Better Dead Than Unwed?

[JLHPROF]

Regarding the teachings of his father, President Joseph Fielding Smith said:

 

"I have heard President Joseph F. Smith say on several occasions that he would rather take his children one by one to the grave in their innocence and purity, knowing that they would come forth to inherit the fulness of celestial glory, than to have them marry outside of the Church, or even outside the temple of the Lord.  Why should he have been so emphatic? Because he had perfect knowledge of what marriage, according to the law of the Lord, means; and because he knew the consequences attending the rejection of this covenant in the house of the Lord. For those who refuse to receive this ordinance, as the Lord ordained, cannot enter into the fulness of celestial glory." (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.76)

 

 

In light of the "Isn't It Upsetting That Only Those In The Celestial Kingdom Have Spouses?"

and the "Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin" and the "Ok There Seems To Be A Problem With Polygamy In The Church's Past" threads do any of the members on this board share the prophet's opinion on this?

 

All of the three threads have mentioned at some point or another Civil Marriage and how we should feel about it.  Pres. Smith clearly felt differently.

 

So how about it - is there anyone who would actually see their children die single than to marry outside of the temple according to God's law?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

At least you call it what it is, an opinion. And from a theological point of view I get it but I don't agree with it. I think kids need to make their own decisions. And in the long run you could be happy and even have a great life with a non member.

[Buckeye]

...

 

So how about it - is there anyone who would actually see their children die single than to marry outside of the temple according to God's law?

 

Not me.  Temple ordinances are a great means to point us towards heaven.  Maybe they are even essential.  But an eternal marriage comes through the efforts of the couple - efforts to be one with each other and to be one with God.  Eternal marriage is not the result of some nice words said by a sealer in a temple.  Most of the couples I know who have marriages that I can envision lasting into the eternities are not members of the church, much less sealed in the temple.

[Senator]

Whatever clause or stipulation that would enable a child taken early in life to eventually inherit all of the same celestial glory reserved for those that lived to partake of the ordinances and abide faithfully thereby, will eventually come into play for those, who, for various reasons fail to receive the ordinances in this life.

 

MHO anyways.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Senator

[VideoGameJunkie]

My mom is a member and married a non member and they had me, so I hope it wasn't a mistake. Although, I want to be sealed to my family one day and will probably have to perform the temple work one day. I know that I'm holding out for a Mormon girl so I can be sealed to her in the temple. I don't want marriage ending at death.

[Ahab]

Clumsily written and expressed. In the end of that quote he revealed the main thought he had in mind, which is that he would rather see his children die than to see them "reject" being married eternally, and I'm sure he was thinking of eternally rejecting it. I wouldn't want to see my children eternally reject eternal marriage either, and if they died before being able to get it done I'd be hoping they would find someone in the world of spirits and be sealed to them through temple ordinances.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Ahab, but you can't do sealing work on earth in temples for people who died while single because we don't know who to seal them to. Hopefully there are temples in the spirit world where that work is done and counts.

[mfbukowski]

As a convert, I find that rather extreme, frankly.  Perhaps one might justify that stance as one born in the church to actively reject the opportunity to be sealed, but certainly to cut off the possibility of repentance by putting a child in the grave when God gives us second and third, and as many chances as we need to repent, strikes me as far off the mark.

 

So that must somehow be out of context, I would think, or we are taking it to mean something that was not intended

[mfbukowski]

Clumsily written and expressed. In the end of that quote he revealed the main thought he had in mind, which is that he would rather see his children die than to see them "reject" being married eternally, and I'm sure he was thinking of eternally rejecting it. I wouldn't want to see my children eternally reject eternal marriage either, and if they died before being able to get it done I'd be hoping they would find someone in the world of spirits and be sealed to them through temple ordinances.

Yeah, I think you pegged it.  He stated it poorly.

[Scott Lloyd]

Regarding the teachings of his father, President Joseph Fielding Smith said:

 

 

In light of the "Isn't It Upsetting That Only Those In The Celestial Kingdom Have Spouses?"

and the "Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin" and the "Ok There Seems To Be A Problem With Polygamy In The Church's Past" threads do any of the members on this board share the prophet's opinion on this?

 

All of the three threads have mentioned at some point or another Civil Marriage and how we should feel about it.  Pres. Smith clearly felt differently.

 

So how about it - is there anyone who would actually see their children die single than to marry outside of the temple according to God's law?

That's quite a loaded question, isn't it?

[Scott Lloyd]

Yeah, I think you pegged it.  He stated it poorly.

All other things being equal, I think my grief would be greater in the instance of a child rejecting the covenant than it would be in the instance of a child who had lived nobly and faithfully perishing in an accident before having the opportunity for marriage.

 

In that sense, I can relate to what President Smith said.

