- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I did intend this to be cynical, and from an economic deterministic theoretical viewpoint. Please feel free to put your ideas. I do not intend to offend anyone. Divorce sucks, and I know from first hand experience. I am just applying some academic and historical models to it and giving it a religious spin. Was the selling of indulgences practiced in the Catholic church, necessarily bad in itself?
On this point I will concur that it allowed for the rich to have these elaborate cathedrals built, and that the rich would buy their way into heaven according to its practice, while the poor would not even be able to afford a tapestry to go into the church, or pay for a stained glass window.
But the tinge of truth of the selling of indulgences is the fact that oftentimes errors, or transgressions do indeed cost money. Here, I am getting at the fact that in LDS culture divorce is deemed as a transgression, even if the divorce is because of infidelity. I state this because my current spouse divorced mainly due to infidelity on the part of her former spouse, and still members of the church would question that perhaps if she did more, the other party would not have sought after another. My current wife’s divorce cost her at least $5,000. So, if the selling of indulgences was based upon law (a punitive) system, then recognizing that she made a mistake, my wife had to remedy the problem by “buying” her way out of a mistake (transgression) by using money, in her case $5,000.
My divorce on the other hand cost me close to $31,000 (obviously I am paying for it via debt). $4K of it was a loan I took out jointly with my former that I will never see. Lost automobiles in the aggregate of $13K. The mistake of the marriage (a transgression), because in hindsight there were many “red flags” that I failed to see, and I could have “put-off” marriage. In my experience, marriage was in a sense an indulgence, so I am paying for my transgression. So if my calculations are correct, then my mistake of being married in the first place cost me $18K at a minimum and $31K at its maximum, due to loss of propery. So, why do the average LDS churchgoers seem to turn the other way, gossip behind your back, and seem to condemn when the divorced person is paying for his/her transgression monetarily, and emotionally? Ostracism, and isolationism are not going to help. Luckily, I did not have too much of the gossip (probably because I was a man). I did sense that I had become a perceived threat that I was on the prowl and that other husband’s had to watch their wives more carefully. I just chuckled at these ideas.
So, at least legally, money buys you what you need. Remember, OJ got off because of money; he had the best defense attorneys that money could buy. An infraction will cost you $4K to avoid a misdemeanor depending on the charge of course. To get child custody at least $5K that includes a retainer fee anyway. Yes, our society is based upon a punitive system, so no wonder the selling of indulgences in the latter half of the middle ages seemed to work. I am not saying that I agree with it, but I likened my “mistake” and resolution via divorce as a type of selling of indulgence, although it did not result in a new cathedral or holy relic. However, it did result in the opportunity to try again and “buy” a new life. Because I had the temporal means, I could then be spiritually born again. (See Manslow’s hierarchy of needs). Because I could take care of my basic needs via an income and good credit, I could start anew. I guess IN GOD WE TRUST is placed on our currency for a reason.
Quote:So, why do the average LDS churchgoers seem to turn the other way, gossip behind your back, and seem to condemn when the divorced person is paying for his/her transgression monetarily, and emotionally?
1) Divorce isn’t seen as a transgression officially in the Church, assuming “reasonable cause” – and I think most members see it that same way.
1) I don’t think the average LDS member does these things – unless they know and liked the ex-spouse and don’t understand the divorce (don’t see reasonable cause).
2) because they are human and emotional
3) because the idea of divorce, in and of itself, is scary and threatening to the still-married – especially women, and even more especially wives who don’t have a career on which to depend for financial security.
Finally, because they are human.
IMO, any kind of the idea or theology that teaches that “money” will buy you a ticket to heaven is wrong. Period. I understand the idea that one must “pay” to receive forgiveness, but I reject the idea that it has anything to do with money. Yes, there are definately times where money is natural consequence of actions such as your example of divorce, or say crime or even getting a speeding ticket. These are man’s way of punishing bad behavior – not gods.
