Re: Putting church fifth
- From: "Gerald Fuller" <gfuller1930@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:59:28 -0000
"Colleen Kay Porter" <ckpsdp@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
On 7/14/06 6:13 PM, in article 12bg5nlfnmrtp26@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Jason
King" <jasonking@xxxxxxx> wrote:
First, I should start by saying that in a well balanced life, there is
hopefully room for both, and nobody feels shortchanged.
A well balanced life. That seems ideal. We should strive for the ideal. Not
all of us reach it.
That said, I have to say that our "marriage first" philosophy was not
something that we started with. It came about 6-8 years into our
after about the fifth divorce of friends who were married in the temple.
The first few could be dismissed, but after that many, we started to think
it might happen to us, and wondered if there was anything we could do.
as it turned out, many of these families were those who believed in
the children first. Ironic, because when a couple divorces, the financial
and emotional well being of the children is less than optimal.
Being "Married in the Temple" may or may not be meaningful. The ceremony
whether in the temple or in a judge's chamber or even a common law, ceremony
before witnesses (or not) is meaningless without a high degree of something
that I call commitment. It shold start with a commitment to God, to follow
His teaching and His prompting. It should extend to a commitment to the
person you are taking as your husband or wife. The common protestant
ceremony at least used to include the phrases, for richer, for poorer, in
sickness and in health until death parts you. Then either who survives is
free to marry again. Our ceremony, at least in the Temple is for eternity,
not until death shall part us, but after the death of one, the other is free
to marry again for time only. This limit does not always apply even. But a
true marriage is not made by a ceremony. It is forged in the crucible of
daily living. (I like to be a bit flowery sometimes) If we do not have that
commitment, first to God as we undestand Him, then to the institution of
marriage itself, maybe, and then to our spouse and our family if we have
one, then we really do not have a marriage, even if we stick to living in
the same house.
Much is being said now about not letting Church callings interfere with our
nurture of our families, or whatever the language happens to be. But just
last Sunday the RS and Prieshood lesson from Wilford Woodruff mentioned the
time that the Saints in Missouri were in dire straits as a result of the
mobbers. It was decided to send a couple of brethren to Kirtland to consult
the Prophet who then consulted the Lord to seek guidance. The men who
volunteerd to go may have been thought by some both then and now to be
ignoring the needs of their wives and families. One of the wives had given
birth just a few days before, and had no house to live in. I recall it said
she was sheltered by a log. Now who can judge that this was not putting
their family first, even if it does not appear that way to us? Remember what
we are told about judging righteous judgement and not judgiing
unrighteously? Who can judge righteously based on partial information and
I make every attempt not to judge someone just because their actions do not
accord with what seemeth right.
Prov 14:12 ¶ There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end
thereof [are] the ways of death.
Prov 16:25 ¶ There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end
thereof [are] the ways of death.
A more "hard -hitting" statement is in "The Message" which is called a
paraphrase It has
12-13 There's a way of life that looks harmless enough;
look again-it leads straight to hell.
Sure, those people appear to be having a good time,
but all that laughter will end in heartbreak.
Some families undoubtedly agree to sacrifice some of the present for the
good to be gained thereby. Is it for us to judge them?
But yes, we have agency to decide for ourselves after sincere prayer, what
is best for our situation, and take the consequences, be they good or bad.
So that's when we decided to give a higher priority to dates and annual
getaways and lunches where we don't talk about children or work.
I have no problem with that. Certainly it is better than to lose the
It's not that we put our desires above our children's needs. But we do
sometimes put our needs ahead of our children's WANTs. If we were
a date, and a child was sick, we would cancel the date...but we would
reschedule it. =20
Sounds good to me.
friend (who isn't LDS) told me you can get a new wife, but your
children you can never replace.
And maybe he can. But as an LDS woman, I can't get a new husband.
I do not shun all counsel from non LDS friends, but I hold them of lower
consequence than that of our Prophets and General Authorities.
In this last April 2006 General Conference, in a talk entitled "Nurturing
Marriage," Elder Nelson said this: "As I meet with priesthood leaders, I
often ask about the priorities of their various responsibilities. Usually
they mention their important Church duties to which they have been called.
Too few remember their responsibilities at home. Yet priesthood offices,
keys, callings, and quorums are meant to exalt families. Priesthood
authority has been restored so that families can be sealed eternally. So
brethren, your foremost priesthood duty is to nurture your marriage=8Bto
for, respect, honor, and love your wife."
Foremost priesthood duty. That kinda sounds like the marriage comes
the children. =20
It seemed to me that Elder Nelson was having some tender feelings during
that talk. Perhaps he was considering his late wife, or even his now wife.
Wives, like so many other "possessions", seem to become more important when
they have been lost, even temporarily. (As if a wife is a possession! rather
than a help, meet for man.)
Children don't come and go; they and
their children will be on this earth long after us.
My understanding is that this earth is bound for destruction, after which it
will be restored. Same with us and our children to the last generation. How
we have trained them will have a bearing on their eternal lives, or their
destiny in a lesser kingdom. Whether we have done our best with them will no
doubt have a similar bearing on our own. But husband and wife are in this
Yes, but their primary affiliation will be to their spouse. Just as my
primary affiliation should be to my spouse.
Perhaps. I think the primary affiliation, or at least the primary
responsibility of all of us, will be our Father and then our Savior.
Leave a legacy to them.
I can't think of a better legacy than giving young children the security
knowing that their parents marriage is secure, and giving older children a
role model of spouses who are still so madly in love with each other that
they want to spend time together--alone.
I can't either, unless it is leaving them a legacy that their parents
eternity is also secure including their eternal family.
They are not less important than the spouse.
I don't think anyone said they were. But there is truth in the saying "If
Mamma aint happy, aint nobody happy!"
I love children, and I well appreciate the challenges of having a feisty
toddler sit through a meeting, but I think parents can teach them how to
behave and set some limits instead of letting them do whatever they want.
I absolutely agree and that is one of the things that troubles me about some
LDS families. I think they fail to understand that love includes the need
for training and "civilizing" a child.
- Prev by Date: Re: Deseret Book shutting out Seagull
- Next by Date: Re: Is Appearance Important?
- Previous by thread: Re: Putting church fifth
- Next by thread: Re: Putting church fifth