 

For one thing, I would be secure in the knowledge that the child would be given every opportunity for marriage, children and exaltation in the afterlife.

 

I could not feel so secure in the instance of the child who lived but who went astray.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

Ahab, but you can't do sealing work on earth in temples for people who died while single because we don't know who to seal them to. Hopefully there are temples in the spirit world where that work is done and counts.

You mean yet, I think. We'll be able to do that when they tell us who they want to be sealed to, within authorized parameters.

[cinepro]

All other things being equal, I think my grief would be greater in the instance of a child rejecting the covenant than it would be in the instance of a child who had lived nobly and faithfully perishing in an accident before having the opportunity for marriage.

 

In that sense, I can relate to what President Smith said.

 

For one thing, I would be secure in the knowledge that the child would be given every opportunity for marriage, children and exaltation in the afterlife.

 

I could not feel so secure in the instance of the child who lived but who went astray.

 

 

This story from the current manual about Joseph Fielding Smith losing his son in WWII would seem to support that:

 

 

 

On December 29, 1944, President Joseph Fielding Smith’s son Lewis died while serving in the United States Army. Despite the grief President Smith experienced, he was comforted by the memory of Lewis’s good life. “If Lewis ever did or said a mean thing I never heard of it,” President Smith wrote in his journal. “His thoughts were pure as were his actions. … As severe as the blow is we have the peace and happiness of knowing that he was clean and free from the vices so prevalent in the world and found in the army. He was true to his faith and is worthy of a glorious resurrection, when we shall be reunited again.”¹

 

That being said, Church leaders do have to navigate a fine line between emphasizing the importance of Temple Marriage, while at the same time supporting and nurturing those who marry outside the Temple.  I suspect a comprehensive collection of their teachings would run the gamut from the OP's "I'd rather see them taken to the grave than marry outside the Temple" to a more encouraging idea such as "the full period of spiritual preparation necessary for some may extend into the next life".*

 

*Granted, not said by a Church leader.

Edited September 25, 2014 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

All other things being equal, I think my grief would be greater in the instance of a child rejecting the covenant than it would be in the instance of a child who had lived nobly and faithfully perishing in an accident before having the opportunity for marriage.

 

In that sense, I can relate to what President Smith said.

 

For one thing, I would be secure in the knowledge that the child would be given every opportunity for marriage, children and exaltation in the afterlife.

 

I could not feel so secure in the instance of the child who lived but who went astray.

Well I think I understand what you mean, but maybe it would help to see it from the point of view of a convert, and defining the difference for one who has "gone astray".

 

What constitutes "going astray"?

 

How is someone who is raised LDS, but perhaps never active, or perhaps active without much of a testimony, who marries outside the church, different from a convert or non-member who "marries outside the church" before or after hearing the gospel message?

 

Or what of sincere sisters who desire the sealing blessings but cannot find a worthy man, and then marry someone wonderful who is not a member?   Perhaps they think eventually he will join, but are certain that at least after death, it is likely that this wonderful man would accept temple blessings after death?

 

I mean what is the temple for, if we all need to accept the gospel with a full commitment  on earth?

[mfbukowski]

This story from the current manual about Joseph Fielding Smith losing his son in WWII would seem to support that:

 

 

 

 

That being said, Church leaders do have to navigate a fine line between emphasizing the importance of Temple Marriage, while at the same time supporting and nurturing those who marry outside the Temple.  I suspect a comprehensive collection of their teachings would run the gamut from the OP's "I'd rather see them taken to the grave than marry outside the Temple" to a more encouraging idea such as "the full period of spiritual preparation necessary for some may extend into the next life".

Unflippin believable.

 

I actually agree with cinepro. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

"It is not good for man to be alone."

[mfbukowski]

"It is not good for man to be alone."

AND it is not good for women either.

 

Life, and your opportunity for advancement to the celestial kingdom does not end if you do not get sealed on earth.

 

If that was the case, we would not do temple sealings for the dead.

[VideoGameJunkie]

The temple sealings we do for the dead are for people who were already married on earth. Billions of people have died while single.

[JLHPROF]

I think we're missing one of the more interesting parts of the quote - " he had perfect knowledge of what marriage, according to the law of the Lord, means; and because he knew the consequences attending the rejection of this covenant in the house of the Lord."

 

I am sure President Smith understood just as well as any of us that work for the dead can be done, that those without opportunity to marry will be receive that blessing at some point, that non-member spouses might be nurtured towards conversion (unbelieving husbands sanctified by the wife and all of that) and all of our usual talking points.

 

So given that Pres. Smith was not ignorant and understood all of this, why then would he continue to say of his own children that he would rather see them pass away than marry outside of the temple/church?

[JLHPROF]

The temple sealings we do for the dead are for people who were already married on earth. Billions of people have died while single.

