Marriage in the Covenant and our Birthright

[mercyngrace]

Nobody said a temple marriage was a "golden ticket" there are no free rides in the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yes my other sister also dated non-members but set down the gauntlet that she would only marry in the temple. So her first husband was baptized, waited a year and were married in the Temple. That marriage lasted about two years, he was a cheating lying sleaze-ball. He married my sister under false pretenses and when she finally got rid of him she found a humble, good young man (ten years her junior) life long member, and they were married in the Temple and have been for over 20 years and I might add are very happy. The Gospel is not a cover for unrighteous people, we are not "saved-Mormons" it takes a lot of work and much faith and righteousness to make a marriage last. There are no absolute sure thing in just marrying members, but marring outside of the Church is a sure way to not get the blessings that they may have had if they had only followed the spirit of the Lord. We must choose what type of marriage we want a civil marriage or an eternal marriage and we must work to bring our desires to pass. I think we can agree on the last line of your post: "The real answer is to stay close to the Lord and follow the course that He plots for your life."

Just to be clear - I am not advocating that the safest route is to marry outside the temple. I pray all my children will find temple worthy partners who are deeply committed to the Lord.

I'm just suggesting that using church membership as a criteria is setting a pretty low bar. A bar that in very concrete terms some non-LDS exceed in ways that don't involve the ordinance of baptism. There are LDS members who've posted on this very board who refuse to marry to the temple, for example. While against the odds, marrying outside the church does sometimes work out quite well in the long run IF THE LORD HAS HIS HAND ON THE UNION - my parents being a prime example.

[Rob Osborn]

Too much emphasis? I don't think it can be emphasized enough to not only marry, but date within the Church. On what basis can you claim that it is not sound doctrine to promote marring within the covenant? Yes there are many marriages blessed by the Lord and that are sealed later in the Temple. My parents were one such marriage, yet they were both non-members when they met and were married. For those already in the Church then the norm should be date and marry members only. Why? because it is a commandment of the Lord to the Church! Also I am rather tired of those throwing around the "R" word of late (racist) it seems to be the talking points for the enemies of the Lord's Church. You deem anything racist and you automatically disqualify their viewpoint. It is used relentlessly in politics and I grow weary of it being used on this board. The council is not offensive and is not intended as such. Your wife and you should not feel guilty, you were less active and she was a non-member... it worked out wonderfully for you. But that is not the norm, it is not the rule and to teach anything less would be cowardly as well as disrespectful to the Lord. My sister married the good baptist fellow during a time when the Church did not "emphasize marrying only LDS members" and now she must feel betrayed that she was not pre-warned. I personally feel that if she lives the Gospel to the best of her ability that she will have the blessing of being sealed in the Temple even if her hard headed husband never converts. But who wants to set out taking that chance? If a person knows the law of the Gospel and it is indeed a law if you will read D&C 131 and 132, then if they do not abide by it, then they have no promise. Then they stand in jeopardy every hour. We are all free to choose as we will, but then we must be willing to live with the consequences which could be lost or delayed blessings. I believe the Lord inspires His servants and that it is not some vain "racist" philosophy that motivates the brethren in this teaching. There are some exceptions, but as the Lord liveth and as I live, they are rare exceptions.

"Racist"? What about blacks and the priesthood? I don't even want to start. Every religion has their philosophies of man intertwined in the church. By "racist" I am speaking of the attitude held by members that they are far superior to other of other faiths and that their children shouldn't date those others even if they have sound and true values. A person should seek counsel in the Lord on whom to date and marry- that is between them and the Lord. The counsel coming fromt he church has been an attitude of prejudice which carries tons of negative baggage. We treat others, some of which are true and honest in the heart as if they are not good enough. It's cxalled looking blindly. Only yourself and the Lord can determine who to date and marry and sometimes that happens with nonmembers and members getting together.

I like the counsel and doctrine of marriage in the temple- it's pure and undefiled. However, when we seek to take the vain philosophies of man- the imaginations of his heart, and state that LDS youth and singles shouldn't date nonmembers, let alone hang out with them in fear we might fall for them, I take it personal- it is not sound doctrine or counsel. It's my opinion and I am not budging.

[Rob Osborn]

So... my sister married a nice mormon boy from a nice mormon family in the temple. He was cheating on her before their first anniversary. My niece married a nice mormon RM from Utah also in the temple. He's verbally and emotionally abusive and is leaving her a shell of her former self.

