick it out from under you.”
That certainly seems like a good example.
I wouldn’t leave my spouse over him leaving the church even though the church is the most important thing in my life. However, he is a good husband and father. Although he is not perfect. If he quit believing in the gospel he might not care so much about doing the things that I think make him a good husband and father.
I think what often happens is that if the spouse leaves the church there are often other differences that seem impossible to repair. For instance for my husband I am sure he would do things that I would not like. It would then change the balance of what things I would “require” of him to be a good husband and he would be very resentful that I would expect him not to drink for instance or my definition of being faithful. So then he is more unhappy and I am more unhappy.
4—No. I don’t think a damaged relationship necessarily leads to divorce.
I know that makes me odd, but there it is.
And I think you would be right that rejecting an institution doesn’t necessarily reject its members, except the nature of the institution. The Church includes its covenants. When you reject the marriage covenant, you are also rejecting the marriage. This is more intimate than the simple institution/member equation.
Alice—It doesn’t. Practicing being a member means nothing if the intent isn’t there. And yes, I entirely blame my ex for lying when he made covenants with me. I blame him for using my religion to control me. It would have been different, perhaps, if he had been sincere to begin with.
We all have crises of faith. It’s how we deal with and work through them that matters. Covenants are made to give us something to hold to when these things happen. When covenants have been made, it is no longer purely a question of faith. It is also a question of honor.
And I don’t see what it has to do with my being a woman. The same thing would apply if the genders were reversed.
Adam—I get it better now. For me, attachment injury, (which now that you explain it, I suffered every single time I needed him) was not enough for me to end the marriage because of the covenants I made. Unfortunately, I believe he relied on those covenants to keep me from leaving no matter what he did, and he upped the ante every time. He never figured that the Lord might eventually tell me that it was enough.
And I know mine is an unusual situation. I’m German enough that duty and loyalty are more to me than feelings. That’s not necessarily a good thing, but it can help get through hard times in a relationship.
I am married to an atheist who has been an atheist our entire relationship. So I can’t speak to the questions at the end of the post. But, you asked early in the post if this is a problem in other religions. My guess would be that it’s not as big of a problem because in the LDS church one spouse’s eternal salvation is kind of dependent upon the others. I think that raises the stakes in Mormon marriage.
Exactly – it happens when we need them the most… it can also feel like it has happened over and over again, although many couples feel that there was one or two moments or events that were the most significant, almost symbolic of all the other moments. Once those events happen, all the related events in the future don’t have the same initial impact because the hurt is already there… they just bring it up again/make it worse/more permanent. In therapy, those moments or injuries have to be healed. That’s partly why “communication skills” and “active listening” don’t work for many couples. Their wounds go much deeper.
What I’m thinking, is that for some couples, both can experience an attachment injury in the case of one losing faith. The first could be something like your experience. The spouse leaving the faith (not your spouse, but just in general) may also feel abandoned and could experience an attachment injury if they are rejected by their spouse in a time of great need, e.g. a crisis of faith.
Heather – interesting point. I’m sure the idea of “eternal marriage” is powerful in these cases. I wonder how it may be a different (or similar) process in conservative Christian faiths.
Thanks, Heather. That’s kind of what I was trying to get at.
And it’s more than just that. The LDS faith is about integrating your faith into your life. When you lose the faith, you lose more than just a mental exercise.
I tend to agree with Alice. This is where doctrinal footings in the church fall apart. The beautiful picture of the eternal family is a massive fail with the family becomes anything but the romanticized view of family that is becoming increasingly rare. In a split faith marriage, suddenly one partner is lost in terms of eternal promises if, seemingly, if they stay with the disaffected spouse. The disaffected spouse sees the potential of divorce over eternal family doctrines as paradoxical and even more evidence in support of their dissolving beliefs.
Since I am smack dab in the middle of this crisis right now, I see my believing wife stick around and stay with me out of love for me and the family but I know the thought is in her mind… “is this best for me”? I am grateful for her willingness to work through this and commit to it, and find her attitude reaffirming of the church in some ways. We have had the long and hard, crushing, heartbreaking talks about splitting up, not because we don’t love each other or not because of other marital issues, but simply so that she would have the chance to find a TBM partner that could give her all of those promises that I am breaking – but through it all she has remained committed.
I realize our situation is a lucky one, we have certainly battled through a ton of emotions and tough, tough times – but right now I have more hope than despair. As was mentioned by AdamF, there is loss on both sides of the partnership. My wife has lost the potential of blessings that I promised to help her earn through our life together, but my wife has also be quick to realize that I have lost faith in a life long religion that dominated every shred of my life for 40 years. We are both reeling from the changes in our lives but realize that changes are inevitable, even if uncomfortable.
The crowing realization that my DW has had as we have fought through this is that NO God could possibly want to see a family like ours, with beautiful daughters and loving parents and so much going for us, split up over doctrine that was meant to reinforce a family just like ours. And thank God for her open mind on this issue, because I don’t believe in that God either. Our struggles are far from over, wounds are still raw and we have a long way to go, but what a tragedy if our beautiful little family could not get through my disaffection. Again, that would only add fuel to my fire as I fall away from my faith.
james – Thank you for sharing that experience. If I ever turn this OP into a study (e.g. my dissertation!) I hope to find people like you, who are struggling to make it work.
Silver Rain – I think there is a difference between rejecting a covenant and no longer believing the covenant has any truth. Did he tell you he rejects being eternally married to you? Or, did he tell you that he no longer believes eternal marriage exists? Those are two different things. Where is the honor in pretending something is real that you believe to be imaginary (lying about what you believe to be true, essentially)?
