As President of the Quorum of the Twelve, Joseph Fielding Smith responded to members’ questions in a column in the Improvement Era. This question and answer from 1959, while on the whole reflecting current doctrinal ideas, also carries cultural ideas expressed in language that, after this week, are bound to seem ever more antique as time passes.
Salvation of Women Whose Husbands Will Not Embrace the Gospel
QUESTION: “I have tried to be a good Church member and have a strong testimony of the gospel, and the older I get the stronger is my faith. I am married to a non-member. We have three children. Two are married and were married in the temple, and the third is going to be. My husband does not show the slightest interest in the church; in fact, he shows some resentment against it. I used to plead with him but have learned that it does no good.
“I can live my life out this way, but what will happen to me and my children, who are faithful members, in the resurrection? I want my children and my grandchildren more than anyone can know, but how can this be accomplished if conditions remain as they are?”
ANSWER: This is one of the saddest conditions that we are confronted with in the Church. The Lord has revealed that the marriage covenant should be eternal. This is the definite statement he gave to the Pharisees when they made inquiry of him a follows:
“Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
“And he answered and said unto them, have ye not read, that he which made them in the beginning made them male and female.
“And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
“Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore god hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matt. 19:3-6.)
Here is a clear statement that the marriage covenant, when properly performed, is eternal. It is not to be annulled and come to an end at death. The first marriage performed on earth was the marriage of Eve to Adam, and this was before there was any death, therefore it was intended to be forever. The Lord has revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith his law concerning marriage, and that it is to be an everlasting covenant. Those who are so married will become members of the family of God, for those who receive the exaltation will be members of his great family, as stated by Paul. (Eph. 3:14-15.) They are to become joint heirs with Christ receiving the fullness of the Father’s kingdom. (Romans 8:14-17.)
Here we have a case where there is a faithful mother who has by her integrity kept her children in the faith, but who is married to an unbelieving husband. naturally she is worried and wonders how she may retain her family in the eternity to come. The Lord has made this matter perfectly clear, and in answer to this sister’s question we can say to her, and to the many others in like circumstances: If you remain faithful and true, the Lord will take your faith and devotion into account and reward you according to your works. it is a deplorable matter when a husband and wife are married for time only which according to the covenant they have taken must end at death, and then to have the wife wish and long for the blessings of husband and children in eternity. The laws of the Christian world, all denominations, except the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints, proclaim the edict that all marriages must end at death, thus they include a bill of divorcement with every marriage. This naturally brings sorrow to a woman who loves both husband and children and who ha received the truth. Naturally she wonders what her condition and relationship to her family will be hereafter. However there is some comfort to women in this status, the Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith, in answer to his prayer in the following words, his justice and mercy to all such unhappy souls:
“All who have died without a knowledge of this Gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom, for I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.” (D.H.C. 2:380.)
When the wife is faithful and desires to obey the divine law and the husband is rebellious, or unwilling to obey the will of the Lord, if she maintains her integrity to the best of her ability, she will be given to another husband in eternity and will receive all the blessings of the celestial kingdom.
Max Rafferty was a Christian newspaper columnist and had to deal with a similar question from parents whose children had made the wrong choices in life and had died. Those parents said they couldn’t bear the thought of sitting on clouds singing and playing harps while their children were in Hell burning in constant torment for eternity.
Rafferty told them that they would experience such joy in Heaven that they would quickly forget the eternal suffering their loved ones were going through. Kind of like being on drugs.
Okay, it’s been a long time since I read that, and Rafferty didn’t use those exact words. However, that’s the idea he was trying to put across, and it’s really not that different from JFS’s words of comfort. I don’t like it.
I remember that name! It’s been a long time.
As for comfort in JFS’s words, women are free agents, just as men are, “to act for themselves and not to be acted upon” in the words of the scripture. It’s comforting to have that formally recognized now.
Just out of curiosity, what is the current thought for a situation like this?