All I'm saying is that marriage in the church, even marriage in the temple, is not the golden ticket. Both of the women I described would have had a significantly better life marrying good men outside the church. A man with a good heart may convert in this life and WILL convert in the next. A man with evil in his heart won't be a good match simply because he's LDS. Better a dry mormon thatn a bad mormon or MINO.

The real answer is to stay close to the Lord and follow the course that He plots for your life.

Amen! A person with a good heart is what criteria we should seek for. It is absolutley inevitable that thus nonmembers will find members. Nothing wrong with this approach. We should look at the heart in whom we marry. If they are true in their heart it is only a matter of "when", not "if" they will join the church. No person will ever be saved without accepting Christ.

[Brenda]

The quote by Kimball is his own opinion and counsel. Unfortunately I believe a lot of the rather prejudice may stem from an Old Testament philiosophy of racism. I find it very interesting that the BoM, part of which takes place in Old Testament times, is void of any racism and the marriage covenant. It bothers me that we have adopted this standard of seeing our own religion as being so far superior to anything else that those who just by chance don't belong at the present moment are somehow inferior and not worthy of bearing our future children and being compatible with a higher standard! Needless to say, it was time to ring the bell (last Sunday)and I was glad to get up and leave the class to do such.

I almost choked on my toast. Are you kidding? Our religion IS superior, because it give us the only way to exaltation! That doesn't say by any means that WE are superior. The counsel by prophets to marry in our religion is counsel by prophets. Not to be dismissed or taken lightly. I think SWK knows a bit more than we do.

I am not saying we shouldn't counsel our children to marry in the covenant, I am saying that we place "too much" emphasis on marrying "only" LDS members- that we shouldn't even look twice at the nonmembers as being compatible. I just don't think it's sound doctrine for the church leaders to promote such a philosophy. There are many relationships blessed upon by the Lord bringing souls together who eventually join the church and are sealed. the Lord works in mysterious ways, not racism ways. We are all his children who all have an equal birthright just by being born into mortality. As such the counsel from the leaders of the church could be way less offensive if we just stated the importance of temple marriage and not get into the whole- "do not marry outside the church" attitude. It make my wife and me both feel like we did something wrong- that our eternal salvation and exaltation was sorely in jeopardy. And that to me is not the doctrine of Christ. The Lord does not work through these means.

The church should adopt a more neutral stance on their counsel on marriage and be more forgiving to other races, creeds, gospels and such- especially that concerning marriages of peoples from different backgrounds and upbringins. I am glad my mother took counsel from heavenly Father and married my Dad the sailor (he converted to her religion) and not listened to some dead end philosophy of looking only for the "same".

The Strength of Youth pamphlet does not say to date only LDS. It says to date those with high standards. And there are cases when someone has received the affirmation by the Spirit to marry outside the temple---but this should be done with extreme caution and with POSITIVE assurance that the Lord approves. Given the high emotional level of romantic love, I don't know if I'd trust myself to make this kind of decision.

The Church counsels to marry w/in your own culture is to avoid more divorce and broken families. Obviously the more you have in common with your spouse, the more likely the marriage will work. It is wise counsel.

So... my sister married a nice mormon boy from a nice mormon family in the temple. He was cheating on her before their first anniversary. My niece married a nice mormon RM from Utah also in the temple. He's verbally and emotionally abusive and is leaving her a shell of her former self.

All I'm saying is that marriage in the church, even marriage in the temple, is not the golden ticket. Both of the women I described would have had a significantly better life marrying good men outside the church. A man with a good heart may convert in this life and WILL convert in the next. A man with evil in his heart won't be a good match simply because he's LDS. Better a dry mormon thatn a bad mormon or MINO.

The real answer is to stay close to the Lord and follow the course that He plots for your life.

YET, the chances of marrying a louse like your BIL and NIL, are less if you marry in the Church. Adultery and verbal abuse are strongly condemned in our religion.