Adam, I listen to a lot of really conservative Christian talk radio (out of morbid curiosity). Being in Utah they bash on the church a lot. They are constantly going on about there being no marriage in heaven. So I doubt there would be that pressure. There is a lot of focus on a person being saved having a “heart for God” and the unsaved being a heretic. So that might cause a lot of tension. But, in all of the marriage advice I’ve heard on that station, I’ve never heard them promote divorce. They always promote praying for the spouse and trying to influence them to be saved.
Since I have seen active members who are unloving and non-members who are very nurturing in their marriages (and vice versa), I believe that any loving marriage should be treasured whether or not both parties are members of the Church or not.
Heather 17 – Interesting… so the spouse who stays in the faith may not be as likely to experience this loss or injury, while the spouse who leaves the faith may be really hurt. I mean, if I left my faith and my wife saw me as a heretic, that could really do some damage.
Adam (19) – Yeah, I would assume. I obviously don’t know for sure since I’m not actually a part of that culture. But I do think it would be difficult to be married to an evangelical.
as a non-believer, I mean.
Heather—Neither. He just quit going to Church, and said that I didn’t care about him because I wouldn’t stay home, too.
But I feel I need to reiterate that his lack of going to Church was not why I divorced him. Oversimplified, I divorced him because he told me it was my fault that he tried to physically throw me out of the house when I was three months pregnant.
My divorce is not what I’m talking about when I try to explain why “losing faith” and rejecting the Church is more serious to a spouse than simply no longer believing.
And I also want to add that it is not the doctrines of the Church that fall apart in such situations. They are simply part of living a mortal life.
SR – now that you explain it more, it DOES seem that there was a lot more going on underneath for both of you and for him than “the church.”
Yes, I was trying to extract one aspect of what I went through when I was still trying to remain married, and I muddled it badly.
Another thought occurred to me that one big part of the injury done to the believing spouse by the suddenly-non-believer, is that rarely does the one who “loses faith” discuss it in process. Usually, it comes as an announcement after the journey is over and conclusions have been reached.
That is not only a rejection of doctrine, that is also a lack of communication that erodes a foundation of trust between spouses.
So it seems like if the spouse going through the crisis holds it in out of fear/worry/anxiety whatnot, and then FINALLY unleashes it all at once, it could be a lot more damaging.
That’s a big one, SilverRain, and a mistake I made. I should have been more up front during the process but was entirely freaked out myself.
james – exactly. It’s NOT an easy thing to just open up about such a huge shock. In relationships we often have a hard time just sharing what’s happening to us below the surface in every day type conflict.
Interesting discussion.
James, your experience is especially interesting. I’m sorry for the struggles your views of the church have brought you, and I wish you and your wife the best as you work your way through it.
From my perspective I would not say the doctrine is a massive fail, however. I assume from your comments that you and your wife were sealed and then sometime after that sealing your views on the church (or your behavior toward it) changed.
That would suggest that your wife still has any blessings associated with the covenants she has made. I’m sure there are plenty who would speculate what your role in your family will be in the eternities, but frankly no one knows that but the ultimate judge, and it’s foolish for us to speculate.
I would assume that some partners who feel the disconnect that AdamF describes in the OP feel it because the terms of the original marriage covenant have changed. While it would be (theoretically, at least) possible to work through those issues (as James and his wife seem to be trying to do), others could feel betrayed by the change in terms.
I know a couple who was like the one Latter-day Guy described, except that it was the husband who came back to church and the wife didn’t. That husband struggled to balance time commitments to the church, and even how to pay tithing, given his wife’s strong opposition to his choice.
I’m not sure I follow this reasoning.
A temple marriage has multiple layers. One of them is the legally recognized civil marriage — the one that you have to get a license for before they’ll marry you in the temple. That aspect of the marriage is not rejected by a spouse’s rejection of the Church.
Neither is the LDS marriage covenant entirely bound up with belief in the Church. The covenant includes a promise to keep the basic law pertaining to all marriages, not just LDS covenant ones: fidelity to your spouse. That’s arguably the most significant aspect of the covenant. Again, that’s not affected by changing belief.
At most, religious disaffection operates as a “partial breach” (to borrow lawyer terms) of the marriage covenant. The question is then whether it is a “material” breach justifying the cancellation of the agreement between the partners.
I agree that revealing it all at once after the process is over would be terrible. In my marriage I started sharing my doubts when they were early and not that big, and since I kept sharing and we kept discussing things all the way through we still have a really strong marriage. My husband is still orthodox on nearly everything and I’m not sure whether or not I’ll even staying — my views change by the day. I think if I weren’t respectful of his belief and if he weren’t respectful of my right to question things and seek out what answers I can this wouldn’t have worked so well. I think it’s tragic that it doesn’t work out this way a lot of the time for others.
Again, I think that if taken as a general rule, this line of reasoning is really problematic. Leaving the Church =/= rejecting one’s marriage covenants (at least not necessarily). Obviously, it may entail some major changes regarding how one views marriage in the context of the afterlife, but there are plenty of non-sealed couples with fantastic marriages. LDS marriage doctrine presupposes both mortal and post-mortal relationships; believing the latter to be imaginary does not necessarily result in devaluing and/or abandoning the former.
As your later comments made clear, there was a lot more going on with your marriage than your ex’s leaving the Church. If I’m reading you correctly, it seems that his apostasy/loss-of-faith/[insert other term here] was a stressor that revealed/exacerbated some of the problems rather than creating them. That is, a fall can cause a broken bone, thus revealing osteoporosis — but the fall did not cause the osteoporosis.
