(2) Activity of your spouse

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by mindfulcoug

well,you right ..but becuase islam has an extraordinary value for family and becuase islam says WOMEN are the principal pillar and the core of that ,and becuase islam thinks with great family and children you would have a great nation and society ...therefor women should take the responsibility of saving and protecting the family .so she would better care to meet her husband's agreement ,if its reasonable .
full time working women who might leave a shaky vulnerable family behind....itsnot what islam endorses.

Am I the only one finding it humorous if in fact Sister Mindful takes her experiences with a predominant mormon social group, albeit probably very liberal for mormons, and superimposes that upon American society as a whole?

I have always found Islam, not the militant fudamentalism that our boys are in a struggle against, and mormonism to be very, very similar. I mean once you get around that whole Christ as a prophet versus a Savior and the Son of God detail.

[RC Vikings]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

My ex-wife was active at the beginning of our marriage, but slowly quit going altogether over the first 2 years of our marriage.

I never gave her a hard time about it, and figured if she wanted to go she should go because she wants to, not because I'd want her to. Of course had I known she was boinking someone else while I was at church, then yeah I'd probably had more of a problem with it.

Would she hide him in the closet when you would come home from Sunday School to grab a snack?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

I think and hope that this is changing, though (and I think it shouldn't be a problem IN EITHER DIRECTION). While I know there are still several who would divorce an unbelieving spouse (I've talked through the logic with some family members who fall into this camp), I think it is much better than it used to be. A few years ago my wife came through the other side of a tough ordeal telling me she would never come back to church again, hadn't believed for years, and only now had the courage to tell me so. At the time I was fully active (I'm not now, which has nothing to do with her change of heart), but was surprised at my reaction. I was fully supportive and only asked her that she please keep her name on the records (I don't know why I cared about that but I did), and she agreed. At that time I realized that there is a disconnect between the explicit teachings of the church on the matter and the implicit connections members make between church doctrinal teachings and the impulse to divorce an unbelieving spouse. While I have seen enough of this kind of thing (eg people questioning why I would stay with my wife) to know that for many in the church family really doesn't come first, I still think as the church continues it's mainstream makeover (in terms of application of doctrine), this issue is and will become less a problem in the future. I for one would like to see mormonism become more of a 'big tent'.

I would like to point out though, that in your scenario, I think it would be unfair of the believer to pay tithing without coming to an agreement about it with the unbelieving spouse. But I don't see why the difference in belief per se should pose an insurmountable problem *in either direction*. (When my wife left the church, she also supported my activity in it, after all, and I'm glad she did).

Thanks for your thoughtful comment, CH. I'm lucky I never had to deal with at least complications such as these. Yes, I agree that as the LDS Church matures and grows more mainstream there will have to be greater tolerance for diversity of faith within families. One thing your post dosen't touch on is insensitivity of the extended family for unbelieving inlaws or of a different faith or even a brother or sister or son who doesn't believe or has changed faiths.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

One thing your post dosen't touch on is insensitivity of the extended family for unbelieving inlaws or of a different faith or even a brother or sister or son who doesn't believe or has changed faiths.

TMI.

If my wife left the church, and hounded me to leave the church and I didn't want to, then I would consider divorce. If she was nazi about keeping the kids away from the church, I would be pretty upset. But then I would be in a bind, because if I divorce, she gets to keep the kids and my influence decreases.

Other things, like if she became a lush, would also push me to divorce.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

I'm starting to think SU's sole reason for being here is to find new stuff about the church to twist out of context and bash.

it took you how long to figure that out? ;-)

[bluegoose]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

One thing your post dosen't touch on is insensitivity of the extended family for unbelieving inlaws or of a different faith or even a brother or sister or son who doesn't believe or has changed faiths.

Oh please. This has not been my experience at all. I've got several family members who either no longer believe or have never believed. There is absolutely no difference in how they are treated as compared to those others who are still active members of the church. They still get the same family newsletter and not the editted, religion-neutral version. They are not confined to the den-of-iniquity cabins for family reunions. They are still family, regardless of religion preference.

And I really don't think this is just my family.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by bluegoose

Oh please. This has not been my experience at all. I've got several family members who either no longer believe or have never believed. There is absolutely no difference in how they are treated as compared to those others who are still active members of the church. They still get the same family newsletter and not the editted, religion-neutral version. They are not confined to the den-of-iniquity cabins for family reunions. They are still family, regardless of religion preference.

And I really don't think this is just my family.

Well, you're not alone.

My family includes antis, completely inactives, those who never were and never will be, completely observant and active, partially active and disaffected.

Although there are periods of misunderstanding, at the end of the day, we're still family. I don't see the disbelieving part mistreating the believing part and vice versa on the basis of one's activity within the Church. This is simply contrary to my experience.

OTOH, perhaps Seattle hails from one of those Mullah, nontypical Mormon families. Based on the crappy "poem" he gave us, one would think his parents are likely atypical mullahs.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by bluegoose

Oh please. This has not been my experience at all. I've got several family members who either no longer believe or have never believed. There is absolutely no difference in how they are treated as compared to those others who are still active members of the church. They still get the same family newsletter and not the editted, religion-neutral version. They are not confined to the den-of-iniquity cabins for family reunions. They are still family, regardless of religion preference.

And I really don't think this is just my family.

I disagree. This is the norm:

http://www.amazon.com/Suddenly-Stran.../dp/1593301111

Since Archaea is from a convert family his is not a typical experience. Ritualistic shunning and expressions of horror at apostates is a powerful weapon for the community retaining psychological control over its members. The LDS Church couldn't afford to give it up. If apostasy was cost-free socially you'd see it increase by orders of magnitude.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I disagree. This is the norm:

http://www.amazon.com/Suddenly-Stran.../dp/1593301111

Since Archaea is from a convert family his is not a typical experience. Ritualistic shunning and expressions of horror at apostates is a powerful weapon for the community retaining psychological control over its members. The LDS Church couldn't afford to give it up. If apostasy was cost-free socially you'd see it increase by orders of magnitude.

It may be your norm, but I doubt it is that clear cut. Moreover, my wife's family, which is very large and has many very active members as well as many very inactive members, includes everyone in family activities and reunions and, for the most part, they all show up. All are respected and welcome.

[nikuman]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

It's not a full tithe uless she's paying 10% on your income, or at least have of it. It's literally community property in most states, and effectively such in the rest. If she divorced you she'd claim and probably get at least half your assets.

Doctrinal lessons from the apostate? What's next? Peace lessons from Bush?