Too much emphasis? I don't think it can be emphasized enough to not only marry, but date within the Church. On what basis can you claim that it is not sound doctrine to promote marring within the covenant? Yes there are many marriages blessed by the Lord and that are sealed later in the Temple. My parents were one such marriage, yet they were both non-members when they met and were married. For those already in the Church then the norm should be date and marry members only. Why? because it is a commandment of the Lord to the Church! Also I am rather tired of those throwing around the "R" word of late (racist) it seems to be the talking points for the enemies of the Lord's Church. You deem anything racist and you automatically disqualify their viewpoint. It is used relentlessly in politics and I grow weary of it being used on this board. The council is not offensive and is not intended as such. Your wife and you should not feel guilty, you were less active and she was a non-member... it worked out wonderfully for you. But that is not the norm, it is not the rule and to teach anything less would be cowardly as well as disrespectful to the Lord. My sister married the good baptist fellow during a time when the Church did not "emphasize marrying only LDS members" and now she must feel betrayed that she was not pre-warned. I personally feel that if she lives the Gospel to the best of her ability that she will have the blessing of being sealed in the Temple even if her hard headed husband never converts. But who wants to set out taking that chance? If a person knows the law of the Gospel and it is indeed a law if you will read D&C 131 and 132, then if they do not abide by it, then they have no promise. Then they stand in jeopardy every hour. We are all free to choose as we will, but then we must be willing to live with the consequences which could be lost or delayed blessings. I believe the Lord inspires His servants and that it is not some vain "racist" philosophy that motivates the brethren in this teaching. There are some exceptions, but as the Lord liveth and as I live, they are rare exceptions.

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed.

I am passionate on the kind of example a parent should set for their children. When a parent marries out of the church, it teaches the children that what they are taught in church is questionable. IS THAT WORTH THE RISK? If marriage outside the temple worked for you, are you sure it will work for your kids who will likely follow your example?

Most LDS don't have a clue what marriage in the covenant means because they take it so lightly. Nor do they realize the importance of children born in or sealed into the covenant. I know I don't understand it. But I have faith that it is important enough to do as the prophet counseled.

[Senator]

I'm not at all surprised when the members of the church express such sentiment of exclusivity. It is in our theological fabric that the church and it's people are an ethnicity; and a divine one at that. So what ever prejudicial trappings one my find in other ethnic groups, one may expect to find here as well.

[Brenda]

Do we sell our birthright when we marry outside the temple?

Not necessarily, but we put something of extreme importance and value at risk, when we put off or disregard temple marriage. The ultimate blessings of the birthright are in the new and everlasting covenant received only in the temple. If we neglect this, we will someday feel the regret of Esau, multiplied many times.

Everything you do . . . EVERYTHING . . . is teaching your kids something.

[Calm]

I like the counsel and doctrine of marriage in the temple- it's pure and undefiled. However, when we seek to take the vain philosophies of man- the imaginations of his heart, and state that LDS youth and singles shouldn't date nonmembers, let alone hang out with them in fear we might fall for them, I take it personal- it is not sound doctrine or counsel. It's my opinion and I am not budging.

It doesn't make sense to first promote temple marriage and then condemn counsel that maximizes the chances of achieving that goal.

That's like saying being drug free is a pure and undefiled counsel, but telling someone not to hang out with those who are likely to encourage you to use drugs isn't sound advice and has nothing to do with future drug use for that individual. I am not equating drug use with marrying nonLDS, just pointing out that you end up marrying the people you hang out with and if you marry a nonLDS, the chances of getting married in the temple drop significantly, while if you marry an LDS the percentages increase.

If one wants the blessings that come from a temple marriage, temple marriage should be the beginning criteria for dating, not the end criteria (and for marriage success, definitely not the only criteria as temple worthiness is no guarantee of a successful marriage though if one is truly temple worthy, one's loving, responsible and honest relationship with God and mankind in general will help any marriage's chances).

My POV: Default position should be date those who have high standards (essential in the chastity and WoW areas) when younger and it's just about having fun and getting comfortable with the opposite sex (this should be done in groups for the most part), but as soon as one considers marriage---even if still in high school, default becomes LDS only, UNLESS---and it's a big UNLESS----one has been constantly engaging the Spirit in one's life and the Spirit prompts one to consider a specific individual. I see those conditions as helping to avoid desires from confusing spiritual direction. If one is assuming that one is only going to date LDS and then gets a strong spiritual impression to get involved with someone not LDS, it's more likely to be accurate than if one is constantly questioning if one should marry LDS or nonLDS, this guy or that or if one has been neglecting the spirit and then suddenly when confronted with a desirable potential partner---whether LDS or non---only then decides to hit one's knees and ask "is this the one?"....

[blueadept]

After reading this thread and knowing that my father was BIC, I have to admit that I consider myself fortunate in not needing to worry about such matters by being BIC but to learn of the LDS church from the outside perspective.