I think monogamy has a lot to do with the problem. Given that the person staying with the church understands a celestial resurrection to entail being sealed to a husband — and then given that the church will only allow monogamy:
Then I can see why spouses feel “leaving the church” is a justified reason for divorce. However, it’s not. There is nothing about a spouse having different beliefs that justifies dissolving a marriage bond. People just feel trapped b/c they are not allowed to take a second marriage bond with a believer — thus removing the “stress” of risking eternity b/c of the unbelieving spouse.
Justin (and anyone else) – So you think that the stress related to “eternal” issues is the main reason why a crisis of faith for one spouse is associated with marital problems or divorce?
Well, polygamy does seem a novel solution to the dilemma. (To be fair though, we’d have to institute both polygyny and polyandry.) Good luck with that! š
With all due respect to the polygamy discussion, I’m not so interested in institutional, doctrinal, or cultural changes… If we could discuss sometime what happens to a couple when the wife takes a second husband because the first had a crisis of faith, I am totally interested. š
Adam #34: “So you think that the stress related to āeternalā issues is the main reason why a crisis of faith for one spouse is associated with marital problems or divorce?”
Among LDS — for sure. Other Christians — not so much.
L-dG #35 “(To be fair though, weād have to institute both polygyny and polyandry.)” Oh horror!!
Justin – Do you think that there could be other variables at play, other than just the eternal stuff? It just seems to me that a spouse leaving the church has no bearing (neither immediate nor eternal) on what happens to the spouse who stays. They are still entitled to their blessings according to their faithfulness. What else could be going on?
I have to wonder why it is that we seem to assume in the LDS church that if someone loses their faith in this life then that is the end for them in the eternities as far as hope for celestial potential. Is this a justified belief? I suppose there are probably some scriptures that talk about how it would have been better to have never been born than to turn away from sacred covenants. But I just have a hard time believing that this life is our only shot. We don’t always take that position with potential converts – well, they rejected the missionaries once or twice so I guess they’re doomed. At least that’s not the way I look at it with my grandfather. He has lived his whole life surrounded by faithful members of the church, yet he will most certainly die without accepting membership. I still have hope I will have a relationship with him in the afterlife. And I think loss of faith in marriage doesn’t have to lead to complete loss of expectations and blessings in eternity.
I don’t remember where I heard it, but I remember someone saying that a sealing in the temple is not efficacious if there are not all of the essential ingredients to a healthy, successful marriage. You may have done the ceremony, but that doesn’t mean you have a celestial marriage. I think the opposite is also true – you can have a celestial marriage without making specific covenants. I don’t know how it all will work out, but whether you are sealed in the temple or not, or whether you have loss of faith, that love still has the power to seal families regardless. That is my hope anyway.
Adam, not to get too far afield, but as you describe attachment injury, those processes also fairly describe my experience with finding out difficult aspects of church history. In other words, what I thought the church was, what I believed in, doesn’t exist anymore. Now I’m trying to work through feelings of betrayal and find my equilibrium again. Luckily, I’m married to such a wonderful man of faith, he truly believes we have all of eternity to figure this out together.
dkm – Interesting – There is some literature on attachment and God – I wonder if it’s a similar process for others like you have experienced… actually, here’s an article I just found that may be related…
Click to access Attachment%20to%20God.pdf
Thomas, for me the civil marriage is a formality. If you are sealed as spouses, you made a commitment to God. To me, if you are untrue to God, that bodes quite ill for your loyalty and commitment to me. That is huge.
LDG*—”non-sealed couples with fantastic marriages.”
Yes, but they didn’t make the covenants in the first place.
Again, I’m not saying it’s not possible to remain married after one spouse stops believing in the Church, I’m saying that it’s a bigger deal than some might like to think it.
And not exactly about my marriage. He stopped going to Church several times in the five years we were actively married. That hurt me, and deeply, but it did not contribute to the actual divorce in any appreciable amount. But it did give me an insight to how it hurts.
Michael—I’m sure what you say would appeal to many, but love is not the same as sealing.
Adam #38
(1) When you are told that you can have only one spouse, I think there also is fear that you’re “wasting your time” if all things are right. If I’m passionate about Mormonism and my spouse isn’t, then there is a lot of my life that we just don’t touch base on. If I only get one spouse, then I’d rather it be a person I can share more things with [there being a higher level of intimacy/attachement thereby].
(2) Cultural Mormonism — by that I mean the social pressure from the ward or from extended family that a good Mormon man/woman shouldn’t “waste their time” with an apostate, etc.
(3) I’m sure there could be more…
SilverRain – – But what if after a disaffection you feel that those covenants made to God where covenants made under false pretenses and otherwise invalid? That is how I view them, not as a method of rationalizing, but very simply that the premise of the temple and the sealing and the covenants was not true, so I in fact have not broken a promise or covenant with God that was valid to begin with.
Of course my wife sees this differently…
Correction to comment #43:
The first sentence of number (1) should read:
When you are told that you can have only one spouse, I think there also is fear that youāre āwasting your timeā if all things are not right.
If a man is knowingly “untrue to God,” then maybe. If he can lie to God, he can lie to you. But a man who, in good faith, concludes that God and Mormonism aren’t necessarily always identical, isn’t lying. At worst, he’s mistaken.
And that says nothing about whether he’s loyal or committed to you. God and religion, he sees through a glass darkly. There are as many ways for good, honest, loyal people to make mistakes, as there are different religions filled with good, honest loyal people.
On the other hand, he sees and knows you face to face. There is less room for sectarian error as to what he legitimately owes you in a marriage: He cleaves unto you, and none else. End of story; true for Mormons, Catholics, Jews, and…miscellaneous (that’s you, Apu) alike.
I guess what bothers me is this notion that becoming disenchanted with Mormonism equals “being untrue to God.” This runs along with the idea that the “honest in heart” will inevitably be convinced of the Church’s truth. I know some people very well who have left the Church for other ways of worship, and do not consider them to be untrue to God. Rather, they are being true to God according to the light and knowledge they have received. They may even be truer to God, for believing fewer things about Him for the right reasons, than declaring belief in more doctrines without a proper basis for doing so.
