Single Women, Marriage And Pre-Adult Limbo (Logic Exersize)

[mercyngrace]

FOE,

You are definitely not alone in your walk! Some of the most beloved and well known LDS women were never married (Sheri Dew, MaryEllen Edmonds, for example).

The LDS Institute manual (course material for college aged students in a basic religion course) says this about those verses in 1 Corinthians:

(35-5) 1 Corinthians 7:7 . Was the Apostle Paul a Married Man?

It is possible that Paul, who had once been married, was a widower at the time of his writing of First Corinthians. His heart was thoroughly set on missionary work, and thus he might have chosen not to remarry. Hence his counsel to those in similar circumstances was “I would that all men were even as I myself.”

Aside from the fact that marriage is an eternal command of God, which Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, would know as well as anyone, there are some other compelling reasons why the answer to the question Was Paul married? should be yes.

In the first place, Paul’s writings indicate a positive attitude toward marriage. Some of the finest counsel given in scripture on the subject comes to us from Paul ( Ephesians 5:21–6:4 ; Colossians 3:8–21 ). It would be presumptive indeed for Paul to give such counsel if he had not obeyed the law of God himself.

In 1 Corinthians 9:5 Paul argues that apostles have as much right to marry as anyone else, “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” But marriage is more than a right; it is a solemn duty. Hence Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:11 : “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” The need for all to marry if they would find approval “in the Lord” is thus undisputed.

Faithful Jews regarded marriage as a religious obligation and a condition of extraordinary importance. It was the custom for Jewish men and women to marry at an early age, generally between sixteen and eighteen but sometimes as early as fourteen. Paul, a strict Pharisee ( Acts 26:5 ) was “taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God” ( Acts 22:3 ), as faithful Jews were enjoined to be. Thus “there would seem to be no good reason . . . why Paul, a trained and ardent Pharisee, should fail to honor an obligation esteemed so sacred in the eyes of his people.” (Sperry, Paul’s Life and Letters, p. 9.) When a list of 613 precepts contained in the law of Moses was first drawn up, marriage was listed as number one. If Paul “lived unmarried as a Jerusalem Pharisee, his case was entirely exceptional.” (Farrar, The Life and Work of St. Paul, p. 46.)

Most scholars acknowledge that Paul was either a member of the Jewish ruling body, the Sanhedrin, or a close associate thereof ( Acts 8:3 ; 9:1, 2 ; 22:5 ; 26:10 ). If he were indeed a member of the Sanhedrin, Paul would have been expected to be in compliance with the special requirements for membership in the body, one of which was marriage. If he were not a member, Paul would still, as an official representative of the ruling group, be expected to be in harmony with all accepted Jewish customs. Only such a condition would prevent his being charged with advocating obedience to laws with which he himself was not in strict compliance.

What, then, of those who contend that Paul was unmarried and taught others to be likewise? The passage cited as evidence is 1 Corinthians 7:7, 8 wherein Paul says: “For I would that all men were even as I myself. . . . I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.” Elder Spencer W. Kimball has commented on this passage as follows: “Taking such statements in conjunction with others [Paul] made it is clear that he is not talking about celibacy, but is urging the normal and controlled sex living in marriage and total continence outside marriage. (There is no real evidence that Paul was never married, as some students claim, and there are in fact indications to the contrary.)” ( Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 64.)

(35-6) 1 Corinthians 7:9 . What Did Paul Mean by “It Is Better to Marry Than to Burn”?

The meaning of Paul’s counsel is not entirely clear. The Greek word which the King James translators have rendered burn is a passive infinitive used to convey the idea of being inflamed with passion, lust, or anger. The Prophet Joseph Smith’s inspired account is even more explicit than the King James: “But if they cannot abide, let them marry; for it is better to marry than that any should commit sin.”

From an old church magazine's question and answer section:

• 
  

I get the impression from reading 1 Corinthians 7:7–9 that Paul was not married and was against marriage in general. How can his views be reconciled with the revealed truths of eternal marriage?

