In the recent General Conference, Elder Wakolo of the Seventy made the following statement:
The gospel of Jesus Christ is not a wedge, to divide families, but a bridge to unite them eternally. We must insure that our discipleship reflects the Savior’s patience, His gentleness, and His perfect love.
I’m going to talk about the first sentence for a while — whether being LDS or being in the Church is more like a wedge or a bridge for a marriage — then circle back around to the second sentence. And let’s be clear: This is a serious discussion. Marriage can be a wonderful thing, but it can also turn ugly. The Church can provide common ground and a good moral foundation for a newly married couple to grow their marriage, and for many Mormon marriages this leads to a happy lifetime marriage. You can’t argue with success.
But the Church can put pressure on a marriage that (to stick with the metaphor) weakens the bridge or even leads to collapse. I’m not going to dwell on various scenarios that come to threaten the marital bridge — it could be tithing and financial stress, it could be the time commitment outside the home of a major calling, it could be political differences the emerge over time. I’m just going to look at the big one: when one half of a couple draws away from the Church or flat out does a complete exit.
Of course, that’s the flip side of an LDS conversion where one-half of a couple joins the Church and the other spouse delays or simply demurs. The standard LDS response is to celebrate the new convert and support him or her, hoping (expecting?) that the conversion will strengthen their existing marriage. The non-LDS spouse is generally treated very well if they come to activities or attend LDS services. Sure, that upbeat response may be rooted in the hope that the non-LDS spouse will, sooner or later, join the Church. But even in long-term scenarios, the non-LDS spouse is often very welcome. I know where callings have been given to and accepted by the non-LDS spouse in such a scenario. A half-LDS marriage can flourish, and positive support from the ward community certainly helps that happen.
Why is it so often different when H or W in an existing Mormon marriage draws away from the Church? It doesn’t have to be the case, but often and even generally an ex-LDS spouse is perceived and treated much differently than a not-yet LDS spouse in a half-LDS marriage. I think that’s unfortunate. But honestly, that’s a Church or ward problem. I’m focusing on “the one,” the LDS H or W. What if you’re the LDS half of what is now a half-LDS marriage?
Quick caveat: I’m not talking about cases where H gambles away the house on a weekend spree in Vegas or when W makes some music with her yoga instructor, and Church teachings or counsel complicates the resulting marital mess. I’m just talking about a decent Mormon marriage where H or W just looks in the mirror one day and says, “Nope, I can’t do this anymore.” If there is then a heart-to-heart with W or H, that still-LDS spouse is likely to think, “Whoa, I didn’t sign up for this. What does this mean? What do I do now?”
For the still-LDS spouse, here’s an answer from Paul the Apostle. What works in the world of 50 AD does not always fit in the 21st century, but in this case I think his counsel in 1 Corinthians 7 is helpful, probably more helpful than what you might hear in LDS circles or what your bishop might tell you. Paul says,
To the rest I say — I and not the Lord — that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. (1 Cor. 7:12-13, NRSV)
Paul is clear and direct: unbelief is not a cause for divorce. Don’t blow up the marital bridge because H or W loses their commitment to the Church or even does a formal exit. And note that he treats both H and W equally and symmetrically. But he doesn’t stop there, he continues with a theological basis for that advice. And this is important in an LDS context, where the still-LDS spouse may think to themselves, “What about my eternal marriage? What about my temple blessings?” or ponder a similar doctrinal and personal concern.
Paul continues,
For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (1 Cor. 7:14, NRSV)
This is very encouraging. I’ve even come up with a name for this: the doctrine that One is Enough. In the LDS context, it is that if you are a good LDS H or W, your unbelieving W or H will somehow receive the benefit of your faith and good works. Paul even extends that general idea to the children of the marriage.
Now if you are a serious reader of theology, you will recognize this as similar to the Catholic doctrine of the treasury of merit, accumulated by Jesus and lauded saints, to be dispensed for the benefit of the merely faithful here on Earth. But Paul’s One is Enough view operates simply within the marriage. Faithful H sanctifies the unbelieving W and faithful W sanctifies unbelieving H.