If you’re stuck with the proverbial stinking apostate who denies the faith he truly deep down believes because he just likes beer, porn, and Sunday fishing more than God, then maybe there’s grounds for believing him likely to cheat on you, too. But that’s not everyone by a long shot.
“what if after a disaffection you feel that those covenants made to God where covenants made under false pretenses and otherwise invalid?”
As a spouse, what’s to then stop you from doing the same to me? To suddenly decide that you married me under false pretenses and that the marriage is then invalid? I consider myself far less than God.
SR #42 – Okay, we will just have to disagree on that one.
However, I still wonder- and I am not saying this could have happened in your marriage, so let’s just say in a more general sense….
I know of people who have lost their faith for some time and then come back to the faith. There is a brother in my ward who is in this situation and recently has returned to the fold. In such a case, could the believing spouse (the one who was faithful throughout) be considered as the one who broke the covenant? They elected to divorce rather than sticking things out when their spouse may have returned to the faith somewhere along the road (or in the next life)?
SilverRain:
I think that is a valid concern, of course. Especially for the spouse that still firmly believes and has faith, the whole marriage may indeed have been made under false pretenses.
Thomas—what you say is possible, that a person could sincerely leave the Church and the promises and covenants they have made. In such a case, things might be different. It’s hard for me to say, because it’s too hypothetical for my personal experience.
And they might not. There is still a serious breach of trust, especially if I as a spouse was not part of that journey.
Michael—For a believing spouse, they have to trust the Spirit for that, for certain.
However, I would guess that it is so rare as to be almost mythical that an otherwise loving, caring, devoted spouse leaves the Church and the other divorces them for that reason alone. These things don’t happen in a vacuum.
Adam, thanks for taking the time to provide that link
#49 “I think that is a valid concern, of course. Especially for the spouse that still firmly believes and has faith, the whole marriage may indeed have been made under false pretenses.”
IF someone made covenants knowing but failing to disclose that they had doubts that they couldn’t reconcile I’d agree with you. But say a marriage is into its second or third decade and the doubting spouse had no such doubts at the time the covenant was sealed. How could that be false pretenses? How can anyone be responsible for things that have not occurred and aren’t even thinkable at the time that one is in a state of full belief?
Alice—It’s an old-fashioned and outdated concept called fidelity. Otherwise known as commitment, loyalty, faithfulness.
If something as personal and important as faith and belief can be changed like that, how can another person trust that other commitments are not also going to be changed?
There have been many times that I have not FELT the truth of the Gospel, but I have gone on because of the covenants I made. I believed I had a duty to remain true to what I promised I would do.
Like I said, it’s a pretty old-fashioned thing.
Sorry, SR, I just can’t follow you there. Covenants are a two way street and the church being the 2nd party in this deal has to live up to their commitments as well. I, personally, (and I know you will disagree with me here), don’t feel the church held up their end of the bargain so my obligation to be committed, loyal, and faithful to the church is rendered null and void.
In my experience, if the partners can be patient, over time some of these crisis issues and injuries subside somewhat, and then the issues can be dealt with. It can be hard to deal with these things when emotions are high.
To me, it is not about making a one time commitment, and then you stick to it or you are damned, and I don’t think spouses should hold that over the head of the other spouse.
All contracts, commitments, covenants are done under the information given at the time. As things change (as all things will), so it has to be worked out together to keep the covenants as they are, renogotiate them, or call it done and walk away.
Nobody in business would hold it over others to keep the contract indefinitely and never renegotiate it even if it doesn’t serve the needs of the other party anymore. There may be consequences, but at times, renogotiation is appropriate.
Blaming others or hiding behind faith-based arguments will not change the issues that need to be addressed in the relationship, IMO. Spouses need to realize it will just take work. There is no other way around it.
I like that, Heber. Change is a constant and people change, a lot. If people are not dealing with change in faith and religion there are certainly other changes that throw major obstacles in marriage, especially over years and decades. Aside from my own changes in how I view my faith, my wife and I have both changed dramatically in our 18 years of marriage. We are entirely different people than we were when we met, dated, and married. Most of those changes have been positive and things that we have welcomed into our relationship, but certainly not all of them.
It takes a lot of work. As you said, Heber, negotiation is probably the most important skill for spouses to master.
I agree, James. I think you can stamp your feet and cry for no change…or you can embrace it and realize that can lead to something better (and be realistic that there is also risk).
My view of the church has changed, and I think it has helped me. But that is an individual thing with a creator who knows my heart.
Change with relationships of other people is hard, because we are limited in knowing their hearts or intentions and that scares us about our future.
Over and above love or faith in a marriage, I think trust is most important. When we have trust, change can be embraced. Without trust, change is freakin’ scary!
Reminds me of the “efficient breach” doctrine.
Let’s say you agree to build someone a barn for $10,000. Something unexpected happens — you fall off a roof, let’s say, meaning that to complete the barn job, you’d have to hire a foreman to supervise the work you were going to do yourself. You find it will actually cost you $15,000 to perform the work you contracted to do. You will lose $3,000 on the deal if you have to go through with it.
Let’s then say there’s another guy out there who can do the job for $11,000.
Under those circumstances — if for whatever reason some accommodation can’t be worked out, like you subcontracting the whole job out to the other guy — it makes sense for you to breach the contract, and pay, as damages for breach, the $1,000 in additional costs of using the other contractor. The non-breaching party ultimately gets all that he bargained for — a barn for a net expense of $10,000. You are better off, because you were only out $1,000 instead of $3,000. The law prefers this efficient result, than to forcing you to pay $3,000 to give your contract partner the same benefit he could get for $1,000. That would be wasteful. Waste is bad.
