The main reason I commented is because, in these regards, I don’t necessarily believe “we’ve changed over time,” to use your phrase. I still hear people claiming a doctrinal justification for marrying young, and I still hear people confuse a preference for marriage as a societal institution with a person’s eternal self-worth. To me, part of the value of reading these older lessons, then, is to help tease out which aspects taught are truly “the Gospel,” and which are a more a mingling of societal values with “the Gospel.”

These lessons are so timely given the contemporaneous discussion happening about the (new) Gospel Principles manual.

Personal Questions.

1. Do you accept the Latter-day Saint view of marriage?
2. Do you favor an early marriage (i.e., early or middle twenties) for yourself?
3. To what extent should your parents’ wishes govern the manner of your marriage?
4. Do you desire a temple marriage?
5. Is your marriage your own private affair?

Note: The manner in which we meet this crisis in life, marriage, will depend upon our answers to the above questions.

And what a strange way to describe marriage (i.e., as a crisis).

Even more troubling, though was the idea presented in that lesson that folks who are not married are “abnormal.” It’s one thing to promote the institution of marriage as an important component of a healthy society; it’s another thing to call those that are not married “abnormal.” Also, I thought it was inconsistent that the lesson’s author would promote careful deliberation before getting married, but then also promote getting married at a young age. I note that both arguments are unsupported by scripture.

Not to be a total downer, then, I will mention something that I enjoyed seeing. I liked the bit in the 1941 lesson about plural marriage. I think it was right on – a short, concise explanation and a prohibition, but not avoiding it entirely, either. I think this could be a model for current lessons.