C. Wilfred Griggs, assistant professor of ancient scripture, Brigham Young University Many people believe that Paul was antagonistic toward marriage because of the passage, “For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

“I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

“But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” (1 Cor. 7:7–9.)

But this belief does not account for all the other statements that Paul made concerning marriage. Paul’s teachings, as recorded in letters that were sent to churches and saints in various stages of spiritual progression, reflect the character and experience of a man who understands family relationships and can speak with authority on the subject.

In the first place, Paul himself was likely to have been married because of his Judaic background. In his defense before the Jewish crowd outside the Roman barracks of the Antonian tower, Paul states that he was taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers and was zealous in living that law. (See Acts 22:3.) Again, in his defense before the Pharisees and Sadducees, Paul claims that he is a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. (See Acts 23:6.) To the Galatians, Paul had written that he was more zealous in fulfilling the requirements of his religion than others of his time. (See Gal. 1:14.) The emphasis that the Jews put on marriage as part of their law and tradition would certainly have been used against Paul in view of such statements if he had not been married. ¹

Further evidence that Paul was married is found in the likelihood that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin. One of the qualifications for becoming a member of that body was that a man must be married and the father of children, ² which was thought to make him more merciful in dispensing justice in the courts. Paul (Saul) was one of the official witnesses of the stoning of Stephen (see Acts 7:58), an action ordered by the Sanhedrin. He also gave his vote with the Sanhedrin against the Christians prior to his conversion. (See Acts 26:10.) ³ Further evidence of Paul’s position is found in Acts 9:1–2 where Paul went before the high priest and requested letters authorizing his “official” persecution in bringing Christians to trial and imprisonment. In view of these evidences, most non-Mormon scholars do not argue that Paul had never been married, but that he was either divorced or was a widower by the time he wrote to the Corinthian church.

But let us take a closer look at 1 Corinthians 7 to see if the evidence supports this last conjecture. At the outset, Paul refers to a letter the Corinthians wrote to him: “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” Although the King James Version does not make it clear who makes the statement, “it is good for a man not to touch a woman,” the Greek text and the Inspired Version both make this a statement of the Corinthians. We do not know the context of this statement, because we do not have the Corinthian epistle to Paul. The only context we can supply is Paul’s answer and, fortunately, that does give us some clue as to their problem. Paul wishes (see 1 Cor. 7:7) that all men were as he was. But what is that? Could it be that he wishes all men were divorced or that all had lost their companions in death, or does he simply wish that men would be so dedicated to the work of the Lord that they be as though single?

Evidence of the latter possibility can be found later in the chapter. In verses 10 and 11, [1 Cor. 7:10–11] Paul does not tell the married saints to become separated, but if they are separated, he suggests either that they remain that way rather than marry someone else or that they become reconciled. Paul even enjoins against separation in part-member families if the husband and wife are compatible (1 Cor. 7:12–14), because the member may someday be able to help save his spouse (see 1 Cor. 7:16). Some scholars conjecture that Paul was divorced as a result of a “mixed” marriage, but the Corinthians would have thrown this advice right back to him if such had been the case.

One reason Paul wrote to the Corinthians concerning these matters is found in verse 29 [1 Cor. 7:29], where he states, “this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that … they that have wives be as though they had none.” He further states (1 Cor. 7:32) that the unmarried saints (and those who are as though unmarried) care for the things of the Lord, but too often a married person puts other things before the work of the Lord (1 Cor. 7:33). Paul is simply reminding those who have been called to God’s work to put that calling first, even before earthly matters.

In the Inspired Version, Joseph Smith made an important addition to 1 Corinthians 7:29 [1 Cor. 7:29] that supports this interpretation: “But I speak unto you who are called unto the ministry. For this I say, brethren, the time that remaineth is but short, that ye shall be sent forth unto the ministry. Even they who have wives, shall be as though they had none; for ye are called and chosen to do the Lord’s work.” Contrary to generally accepted interpretations, Paul is not condemning marriage in this chapter but is evidently replying to a problem regarding missionaries who desire to become married. His advice is that while they are on their missions (and he declared that the time for missionary work is short) they should be concerned with the work of the Lord and not with family or personal matters.