By that reasoning, nobody should ever marry a convert to the Church. If something as personal as faith and belief can be changed — for instance, from Lutheranism to Mormonism — how can another person trust that other commitments are not also going to be changed?
This must be coupled with another old-fashioned and outdated concept called authority, or “agency.” When someone extracts a promise from you based on a claim of authority that it turns out he doesn’t actually have, you have no duty of “fidelity” to that promise. If a man claiming to represent the New York Port Authority extracts from you a promise to pay a billion dollars in exchange for the Brooklyn Bridge turns out not to have the authority to dispose of that bridge, you have no duty to pay him, or anyone, the billion dollars.
As I read the comments, I see two distinct camps. Those that strongly beleive that the convenant made at marriage is a critical part of the trust and commitment that forms the marriage bond and those, who do not feel that strongly about it. Even in the legal sense, when one party changes the arrangement, the committment can either be broken or must be re-negotated.
It seems that those who do not feel as strongly about the marriage covenant seem to be arguing that the beleiving partner should just accept the new arrangement without question or concern.
Jeff, I don’t really see anyone in the latter camp saying the believing partner should just accept without question. Usually if people are making the argument they at least say that. You might be interpreting it that way, but I don’t see a lot of examples.
To me it seems more like one group is trying to argue that losing faith is an unforgiveable breach of contract that can’t be forgiven and the other group is trying to say that loss of faith may not be a sufficient justification for scrapping the marriage. It’s ironic because you accuse the people of not taking the covenant seriously enough, yet it is that group that actually seems more willing to actually work through the marriage.
Call me crazy, but my personal impression is that if a person is thinking things like, “If my spouse did this or that, the marriage would be over” is probably a pretty unhealthy way to go at marriage. Could my spouse do something that might lead to divorce? I suppose theoretically yes. But as far as I’m concerned, there is nothing that would even make me consider divorce, especially not loss of faith. So who is more committed? The person who is willing to work through the loss of faith, or the person who will only continue the marriage given certain predetermined expectations?
I HAVE seen several people on both sides of the fence admitting openly that a loss of faith is difficult for everyone involved. No one is saying, “so your spouse lost his/her faith. Get over it.”
Or, viewing the opposition a bit more charitably, “those who feel that the mutual covenant of fidelity between the actual parties to the marriage, is at least as important as the (unstated, but possibly implied) covenant to hold your whole life to the same religious beliefs as you did on your wedding day.”
What is the most important part of the marriage covenant, anyway? I believe it’s the mutual covenant of personal fidelity. If an implied covenant of fidelity to the Church is even there, it’s secondary to the main, interpersonal covenant.
#62 — Michael, interesting thought. I remember my wife was asked early in our marriage what she thought the “secret” to a good marriage was. Her response (almost immediate, as if she had already decided this for herself) was the decision that the marriage would survive, no matter what.
As I heard her say that (we were in our first year or two of marriage) I was a little surprised, but pleased at her commitment to our marriage.
I think that commitment to the marriage is the right one. Of course there may be circumstances that might lead to a change, but even those might also be overcome.
As Silver Rain pointed out very early in the discussion, it seems that where there is divorce coincident with a break with the church, there are likely other contributing factors, as well, perhaps on both sides of the aisle.
“To me it seems more like one group is trying to argue that losing faith is an unforgivable breach of contract that canāt be forgiven and the other group is trying to say that loss of faith may not be a sufficient justification for scrapping the marriage.”
I am sure you understand that an LDS Temple marriage has a huge commitment that goes along with it. Of course, every marriage has a huge commitment behind it. I think someone mentioned fidelity. That, to me, it not just moral fidelity. It is loyalty, and the other things that made up the decision to marry.
However, if things change, then there is a period of determination about whether that change is a deal breaker or one that can be worked through.
But, you cannot automatically fault a strongly believing LDS spouse if they decided loss of faith and practice of the religion is a deal breaker.
I would hope that a thorough examination of the whole martial picture is done before making a huge decision like that.
These days there is barely a commitment made between married couple hence the very high divorce rate.
A disaffected spouse must be very careful to not become derisive or bitter toward their believing spouse’s faith.
A TBM spouse must be very careful to truly love their spouse and not merely see that person as a means to (or impediment to)salvation. Marriage takes place in the real world, not just in the afterlife.
To me, the real issue is marrying without affection based on a superficial thing like both being “faithful” Mormons. There has to be more to marriage than just the shared faith. When crisis hits, those non-religious reasons are what will help the couple sustain the marriage.
James #55—The Church is not the other side of the covenant. The Church has promised nothing to us.
Heber #56—From the very beginning, I have said that loss of faith was not a reason for divorce to me.
My point is that the loss of faith of a spouse is an ongoing wound. It won’t just go away. And someone who decides to leave the church and “renegotiate the contract” needs to understand the depth of the pain that causes. When you are married, you are not one person with a contract. You are unit. Your choices affect others deeply. Treating a covenant like a contract is a salve to guilt, I think.
Thomas #60—If that is how you believe marriage works, that you have no obligation towards your spouse because your own level of faith has changed or because you suddenly believe that the contract has been executed under improper authority, than you are in good company. Most people agree with you. That is not an attitude I respect in the least.
“one group is trying to argue that losing faith is an unforgiveable breach of contract that canāt be forgiven”
If you are including me in this group, you haven’t the least understanding of what I’ve said.
” there is nothing that would even make me consider divorce, especially not loss of faith.”
“was the decision that the marriage would survive, no matter what.”
