Be assured, too, that all faithful sisters, who, through no fault of their own, do not have the privilege during their second estate of being sealed to a worthy man, will have that blessing in eternity.

The above quote is from the Spencer W. Kimball manual Lesson 20--the EQ/RS lesson in most wards last week--although similar quotes can be found from a variety of Church sources throughout history.

(I'm going to try to address this sensitive subject from a 'detached' and 'analytical' perspective, not a 'judgmental' one.  We'll see how I do...)

Just recently, "The Baroness" and I attended the reception of a good friend in her late thirties who was getting married for the first time.  Like a number of single sisters (both here, and in many other places around the world), prospects for a temple marriage appeared dim initially, especially after hitting the wrong side of 35.   It had undoubtedly occurred to her that the opportunity for a temple marriage (in this life, at least) might never arise and she might have to settle for something other than the ideal LDS life path for women.

Then, one day, her now-husband showed up out of the blue and things took a more 'ideal' turn--with the opportunity to marriage in the temple to a (we hope) worthy man.  Things have worked out for her to this point, although we have no shortage of other single sister friends in similar situations where the future is still unknown.

Pres. Kimball's statement--and all others like it--make it clear that faithful women (and, interestingly, men are never mentioned...) will have all the celestial blessings they are entitled to, even if a temple marriage in this life is not forthcoming.

These statements, like the one quoted above, usually have qualifiers attached, though:  women, who 'through no fault of their own', are not sealed in the temple in this life, etc...  How can we interpret this phrase?

Let's assume the 'ideal' life path for an LDS woman is marriage to a temple-worthy man when she is 'normal' marriage age, say between 18 and 27, and they both live faithful lives ever after.

When this ideal does not happen, we have a number of 'non-ideal' life paths:

• Marriage to a temple-worthy LDS man, but later in life than the 'normal' marriage age.
• Marriage to a supposedly temple-worthy LDS man, who afterwards is either discovered to be (or chooses to become later) non-temple worthy.
• Marriage to a non-member, who never joins the Church afterward.
  
• No marriage at all.

Even from our pool of single (and formerly single) sister friends, we can name examples from each of these four groups, with some members of group #4 gradually moving into one of the other groups through time.

Like our friend's later marriage, group #1 in the end has the same benefits as the 'ideal'--other than a later start having children--so we'll leave them to the side.

The issue of 'no fault of their own' comes into play when discussing any of the other three groups, simply because it's subject to interpretation how you want to define 'fault' or 'no fault' for the individual circumstances for anyone in groups #2-4.  To what extent this is the case, and how (or whether) it matters in terms of the above eternal promise, is uncertain.  (Again, this article is not for the purpose of assigning fault, only to bring up that the subject of 'fault' is, at its heart, a gray area)

Examples:

No marriage at all:  It seems this group is the primary target for comments related to future blessings for single sisters, although there are still questions.  What's considered a 'suitable opportunity' for marriage?  Does 'no fault' mean 'no male member with a temple recommend ever proposed', or are their circumstances where an LDS sister can say 'no' to a male suitor who proposes (temple) marriage for other reasons (age, personality, finances, etc...), without that counting against her 'opportunity' for marriage.  (Presumably, sisters are not required to say 'yes' to anyone with a temple recommend and a pulse, but to what extent can turning down--or not seeking after it 'actively enough'--marriage opportunities be considered 'at fault'?)

Temple marriages that fall short:  Women who marry in the temple, but then later get divorced (or later find their husbands are not willing to live a 'celestial' lifestyle, implying that if that sister is going to obtain the blessings of celestial marriage, it will probably need to be married to someone else in the end) can usually be considered blameless, and thus the promise of eternal blessings should, in theory, still apply.  There are still areas of question here too, though:  did she exercise 'due diligence' before marriage to determine what her future-husband's true standards and personality were?  (This is the flip side to the question above whether it's 'acceptable' to reject a temple-recommend carrying man who proposes if you don't think it will be a successful pairing)  To what extent did she oppose, enable (or tacitly encourage) her husband's unrighteous behavior during marriage?  (Few divorces are ONLY the fault of one spouse, after all...)

Marriage to a non-member:  The most controversial of the above groups (see earlier post here)--many sisters wait for a member spouse for a while and then marry a non-member in the end who meets their other requirements and wishes for a spouse.  Whether the promise for future eternal marriage applies to sisters who don't remain single their whole life, and who marry a non-member who does not ever join the Church instead, is a highly debated question.  Had our friend above married a non-member guy at 32, instead of waiting until 38 for her member guy to show up, would she still have had a future opportunity in the next life for celestial marriage...or is marrying a non-member an automatic cancellation of 'no fault' privileges?  How long is 'long enough' to wait for a suitable member spouse before you move on?  Does 'no fault of their own' means they're expected to wait *forever* for a member spouse, where marrying a non-member is not supposed to be part of the equation?

The issue raised by the Kimball quote (and others) is larger than simply when and how single sisters should get married.  The laws of justice say that one cannot receive the punishment for something they hold no responsibility for--the problem is 'responsibility' (or 'blame' or 'fault', or however you want to phrase it) is not a black-and-white issue.  Many problems and un-ideal circumstances have at their root a wide variety of causes, and a wide range of (partial) 'fault' spread out over a number of different people.  Divorces and other relationship problems are rarely entirely one person's fault.  Even traffic accidents where one driver is not (officially) 'at fault' often could have been avoided by that driver anyway, had choices been different.

There's a fine line between accepting too much responsibility and too little for our actions.  Church leaders, in particular, have to emphasize the potential for forgiveness, without simultaneously pushing people towards casual 'eh...I can just repent later' sin.  (Likewise, emphasize the seriousness of sin, without pushing people towards not being able to forgive themselves and remaining in darkness...)  There's *always* room for second-guessing in any situation.

Everyone knows many single sisters feel troubled enough about their marital state without having to add in the potential for *extra* guilt and second-guessing as to what extent they are 'at fault' for their situation.  No one wants to add to their personal struggle, but the problem is determining issues of 'fault' conclusively is very complicated and difficult.  One cannot say in broad general strokes that single sisters (or anyone) as a group is in their circumstance through 'no fault of their own' (or 'through their own fault', either) because reality is much more complex.

[Likewise, parents are told (in similar phrasing) that those whose children are wayward 'through no fault of their own' will not be blamed from God's perspective.  Many parents in this circumstance second-guess themselves constantly (and needlessly), but the problem remains:  'fault' and 'no fault' are not easy to determine.  Any individual can ask pointed questions about themselves and others about things that could have been done differently.]

Nephi says "for we know that it is by grace we are saved, after all we can do".  But how do we know we've done 'all we can do'?  Unfortunately, there aren't any definite answers, and it appears that this is just part of the mortal burden--we'll never know before God gives us our own personal judgment, how issues of 'fault' and 'responsibility' are determined in His eyes.