Just my personal thought and observation. Carry on.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not at all surprised when the members of the church express such sentiment of exclusivity. It is in our theological fabric that the church and it's people are an ethnicity; and a divine one at that. So what ever prejudicial trappings one my find in other ethnic groups, one may expect to find here as well.

This statement ignores the fact that the "theological fabric" regarding a chosen or covenant people is that we are thus chosen to bless all the families of the earth. How? By inviting and persuading as many as will to come and partake of the covenant and themselves become part of the chosen people.

[Calm]

Do we sell our birthright when we marry outside the temple?

Not necessarily, but we put something of extreme importance and value at risk, when we put off or disregard temple marriage. The ultimate blessings of the birthright are in the new and everlasting covenant received only in the temple. If we neglect this, we will someday feel the regret of Esau, multiplied many times.

Everything you do . . . EVERYTHING . . . is teaching your kids something.

I think we do sell our birthright when we marry out of the temple UNLESS the Spirit is directing us that route, but that doesn't mean we can't 'buy' it back some time in the future (and that includes even those who never marry in the temple in this lifetime imo). I think there are lots of things we can do that 'trade' the birthright for a more immediate gratification, sometimes in part if it takes us further away from temple worthiness such as being dishonest or harsh with another, sometimes in total if it makes us ineligible to receive it without some major changes in our attitudes and behaviours...I would include casually marrying outside the temple in this last category.

The fundamental problem I see is if we are willing to sell the birthright once, what is going to stop us from selling it again when something 'appetizing' comes along? There is also the likelihood that getting the birthright restored to us is going to take a lot of spiritual work and again... if we were able to talk ourselves out of working for it originally, then our chances are less that we are going to be willing to work that much harder to get it back...and keep it.

Establishing our priorities start with the little choices so that when the big choice comes along, we won't be surprised or driving by overwhelming natural needs to accept something less than the Lord is willing to bless us with. Just think what Esau would have had if he had been working toward preparing himself for the role of spiritual leader/patriarch/birthright holder rather than just living in the moment, expecting instant gratification and doing what he naturally desired to do, such as hunting and eating and marrying the nearest attractive female. Most likely he would have refused the offer of the pottage and simply gotten up and gone looking for someone else who could provide him with something to hold him until mealtime AND it probably wouldn't have occurred to Jacob to even ask him for the birthright in the exchange in the first place because he would have known that Esau valued it and would look on the question as insulting, etc.

[mercyngrace]

YET, the chances of marrying a louse like your BIL and NIL, are less if you marry in the Church. Adultery and verbal abuse are strongly condemned in our religion.

I agree with everything you said except what I excerpted above. Having access to the gospel IS NOT the same as being a good person. The D&C is very clear that there are good people in the world who do not have the truth only because they know not where to find it. Adultery and verbal abuse are condemned in most Christian religions and many non-Christian religions.

[Lightbearer]

"Racist"? What about blacks and the priesthood? I don't even want to start. Every religion has their philosophies of man intertwined in the church. By "racist" I am speaking of the attitude held by members that they are far superior to other of other faiths and that their children shouldn't date those others even if they have sound and true values. A person should seek counsel in the Lord on whom to date and marry- that is between them and the Lord. The counsel coming fromt he church has been an attitude of prejudice which carries tons of negative baggage. We treat others, some of which are true and honest in the heart as if they are not good enough. It's cxalled looking blindly. Only yourself and the Lord can determine who to date and marry and sometimes that happens with nonmembers and members getting together.

I like the counsel and doctrine of marriage in the temple- it's pure and undefiled. However, when we seek to take the vain philosophies of man- the imaginations of his heart, and state that LDS youth and singles shouldn't date nonmembers, let alone hang out with them in fear we might fall for them, I take it personal- it is not sound doctrine or counsel. It's my opinion and I am not budging.