So if you are the faithful LDS H or W in this scenario, ignore what your LDS friends or even LDS bishop might tell you to the contrary. Paul says: Don’t get a divorce. Your LDS faithfulness will bless the unbelieving spouse. Sure, it’s a challenge, but be like a Marine: Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.
Which brings us back to Elder Wakolo’s second sentence: “We must insure that our discipleship reflects the Savior’s patience, His gentleness, and His perfect love.” Patience, gentleness, and love is not as punchy as improvise, adapt, and overcome, but probably fits better in a marriage scenario.
I’ve got no prompts for this. Just the advice that if the Church, or specifically being a half-LDS marriage in the Church, becomes a wedge and not a bridge in a marriage, you might take Paul’s doctrine of One is Enough to heart. Exercise patience, gentleness, and love, as Elder Wakolo suggests.
.
Wheat & Tares 
I know multiple couples where one of the 2 ends up leaving and the still believing spouse demands and gets a divorce right away (from the couples I know it was pretty much instantaneous). One of my good friends was even willing to go full PIMO to keep the marriage alive, go to church, hold a calling, etc. just didn’t believe it anymore and that was not good enough for his then wife. I know one couple where one left, then the other spouse left a year later. I only know one couple where one has left and one has stayed in the church, that is still married, and that is mostly because the believing spouse has become extremely nuanced in their relationship with the church.
I don’t know why this is the case, why the believing party takes their spouse leaving the church as a massive betrayal that demands instant divorce, but that seems to be a pretty common occurrence in my social circle.
I can say as a single person who lives in Utah who has left the church I avoid dating active mormons, since in my experience they will eventually give you an ultimatum of going back to church with them.
When my wife and I were sealed, the sealer told her “You cannot be exalted without him and he cannot be exalted without you.” She absolutely believed that and that inserted a wedge between us from the start, even though I have remained active in the Church. From her perspective, any screw up on my part endangered her exaltation, which was a huge burden for me to bear. I suppose that my beliefs have become more nuanced over time, but not that much. I’m from a pro-civil rights household of the pre-1978 era, so I was introduced to nuance at a young age. But I became more open about the nuance over time and she once told me flat out “If your not going to get me to the Celestial Kingdom, tell me now so I can find somebody who will.” Well, I’m not going to get her into the Celestial Kingdom, and sometimes I feel a little guilty about not setting her free. But if you ask my kids, they will tell you I did the right thing.
I think part of the problem starts even before couples are married. There is just SO much emphasis on how horrible it might be if you marry outside the church taught to the YW. I can’t speak for what the young men get taught, but I remember lesson after lesson after lesson about how we HAD to have a temple marriage in order to be happy. One had one girl in tears because her father was not a member and the idiot teacher was saying how two people could not possibly love each other unless they were married in the temple. And how temple marriage ALWAYS led to a loving and happy life. I was sitting there ready to slug her in her lying gut, I was so angry about her living in lala land because my temple married parents did not show any love and were certainly not happy. This girl with the part member family was just sitting there sobbing, while other girls in the class were trying to comfort her and the stupid teacher didn’t even realize how utterly offensive her lesson was. But the lessons on the importance of temple marriage continued. Being married to someone who was not a believing member was painted as the worst possible outcome. No, sorry, but being temple married to a spouse who beats you is so much worse than being married to a kind unbeliever. It was not ever about how people treated each other, only ever about what they thought about religion. It was not ever about how to have a loving marriage, only the importance of thinking the same about the church. It was about surface things like, you needed to be the same race and culture and it was best to marry a return missionary. It wasn’t even so deep as to ask if he lives what he says he believes. Nope, membership in the church and outward appearances.
So, when the kind loving man decides he no longer believes, the wife feels so lied to. She can’t even think he might have changed his mind for very good reasons. Nope. He is not the kind of husband she was taught is possible to have a happy life with. He is still the same kind loving person he has always been, but he does not fit the only thing she was taught was important—believing the church is true.
When children are taught that life is black and white and surface stuff like attending church is all that is important, why are we even surprised that they can’t see anything but black and white?
Our church actually teaches that God loves us on the condition that we are good Mormons. And do I really need to quote our just past prophet? So, then why would we be surprised when a spouse holds to those exact same conditions about loving their spouse? “If you are not on the covenant path, then God doesn’t love you,” turns into “we as humans can also stop loving a person if they leave that path.”