Concerning the importance of marriage for a member of the church and the relationships of family members toward each other and the Lord, Paul exhorts the saints to be followers of himself, especially in the ordinances of the church. (See 1 Cor. 11:1–2.) He teaches that the husband is to honor the Lord as his head and the wife is to honor the husband as her head, and that “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 11:11.)

What sense would these statements make if they came from an unmarried man? In view of all that Paul has said on marriage in 1 Corinthians, it is quite unlikely that the Corinthians would accept his epistle and his arguments if he had been divorced or separated from a wife. The message of 2 Corinthians 7, [2 Cor. 7] however, is that the first epistle wasaccepted and many Saints repented.

It is evident from the frequency of Paul’s counsel on marriage and family that he placed great importance on the subject. Paul exhorts the women in the Ephesian branch of the church to submit themselves to their own husbands (literally, become subject or obedient to), as they would to the Lord, comparing the husband and the family to Christ and the Church. (See Eph. 5.) But he also charges the husbands to love their wives (see Eph. 5:25) as their Savior loved the church, so that they might sanctify and perfect their families through love. Paraphrasing one of the great commandments—to love one’s neighbor as oneself—Paul says, “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.” (Eph. 5:28.) A husband is not to rule as a tyrant over his wife but is to preside in love. (See Eph. 5:33.)

Paul’s letter to Philippi deserves special consideration in pursuing this subject. Philippi was the first European city in which Paul preached and was one of the most righteous branches of the church at that time of which we have record: “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence. …” (Philip. 2:12.) During Paul’s missionary travels and while in prison at Rome, the Philippian church was the only one to remain in constant communication with him by courier, sending gifts and necessities to their beloved apostle. (See Philip. 4:15–18.) In his letter to this faithful group, Paul addresses some of the sisters: “I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.

“And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women who laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellow-labourers.” (Philip. 4:2–3; italics added.) Gnésie syzuge, the words translated “true yokefellow,” are here taken as feminine, and is a noun that means “wife.” Ancient commentators believed that Paul was addressing his wife (e.g., Clement of Alex., Strom.3:53:1, and Origen, Comm. in Ep. ad. Rom. 1:1), and this is the most sensible translation of the Greek in this context. If he were married at the time, one would expect Paul to leave his wife with a faithful group of saints, where she would least suffer from want and lack of support during his absence. Both her presence in Philippi and the love of the members there for Paul would account for the constant communication with the apostle, and, if this interpretation is true, it is natural that Paul would ask his wife to assist some of the women who had done so much on his behalf.

Finally, in Paul’s last epistles, which were written to Timothy and Titus, he places further emphasis on the desirability of marriage. In listing the qualities necessary for a bishop, Paul includes being married (see 1 Tim. 3:2) and being a good leader over his house: “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim. 3:5; cp. Titus 1:5–9). Even those called “deacons” in that day (the Greek literally means “one who serves” or a “helper”) were to be married and have orderly households. (See 1 Tim. 3:10–13.)

The evidence of Paul’s writings leads to the conclusion that he not only tolerated marriage among the saints, but encouraged and exhorted them to marry and bear children. He indicated that marriage is an essential part of the gospel framework, and asserted that one of the signs of apostasy in the last days would be teachings against marriage. (See 1 Tim. 4:1–3.) Certainly Jesus was foremost in importance to Paul, just as he should be in the hearts of men today, and on occasion Paul had to remind men called to the ministry to be fully dedicated to the Lord’s work. Nevertheless, Paul understood and taught that in the presence of the Lord, the man will not be without the woman, neither the woman without the man.