What about it? This thread is not about the blacks and the priesthood and trying to tie in that with this is rather ridiculous. I think the word is "exclusive" or even "self-righteousness" but not racist. Who are you to indict the whole Church as being "self-righteous" or exclusive? So basically you are saying that the entire Church leaders are "racist/self-righteous" and that we should just ignore General Conference or for that matter any manuals or anything that comes from the Church leaders? You don't seem to really care what prophets or apostles say on a matter if it makes you personally feel uncomfortable, you choose to take offense and seem to think it is only their biased self-righteous opinions! Ever think God may have inspired them in this teaching? So do we just reject the entire standard works? because they are all filled with "racist" or "self-righteous" or "exclusive" teachings. Oh and yes as Brenda so eloquently pointed out, yes "Our religion IS superior, because it gives us the only way to exaltation!" So hell yes I am prejudiced, because those who do not make those covenants in the Temple or for that matter the baptismal covenants are not the type of people that can help me get to where I want to go. Does that mean I think that all these others outside of the church are evil? NO, of course not, that is why we preach the Gospel and baptize them into the Church, because many are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it. Does that make me feel superior to them? NO, they are children of God, and hopefully when presented with the message of the Gospel they will accept the further light and knowledge offered them. But my religion is superior to theirs, that is what God has said through revelation, that is what the restoration is all about. As for the reason for wanting my children to aim for a Temple marriage and to date only worthy members is I want them the best possible chances for success. I do not want my children to place their salvation and exaltation dependent on someone else's agency (whether they choose to accept or reject the Gospel). They must ultimately choose, but that does not mean I will not give them the correct counsel and ultimately they will govern themselves. But if I downplay the teachings of the living prophets, if I undermine their faith in the Gospel and the teachings of the Church, what does that make me? I realize there is little point continuing this discussion your mind is made up, and so is mine. You have your opinion and I have mine, and mine is backed up by the authority of prophets and apostles and I will never budge from my position either.

[daz2]

I think the quoted language will be gone in the next revision of the Old Testament manual (as well as the instruction in the first lesson to emphasize that it was Jesus speaking to Moses, not God the Father.) President Kimball gave much tougher counsel against marrying outside the church than any other recent prophet or apostle that I know of. As someone noted, For the Strength of Youth does not counsel against dating nonmembers.

I will be interested in how our Sunday School teacher approaches this. He married nonmembers twice; his first wife converted, he later became bishop of the ward for many years. Some time later, his first wife died. Our teacher then married again, another nonmember. Who converted. And who is an extraordinary member of our ward. Maybe he will teach it by saying "Do what the manual says, not what I did."

I also wonder how Elder Bednar or his mother would approach this lesson, inasmuch as she married outside the Church a good man, who sent and supported his sons on missions, and later converted.

Some members believe, in effect, that marrying outside the Church is an unforgiveable offense, permanently barring them from the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. I don't think so. If the marriage outside the Church was sin, it is a fully forgiveable one. And I do not think that repentance or forgiveness requires divorce either (a different subject).

[Brenda]

I agree with everything you said except what I excerpted above. Having access to the gospel IS NOT the same as being a good person. The D&C is very clear that there are good people in the world who do not have the truth only because they know not where to find it. Adultery and verbal abuse are condemned in most Christian religions and many non-Christian religions.

Very true. Access to the gospel SHOULD be the same as being a good person, but sadly it isn't.

My post was in response to-- even though they married in the temple, they still married creeps. Then used that to justify marrying out of the church. I'm saying that you can have both--a wonderful spouse AND temple marriage.

[Rob Osborn]

What about it? This thread is not about the blacks and the priesthood and trying to tie in that with this is rather ridiculous. I think the word is "exclusive" or even "self-righteousness" but not racist. Who are you to indict the whole Church as being "self-righteous" or exclusive? So basically you are saying that the entire Church leaders are "racist/self-righteous" and that we should just ignore General Conference or for that matter any manuals or anything that comes from the Church leaders? You don't seem to really care what prophets or apostles say on a matter if it makes you personally feel uncomfortable, you choose to take offense and seem to think it is only their biased self-righteous opinions! Ever think God may have inspired them in this teaching? So do we just reject the entire standard works? because they are all filled with "racist" or "self-righteous" or "exclusive" teachings. Oh and yes as Brenda so eloquently pointed out, yes "Our religion IS superior, because it gives us the only way to exaltation!" So hell yes I am prejudiced, because those who do not make those covenants in the Temple or for that matter the baptismal covenants are not the type of people that can help me get to where I want to go. Does that mean I think that all these others outside of the church are evil? NO, of course not, that is why we preach the Gospel and baptize them into the Church, because many are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it. Does that make me feel superior to them? NO, they are children of God, and hopefully when presented with the message of the Gospel they will accept the further light and knowledge offered them. But my religion is superior to theirs, that is what God has said through revelation, that is what the restoration is all about. As for the reason for wanting my children to aim for a Temple marriage and to date only worthy members is I want them the best possible chances for success. I do not want my children to place their salvation and exaltation dependent on someone else's agency (whether they choose to accept or reject the Gospel). They must ultimately choose, but that does not mean I will not give them the correct counsel and ultimately they will govern themselves. But if I downplay the teachings of the living prophets, if I undermine their faith in the Gospel and the teachings of the Church, what does that make me? I realize there is little point continuing this discussion your mind is made up, and so is mine. You have your opinion and I have mine, and mine is backed up by the authority of prophets and apostles and I will never budge from my position either.

