Place in the Church for Singles

[Analytics]

As I mentioned on another thread, last night I spent an hour with a gay exmo in an Uber. When I asked him why he left, he didn’t say anything about the law of chastity, gay marriage, or being inundated with the message that “Mormons hate gays.” Rather, he said that there isn’t a place in the Church for singles. 

Now obviously that is a bit of a hyperbole. Singles can be members of the Church and even get their endowments. However, they cannot get the crowning ordinance necessary for exaltation. That makes them second-class saints, doesn’t it? Of course there is always hope for marriage at a later date, but until then the card of what’s needed for exaltation will have a missing punch.

So how are singles treated in Church? What callings are they allowed to have or forbidden from having? 

According to traditional biblical Christianity, being single and celibate is better than marriage, but if you can’t control yourself get married (see 1 Corinthians 7). In other churches, being single is considered a good thing, but Mormonism turns that upside down.

[ZealouslyStriving]

My "parental figure" has had a very fulfilling life as a single/never married member of the Church. She has served in Primary, in Relief Society presidency, as Ward Librarian, Temple ordinance worker, etc... her singleness has never been be a hindrance to her full participation. And, as the General Authorities have taught, ALL blessings available through the Gospel will eventually be made available to her in the Celestial Kingdom because of her faithfulness.

[ZealouslyStriving]

We've had at least one General RS President who is single.

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

As I mentioned on another thread, last night I spent an hour with a gay exmo in an Uber. When I asked him why he left, he didn’t say anything about the law of chastity, gay marriage, or being inundated with the message that “Mormons hate gays.” Rather, he said that there isn’t a place in the Church for singles. 

Now obviously that is a bit of a hyperbole.

And yet this "hyperbole" sure gets a lot of repeat play by and among critics of the Church.  

Meanwhile, synonyms for "hyperbole" include "coloring," "distortion" and "embellishment."

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Singles can be members of the Church and even get their endowments.

Single members are entitled to every blessing available in the Church, including temple blessings.  

The biggest travesty in the history of the Church was the Priesthood Ban, and its attendant effect of denying our black brothers and sisters access to the temple.  But even then, the Gospel has provisions which ameliorate and rectify this.

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

However, they cannot get the crowning ordinance necessary for exaltation.

Yes, they can.  One of the more singular facets of the Restored Gospel is that it includes provisions and revelations that clear up most misunderstandings and lacunae regarding the mercy and justice of God.  The doctrines pertaining to the Spirit World, sealings, temple work, D&C 137, etc. are all matters of public record.  Those who are interested in understanding the doctrines and beliefs of the Latter-day Saints would do well to examine these things and incorporate them into their assessment.

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That makes them second-class saints, doesn’t it?

I am again reminded of Krister Stendahl's "Three Rules of Religious Understanding," summarized here:

Quote

Stendahl is credited with creating Stendahl's three rules of religious understanding, which he presented in a 1985 press conference in Stockholm, Sweden, in response to vocal opposition to the building of a temple there by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.^[9] His rules are as follows:

1. When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
2. Don't compare your best to their worst.
3. Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

"When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies."

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Of course there is always hope for marriage at a later date, but until then the card of what’s needed for exaltation will have a missing punch.

Nothing we do on this earth counts until it is ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise.  We are all works in progress.

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

So how are singles treated in Church?

That will vary from person to person, from ward to ward, etc.

Mostly, I think we are doing well.  Mistreatment/neglect gets far more attention from naysayers and critics than everyday decency, love and due regard.

I have a good friend who has been divorced for about ten years.  He sometimes feels out of place in his current ward, and he juxtaposes that with his former ward, where he felt very at-home, accepted, part of the fabric of the community, etc.

My grandmother spent 28 years widowed.  She served in her ward, served multiple missions, and lived a very fulfilled life.

One of my sisters married late.  She very much wanted to be a wife and mother, so this was challenging for her.  She eventually did marry and have children, but prior to that she spent years serving a mission, getting an education, serving in the Church, traveling, etc.  She accomplished a lot and had a very full and rewarding life as a single Latter-day Saint, and is currently experiencing the work and rewards of being a married Latter-day Saint.