I have serious problems with how the Church handles divorce and remarriage/sealing… and how it handles marriage in general, really. I would like to discuss that at some point. I don’t follow you on your parallel, however, because it is not the Church receiving the money, and neither sin nor forgiveness are involved at all (in the creation or dissolution of the marriage contract itself I mean). There is a legal process to get married, and a legal process to get divorced. Any fees required are not linked to the Church, but the state. And usually expensive divorces happen when one party fights it. My divorce cost me $100. Oh, and my ex- paid me back.
That said, I really do feel for people who go through divorce, especially messy and expensive ones.
Enoch wrote:I have serious problems with how the Church handles divorce and remarriage/sealing… and how it handles marriage in general, really. I would like to discuss that at some point.
I don’t follow you on your parallel, however, because it is not the Church receiving the money, and neither sin nor forgiveness are involved at all (in the creation or dissolution of the marriage contract itself I mean). There is a legal process to get married, and a legal process to get divorced. Any fees required are not linked to the Church, but the state. And usually expensive divorces happen when one party fights it. My divorce cost me $100. Oh, and my ex- paid me back.
That said, I really do feel for people who go through divorce, especially messy and expensive ones.
I agree with Enoch — I don’t really see the parallel with indulgences. The money you paid in no way gave promise of eternal life from any Church authority. On the other hand, I agree wholeheartedly with the way divorce is regarded in the Church, as well as the gossip that attends failed marriages can be annoying.
Thanks for the replies, it makes me feel better that my divorce wasn’t a transgression (though it beats me down like one), I guess I kick myself down for not fully living the “full and Perfect law.” Sometimes I think that Christianity as a whole is a failure since, most people cannot even live the basic 10 commandments which consist of the Law of Carnal commandments. No wonder many Jewish people see the Law of Moses supreme, because truly if followed the Law of Moses is a schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ just like Paul taught. I guess in a lot of ways we still follow the Law of Moses, since Moses permitted divorce just like modern day Israel (The Church). The Saints in Christ’s Day lived a higher law than us, Divorce was only permitted in the case of adultery (See Matt. 5:31-32). jamison wrote:I guess in a lot of ways we still follow the Law of Moses, since Moses permitted divorce just like modern day Israel (The Church). The Saints in Christ’s Day lived a higher law than us, Divorce was only permitted in the case of adultery (See Matt. 5:31-32).
Well, I guess I feel bad for the poor women who lived in Christ’s Day who were required to live a “higher” law, and couldn’t get a divorce and had to put up with physical and emotion abuse from their husbands.
:wtf: I hardly think that divorce only in the case of adultery is considered a “higher” law by god. Perhaps Jesus was talking to those men who would put their old wives out in favor of a younger newer model, when he made those comments? Jesus did not teach rules and laws, he taught principles.
Regarding the ‘seem to condemn’ comment. I’m not sure of your specific situation, but a wise counselor once told me that it takes too much energy to worry about what we think people might be thinking about us. In general, she said, and I think it’s true, that mostly people are thinking much more about themselves than about others. I have found that principle very helpful in recent years.
What cwald said about Jesus’ words about divorce. It was getting to the point back then where a man could divorce his wife and leave her destitute simply by citing “irreconcilable differences” (which would include his inability or lack of desire to keep it in his pants) – while she had no such option. My reading of the passage is that he was chastising the men for this and saying THEY should not divorce their wives unless those wives were cheating on them. It’s interesting, however, that there is no apparent recognition of the wife having any reason to divorce her husband, even in cases like abuse or adultery. Adultery-induced divorce only might be a higher law than the men were living at the time with regard to the reasons they could initiate a divorce, but it certainly isn’t a “higher law” in and of itself, imo. It’s more like moving from Outer Darkness to the Telestial Kingdom – a nice upward move, to be sure, but not exactly a stretch into goodness and light.
ss, I REALLY like your counselor’s thought. I agree totally that we tend to worry too much about what others think.
Ray, I know it’s true for me, because it’s all about me!!! What other people think of you is none of your business.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.