Whoa there, eh eh.

Don't get me wrong. I do advocate the counsel of temple marriage. I just honestly think we do not see the bigger picture God has for us. Instead, and often times, we get this cookie cutter training of how we are supposed to live our lives. We get the attitude of looking "first" for the wrong things that are most important in a relationship. The first thing in my opinion should be compatability, not if they are members or not. Iguess it is all in how one sees the glass- half full or half empty. You see, I look at the people in the world as being basically the same. We all basically have the same desires and wants when it comes right down to the things pertatining to the heart. I look at it like this-

Those of us here on the earth obviously did things to get here- we are all in the same boat! But becuase of culture and the philosophies of man we see things in a very limited manner. God wants to "exalt" all of us here on this earth, not just some tiny minority like the "Mormons" myself included. When we take the attitude of eliteism over others thinking we are a special few worthy of exaltation we also adopt the ideas that others will "never" be good enough for our society and thus- we teach with blindfolds on teaching our youth the dangers of "dating outside our religion". There are equally good people with high morals and standards in every religion- we don't have the monopoly on that regardless of what we tend to believe. I was born in Illinois and the people there are mostly protestant believers. Less than 1% of the population there are Mormons. But they have the same beliefs I do- we share the same common moral fibers, vote on the same things in elections, like the same things and dislikes the same things in general. As for tolerance, other religions are just as tolerat as we are. We are not the "elite" at the cause and expense of others. We are all in the same boat- "all" of us needing the same blessings of salvation and exaltation with a partner at our side. God didn't just set one small tiny minority on earth to receive the blessings. No, he forordained all of us born here to those promises. So, when we counsel to marry "only" members we set up a system of elitism at the cause and expense of others who need this same blessing. It is denying them the blessings.

The bottom line is this- We will all have to join the church in order to be saved. Those who desire exaltation will have every opportunity afforded them in either this life or the hereafter. When we seek out a spouse we should do so with the manner of seeing all of Gods children as "heirs" to the throne, not just some small elite group.

[handys003]

I'm pretty sure that is the very tiny majority of such marriages, unfortunately. Thus, it's not the Pattern taught by the General Church leaders.

I personally would find it more on a level of practicality than prejudice. I know I, personally, would find it very frustating on many deep levels if my spouse did not share the most essential aspects of my beliefs and life with me, and in fact thought that I was decieved or deluded on those things. My Faith motivated many important choices and decisions in our family. Also, It can have very negative results when it comes to decisions as to how to raise the children, as per the commandment in D&C 68:25.

You need to come talk to many Polynesians.

[handys003]

Rob, I'm glad things worked out for you. However, for many people, marriage ends up being a death sentence. We risk losing our birthright when we choose something less. Esau married outside of the covenant, marrying Canaanite and Hivite women. The danger primarily came from this: 1. they brought their idolatry and wrong belief system with them, 2. they chose something less than was initially offered.

Yes, things worked well for you. But what if they hadn't? 80% of LDS women who marry outside the Church end up not converting their spouses. Often times, even if the spouse is initially supportive of the LDS member, later on contention begins when it comes time to raise the kids in a religion. I've known far too many LDS men and women who slowly went inactive, because they did not feel they had the support from a spouse to keep going.

In your case, you received a second chance at the full birthright. Perhaps others will too, but there is no guarantee that it will occur in every instance.

CFR that stat. I know plenty here that will recorrect you.

Never mind I came across your answer in post#8. I disagree with the GA though. Like I said many in Polynesia would give disagreement. As conversion rates are higher and people are more liberal and open minded to other races and creeds.

[handys003]

This topic was part of our lesson yesterday in church and it really got me to thinking about how we view marriage and covenants- perhaps, ina negative manner.