I think the overall doctrine is taught — a marriage is of no effect in the next world unless it is sealed in this world — but I think someone writing about it today would point out that the deceased go on learning and presumably being converted to the gospel, and that’s why we do proxy temple work, including marriage sealings (i.e., a marriage like the one illustrated by the question could be sealed in the next life if the husband accepted the gospel as well as the wife has, so there would be no need of sealing her to a different husband in order for her to have eternal blessings). If it is really doctrine and not just an unsupported make-everybody-feel-good assertion, then the same idea often stated to single women that they will not be denied any blessing of which they are worthy, implying marriage and children in the hereafter, then the same doctrine would probably also be taught about married women who desire eternal marriage but who are denied that by the non-compliance of a husband.
But one thing that would — or should — certainly be taught differently today is the notion that a woman is a passive thing, a prize to be given to another husband like a clean shirt or a hot meal, as if she had no say in the matter.
Thanks Ardis. I really appreciate this, which I hadn’t read previously. This is the same sentiment that he expressed when describing the sealings of children, when parents fall away, the sealing “can be transferred” in the eternities. This was all part of the shift to view sealings as more contingent in the 20th century.
His conclusion does not match the previous paragraph which was offering the hope that her own husband would receive the ordinances posthumously and they could be sealed. Why would he then conclude that he would never accept and she should be with someone else?
I wonder why he’s so eager to see eternal marriage in that bit from Matthew. If it’s a “clear statement” that marriage is eternal, you’d think that more non-LDS churches might have noticed that clarity. But the question is about divorce, and the answer is about divorce (“man” putting asunder what God has joined). You could read it to conclude that what “God hath joined together” cannot be “put asunder” even by death, but you could equally readily conclude that the condition of being “one flesh” is ended by the death of the flesh.
It’s a pretty astonishing bit of proof-texting. All the more so since the person asking the question clearly already believes in the efficacy of sealing to bind families in eternity, but is frustrated by the lack of a sealed relationship in her particular case. Perhaps other readers of the Improvement Era would benefit from the doctrine of sealing being first set out, but would probably still accept “Joseph Smith revealed it” as sufficient explanation without a proof text from the Bible.
I attended a sealing session with our ward last night, and heard the new wording of sealings for husbands and wives. It certainly has been updated to reflect an almost 99% equality in covenants for men and women, but there are echoes of Joseph Fielding Smith’s answer in the ceremony by inclusion of brief statements of gender roles with wording that seem connected to the POTF. It’s as if they couldn’t quite go all the way, which I guess in not all that surprising, considering how gender and gender roles still seem to be tied to doctrine. Nonetheless, it was to me a positive development. Still need to go and do an endowment session and see those changes first hand.
Jenne, I hesitate to speak for JFS, but I’ll try — having read hundreds of his personal letters in recent months, I don’t think it’s out of line to say that he viewed people whose lives didn’t match his own — marriage in the temple, in this case — with a jaundiced eye, and tended to expect the worse. That isn’t to say that he couldn’t also be kind and compassionate — I’ve been astounded by other materials that show he was the first one to speak up and extend mercy or stretch the rules a bit when a Church leader in the mission field would write with a local conundrum that seemed to call for allowing exceptions to rules. But overall, he strikes me as not having an especially high opinion of his fellowman, including the husband in this example.
I have a friend who married a non-member of our church. He has been very resistant to learning anything about it, although he is very kind to her in most ways. After the husband’s father died, my friend’s son performed temple ordinances by proxy for him. My friend then had a dream in which her father in law told her that her husband was too proud to accept correction from his wife, but that his father would take him in hand when the time came, and he was quite confident his son would listen.
Meanwhile, the idea of going into a sort of ‘discard pile’ to be handed out to people looking for spares is terrifying.
kevinf had the courtesy to write to me privately with his comment, in case it went further than I was comfortable with in referring to recent changes in temple language. Thanks, kevinf. This is fine because it is so non-specific — but do want to thank future commenters for not pushing the boundaries beyond this.
I think you’re right, Mike, in reading this not as information the particular letter writer needed, but as a launching point to teach other readers of the magazine. Perhaps this unsatisfying bit of prooftexting is another manifestation of the problem we talked about a while ago when President Nelson cited D&C 132:63 — for a doctrine and practice so significant and central to our belief as eternal marriage, we don’t really have much of a scriptural exposition of it, and the Bible verse was as close as he could get.