 

And the millennium is 1000 years of temple work with visitors from the other side helping direct sealings.  They'll get their opportunity if they choose and were worthy.

[stemelbow]

Regarding the teachings of his father, President Joseph Fielding Smith said:

 

 

In light of the "Isn't It Upsetting That Only Those In The Celestial Kingdom Have Spouses?"

and the "Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin" and the "Ok There Seems To Be A Problem With Polygamy In The Church's Past" threads do any of the members on this board share the prophet's opinion on this?

 

All of the three threads have mentioned at some point or another Civil Marriage and how we should feel about it.  Pres. Smith clearly felt differently.

 

So how about it - is there anyone who would actually see their children die single than to marry outside of the temple according to God's law?

This is another frustrating teaching forwarded by past leaders that is ignored these days by our leaders. I don't think it's a bad thing to think this was wrong. It's wrong to state and it's to think, in my mind. We're much better off realizing that God loves all people and will bless married couples that aren't married in the temple just like the extremely few, in a relative sense, that are. It would have been sad if a leader murdered his own son or daughter because one of them decided to marry a non-member or a struggling member, not giving room to the notion that all is not lost, they all can still be redeemed and exalted.

[cinepro]

FWIW, this is the next "section" in the book after the quote in the OP:

 

EXALTATION FOR FAITHFUL UNMARRIED WOMEN.

 

You good sisters, who are single and alone, do not fear, do not feel that blessings are going to be withheld from you. You are not under any obligation or necessity of accepting some proposal that comes to you which is distasteful for fear you will come under condemnation. If in your hearts you feel that the gospel is true, and would under proper conditions receive these ordinances and sealing blessings in the temple of the Lord; and that is your faith and your hope and your desire, and that does not come to you now; the Lord will make it up, and you shall be blessed-for no blessing shall be withheld.

 

The Lord will judge you according to the desires of your hearts when blessings are withheld in this life, and he is not going to condemn you for that which you cannot help.

 

UNMARRIED WOMEN JUDGED BY DESIRES.

 

According to modern custom, it is the place of the man to take the initiative in the matter of a marriage contract. Women are, by force of such custom, kept in reserve and whether it be right or wrong for a woman to take the lead and offer a proposal of marriage, she feels, and she knows that the public would also feel, that she was acting in a forward and unbecoming manner. This is all wrong, but nevertheless it is the fact. The responsibility therefore rests upon the man.

 

No woman will be condemned by the Lord for refusing to accept a proposal which she feels she could not properly accept. In my judgment it is far better for our good girls to refuse an offer of marriage when they think that the companionship of the man would be disagreeable, or if he is one they do not and believe they cannot learn to love.

 

If in her heart the young woman accepts fully the word of the Lord, and under proper conditions would abide by the law, but refuses an offer when she fully believes that the conditions would not justify her in entering a marriage contract, which would bind her forever to one she does not love, she shall not lose her reward. The Lord will judge her by the desires of the heart, and the day will come when the blessings withheld shall be given, though it be postponed until the life to come.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think we're missing one of the more interesting parts of the quote - " he had perfect knowledge of what marriage, according to the law of the Lord, means; and because he knew the consequences attending the rejection of this covenant in the house of the Lord."

 

I am sure President Smith understood just as well as any of us that work for the dead can be done, that those without opportunity to marry will be receive that blessing at some point, that non-member spouses might be nurtured towards conversion (unbelieving husbands sanctified by the wife and all of that) and all of our usual talking points.

 

So given that Pres. Smith was not ignorant and understood all of this, why then would he continue to say of his own children that he would rather see them pass away than marry outside of the temple/church?

This is a great point.

 

Knowledge and background make a great deal of difference where accountability is concerned.

[JLHPROF]

FWIW, this is the next "section" in the book after the quote in the OP:

 

Thanks for posting the context of the Joseph Fielding Smith teaching.  However it is his quote of his father Joseph F. Smith that is the part that I find interesting.  It's clear that Joseph Fielding is very much in line with today's teachings.  But what exactly did his father Joseph F. mean in the quote?  That is the question at hand.

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks for posting the context of the Joseph Fielding Smith teaching.  However it is his quote of his father Joseph F. Smith that is the part that I find interesting.  It's clear that Joseph Fielding is very much in line with today's teachings.  But what exactly did his father Joseph F. mean in the quote?  That is the question at hand.

I think Joseph F. was focusing on prevention -- which is the reason for rules in the first place.

 

While some marriages outside the temple eventually end up with the partners being sealed, the reality is that most don't. Then we have the heartache to deal with, and worse. Far better to do things the right way in the first place.

 

And I never met anyone who married outside of the covenant who didn't wholeheartedly believe at the time that his or her circumstances constituted an exception to the rule. Obviously, they can't all be right.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Scott Lloyd