Can Latter-day Saints improve making singles feel welcome in the Church?  Yes.  Are they "second-class citizens" in the Church?  No.  

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

What callings are they allowed to have or forbidden from having? 

Bishops and (usually) Branch Presidents are typically (though apparently not universally) married men:

Quote

37.2.2

Leadership in a Young Single Adult Ward or Branch in a Geographic Stake

• The bishop or branch president should be a married man of mature judgment and experience. First Presidency approval is required before calling a bishop. ...

• The bishop’s counselors may be members of the unit. Or they may be other single or married men who live within the unit boundaries.

Same with the stake president and patriarch:

Quote

37.3.2

Leadership in a Young Single Adult Stake and Its Wards or Branches

• The stake president, stake patriarch, bishops, and branch presidents should be married men of mature judgment and experience. ...

• The stake president’s counselors, high councilors, bishopric counselors, and branch presidency counselors may be single or married men. Stake Relief Society presidents and counselors may be single or married women. Stake Sunday School presidents and counselors may be single or married men.

"Should be" is an interesting word choice here (as opposed to "must be").  I would not be surprised to see more unmarried bishops, stake presidents and patriarchs in the future.

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

According to traditional biblical Christianity, being single and celibate is better than marriage, but if you can’t control yourself get married (see 1 Corinthians 7). In other churches, being single is considered a good thing, but Mormonism turns that upside down.

No, it does not.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 13 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

That makes them second-class saints, doesn’t it?

I don’t see why it should even though I know some see it that way. None of us is that far along the road to exaltation, at least not according to Joseph Smith who said it would be a long time after death before we could comprehend all the principles of exaltation, so just because someone is missing a step or two at this point shouldn’t imply second class imo, especially since they may be further in their journey in other ways.
 

It is where we end up that matters and if both are working towards that end, seems counterproductive to make a big deal about where someone is at this time, especially since God doesn’t judge as we judge. 

Edited March 13 by Calm

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

We've had at least one General RS President who is single.

Who publicly has stated how frustrated she is not being married.  I was shocked by how much of a negative she presented not being married was for her in an interview.  I may try to find the quote later, but it was pretty obvious she saw her life as less than…..at least that day. 
 

This article refers to her disappointment to some extent, but my memory is more along the lines of something like she cried every day about not being married (I have no problem admitting I may be misremembering or misinterpreting the tone of what she said):

https://www.deseret.com/2002/10/28/19781488/sheri-dew-living-the-unexpected-life/

Edited March 13 by Calm

[rpn]

I was single in the church from 18-35 (with two years for a marriage).   It isn't that there isn't a place: but rather that those in the space have to work to make the place (by communicating directly with other singles to set up an activity several times a month, and inviting families and singles to FHE or Friday night games, community service, etc.

Sure that is typically harder than being home alone or hanging out with people from work, or taking a second job or just reading a lot.   But that isn't less true for married people, either.

Whatever our marital status or age or lot on life, we are all just on our own journey. 

(I always joined the choir, and told the PP I could teach on short notice.   And I put effort in to remembering names of everyone and using them (which often felt very lonely in the moment).

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Who publicly has stated how frustrated she is not being married.  I was shocked by how much of a negative she presented not being married was for her in an interview.  I may try to find the quote later, but it was pretty obvious she saw her life as less than…..at least that day. 

I mentioned it merely to point out that singleness isn't a hindrance to positions of leadership- understanding that marriage is a prerequisite for some positions.

[blackstrap]

There is a trend for fewer men and women to want to  get married . I suspect this is also happening in the Church. This will affect Church demographics long term. 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

There is a trend for fewer men and women to want to  get married . I suspect this is also happening in the Church. This will affect Church demographics long term. 

More than half the adult membership is single.  I find it hard to believe there is not a significant number of them who are just fine with that given there are so many ways to get to know other singles these days. 
 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/embracing-unique-needs-gifts-single-adults#:~:text=The Church of Jesus Christ,half of the adult membership.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

So how are singles treated in Church? What callings are they allowed to have or forbidden from having? 

