Madam C. got me thinking when she questionned the LDS Church's reasoning on the purpose of families. She noted that on mormon.org is the question “What’s the point of family, if it all ends at death?” Interestingly, the church's video response neglects to answer this question, but rather makes it moot by asserting that family life doesn't end in death...as if the eternal duration itself is what gives family life worth.
The question and the response are telling. Isn't it interesting to note how a cultural group (in this case the LDS Church) can be so convinced that what gives meaning to its families by default makes everyone else's families seem meaningless?
Because this group can't find meaning without eternal perpetuation, they assume that no one else can either. Also evident here (watch the video above, it's only a minute long) are some unspoken assumptions. 1) Man is inherently selfish and lazy; 2) Man resists having a family because of the work/risks involved; 3) Man is ultimately motivated by external rewards.
Those assumptions (at least about man's aversion to family life) are just not supported by history. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of us (at least) enjoy, value, and seek family relationships without hope of eternal life!
If the church can't answer it's own question, it should at least ask its members the following: "How do others find meaning in family life without our shared view of eternity?" Pondering such a question might serve to foster empathy and understanding, rather than to merely reinforce ethnocentricity ("what we consider meaningful must be universal").