“Nah, I don’t see the point,” said one of the women at the BBQ.
She was responding to a question that had been raised about ‘Eternity Rings’- rings that seem to be popular in Australia and New Zealand. As an American Mormon immigrant to Australia, the first place I had heard about Eternity Rings was at church. Like an engagement ring, the Eternity ring was meant as a symbol of eternal love within marriage (or infinite love, as they are also called ‘Infinity Rings’). The timing of the gift of an eternity ring varied; some of the LDS women insisted that it was a ring intended when you were sealed (before or after the initial marriage); others said it was at the birth of the first child, or for the first anniversary, or the tenth, or fortieth. Non Mormons agreed- it was a wedding ring, or anniversary ring, or similar. It was not a necessary ring, but was a nice ring to have.
Truth be told, it is all a marketing scheme aimed at selling smaller diamonds. (and don’t worry, Americans have them, too!) So, years later, as I sat at a classic 
Australian BBQ with a group of women I had met through the local Christian non-denominational church, we discussed the symbolism of the eternity ring, and thus, eternal marriage.
“Nah, I don’t see the point,” said one of the women at the BBQ. “We’re married forever, we don’t need the ring.”
Her comment surprised me. “Baptists believe in being married forever? In heaven?”
She looked at me like I had two heads. “Of course,” she finally said, with a chuckle, then a burst into full laughter. “Forever!”
“It’s not ‘Till death do you part’?” I pressed, riddled with curiosity.
“No!” This time all of the women began to giggle. “We’re all stuck with who we married!” Bursts of laughter followed. It was a jovial occasion, so the women who had eternity rings shared why they had them (in place of an engagement or wedding rings, to mark a significant event in their marriage and so on.) But for the most part, most of these good Christian women did not have them.
The conversation them turned theological, and we discussed eternal marriage, and how they believed they would see family members who had passed before them. All the women present believed in eternal marriage: Baptists, Unitarians, Lutherans, members of the Uniting church and so on.
“What about mixed families?” I asked, “Those who have different fathers—does one parent or another—well…” My words were awkward and overly Mormon. “Is the child from a first marriage a part of the first or second marriage?”
Blank stares. Finally someone answered. “Does it matter? It’s heaven. I mean, if we’re all there, we’ll all get along, and that won’t matter. We don’t own our children in heaven. They’ll have their own spouses and children can visit anyone they want.” She repeated with a shrug, “It’s heaven.”
I suddenly realised how complicated my own religion is. The business of men being able to be sealed to more than one living wife, and wives being able to be sealed to more than one husband, but only after they are dead. About the fussiness of where children who are born in the covenant, but then the parents gain and “earthly” divorce end up. It is as though then belong to one parent or another- like segregated eternal property, making heaven sound like a jealous, or loyal, or worldly-complicated place.
Walking temple square as a youth I had pretended to not be Mormon to experience the missionary spiel. The high-energy sales pitch was all about “eternal families” and “being sealed.” I believed then that the concept of eternal marriage was something only Mormons taught and believed. And though I later discovered that historically the concept of eternal marriage was a theological product of the Victorian Age (1), I was still fixated on the idea that every other Christian wedding ceremony concluded with “Till death do you part.”
But they don’t. And beautifully, because they do not teach that children are property to be sealed to specific parents. And they also do not believe that mortal polygyny and post-mortal polyandry are acceptable states of marriage, the true Christian concept of eternal marriage struck me as something sweeter than anything I had been taught in Mormonism.
Thus, as a Mormon feminist, what does this mean to me? I have my own beliefs in regard to the eternities; I believe that in heaven that poverty, politics, sexism and custody battles shall be erased. I believe we will all be bathed in the Christian concept of an eternally loving and peaceful heaven where we can study, learn and become perfected in every art and science possible. I do not see polygamy, polyandry, polygyny or a collection of mortally married individuals will be “born-again single” and wandering about alone simply because they did not get married in the Mormon temple.
So suddenly, at that BBQ, truth be told, the Mormon concept of eternal marriage seemed more of a marketing scheme aimed at selling smaller.
To be clear, I love the temple and the feeling I get when I am there. But that feeling is a reflection of my relationship with the Godhead. It is also a reflection of my non-belief in the customary Mormon concept of eternal families. I believe in something based in Christlike love. Not subservient, complicated, metaphysical glue based in bloodlines, yet broken when not danced in the rhythm of Mormon tradition.
What do you think about eternal marriage? Is it only a Mormon thing to you? Or is it a marketing scheme aimed at selling a concept that was always in traditional Christianity anyway?
(1) Houghton, Walter E.“Earnestness.” The Victorian Frame of Mind. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957. 221
The “til death do us part” was in our civil wedding ceremony and it didn’t bother me at all. If I die first I want my spouse to wholeheartedly enjoy the love of someone else. It didn’t feel like it was about the eternities at all, it was just a practical statement about what would happen should one of us die before the other.
Yes! I think of the “death do you part” is more legal terminology. A friend was married by a magistrate and asked if they could marry her for eternity. The magistrate said she could not perform an eternal marriage because her legal authority was limited to…well, mortality. So in additional to being practical, it is also a legal status– your partner can be free to remarry in the case of your death without the legalities associated with bigamy and divorce.
This is a great insight, Spunky. More anecdote, but when I was a missionary (in Texas) I found that many Christians I talked to believed that they would still be married to their spouse in the next life, regardless of what their church’s official teachings might have been.
I do like the possibility you raise of just having a clean version of this belief, unencumbered by the Mormon polygamy baggage.