Notes

• 1.
  Mishnah, Aboth 5:21, trans. H. Danby, p. 458. “At five years old (one is fit) for the scripture, at ten years for the Mishnah, at thirteen for (the fulfilling of) the commandments, at fifteen for the Talmud, at eighteen for the bride-chamber, at twenty for pursuing (a calling), at thirty for authority, at forty for discernment, at fifty for counsel, at sixty to be an elder, at seventy for grey hairs, at eighty for special strength. …” See also David Smith, Life and Letters of St. Paul, p. 30f.
  
• 2.
  Sanhedrin 36:2.
  
• 3.
  Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 59, 64. The Greek of Acts 26:10 is technical terminology, and literally means: “I cast my vote against them,” meaning that Paul voted for condemnation of the saints. Such language has reference to a formal court, and Paul would have to be a member of the Sanhedrin before he could cast his vote in a judicial proceeding.

I'd say those two citations sum up how the church teaches those verses you referenced.

MnG

[followerofemmanuel]

FOE,

You are definitely not alone in your walk! Some of the most beloved and well known LDS women were never married (Sheri Dew, MaryEllen Edmonds, for example).

The LDS Institute manual (course material for college aged students in a basic religion course) says this about those verses in 1 Corinthians:

MnG

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I will read through this material carefully. My immediate thoughts were that I can not determine if Paul ever married or not but I do agree that marriage is an amazing covenant established by God, which Paul also showed great respect for.

Edited March 18, 2012 by followerofemmanuel

[MorningStar]

I can see why the subject would upset people, but we need to remember that when our GA's addressed men in the church not getting married, they weren't speaking to those who want to get married and haven't had the opportunity, but to the guys who aren't getting married because they are commitment phobic. That doesn't mean there aren't women also not getting married for the wrong reasons, but there are a lot more active, single women in the church than men. I can't tell you how many single sisters I know who are intelligent, beautiful, served missions, attend the temple regularly, and they feel like they have to ask guys out now. I wanted to cry when a friend said, "I just don't think I'm attractive to men." In our ward boundaries, we have at least ten single sisters and maybe two guys, one of which has a recent history of domestic violence and was just divorced.

My husband was afraid of committment when I started dating him, but not because his parents had a bad marriage. He thought their marriage was so perfect, there was no way he could ever have that. Supporting another person also terrified him. He would say, "I'm never getting married. " I would say, "Then I guess we better break up because you're wasting my time. I want to get married someday." He would smile sheepishly and say, "No! I don't want to break up." "Then shut up!" I said. I knew he knew he was doomed. Bwah hahahahaha. He was afraid I was going to expect a proposal after just a couple months of dating and he was quite reassured when I told him I wouldn't be comfortable with that until at least 6 months of dating or more. He had to swallow his pride when he realized he wanted to marry me more than anything. And then I mocked him mercilessly.

[Calm]

It is great to say the church values family and I appreciate that as do I. It can be hard to find that someone...and I am not about to just hook up and marry someone for the sake of marrying It is important to me to find someone who shares my beliefs and values and also lives them out. I can't imagine my situation is unique among other single believers.

Most definitely. We hear many stories of single members (such as Duncan has related) desiring to be married to another believer they can work together with to strengthen each other's beliefs and commitment to the gospel but who have little to no choices where they currently live due to a lack of others who have the same beliefs and standards as they do.

[Messenger]

I can see why the subject would upset people, but we need to remember that when our GA's addressed men in the church not getting married, they weren't speaking to those who want to get married and haven't had the opportunity, but to the guys who aren't getting married because they are commitment phobic.

Morningstar,

If there is one good thing about this forum (and its not the mods) that a light bulb has been turned on for a lot of people. It is true, most of the time, if not all of the time, when the G.A.s give talks they are talking about lack of commitment in young men. The problem is that people automatically pin that on every single man. And, then, people take it a step further and just blame the single man. Then there are some that just take it a step further, all the single men must be gay. These are nice people, but they don't want to hear the other side unless you force it upon them and seem to easily play into the traditional fantasy theory that every single man must be gay and all single women are victims of that. I think we all have seen some of the worst of humanity right here on this thread. And, while I'm sure I have offended a few ladies, I at least have an excuse.