Yeah, that’s what I used to say, too. That’s what kept me five years in an abusive relationship. It’s a charming notion, and one that I wish we could all preserve. Kind of like saying “I, for one, would never lose my virginity before marriage,” to a rape victim. And if you sense bitterness there, you are right. I have lost a type of innocence in marriage that I will probably never get back.
I think it’s important to point out that in a marriage covenant, there is no promise to the spouse, but to God. By definition, you can’t covenant with another person. Therefore, if one of the spouses no longer believes the promise to God is valid, there is no promise. To a believing spouse, that is huge. Like Jeff said, you can’t simply say that a believing spouse is “not as committed to the marriage” when the covenant was broken by the newly unbelieving.
As I’ve said before, I don’t think any believing spouse divorces simply because of a loss of faith. There is usually also a huge lifestyle change involved. At the very least, they are left trying to take the children to church alone, IF the unbelieving spouse even allows them to take the children at all. Then there is sometimes the introduction of coffee, cigarettes and alcohol to the home, and VERY often a wandering eye as well. In addition to the little digs and derision that comes towards their faith on a daily basis, like hawkgrrl mentioned.
And, if the husband is the one who stops believing, there is the issue of not having the Priesthood in the home.
Believe me, that is big to a person who is used to being able to ask for Priesthood blessings when they are needed.
#68 – I guess I disagree, but maybe I used the wrong terminology – maybe not. I think the church did promise, or convey promises in their doctrinal teachings of what was true and what God was promising in return for my living true to my promises. When I realized, personally, that those doctrines were not true then the promises of the temple covenants, the meaning, the truth values and claims, they were gone and thus in return I felt my faithfulness to the covenants was no longer a valid concern.
My obligations in the marriage are to love, respect, not be derisive, to provide, to allow my wife her beliefs as she is allowing me mine (and yes, I still have beliefs – I am not devoid of faith and spirituality, I simply feel differently about them now.) I am still a good parent, an honest man, a moral person. I still support my wife in her faith, and my kids. We simply see God and faith in differently ways now.
But back to your point, I strongly disagree that the church did not make promises, call them doctrinal teachings or eternal blessings or whatever. They taught those promises on God’s behalf.
#66 – Jeff – I think we are pretty much in agreement actually.
#68 – SilverRain – I know the mentality is not useful for people who have been abusive relationships and I understand that. I know we’ve agreed that in some or many cases, loss of faith on its own may not be grounds for automatic divorce.
I think I should explain one more thing from my experience that has sort of changed the way I look at marriage. My maternal grandparents are a mixed faith marriage – my grandma is Mormon and my grandpa is Catholic (at least nominally). My grandpa promised my grandma’s parents he would join the church if they would allow him to marry their daughter. Of course, that never happened. To be perfectly honest, it is not by any means a very happy marriage. It is borderline abusive and my grandma basically can’t even talk about her faith much even to this day. I personally don’t understand how she endures it sometimes.
On top of that, they have six children, all married in the temple. Every one of my male cousins have served missions and everyone who has come of age has been married in the temple. It’s a pretty remarkable phenomenon, I think. Yet my grandma has never taken out her endowments and thus never been able to participate in any of these wonderful events. She doesn’t want to go to the temple unless it is with her husband to be sealed.
What is the point of all this? Well as with everything there are a few ways you can look at this. In all honesty I think this couple comes from a generation that values commitment a lot more than ours does. Even if the marriage is ugly sometimes, it would be even more reprehensible to back out on that commitment. I don’t think I could do it. But the question that has always lingered in my mind is the theoretical – could things have possibly turned out better for their children and grandchildren had they split up? Again, I don’t know the answer.
But this is the point of the whole conversation. Marriage and covenants and commitments are complicated matters. It is not just about the believing spouse or the non believing spouse. It’s not just about loss of faith or otherwise, especially when you have children involved. Even if a marriage is not completely stable the way someone had hoped, does that give them the right to destabilize even more lives in the process?
I guess when it comes down to it I am at heart more traditional than the average person. And yet there has to be an acknowledgement that all of this is messy, and individual circumstances can often make the rule not necessarily true in all cases.
In other words, I can see and understand Jeff and SilverRain’s position and I also have lots of understanding and sympathy for people like James in their situation. I don’t think we have all the answers, but I really enjoy the discussion.
#67 HG: “A disaffected spouse must be very careful to not become derisive or bitter toward their believing spouseās faith.
“A TBM spouse must be very careful to truly love their spouse and not merely see that person as a means to (or impediment to)salvation. Marriage takes place in the real world, not just in the afterlife.”
Yes and yes.
I think most people are going to have different experiences when something like this happens. Each marriage is unique with it’s own sets of strengths and challenges.
As someone experiencing a faith crisis, I have found the experience to actually strengthen my marriage. I have always felt safe sharing my feelings and doubts with my believing husband, and he has been patient and understanding. His acceptance and support for me during my struggles have deepened my love for him, because the whole process has been so heart wrenching.
I would say the two things I see as being helpful for the marriage are:
1. Our ability to safely communicate doubts. There was no moment where I came to my husband with a big, unexpected announcement that I have serious doubts about the church. He knows that my feelings about the church have nothing to do my feelings for him and our relationship.
2. Our marriage commitment was first and foremost about our love and commitment for each other. I know lots of people in the church would see this as a fault. We are taught to put God (the Church) first, but I disagree. I think that if we are to follow God, we cherish and nurture our relationships, especially during times of weakness. If a marriage is unhealthy and the only glue holding it together is the church, I don’t think God is going to look on at that positively.
“They taught those promises on Godās behalf.”
And one of their biggest teachings is to take themselves out of the equation, to go to God yourself. If someone doesn’t do that, they can’t legitimately blame the Church.
But that is another topic altogether.