The church teaches this in so many ways.
I appreciate these thoughts, and the gospel-as-a-bridge-not-a-wedge visualization. Yes, gospel living should be a blessing all the way around, and the counsel to love and forgive one’s neighbor also encompasses one’s husband or wife. There are always many factors at play in a marital relationship, and some of those factors might properly suggest or require a separation sometimes — but church membership should always be a blessing.
Just as we allow for reasonable accommodations in the workplace, we can allow for reasonable accommodations in our relationships.
I’m not so sure that I have ever seen a thoroughly positive example of black-and-white thinking in relationships or complex situations. My own parents had a horrific marriage that cried out for compassion and counseling. But they always consoled themselves with the fact that they had a “temple marriage.” Issues were never resolved and it led to the disintegration of the extended family as it grew and it had an impact on the majority of the children’s marriages. We owe it to our own family relationships to stomp out the tendency to harm other relationships, including our own marriages with such polarizing ideas.
These days I am seeing the church as the ‘other woman’ in a marriage….always there in the background but always must be considered. Marriage is hard enough without being micromanaged by standards/rules which don’t always apply to individual situations. While I realize that living by ‘gospel standards’ (kindness, consideration, fidelity) are a good idea, they are a good idea without being considered ‘gospel standards’.
I thought it very interesting that ‘not-yet baptized’ non-member spouses were treated far differently from ‘once-baptized-but-no-longer-believing’ spouses. Because my husband is so well-liked and because I am old (83), I am treated pretty well ( but the only calling I’m allowed involves my ability to play organ).
To some extent I am enjoying stirring the pot as much as I can. I am against male-only priesthood, temple recommends, ‘worthiness interviews’ and say so. The problem, of course, is that now I get the ‘there she goes again’ eye rolls.
Zwingli,
I’ve seen it go in all directions. I can think of couples where the believing spouse dug in their heels and forced a divorce but I can also think of several couples where the spouse that left the church was the one that pressed for divorce. I can also think of many couples that stayed together (so far) despite differences in faith that developed later in the relationship.
I’m certain that church membership was a factor in what led those couples to divorce but I can’t help but wonder whether the couple experienced some other fundamental differences and church membership became an easy difference to fixate on in a sea of divergent issues.
Back to the quote:
“The gospel of Jesus Christ is not a wedge, to divide families, but a bridge to unite them eternally.”
I’m a convert and I definitely saw the “gospel” divide my family when I joined the church. I was estranged from half of my family for several years. Wrong or right, I leaned heavily on Matthew 10:34-36 in those early years:
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.”
Telling myself that the division I was experiencing was a fulfilment of scripture. It wasn’t my choice for the church to become a dividing wedge between me and my family but it was my experience all the same.
I’ve since had a faith transition. I frequently wonder whether all the turmoil I experienced when joining the church was all in vain.
I married in the temple and my prior experience when joining the church made me fear the possibility of losing my current family when it came time for me to reduce my activity levels with the church for my own mental health. Thankfully my wife was understanding. It was a vulnerable moment for the both of us.
My only point is that the “gospel” of Christ *can* be a wedge. It’s less about some innate quality of the gospel and more about how we ourselves react to change.
Unfortunately when I hear a talk at church about being united I reflexively assume that at church we only believe that unity is possible if we’re all in agreement on matters of belief. Is conditional unity true unity?
Being one of those halves, myself, I would like to point out that while it may be comforting for the believing spouse to cling to the idea that their faith is enough to save them and their spouse, that idea can feel very patronizing and condescending to the unbelieving spouse. Assuming no harmful caveats, maybe a different idea can be that we simply love, honour and cherish our partner because they are a human being who we chose?
Things that have changed since I married my spouse 23 years ago:
I lost my head hair
My wife’s body changed after birthing four children
I developed anxiety
I switched from R to D (spouse stayed a D)
I left the church but my wife followed within two years
I graduated college and we gained more financial security than we previously experienced or expected to experience
We both developed hobbies we didn’t have previously
Extended family relationships changed
We had kids
This is just off the top of my head. Can you imagine getting married to someone and expecting them to be frozen physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually in time forever just to comfort you? Can you imagine expecting to freeze yourself in these ways to comfort them? It makes no sense to have this expectation.