So, it begs the question .... Why do we pin this on the man? Because G.A.s don't talk about the other sides of why people don't get married. There are reasons discovered in this thread why we don't. Some of which are out of our control. Many of us are dedicated members that take every calling, pay our tithing, and served missions. Some of us even converted to our religion and faced huge family costs because of it. And when we see post after post of how and why its men that have the problem, I probably do get a little flippant - but Mr mod, do you blame me? Mr mod, you talk about race baiting, but what about gender baiting?

Lets face it, in my opinion, I think we (trying to be gentle here) really don't understand the concept of family. Oh yes, most of us have families, but what have we learned from our families to include everyone in the family of God? I thought we were all supposed to be brothers and sisters .... or was that for some other reason we say that? When we talk about the ward family, is that just bogus? To me, I understand the Love of Jesus Christ. I have felt it and I know it to be true and it is real. I am in his family and will forever be grateful for that knowledge. I am also grateful to have seen the mansion that the Lord has prepared for me. So, you can see that it puts us at odds with other people, other members, when they don't seem to know what I know to be true.

For as much knowledge we have at our fingertips and access to the Holy Ghost, as members of the church, we truly fall short of understanding each other. Perhaps that's simply a problem with the telestial existence we live in. And, I'll admit, perhaps I am being too hard on members for not understanding. But I sure would like a G.A. to at least try and correct some of these misunderstandings in a talk. I would remind those that put us down in private and in public, that we are indeed priesthood holders, and there may be a price for what you do. What you have seen in this thread is a testimony of what we deal with every time we go to church, every time we home teach, every time we are home taught, and nearly every time we listen to conference.

But at least something good has come out of it. I hope and pray that it doesn't stop here.

Edited March 18, 2012 by Messenger

[mercyngrace]

For as much knowledge we have at our fingertips and access to the Holy Ghost, as members of the church, we truly fall short of understanding each other. Perhaps that's simply a problem with the telestial existence we live in. And, I'll admit, perhaps I am being too hard on members for not understanding. But I sure would like a G.A. to at least try and correct some of these misunderstandings in a talk. I would remind those that put us down in private and in public, that we are indeed priesthood holders, and there may be a price for what you do. What you have seen in this thread is a testimony of what we deal with every time we go to church, every time we home teach, every time we are home taught, and nearly every time we listen to conference.

Messenger,

I agree with your basic premise about men being disproportionately criticized for their singleness but when I read the excerpted part of your post (emphasis mine) I was left wondering if either (a) you live in the worst ward ever, or (b) you are overly self-conscious. The reality is that most people have enough going on in their own lives that they don't even think about your personal life or relationship status.

Take, for example, the fact that you presumed the video I posted had to do with relating single LDS men with being gay. That never even crossed my mind. The video is just a hysterically funny version of "Single Ladies". Period. You took it the way you did because of your baggage and then projected that prejudice onto me unfairly.

We all do that sometimes, especially with issues that hit close to home or by which we have been profoundly hurt.

Relax, take some deep breaths, and rejoice in the fact that most people are too busy to care about your romantic life. In this modern world, even among LDS, apathy tends to be the ruling emotional response.

[thesometimesaint]

Marry in haste; repent in leisure.

Anyway. God will deny you no blessing that you are entitled to, even if it takes to the next life to see it fulfilled.

[Messenger]

The reality is that most people have enough going on in their own lives that they don't even think about your personal life or relationship status.

I wish that were true. I run across it all the time. And, I am not the only one that brought this up on the topic, In fact, I didn't bring it up until someone else did. But, the 'Gay' part isn't the point of the thread at all, its just another thing that puts it on the man. The point is why we as members in general tend to be gender exclusionary on the topic of members being single.

As for your responses, I'll let everyone else be the judge. Here is one response that you posted ...

...... The fact is, I agree with you that men get fussed at disproportionately in the church for not being married.

The fact is that in LDS culture, a single woman is viewed as a tragedy and a single man is viewed as a commitment-phobe, jerk, or closet gay.....