And I’m with you about the astonishment over “clear statement.” If the Bible were as clear as he takes it to be, there would be little to no denominational conflict over anything!
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry, LauraN — probably some of both!
🙂 It’s not easy to come up with something relevant that you haven’t already seen, J.!
I have found through my reading of church history, that it is not all that unusual for our general authorities and Presidents of the Church to be very aware of the audience for their words. Speaking in general conference is quite a different situation than a private letter. Brigham Young, JFS, and Joseph Fielding Smith are good examples of tailoring their responses to their perceived audience. None of them were going to offer much in the way of wiggle room in those official pronouncements.
Not wanting to completely condemn the article on just one word – “given” – does JFS perhaps mean “assigned” rather than “presented to as a gift”? Granted, it’s not 100% improvement, and not much more agency is implied for the woman, but perhaps a little more in the way of individual personality rather than a piece of property. Amazing the difference one little word can make; if you take out “to”, the idea is completely reversed.
This is another great example of why we should take the opportunity to talk about the changes within the temple.
So this is something well meaning but ultimately damaging about women, especially single or divorced women, said by a past church president and prophet.
Do we think that people still believe this. Some? Most?
Leaders? Bishops? Women? Men?
We just don’t know because we refuse to talk about it. Thank you for talking about it.
Alison, I think there is no meaningful distinction between “given” and “assigned” — they both reflect a viewpoint that the woman is being acted upon, rather than acting of her own choice (requiring, of course, the sealing power — I don’t mean to suggest that anybody, man or woman, governs this on his or her own), an object rather than an agent. Perhaps I’m reading it in the context of so many other old writings, though, where it is assumed that a man is the figure that matters, ruling in his kingdom, while wives and children are considered a measure of his glory.
I appreciate the caution about condemning this or any other article for a single word. If I thought this were a one-time awkward statement, rather than representative of an entire strain of thought, then yes, posting it this way would be an unfair criticism.
EnJen, I think — I HOPE! — that nobody believes this anymore. While recent FLDS practices should not be taken as reflecting past Mormon belief and practice — time did not stand still, and they have altered just as much as we have in, if in different directions — we’ve seen what happens when people act on such a damaging belief: families broken up, wives and children taken from a man in disfavor and given others by dictate of FLDS leaders and without the choice of the women.
The principles governing sealings and the roles of women and presumptions of how the next world is organized have always been taught and discussed freely, until the fairly recent practice of restricting theological discussion to the most simplistic watery milk accessible to the newest convert — maybe that’s the key to talking about these things: discuss what we used to discuss, and leave it to readers to make the connections to liturgy we don’t discuss in public.
Yes, the language is passive for the woman, but I would think (within the context of this comment) that she still has agency in the matter. It was customary for a long time to speak of a woman being ‘given in marriage’ — for a very long time after women got a say in who they were marrying. I would think that JFS is assuming that at minimum, the woman would have the power of refusal should she not care for the hypothetical fellow. I would also think, however, that he would figure that God would have chosen her perfect mate, so she wouldn’t want to say no.
Either way it’s not how I’ve ever figured things work.
It would not surprise me at all to learn that most? all? of us envision the future the way we want to see it, regardless of specific language (as to any question, not just this one). But a disconnect between hopes and language still causes distress — what if we’re wrong? Doctrine isn’t determined by our wishes. And what if other people who have a major effect on a woman’s life — a husband, a local leader — rely on the language and don’t share the hopes? That can and has been used to devalue women’s lives by some men who insist that their will is the only will that matters.
It just doesn’t seem wise to me to teach anyone to ignore the language and cling to unsupported expectations. I’m glad that the disconnect between language and expectation has been so greatly reduced.
The idea that God will figure everything out and that sealings may are may not reflect the eternal reality is commonly invoked during discussions of single people. It is also indicated in the letter that informs individuals of a marriage sealing cancelation includes the following: “for each of us, the realization of eternal blessings is conditioned upon personal worthiness and individual agency. Such blessings, including our eternal family relationships, will be determined by our wise and loving Father after we have completed our mortal probation.”
