BubbaSwitzler

Yes, let's grant that Eve was created as Adam's helpmeet. We would expect to see that recur as a theme or be otherwise expanded beyond Genesis.

I'm new to the term but it's certianly familiar as a concept. Surely, though, it doesn't all hang on the example of Adam and Eve?

I think this is the key concept I want to drill down on: "We are not intended to face life alone." Of course, single people will not face life alone, they socialize, go to work, to church, etc. But obviously marriage is a far deeper relationship, one that is not (easily) broken. Making marriage a cornerstone of your life is more than avoiding lonliness.

Thanks for the article, quite interesting and relevant. Here are some articles I found: The Case for Getting Married Young - Karen Swallow Prior - The Atlantic Mitt Romney's Case for Getting Married Young - Eleanor Barkhorn - The Atlantic The American Spectator : Mitt on Marriage And from Knot Yet: Knot Yet | National Marriage Project http://nationalmarriageproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KnotYet-FinalForWeb.pdf

Yes, you are right, this is an important difference that I overlooked though I think most imagine remianing with their spouses for eternity (if they haven't divorced them already). So, as you can see in the LDS doctrine, the capstone theory of marriage does not make sense because marriage has to progress with the individuals in the marital union through time and eternity and can't be "capped". But yes, if we're only talking about the earthly probation of marriage (something we call "for time only" as opposed to "for time and eternity")... well, even then, I still don't see how it can be viewed as a capstone in LDS doctrine when viewed against the Proclamation. However, this still does not adequately explain the desire to marry early. One could be dead set on getting married eventually. And, indeed, one might rationalize waiting for the perfect mate to come along since it will be a mating for eternity. (Many people do, indeed, wait and wait and wait for that perfect soul mate.) There is something else that I am still missing in my understanding. Something that gives LDS members the desire not just to marry but to marry as early as possible. I think it is probably more involved in the 'helpmeet' concept that has been mentioned several times here.

This is perhaps the best example of the difference. As I noted above, usually people in college are still dependents on their parents though obviously not always so (some people actually work their way through college).

Traditionaly, only clergy did not marry and if you didn't join the clergy then you got married and started a family. So it's open to the celabate/single life in that exceptional sense but otherwise the command to go forth and multiply also applies. (And, in fact, historically even clergy were often married.) If Catholics are open to the capstone theory, it seems more likely a surrender to popular culture for lack of a clear teaching against it. (I'm still searching for the Catholic teaching on this.)

I am very pleased with the discussion here and I want to thank everyone for sharing their thoughts and knowledge on this. I will single out a few posts for reply from several good ones without prejudice. Age is a crude indicator of "readiness" or "establishment" so denying the those certainly denies the relevance of age. The call to "marry young" can be taken to mean marrying before you are "ready" or "established". That's what I too Mitt to mean by it and those who argue against marrying young are really arguing against marrying before you are ready or established. This is really the crux. I would substitute "ready" for "established" but there is a great deal of overlap between them.I wish to understand why LDS teaches that one should marry before being ready or established. That's probably a bit of hyperbole but I think it's not so far off.What some mean by established (or ready) is, for the husband especially, able to support a wife and family. But others also mean by it a well formed and mature character, ready to make the necessary sacrifices in marriage, ready for the responsiblities of parenthood. It can also mean, as you imply, earning a comfortable living such that marriage and family will not be burdensome. And it can even mean sowing ones oats and getting the wildness out of your system. ("I'm tired of one night stands, I'm ready to get married.") Until recently, the most common criteria was graduation from college (or whatever is the highest level of education). College students generally rely on parental support and so marrying while still in college implies being married while still supported by your parents. You graduated, got a job, and then you were ready. Now, though, the trend is toward ever more establishment in your career with all the obvious risks.

Thank you for all the great answers. To narrow the discussion I'd like to focus on cornerstone vs. capstone, that is, marrying young vs. marrying later. In other words, what precisely is sacrificed by delaying marriage and now is this conveyed in theology and morality? What is the criteria "of age to marry?" I do see some answers to this above but wanted to guide the discussion toward this more precise question.

I'm sure everyone here has heard of Romney's speech at Southern Virginia University making the case for marrying young and having a "quiver full of kids". I am especially interested in one particular element of the speech: This is the cornerstone vs. capstone debate. I am very much in the cornerstone camp but we live in a capstone culture. I posted this in a Catholic forum and was unsatisfied with the resulting discussion (Mitt Romney's case for getting married young - Catholic Answers Forums). See especially my response here: Catholic Answers Forums - View Single Post - Mitt Romney's case for getting married young So let me ask: Did Romeny's advice reflect LDS teaching? What is the source?