While some changes may end a relationship, a faith transition doesn’t have to. Some of the changes on my list changed me more than my faith transition for example (ie my political shift, how I spend my time, anxiety, and kids).
Also what Allie said. Very unfair to both parties to take a two-adult relationship and convert it into some sort of rescue mission.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
lastlemming and Anna, yes “either a temple marriage or an unhappy marriage” preaching and teaching is part of the problem. It creates warped expectations that simply doesn’t match reality.
Linda, oh that’s clever: the Church as the “other woman” in a marriage. Wife to bishop: “Why does she get all your time lately?”
Fred VII, you have had experience across the whole spectrum. Thanks for the comment.
Allie and Chadwick, yes I wrote this about how the still-LDS spouse can get to the point of thinking, “Yes I can make this work with love and patience and understanding, it doesn’t threaten my salvation and my spouse isn’t going to Hell” even with the LDS box. That is I think a better alternative than thinking (also within the LDS box) “Oh no, spouse doesn’t believe anymore or has left the Church, time to exit the marriage pronto.”
Now it might be nice if that still-LDS person were to think, “A happy marriage and loving my spouse matter a lot more than religion. So I’ll put my primary focus on keeping a good thing going with my marriage and let religion take care of itself. I’ll attend when I can and serve when it doesn’t hurt my marriage.” But that’s outside the LDS box. It’s like saying if you were a different person, you could think about your marriage differently. But that other spouse is still LDS so you have to present a positive way of thinking about their suddenly half-LDS marriage that makes sense to them in the LDS box. We’ve all got a box we think in.
What does the Apostle Paul say to TBM adult kids if the 17th prophet abused the word “revelation” and caused a parent to leave the Church?
When the youth, but especially the young women, are told repeatedly that they should seek to marry in the temple to a “worthy priesthood holder” who is a “returned missionary”, they are not being advised to find a life partner, but rather a resume. If the only thing that matters are these supposed qualifications for marriageability, the best case outcome is a fragile marriage that depends on the “resume” staying intact, and the worst case is that red flags that hint at much darker outcomes are unnoticed or intentionally ignored. It’s depressing how many stories of abusive men who checked off those boxes I’ve heard.
My spouse and I married because we had become best friends and wanted to spend a life together. I have questioned my beliefs about the church but never questioned her loyalty to me. If one of us were to leave and the other stay, there would surely be some kind of shift in our relationship, but it would never have to be a deal breaker because we married partners and not resumes. That’s what I want for my young adult kids, and I think it’s what the church should want for its youth, because it leads to better marriages regardless of where their journey of faith leads. This doesn’t seem hard. Let’s think carefully about the messages we’re sending to the youth.
Something I have encountered three times: A non-Mormon marries a Mormon who hasn’t participated with the church in ages. The non-Mormon develops an interest in the religion that her/his spouse was raised in and does not practice. The non-Mormon is taught by the missionaries and baptized. The inactive Mormon finds himself/herself married someone going to the church, and he/she has a problem with the new state of things. “If I had known you were so religious, I never would have married you,” one of these friends recalled being told.
Quentin, you have put into words what has been hovering in the back of my mind but could not articulate…….resume, not life partner. Thank you.
Linda, keep stirring the pot. I have had my share of eye rolls as well, and well, it’s tough, uncomfortable, and revealing.
As far as “eternal” marriage is concerned, our oldest son—now married four years—was sealed by his father-in-law. To be fair, he’s a great man. But even good people can get caught up repeating ideas that sound profound without really being true.
At the sealing, he told them, “You have reached the end of your covenant path,” meaning they had completed the final ordinance required for the Celestial Kingdom. But that’s simply not true.
If there’s anything I feel certain about, it’s this: no marriage worthy of being called eternal is created by words spoken on a wedding day. That moment is not the end—it’s the beginning. It marks the start of an unknown journey where real life unfolds, challenges arise, and the relationship is either slowly built or quietly weakened over time.
