LDS Marriage meaning questions

[_moksha]

From the new The Divine Institution of Marriage proclamation comes the following information:

Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults.

1. Where does that leave late in life heterosexual marriages and sealings where procreation in not on the agenda?

2. Does this codify the sense of failure for childless couples?




.

[_harmony]

1. Where does that leave late in life heterosexual marriages and sealings where procreation in not on the agenda?

2. Does this codify the sense of failure for childless couples?

The church is not concerned about couples who put off their eternal responsibilities for any reason. And childless couples can adopt.

[_bcspace]

1. Where does that leave late in life heterosexual marriages and sealings where procreation in not on the agenda?

Waiting out the short time in mortality for the eternities.

2. Does this codify the sense of failure for childless couples?

Only those who selfishly limit their family size.

[_moksha]

1. Where does that leave late in life heterosexual marriages and sealings where procreation in not on the agenda?

bc: Waiting out the short time in mortality for the eternities.
Harmony: The church is not concerned about couples who put off their eternal responsibilities for any reason.?

So, this defining process of what separates a valid heterosexual marriage from an invalid homosexual marriage is just verbiage?

2. Does this codify the sense of failure for childless couples

Only those who selfishly limit their family size.

But if the legitimization of a marriage is contingent upon the production and rearing of children, then isn't it natural for them to feel they are not living up to their end of this expectation?

[_Jason Bourne]

Only those who selfishly limit their family size.

What constitutes selfishly limiting family size?

[_The Nehor]

Only those who selfishly limit their family size.

What constitutes selfishly limiting family size?

That's between the parents and God.

[_collegeterrace]

What constitutes selfishly limiting family size?

That's between the parents and God.

I guess God still does not want any Nehor offspring eh?

[_The Nehor]

I guess God still does not want any Nehor offspring eh?

The idea of someone like me existing scares me. If it scares a God, I trust in his wisdom. :)

[_asbestosman]

From the new The Divine Institution of Marriage proclamation comes the following information:

Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults.

1. Where does that leave late in life heterosexual marriages and sealings where procreation in not on the agenda?

It leaves them setting examples for the neighbor children and for other relatives such as children of nephews and nieces.

2. Does this codify the sense of failure for childless couples?

No. They can adopt and they can also set good examples for other children in their lives. Being a respoinsible adult includes keeping the commandments such as, oh, avoiding fornication, adultery, and homosexuality as well as the ones society agrees with such as kindness, and honesty.

[_Roger Morrison]

From Moksha:

Quote:
Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. (UL & Italics by RM)

The second part seems very technical. As it is the "rather" part, it could be taken that "affection" & "mutual obligations", being in the "not primary" part, are simply incidental to raiseing children who become "responsive/ible" to authority... Seems very cold & passionless.

A very typical assertion/edict of old folks who are past their "feelings" prime. This is simply another case where old Mormon leadership--not knowing what to do in these times--moves the weight of nonsense closer to the time that, unless questioned by younger LDS Leadership, will call into question the wisdom of being governed by respected nice-old-men, who are in fact less than competant to influence... IMSCO (In my seriously considered opinion)

Sort of a shame that so many good things about Mormonism could be lost by the absurdities keeping them chained to their past. Oh well, Joel Osteen is out there...

Roger