“Even if a marriage is not completely stable the way someone had hoped, does that give them the right to destabilize even more lives in the process?”
That is a question for the believing partner. But someone who decides to change their faith (which is a somewhat different matter than your grandparents’ relationship) can’t devalue the impact that is going to have. To a believer, the temple marriage is predicated on the covenants made. Betrayal of the covenants undermines the marriage. Period. Whether or not the unbeliever agrees that should be the case, it is the case.
But I still strongly suggest that in most cases when one person chooses to no longer believe, there are far more serious eddies to that whirlwind which come to the believing spouse.
I highly doubt that anyone divorces a spouse ONLY for a change in belief in God.
“No” obligation? “Level of faith”? “Suddenly”?
Loading that language a bit, aren’t we?
People can disagree, with mutual respect, about just what the obligation of marital fidelity entails. The claim that the obligation includes the duty to deny one’s conscience, is an extraordinary one, and one which pushes the boundary of what is entitled to thoughtful respect. When a state demands forced orthodoxy, we call it tyranny. When a spouse does the same thing, why is it different?
You spoke of a disenchanted Mormon as having experienced a (presumably diminished) “level of faith.” The continuum of “faith” does not run from atheism to Mormonism. It runs from indifference, to God. Whether faith finds its expression in Mormonism, or in Catholicism or Judaism or another framework, is a matter of judgment, not “faith.” Faith is for the universal principles that can only be known by faith — essentially, the confession that there is a just and loving God in heaven who wills our good. All the rest — all the sectarian differences that get people so worked up — is mostly just faithful people trying to understand, based on the light and knowledge God has given them, how to live out the implications of the faith they have confessed.
You have no grounds to call someone less faithful, simply because he does not believe what you do about God. If he has turned away from faith entirely, that’s another matter. And from what you’ve shared, it sounds like you had more than ample nonsectarian grounds to kick your evidently husband to the curb. But what I hear you saying, at bottom, is that once a person marries in the temple, he is obligated to either believe or pretend to believe the rest of his life. I am not convinced that God is pleased with a person who does the latter, or with a person who expects her to do so.
I’ve actually heard this point made as a criticism of the Church — that the LDS wedding vows aren’t made to the spouse, but to God.
They’re neither, if my recollection is correct. They are made before God (and various other parties). But that doesn’t mean that the promise is made to God, any more than it’s made “to” the witnesses. It’s just made.
Come to think of it, the traditional Gentile Christian wedding ceremony doesn’t specify just who the promises are being made to, either.
Is that true?
From D&C 90:24: “…all things shall work together for your good, if ye walk uprightly and remember the covenant wherewith ye have covenanted one with another..”
From Matthew 26:15: “And [the priests] covenanted with [Judas] for thirty pieces of silver.” (OK, that wasn’t a very good covenant, but scripture still uses the word for the agreement.)
1 Samuel 18:23 “Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.”
If you live in a condominium or planned community, there is probably a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions that governs how the community is operated. A covenant is another word for a mutual promise. There is no requirement, in Scripture or the dictionary, that it can only be with God and not between persons.
I covenanted with my wife to love and be faithful to her, and she to me. That covenant stands independently of any other aspect of the covenants we made at the time of our marriage.
#68 SR, The church is not the other side of the contract, but if you want to honestly understand the disaffected point of view, it is that the church represents as lawyer or voice for the other side (God). When someone determines that the party with whom they negotiated a contract has not the authority they claimed, they assume there can be no valid contract with the second party (God) because the one who acted as voice had not the authority to act as such.
It’s not a matter of what you see as the truth about their commitment, it has to do with how THEY view the legality of that commitment. I doubt it has any bearing on how they view the legitimacy of the civil marriage, because in fact temple marriages are also legal civil marriages. In their view I’m guessing it has all the binding authority as any other wedding (out of the church) where the words “for all eternity” are pronounced. I would also guess that if it is a loving marriage, and if they believe in an afterlife, they would still desire it to continue after death.
Thomas—You sound very upset over many things you think I am saying which I am not. With that in mind, you’ve kind of lost me on how to respond.
Orson—Yes, I get that. That is why it has such an effect on a believing spouse.
My return to the church was the beginning of the end of my marriage. I knew she was a lifelong atheist, and she knew I was a believing but not practicing Mormon, when we married. She knew I found it likely I’d return to the church one day – but when I did … I don’t think either of us saw the implications of it. I assumed we would go on living in the common emotion and intellectual areas we’d been living in, with the same spoken and unspoken anxieties we’d always had. This was … I changed not just a little bit. And she set herself on something of an opposite course. And so it wasn’t the parallel lives I’d anticipated, it was divergent lives. And that divergence caused several years of unspeakable anguish for me, until she finally said something that cast the whole thing into the light, and I saw the depth of the chasm and that she had absolutely no will to bridge it, and my heart let go of it.
Nietzsche (otherwise no expert on women or marriage) says this, “yes, I broke my promise, but first my promise broke me.” There are things that people who haven’t endured a divorce often don’t understand.
It’s my assumption that if a spouse has doubts that develop into disbelief, that they are sincere doubts/disbelief that come as the result of study, prayer, fasting and an authentic search for the truth. In that case, it’s extremely difficult for me to conclude that such a sincere person doesn’t remain an excellent candidate for further enlightenment through the eternities. Therefore, I don’t think in any respect that it follows that the priesthood and potential for the eternal family are really lost for good at all.
At least that’s how I see a loving Heavenly Father’s relationship to and commitment to a person authentically following the truth and the Spirit as it reveals itself to him or her. Consequently, unless there were other gross sins and abuses I’d be inclined, I think, to keep my covenants to the extent I was able and hope to be the means to bring the doubting spouse back to the greater truth that may be eluding them. Or, to be able to equally fearlessly pursue where truth leads.