A durable, meaningful marriage isn’t declared—it’s developed. It’s formed in the ordinary, daily experiences along a long, winding, often bumpy road.
Good marriages are not made in the temple, or a church, or Las Vegas.
They are made at home. Full stop.
My wife and I are both on our third marriages. The first two for both of us were in the temple. What did we learn? That eternal marriage can also be another name for eternal hell. I’ll spare you the details. When we got married 11 years ago, for the third time, both sets of our parents had a hard time not showing their disappointment that it was not in the temple. Her parents didn’t express it, but you could see it in their eyes. My mom, having a very small filter, said she was disappointed. I replied that we each had been married in the temple, and I asked how that worked out. She dropped it. We both went to church when we were first married, but now not so much. We also have a better marriage than we’ve ever had before. It’s not perfect, but it’s doable and feels good.
I think (anecdotally, without scientific analysis of numbers) that the single largest reason for LDS divorce is women refusing to forgive husbands, caused in large part by YW teaching as mentioned above. YW are taught that temple marriage is the goal, and the completion, and that is not right. Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled, according to Hebrews. No woman sins who marries outside the temple, yet they carry a burden of judgment from other members for their entire lives. When they do marry in the temple, their husband has to live almost perfectly so that she can get to the celestial kingdom, as she cannot get there without him. This pressure for perfection, with an unwillingness to forgive, is toxic. As stated above: “From her perspective, any screw up on [his] part endanger[s] her exaltation.” That simply is not the truth as I understand it, but it does appear to be our teaching. I am not saying that men are better than women, but my experience (perhaps atypical) seems that women can be more intolerant than men, including women judging other women harshly. This isn’t universal, of course, and many men are monsters. I wish that we, as a people, would be much slower to condemn our neighbors and to place heavy burdens of guilt upon them, guilt which God does not place on them. Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled.
I’ve long had that same thought as Linda, that couples in the church are in a thrupple. In fact, there was a diagram a seminary teacher drew decades ago to illustrate that exact point, that the closer each individual spouse drew to the Savior (the church?) they closer they drew to each other, just like two sides of a triangle. It’s a really really dumb idea. Extremely bad marriage advice. Oh, it’s great for the church. It’s just not great for humans who marry each other.
Marriage only works if the people in it are free to grow and change, and I would also say (although I’m aware this is a pretty modern conception of marriage), they only work when either party is free to leave if it’s not working for them. But IMO people are pretty quick to throw away a marriage when their partner changes, and that’s a sign of something rotten: immaturity, controlling behavior, caring more about social status than one’s partner, what have you. There’s a character flaw in taking your ball and going home just because you can’t use the other person for your own (imaginary or real) aggrandizement. That’s why people leave spouses over things like someone going bald, getting fat, losing a job, or (checks notes) quits going to church. Sorry, but if that’s the only reason you were in the marriage, you weren’t actually in the marriage.
One time a high counselor said that the church is a telestial institution-it won’t exist in the next life. But marriage and family do. So people should love their spouses at least as much as they love the church. I thought that was profound.
My wife and I have been married for 38 years now–and we adore each other. We love the kingdom too–and we’ve learned that when we try to put the Kingdom first our priorities seem to line up naturally. And interestingly our marriage is right up there with our devotion to the Lord.
True story. My wife and I have been married for 23 years now–and we adore other. One of us loves the kingdom and the other has left the church–and we’ve learned that when we try to put each other first, our priorities seem to line up naturally. Interestingly, we’ve found that s shared devotion to the Lord isn’t something that is required for our marriage to be amazing and our different beliefs don’t limit our devotion to each other.
I’m kind of a republican (believer in the form of government, not so much the political party), so I’m not really into monarchies. I haven’t really asked my wife about it but I doubt she is either. Cross your fingers for us; I hope our marriage makes it.
A few days ago my spouse told me the secret of a successful marriage is to continually fall in love with the person your partner becomes.
Our marriage has had some big surprises (and not just on my part), but I’m married to and in love with the person I want to be with, not the way they were when we first met. I can’t imagine ever wanting anything different from that.
P.S. I think I accidentally hit the down arrow on your comment, Quentin, and can’t undo that, so mentally subtract one from that count. Sorry about that.
