Until death do part you?

Me neither. I think the church spins that whole business to make a point that could be made in a better and less disrespectful way.

Personally, I would not call any marriage vows inferior to any other. The value is clearly in the heart of those making them. My first reflex would also say there is no value in arguing the subject with a traditional absolutist Mormon, but I could see how the subject would present itself in some situations. Thus the struggles of life…

LDS Single Woman: “What’s the difference whether I marry a Mormon or a non-Mormon? Mormon men are no better.”

Traditional Believer: “But if you marry outside the temple, it is only ’til death do you part.”

Repeat ad nauseum

Heretic: “…I don’t see the inferiority of the traditional marriage vows. And I don’t see that they come with a terminator clause any more than do the temple vows.”

If temple marriage is really so vitally important then why don’t the Book of Mormon and Bible talk about it considering the fact that Joseph Smith himself claimed that they supposedly already contained the “fullness of the gospel?” This eternal marriage idea was added later along with the notoriously unpopular doctrine of polygamy (D&C 132) but now it has become a major focal point and central tenet of LDS doctrine. Well what happens if this eternal family idea is just an empty promise based on wild speculation and wishful thinking and it turns out that there really is no special reward for being Mormon? Who really benefits the most from this doctrine in this life and who loses the most if it is ignored, the individual or the Church?

It is clear to see that the LDS Church directly benefits from this whole eternal family doctrine in more ways than one. Not only is it arguably the LDS Church’s most attractive selling point but to get a temple recommend you are expected to conform to a very narrow profile of what the LDS Church considers to be a good Mormon in terms of strict rules and specific beliefs. As a consequence, active and obedient Mormons will typically prefer to marry other active and obedient Mormons in most cases.

Think about it, if it was perfectly acceptable for practicing Mormons to just marry a Jack Mormon, Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, atheist, etc. then there would be no one around to keep an eye on them and try to influence them to continue in the “one true” path of righteousness and it would also decrease the likelihood that as many children would end up following this tradition as well. But it turns out that the idea of getting married outside the temple is not acceptable to many active members and if you do this then some of them will probably think of you as some kind of depraved drunken fornicator for years after the fact that you failed to conform to this externally visible standard.

If I sound bitter about this it’s because I am. My own family judged me disrespectfully for not getting married in the temple and now my wife judges me and blames me for supposedly not loving her enough to believe every single thing the Church says. Is this really the kind of thing Jesus would teach? To me the whole thing just doesn’t look very Christ-like at all and personally I think this doctrine is one of the single biggest reasons the LDS Church has been repeatedly accused of being a cult because it puts such a strong emphasis on the idea of being separate from and better than “the world.”

I absolutely love the concept of eternal marriage and the sealing of the family of God – and I also love the concept that everyone can be part of that, regardless of their religious affiliation in this life. I understand the emphasis on temple marriage and sealings, but I also believe God will not “put assunder” ANY couple that truly becomes one in this life – that the sealing ordinances are important symbolically but only shadows of what I would call true practical sealing.

A couple can be “temple sealed” without being “truly sealed” – and a couple can be “truly sealed” without being “temple sealed”. Frankly, that actually is taught and understood in the Church (even if not as explicitly as I would like), so it doesn’t cause me any real angst. Also, frankly, that concept is not taught explicitly in any other Christian denomination (at least, not in the same way as in the LDS Church) – and it’s an ideal I believe desperately needs to be taught and internalized by humanity.

Finally, there is a power in taking a symbol and “actualizing” it through a physical performance that includes BOTH body and spirit. The same is true of something like baptism, where there is a tangible event that is “recorded in the body”, if you will. I want eternal marriage to be something “embodied” in an ordinance – even as I would like the rhetoric ratched down a notch with regard to non-temple marriages (especially of non-Mormons) and the concept divorced more directly from the other temple requirements. (pun intended)

I agree DA…Quite honestly (at the risk of defending the church – god forbid) I believe that the concept of eternal families is “true.” In my world, the spirit tells me that yes, our conscience will continue with those we love and want to be with and be a part of. I think that is true. HOWEVER, that same spirit also tells me that this truth has nothing to do with temples or the Mormon religion — AT ALL. I think JS got it right —- and the church has gotten it wrong…

I absolutely love the concept of eternal marriage and the sealing of the family of God – and I also love the concept that everyone can be part of that, regardless of their religious affiliation in this life…

I don’t have a problem with the idea of eternal families in general; that would be great if it works out that way. What bothers me is the way this idea is currently taught and implemented because it basically looks like the Church is mostly just manipulating active members and trying to separate them from all the Jack Mormons and non-Mormons that represent “the world.” Also, now that there is so much anti-Mormon propaganda on the internet we are starting to end up with more families that started out on the same page but now there are major differences that will cause a lot of unnecessary stress and contention that is exacerbated by Church members continuing to focus so much on doctrines like temple marriage, tithing, and the WoW rather than basic Christian principles like love, tolerance, patience, etc.

Personally I don’t really think it was planned out this way at all; in fact I think Church leaders generally had good intentions where they simply added things like tithing and the WoW to the temple requirements sincerely thinking it would generally be good for the Church and members as a whole. However, I think we are getting to the point now where we will really start to see more negative side-effects of these policies as more and more members start to lose faith in some of these doctrines and call the Church’s bluff at the same time that their families don’t understand why.

It seems to me to come down to an authority issue.

By being sealed through authority, it gives me some peace of mind that what is bound on earth will be bound in heaven (on conditions of worthiness).

If you are not sealed with proper authority, maybe there is another way, but is there that same assurance? Is it riskier?

There is a huge difference between a belief in the concept of needing to teach eternal marraige and the need to couple it with other requirements for the temple.

I really do think that the concept simply must be taught in the world in which we live – and it must be taught explicitly. I’ve seen WAY too much in my professional life to convince me otherwise.