I think that in other churches it’s more acceptable to have and express beliefs that are different from the strict teachings of that particular religion. It’s not the case in the Mormon church.
Your story reminds me of when my son was in middle school. He was attending a Catholic school and was the only LDS student. The teacher was teaching about the trinity and asked my son what he believed. He stated that he believed they were three separate and distinct beings and both Jesus and God had physical bodies. He told me that quite a few classmates came up to him at recess and told him they believed the same thing 🙂
It’s no surprise to me that people of all religions believe that their marriages will continue into the next life. I’ve sure seen a lot of “families are forever” stuff in non-lds homes and for sale in non-church stores.
My parents were in a second marriage, my mother’s 1st (sealed) husband having died very young. As I learned about sealings and such, I worried that I was sealed to her first husband….. a kind stranger. My wise mother and patient father always told me “God knows who your daddy is. You know who your daddy is.” That was always enough for little me and still is.
I love this answer. Thanks for sharing ?
I’m not sure how I feel about this, mainoy because I’m tired and my brain hurts, but I think it’s so interesting.
One pet peeve I have about my past YWs experience was the fear mongering stories. Ones like, “a couple married civally, and both died in a car crash before they could be sealed!!” Like, God wouldn’t somehow make that right??
Also, the idea that I shouldn’t date non members. They were the only ones interested in actual dating, and I turned them down.
To be quite frank, the LDS boys around me were only interested in my breasts and being friends with benefits.
I think many of our narritives need to change.
This is exactly what I needed to read tonight . I’m struggling with even raising my teenagers in Mormonism. The shaming and legalism has got to change …. I feel as if I live around the most un- Christ like people ever … I also feel that the culture has become our religion , and anyone who Doesn’t fit in , they kick out .. not physically , but emotionally… they target you as less then .. in their screwed up thinking , they really feal because they can mind rules better then someone ells, that this in some way makes god love them more ! They seriously don’t know Christ and definitely don’t understand grace ….
for The past few years I’ve had big struggles with my testimony in the LDS faith. The only reasons I haven’t left is because my parents would be heart broken and I thought that the LDS church was the only church that said families are forever. I couldn’t imagine an eternity without the one you love. My seminary teachers said “We’re the only ones who preach eternal families!” I can’t believe how much of their lying I believed. I know not all of God’s teachers are perfect at what they do, but you’ve got to be so thick headed to believe we’re the only church that believes that.
I believe in eternal marriage in that I believe everyone will have a companion in eternity. That companion may or may not be your husband or wife on earth.
Unfortunately, traditional church doctrine teaches that there are no marriages, or paired couples, in the resurrection age for resurrected people. Only “un-glorified” saints during the Millennial reign will have that relationship, according to tradition. They have to acknowledge familial relationships for some people in the post-tribulation age because passages like the one in Isaiah below:
Isaiah 65:17-25 (in part): “Behold, I create new Heavens and a new Earth! … No longer will the former be remember or come into mind… No longer will babies die when only a few days old, no longer will a man die before living a full life. No longer will people be considered old at one hundred … For they will live in the houses the build and eat the fruit of their own vineyards… For my people will live as long as trees and long enjoy the works of their hands. They will not labor in vain and their children will not be doomed to misfortune”.
To get around those verses, and still maintain their belief in a sexless heaven, they explain it away by saying those blessings are for “surviving saints” who live through the tribulation.
The Christian dogma rests on three New Testament verses where Jesus addresses the Sadducees. They ask him a question about a woman bound by Levirate law who marries seven brothers in succession who each die without children, and whose wife of them she will be “in the resurrection”. Jesus responds by saying that “In the resurrection they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be as the angels of God in heaven”. In Luke 20:35-36 he says, “The children of that age will neither marry nor be given in marriage, , for they are equal to the angels in heaven.” That one statement by Jesus has led traditional Christians through the ages to hold that there is no marriage or marital-type relationships in Heaven, and we will all just be a part of one great big family and everybody will love everybody the same. If that belief doesn’t sound palatable to you, you’re not alone.
I believe that Jesus was saying that the laws and customs of marriage will not be in the resurrection age, not that marriage will not be there.
In Genesis God clearly lays out His design for humanity. “Let us create man in our image, male and female He created them”. “It is not good for the man to be alone, I will create for him a helpmate”. “For this reason a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”. “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish and subdue the earth”. These were God’s instructions to Adam and Eve the fall, there was sin! Moreover, this is a clear blueprint of God’s design for humanity. If God is the same yesterday, today and forever, there is no reason for Him to change that design because we fell into sin, died and had to be redeemed. The Christian belief in a “no marriage” Heaven implies that God will completely expunge His original design and – humans as a completely . I don’t think there is Biblical evidence to support that idea. What God does He does right the first time.
Therefore, I believe in eternal marriage. I believe God has the right person for everyone, and He intends humans to go through eternity in pairs, just as He intended for Adam and Eve.
A lot of people seem to forget in the first 2 chapters of the Bible that Adam before the Fall had a perfect relationship with God when Eve was created. One is not a replacement for the other, they are different types of relationships that fulfill different desires. You don’t need a foretaste of what you already have.
Thomas Aquinas argues that the physical pleasures of sex (e.g. orgasm) would have been greater before original sin.
The Bible tells us God will be restoring, not deleting us, the male + female relationship of God’s original intent will be brought back, redeemed and restored rather than being destroyed as some suggest.
What do you think is going to happen to clitorises and sexually dimorphic body shapes?