Of course, I haven’t been in that situation. My situation is that my husband and I have been able to roll with Life’s punches and keep our love and trust above all else even though neither of us is the same person who had ambitions and ideals and made covenants more than 40 years ago.
Saying that, I don’t want anyone to think I’m judging any party in this conversation or referred to in this conversation. We feel lucky and blessed. Always have. I don’t take that for granted and I’m just sorry that everyone hasn’t been equally blessed to have the trust and regard that’s gotten us through the rough times. We didn’t always agree. Sometimes we were very much opposed. But we never doubted or lost sight of one another’s sincerity and honor. As I said, I feel fortunate and blessed not in any way more accomplished in this respect.
alice,
You _are_ lucky and blessed. What I love most about your response is that you don’t think that your situation is a matter of your superior wisdom. Quite often, people who have been divorced have tried everything they knew and much that was suggested to them, including all the ways of establishing intimacy that work for people, only to have things go from broken to more broken. It can therefore be very difficult to encounter the irony people with happy marriages offering their piece of wisdom to you … inevitably something you had spent days and weeks and months of your life pondering and trying to make real.
We are told that divorce is the result of selfishness. Maybe so – but I think it is not so often the person who asks for divorce that is the more selfish. Often the person who finally gives up is the one who has completely expended themselves of trying to give, with nothing in return. They know what it means to have reached an utter end, something the other party is not yet to … let alone those never so broken.
Thomas (76), I think you’ve got it right. In my recollection one promises, but “to whom” is unclear. My own assumption is that I made those promises to my wife and to God.
Alice (81), I think you’ve got it right, too. Eternity is a long time (as my former Stake President used to tell me when I’d speak to him about my family members who chose different paths from mine), and I may be surprised by some of what I learn during that time, too.
Thomas Parkin (82) “Quite often, people who have been divorced have tried everything they knew and much that was suggested to them, including all the ways of establishing intimacy that work for people, only to have things go from broken to more broken.”
Hopefully, if we see one another with charity, we assume that to be true even if someone doesn’t say it out loud.
Thomas-
My parents were divorced. By the time they made the inevitable decision to cease the destructive, toxic situation they were in and contributing to, everyone in my family was nothing short of damaged. As a result, I can’t think of divorce as necessarily a mistake or failing. I felt *delivered* by my parents’ divorce after 25 combative years of trying to change one another. And I try never to think I have the answers to someone else’s life. I just offer whatever insight I hope may be helpful.
“And I try never to think I have the answers to someone elseās life. I just offer whatever insight I hope may be helpful.”
Something to aspire to. š
#84 – Alice – āAnd I try never to think I have the answers to someone elseās life. I just offer whatever insight I hope may be helpful.ā
This is a great approach. I hope I have the same attitude. While I have an opinion that may agree with some and not with others, I can only speak from my experience. So my ‘advice’ if you can call it that is somewhat limited. I think having the discussion can be helpful on its own without expecting that anyone’s problems will get solved by something I say or think.
Believers divorce one another. Even though both made temple convenants and are seemingly still faithful. It doesn’t happen all the time but it happens. Why would those reasons for divorce be more or less valid? And how uncomfortable would that make someone to be divorced legally but still married throughout eternity? I think there was a exp. II post about this recently.
I believe that few generalizations about marriage can be made or understood. In the end, each marriage seems to be made of individuals, with different understandings, expectations and backgrounds. It’s a wonder to me that anyone stays married, much less is able to be happily married (even more difficult).
I read a book recently about what makes a good relationship, where differences (over faith or other attachment issues) can be evaluated to determine if the relationship is worth working on. It was enlightening ( to me). I finally understood how a shared faith could keep a couple together, despite having almost nothing except children in common.
I also firmly believe that it takes two people to make or break a relationship. Except in cases of spousal abuse, one can find something that each person might have done, choices that were made that impacted the couple. I agree with this assessment.
This has been a most interesting and enlightening post. As I navigate my life with its recent changes (finding myself disbelieving some parts of the faith)and how that effects my spouse, I appreciate the insight from all the comments. I realize that my husband will need to be reminded often that I still value much of what he does-our common ground; that keeping the covenants of fidelity are not going to change except for Temple attendance. That I am rejecting some things about the church, but not him. He has been okay with my choices, but I detect some feelings of loneliness. I think that those of us in my position have to find ways negotiate what really matters to our particular spouse. I can still attend and keep him company at church even when I don’t really feel fulfilled there. And my faith in God is not the question, only in LDS doctrine, so we still share that connection. Anyway, he owes me some latitude, and he knows that. Still, it really helps to have the knowledge presented by this post.
88 – Good you recognize that loneliness he may feel. It is important to find a way to meet that need in other ways that work for you as well. Loneliness is something that almost everyone faces… Good luck!
My husband started seriously questioning his faith like 2 years (out of 5) into our marriage. We were both pretty strong in the church when we dated and married. I personally felt that my relationship with him was more important than my relationship with the church and so I listened to his concerns and began to study on my own. Now we both have our doubts and are probably considered inactive by our ward members.
I personally understand why people would divorce over this. To me, it is important to have common ground to continue in a relationship and if one partner isn’t happy because of the doubts than there is no reason so stay in an unhappy relationship. Life is too short to be unhappy.
I guess what I was trying to say that if your marriage wasn’t that great before a spouse left the church than I could see why someone would want to get a divorce.
If the marriage is really great, then it can withstand almost any trial. It really depends on the couple.
ssj – I wonder how something like your situation may play a role in what happens to the relationship… If the first spouse starts questioning, and the other spouse then follows suit, do those couples have better outcomes in their relationship?