So you really expect me to believe that I just misunderstood you? Its seems pretty clear to me - by your own admission.

Edited March 18, 2012 by Messenger

[Messenger]

Marry in haste; repent in leisure.

Anyway. God will deny you no blessing that you are entitled to, even if it takes to the next life to see it fulfilled.

I agree 100%. I have known that for quite sometime. Its good to know that I am not the only one that knows that.

[mercyngrace]

I wish that were true. I run across it all the time. And, I am not the only one that brought this up on the topic, In fact, I didn't bring it up until someone else did. But, the 'Gay' part isn't the point of the thread at all, its just another thing that puts it on the man. The point is why we as members in general tend to be gender exclusionary on the topic of members being single.

As for your responses, I'll let everyone else be the judge. Here is one response that you posted ...

I think that's already been done.

So you really expect me to believe that I just misunderstood you? Its seems pretty clear to me - by your own admission.

No I expect you to take me at my word because I offer you the same respect. But since you seem to have confused me with someone else, please provide a reference, any reference, where I have condemned single men on the board for their unmarried state.

That's a CFR, Mark.

Here are four references that counter your false accusation.

One

Two

Three

Four

[MorningStar]

Morningstar,

If there is one good thing about this forum (and its not the mods) that a light bulb has been turned on for a lot of people. It is true, most of the time, if not all of the time, when the G.A.s give talks they are talking about lack of commitment in young men. The problem is that people automatically pin that on every single man. And, then, people take it a step further and just blame the single man. Then there are some that just take it a step further, all the single men must be gay. These are nice people, but they don't want to hear the other side unless you force it upon them and seem to easily play into the traditional fantasy theory that every single man must be gay and all single women are victims of that. I think we all have seen some of the worst of humanity right here on this thread. And, while I'm sure I have offended a few ladies, I at least have an excuse.

So, it begs the question .... Why do we pin this on the man? Because G.A.s don't talk about the other sides of why people don't get married. There are reasons discovered in this thread why we don't. Some of which are out of our control. Many of us are dedicated members that take every calling, pay our tithing, and served missions. Some of us even converted to our religion and faced huge family costs because of it. And when we see post after post of how and why its men that have the problem, I probably do get a little flippant - but Mr mod, do you blame me? Mr mod, you talk about race baiting, but what about gender baiting?

Lets face it, in my opinion, I think we (trying to be gentle here) really don't understand the concept of family. Oh yes, most of us have families, but what have we learned from our families to include everyone in the family of God? I thought we were all supposed to be brothers and sisters .... or was that for some other reason we say that? When we talk about the ward family, is that just bogus? To me, I understand the Love of Jesus Christ. I have felt it and I know it to be true and it is real. I am in his family and will forever be grateful for that knowledge. I am also grateful to have seen the mansion that the Lord has prepared for me. So, you can see that it puts us at odds with other people, other members, when they don't seem to know what I know to be true.

For as much knowledge we have at our fingertips and access to the Holy Ghost, as members of the church, we truly fall short of understanding each other. Perhaps that's simply a problem with the telestial existence we live in. And, I'll admit, perhaps I am being too hard on members for not understanding. But I sure would like a G.A. to at least try and correct some of these misunderstandings in a talk. I would remind those that put us down in private and in public, that we are indeed priesthood holders, and there may be a price for what you do. What you have seen in this thread is a testimony of what we deal with every time we go to church, every time we home teach, every time we are home taught, and nearly every time we listen to conference.

But at least something good has come out of it. I hope and pray that it doesn't stop here.