It’s good to know that sealing ordinances now reflect the revealed reality rather than cultural traditions. Our temple is on its winter shutdown for a couple of weeks so I’ve still to have the opportunity to witness the changes first-hand. Looking forward to it though! And Ardis, I know that you would never consider using a single piece of writing to beat someone over the head with! (Unless it was a phone book and Donald Trump was on your doorstep)
I agree wholeheartedly with Jean about how “giving in marriage” was perceived, and how it is still worded in the scriptures.
I had not expected this post to draw so much comment. I hope all participants feel heard, and am especially appreciative of these most recent comments.
Keepa’ninnies are the best.
People have mentioned women married to non-members, single and divorced women, but I think the concept of being “reassigned” to a more suitable spouse is envisioned for married people who are “yoked unequally” as well, even if there are temple covenants involved. I’ve also heard a fair amount of speculation that men who do not choose to marry in this life, don’t get to choose in the next. Even if their lack of marriage was involuntary, there will be more of an assignment of wives than a choosing. The whole train of thought is repugnant to me. It reduces an eternity of two children of God being together to a pairing of missionary companions being shuffled around on a transfers board. Seems like choosing was a pretty fundamental part of our first estate, and continues to be in this one. Hard to imagine we won’t be involved in choosing something so integral to our happiness in the next life.
It amazes me, Jamie, that people who don’t like to be told to eat their vegetables or mind their own business can be so willing to accept a supposed lack of choice in what has to be the most important choice a human being can make in this world or the next. Or maybe they think it doesn’t really affect them, and that “reassignment” is just for their less successful neighbors? /shakes head/
I had a conversation with my mom about this very “doctrine.” You know I love my mom, but she can sometimes be a real harridan, and she never has quite forgiven my dad for divorcing her. After listening to another excoriation of his character, she blithely asserted that she and us kids would be given to someone else in the hereafter. (So many assumptions.) I told her, “Over my dead body!” The conversation mercifully ended, but I have continued to consider the implications of such a thing, and there is no way in heaven or earth I would give up the investment I have made in those two, and start over with some other dude.
When one considers the violations of agency in this hypothesis, be sure to think of the children.
That’s like saying that it’s ok if I don’t see my children later, I’ll just get some different ones. So, am I at least guaranteed the same number, or is that give or take a few?
Equally disturbing to a woman being “given” is the potentially unwanted assignment to accept such a gift on the part of the man. This cuts both ways. Agency must be the key principle governing these relationships or the Celestial Kingdom will be as much a hell as outer darkness. Marrying on Earth or post mortally must be a mutual choice, or it is slavery, and I for one cannot see how that could fit into an Eternal Plan of Happiness.
I for one am very glad that we seem to have a somewhat better understanding now, that there will be learning and progression, and there isn’t so much talk about ‘assigning.’ I actually went to the temple today (I was picking up a friend at the airport so made a day of it) and the sessions were FULL, but there were other jobs to do. You know what’s a key idea in the sealing contract? Says right there, right where you can’t miss it. CHOICE. FREE WILL. It doesn’t say anything about assignments.
Not everyone in my family is sold on the whole Church thing right now. But we’re on something like chapter 5 of a very long story. I don’t expect current conditions to stay the same. Chapter 235 will probably be quite different.
As I have been in sealing sessions with several sealers, they have all expressed one common theme: Heavenly Father’s Plan is called “The Plan of Happiness” for a reason. The first important question is whether we have been sealed at all. The next important question is whether we will be happy being sealed to our husband/wife. There may be more options on the other side of the veil for people we will be happy to be sealed to. Heavenly Father is not going to make us be sealed to someone we will not be happy with.
That’s a very nice summary, CSEric; thank you. I think we all believe that, in our hearts, at least those of us who have given it real thought (there are some suggestions in earlier comments that we know people who have not given it much thought).
All the more reason to say it that way and put the view of the matter as expressed in the language of this article behind us once and for all.