It was mentioned that when a person who is a member marrys outside the church it is like "selling" their birthright as compared to Esau selling his birthright to Jacob. The church manual says-

"

[handys003]

So... my sister married a nice mormon boy from a nice mormon family in the temple. He was cheating on her before their first anniversary. My niece married a nice mormon RM from Utah also in the temple. He's verbally and emotionally abusive and is leaving her a shell of her former self.

All I'm saying is that marriage in the church, even marriage in the temple, is not the golden ticket. Both of the women I described would have had a significantly better life marrying good men outside the church. A man with a good heart may convert in this life and WILL convert in the next. A man with evil in his heart won't be a good match simply because he's LDS. Better a dry mormon thatn a bad mormon or MINO.

The real answer is to stay close to the Lord and follow the course that He plots for your life.

AMEN!

[Wants2know]

So... my sister married a nice mormon boy from a nice mormon family in the temple. He was cheating on her before their first anniversary. My niece married a nice mormon RM from Utah also in the temple. He's verbally and emotionally abusive and is leaving her a shell of her former self.

All I'm saying is that marriage in the church, even marriage in the temple, is not the golden ticket. Both of the women I described would have had a significantly better life marrying good men outside the church. A man with a good heart may convert in this life and WILL convert in the next. A man with evil in his heart won't be a good match simply because he's LDS. Better a dry mormon thatn a bad mormon or MINO.

The real answer is to stay close to the Lord and follow the course that He plots for your life.

[rameumptom]

For millennia, many people were married not because of love or compatibility, but because of arranged marriages. We have Isaac's marriage that seemed to do well, for instance. The focus was on the covenant, not on compatibility. Compatibility focuses on the temporary situation of earth life, while covenant focuses on the eternal.

I understand there are exceptions. But why on earth would the Prophets want to preach the exception, rather than the rule? D&C 132 is very clear concerning marriages in and outside of the covenant. If people wish to enjoy a relationship here, understanding the risk that marriage may not continue into the next life, I am not going to judge them. However, I do want them to understand up front what eternal risks they are taking.

[Brenda]

AMEN!

The post you are both applauding does not agree with the prophets.

The women married LDS men who happened to be jerks. Of course they would have been happier with non-jerks. But did they know they were jerks before marrying them? I would hope not. The point is to marry in the temple to men WHO ARE NOT JERKS. Be sure he IS what you hope he is, before marrying him. Then marry him in the temple. It's doable.

For millennia, many people were married not because of love or compatibility, but because of arranged marriages. We have Isaac's marriage that seemed to do well, for instance. The focus was on the covenant, not on compatibility. Compatibility focuses on the temporary situation of earth life, while covenant focuses on the eternal.

I understand there are exceptions. But why on earth would the Prophets want to preach the exception, rather than the rule? D&C 132 is very clear concerning marriages in and outside of the covenant. If people wish to enjoy a relationship here, understanding the risk that marriage may not continue into the next life, I am not going to judge them. However, I do want them to understand up front what eternal risks they are taking.

Yes.

I don't think any of us, including myself, have a clue what marriage in the covenant really means. Just like we don't have a clue what the Celestial Kingdom really means. But the Lord says we will want it. Do we trust Him or do we not?

[mercyngrace]

The post you are both applauding does not agree with the prophets.

I take exception to that remark, Brenda. Show me what I said that disagrees with a prophet? Show me where I said marrying in the temple was not the ideal? Do you think marrying in the temple to someone who is abusive is better than marrying a good person civilly? Those are the two things I contrasted. I did not compare marrying a good person in the temple or marrying a good person out of the temple.

In fact, if you read my other comments, you will see that I wrote that as criteria for a spouse, membership in the church was a VERY LOW BAR.

[Senator]

Be sure he IS what you hope he is, before marrying him.

Good luck!

[Brenda]

I take exception to that remark, Brenda. Show me what I said that disagrees with a prophet? Show me where I said marrying in the temple was not the ideal? Do you think marrying in the temple to someone who is abusive is better than marrying a good person civilly? Those are the two things I contrasted. I did not compare marrying a good person in the temple or marrying a good person out of the temple.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. You said:

All I'm saying is that marriage in the church, even marriage in the temple, is not the golden ticket. Both of the women I described would have had a significantly better life marrying good men outside the church. A man with a good heart may convert in this life and WILL convert in the next. A man with evil in his heart won't be a good match simply because he's LDS.

Did you mean that it's okay to marry out of the church, out of the temple, as long as you marry a GOOD man, because eventually he will convert? If not, then I apologize.