Again, I think they're talking to the majority according to what is reported to them. I think there are more women in their bishops' offices crying because they're lucky to even get a date, let alone a husband. Unfortunately, the minority can feel hurt. When we are told to multiply and replenish the earth, infertile couples feel bad. Talks on eternal marriage? Single people and those married to non-members feel bad. I don't understand the lashing out at women when it was a man who started the other thread and men who have addressed the single men who choose not to get married. They're not talking to all single men. They are talking to men who have allowed the world to influence them and sow their wild oats instead of getting serious and courting women instead of just hanging out. There are men who want to get married and haven't had the opportunity. That's not who the GA's are talking to. It reminds me of when I tell my kids, "Go brush your teeth, you guys!" and one gets offended because they already did. So I tell them, "Then I wasn't talking to you!" If you're a single man who wants to get married and can't, those talks are not directed at you. When we listen to Conference talks, we need to use a filter so as not to get offended by things that need to be said to some people. One friend said, "I'm tired of hearing talks about pornography!" I said, "Well, we're going to keep hearing it until it's not a problem for a significant number of people."

Maybe I haven't lived in the right area, but I have never heard anyone say that maybe a single guy must be gay because he's not married. I've only met guys who either haven't met the right person or they are just scared to get married and think someone better will come along as soon as they commit.

[Messenger]

It would seem that many have seen it.

I have never heard anyone say that maybe a single guy must be gay because he's not married. I've only met guys who either haven't met the right person or they are just scared to get married and think someone better will come along as soon as they commit.

I have seen it. And others on this board recognize it. But that's not the point of the thread, even though people keep trying to steer it that way. The point of the thread is that it takes two to be married. And, nearly all of the talks always talk about men.

Seem to me there are a lot of women that, by your own words, cry in the bishops office for want of a date. Its possible that they aren't sending any kind of signals to show someone they are interested in them. Maybe they have a fear of their own of commitment. And we certainly have a lot of women in the workforce these days, and that might make their careers more important. All I am saying is that all we hear about is that men are the problem, and many members take it to the next level.

I am not the only person that has recognized this, but I am glad you haven't seen it.

Thank goodness you only see it as simple as young men who are in fear of commitment. I have a lot of stories I could share. But it just gets really old. Is it the women's fault, not at all. I'm just saying it takes two and the only focus is on the men, and even some men post it.

[MorningStar]

It would seem that many have seen it.

I have seen it. And others on this board recognize it. But that's not the point of the thread, even though people keep trying to steer it that way. The point of the thread is that it takes two to be married. And, nearly all of the talks always talk about men.

Seem to me there are a lot of women that, by your own words, cry in the bishops office for want of a date. Its possible that they aren't sending any kind of signals to show someone they are interested in them. Maybe they have a fear of their own of commitment. And we certainly have a lot of women in the workforce these days, and that might make their careers more important. All I am saying is that all we hear about is that men are the problem, and many members take it to the next level.

I am not the only person that has recognized this, but I am glad you haven't seen it.

Thank goodness you only see it as simple as young men who are in fear of commitment. I have a lot of stories I could share. But it just gets really old. Is it the women's fault, not at all. I'm just saying it takes two and the only focus is on the men, and even some men post it.

Some women are at fault, but single women in the church outnumber the men, so they are more likely to be alone. It only makes the situation worse when a growing number of men put off looking for a wife. That is the frustration many single women in the church have. I know there are also guys who are rejected repeatedly.

[Messenger]

Some women are at fault, but single women in the church outnumber the men, so they are more likely to be alone. It only makes the situation worse when a growing number of men put off looking for a wife. That is the frustration many single women in the church have. I know there are also guys who are rejected repeatedly.

Thanks. It is true that single women out-number men. But that's more of a fault of nature, not men. Overall, its everyone's fault why single people are single, and, in my opinion, I think people should stop blaming and start helping. There is no better sight than a couple in love! When I was dating, no less than three people in one ward came up to me and said, "so, why are YOU still single". The tone was pretty accusatory, and pretty unfriendly. Back then, I just brushed it off and kept dating. But now 5 years later, it does tend to build up. To be honest, one of the reasons I stop trying is because the singles group I was in seemed be doing silly things all the time. One called my ex-wife up (that was weird), One called me out in Priesthood and said that its was always the fault of men to be divorced (yep, that was a man), Another man (a former best friend) told me it was a sin to be divorced, and other person went up to my stake president and said I wasn't ready to be a high priest (I was standing right there). The list goes on and on. You said it yourself, there are guys that are rejected repeatedly. I was in love with a wonderful lady about a year ago, and while at dinner at my bosses house, she just threw a glass of water in my face. You would normally get that reaction when you said something inappropriate, but I didnt. And everyone in the room just looked in awe. I guess after a while it would seem a lot of people have some sort of hate thing (for lack of a better word) for single guys. And I think you have to ask yourself something, if it is happening out there, how would single men react? They might just hang out with each other and buy a truck with some big wheels! How would women react, by getting more and more upset -- Its a viscous circle. All promoted right on national TV and your local LDS forum! LOL Women arent to blame - my point is, WE are to blame, by blaming.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Messenger