At the sealing, he told them, “You have reached the end of your covenant path,” meaning they had completed the final ordinance required for the Celestial Kingdom. But that’s simply not true.
It certainly is not. And having thrown my late wife under the bus in my previous comment, I will partially extract her in this one. According to D&C 132:7:
We were both taught and believed that the Holy Spirit of promise was not an old guy in a white suit reciting the words to the sealing ceremony. It was a spiritual confirmation that the ordinance was eternally valid, whether received during the ceremony or at any time later. Just based on my own observations, I had long since concluded that such confirmations were extremely rare during the ceremony itself. When my wife began asking me if I believed that our marriage had been sealed by the Holy Sprit of promise, I deflected by saying I thought that it was premature to be asking the question. Once the answer became obvious, she quit asking. But she continued to believe that it would eventually happen.
I recall many seminary and mutual lessons with the aforementioned triangle showing Christ, husband, and wife. While, conceptually, I see the point being the more Christlike attributes we develop (charity, forgiveness, etc), the closer we can become to the other person, I think most people conflate Christ and the church. I do think the church can become a dividing force in a marriage and within a family, especially if one spouse has a high demand calling and isn’t willing to set boundaries.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Active LDS are very particular when it comes to ranking themselves and others on an active/inactive or faithful/nope or believing/doubting spectrum. No matter where you are, it’s easy to think of anyone to the left of you as a lazy learner or wolf in sheep’s clothing, and anyone to the right of you as a pharisee or zealot.
That’s not good in a marriage, where H and W are unlikely to be at exactly the same point on the spectrum(s). So one is likely to look at the other as a little too judgmental/zealous, and in return that person sees the other as something of a slacker or doubter. And a few years later those judgments may be reversed — because people change.
Is anyone aware of guidance from the church urging couples to work through the loss of faith of one of the spouses? My impression is that there is no such guidance.
Jesse,
The church has published a fair amount of material on the subject. Here’s one of several articles that can be found at the church’s site:
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2021/04/digital-only-young-adults/maintaining-hope-and-keeping-your-marriage-strong-if-your-spouse-leaves-the-church?lang=eng
Thanks, Jack. I’m familiar that article. It does say something that the church published an (albeit anonymous) article that is optimistic about the chances for marriages surviving one partner’s loss of faith. It’s also telling that the “insights from the prophet” that they included at the end is this doozy: “‘If you are married to a companion who has broken his or her covenants, your willingness to let God prevail in your life will allow your covenants with God to remain intact. The Savior will heal your broken heart. The heavens will open as you seek to know how to move forward. You do not need to wander or wonder.’ President Russell M. Nelson, “Let God Prevail…”
This sort of makes my point. The implication is that a spouse’s loss of faith amounts to a broken promise. My loss of faith was in spite of my best efforts–not because of any broken covenant. How hard would it be for a church leader to just say that a spouse’s loss of belief isn’t disqualifying? My understanding is that no one in authority has ever said that and there is a reason for the silence. I’d love to be wrong on this.
Jesse,
I think President Nelson’s quote may have to do with a spouse who has been unfaithful–committed adultery–and/or separated him or herself from the marriage.
That said, the general sense I get from what the church has published is that there are things that couples can do to help their marriages continue to work. And my hope is that you and your spouse (and I’m assuming that you’re still together) will be able to continue forward–especially if you have children. The articles speak of increasing love and support for each other, respecting each other’s agency, strengthening the connections that remain between the both of you, and forth.
Thanks, Jack. We are hanging in there ;).
Thanks for this post. IMO, this whole problem could be solved if the church started emphasizing something that we have ample doctrinal foundation for:
That the beliefs of others are as sacred as our own.
Joseph Smith put this into the 11th article of faith and also expressed a similar sentiment when he said that if he was prepared to die for a Mormon “I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination.” Religious liberty has to work both ways, otherwise it’s just hypocrisy.
Of course this idea is at odds with the entire concept of proselytizing but the church grapples enough with other paradoxical teachings (faith vs works, scriptures vs science, etc) that I think there’s an excellent foundation to start telling members that the beliefs of their nevermo/exmo spouses are to be respected and honored, not just tolerated or pitied.