[MorningStar]

How is it a woman's fault if she is single if there are hardly any single LDS men? She either has to choose to be single or marry outside her faith. A friend of mine is thinking about moving to another state just because there are more single LDS guys there. How bizarre that that woman threw a glass of water in your face.

[volgadon]

How bizarre that that woman threw a glass of water in your face.

Amazing the ammount of drastic, dramatic incidents entirely out of the blue and for no good reason.

[Messenger]

How is it a woman's fault if she is single if there are hardly any single LDS men? She either has to choose to be single or marry outside her faith. A friend of mine is thinking about moving to another state just because there are more single LDS guys there. How bizarre that that woman threw a glass of water in your face.

I didn't say it was a woman's fault.

[Messenger]

Amazing the ammount of drastic, dramatic incidents entirely out of the blue and for no good reason.

You should have seen the look on my bosses face when that happened. I looked at him and I said, "Did I say something wrong?" and he said, "Absolutely not!". She was invited to leave. We talked about it a few weeks later. I asked her what she thought about dinner. She said it was fun. I asked her why she threw a glass of water in my face (I had good tone), she said she was just playing and that was her sense of humor. I said ok. That was pretty much it after that. But that wasn't as weird as the gal that called up my ex-wife. I mean, they were 3 states away, what would be the logical point?

[Duncan]

Elder Oaks is on record and others in and out of the Church have said that men are leaving in higher numbers and so women who stay have a harder time to get married and all this kind of talk KILLS me! I I bang my head on the screen sometimes when I read or hear about women who can't get dates or whatever and I know some female friends who don't live here who are wonderful , just unbelievable people and they are single! like I just die...die... a thousand times over!

[Messenger]

Elder Oaks is on record and others in and out of the Church have said that men are leaving in higher numbers and so women who stay have a harder time to get married and all this kind of talk KILLS me! I I bang my head on the screen sometimes when I read or hear about women who can't get dates or whatever and I know some female friends who don't live here who are wonderful , just unbelievable people and they are single! like I just die...die... a thousand times over!

Well, one thing for sure, posts like yours gives me hope that the wonderful ladies are out there some where! They aren't in Idaho. But, I do remember a time when I did enjoy dating. Not so much anymore.

[followerofemmanuel]

If there are so many unmarried women in the Church because they naturally out number men, would the church want to restore the practice of polygamy? I"m not sure why the practice stopped but I was curious if demographics weighed into the matter. I hope I am not opening any cans of worms, I hope the discussion will be sincere as is my question, thanks!

[silvermoon383]

Restarting polygamy because of numbers isn't an option. Demographics never weighed into it in the past, and it won't be a factor today (or the future.)

(Sorry if it sounds gruff, I'm just not sure on a gentle way of saying it in text )

[followerofemmanuel]

Restarting polygamy because of numbers isn't an option. Demographics never weighed into it in the past, and it won't be a factor today (or the future.)

(Sorry if it sounds gruff, I'm just not sure on a gentle way of saying it in text )

No, you did not sound gruff. Thanks for your response.

[Messenger]

No gruff detected here either.

[silvermoon383]

Must've just been me then. Ever since I reached the upper age range for us YSA's I've inadvertently picked up a "cranky old grandpa" tone it seems (at least to me.)