Bishop I think is the only one, that is even biblical.

Of course which GA has never been a bishop?

But marriage is the best way I know of for better understanding of the other 50% of humanity.

Incidentally that may be ONE reason for "justifiably" not allowing gay marriage, but one would also have to believe that men and women are not "the same".

I cannot imagine discussing intimate details with an unmarried woman Bishop, but if she WAS married it would be easier.

I know that's also THE problem women face every day, but perhaps some day "THE BISHOPRIC" might include married couples.

Besides it would increase the attendance at Ward Council meetings!

But who watches the babies?

Perhaps restrict Bishoprics to "mature" couples?

They kind of alteady are!

But having been single, and having been married, I can see 'what it is like to be a woman' BETTER, - NOT PERFECTLY- to at least give some counsel to all three of those categories of men, women, and singles, as a bishop.

Bats are another thing though....

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

48 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

but one would also have to believe that men and women are not "the same".

Men and women aren’t the same on average. That banal statement tells us nothing about individual men or women. What characteristics do you think men have that women don’t? And vice versa.

Edited March 13 by SeekingUnderstanding

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Men and women aren’t the same on average. That banal statement tells us nothing about individual men or women. What characteristics do you think men have that women don’t? And vice versa.

Men can't catch Uterine Cancer. Women don't get testicular cancer.

If that's all your truth provides, go for it.

That's like asking if men and women use the word "red" for the same color.

Radical empiricism calls for answers for which only science can prove.

Look it up for yourself.  Go ahead when your teen age daughter worries about masturbation, and send her to the bishop.  Why not?

Category error.  We are speaking about spiritual matters not physical or empirical ones.

And yes, I go along with the temple and believe that women beat men in being blessed against "the blood and sins of this generation"

The rest is your religious beliefs, and I will only discuss it in a religious context.

Gosh, I wonder what your reply may be?

I already answered it. Get thee to the temple and then you can tell me.

Here's a nice wikipedia or two for you:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans#:~:text=The most obvious differences between,breast differentiation%2C and differentiation of

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences

Radical Empiricism, Britannica:

The "real" consists only of actual experiences INCLUDING SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE.

This is also Alma 32- that which is "sweet" is true.

My Sweetheart awaits.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/radical-empiricism

Edited March 13 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

 Ok, my "mommie" is calling me to go see Dune.

Happy wife is a happy life.

Gotta go.

She wants to go see Dune.

Yuck.

Fiction.

Edited March 13 by mfbukowski

[rpn]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I mentioned it merely to point out that singleness isn't a hindrance to positions of leadership- understanding that marriage is a prerequisite for some positions.

Aside from Bishop (and the shared partnership of the Patriarch and secretary that usually is a married couple), I can't think of any callings that require marriage.   I served in leadership roles as a single person (and recall that others did to).

[Ginger Snaps]

25 minutes ago, rpn said:

Aside from Bishop (and the shared partnership of the Patriarch and secretary that usually is a married couple), I can't think of any callings that require marriage.   I served in leadership roles as a single person (and recall that others did to).

Temple presidents have to be married, and maybe mission presidents? 

[The Nehor]

Being single is not a barrier to a lot of callings in principle but it often is in practice. Singles also often feel marginalized socially. The non-official get togethers tend to exclude them so they often seek out friends in their own ranks. This is me speaking personally but I hate the Single Adult program. It is like a leper colony.

I was very annoyed when I was booted out as a temple worker for being too male, too old and unmarried. That policy has since changed. This probably has more to do with not having enough temple workers than it does thinking we belong there.

And of course you are shut out from exaltation and until recently if you were a guy the apostles were eager to tell you it was your fault.

[MustardSeed]

For the record, there are some callings that require someone to be single.  Such as Single Adult Ward rep.  Imagine my surprise when in our 30s my husband was called to be our ward’s single adult rep.   

I’m not exactly sure how that happened but he never showed up 🤣

[Analytics]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet this "hyperbole" sure gets a lot of repeat play by and among critics of the Church.  

Meanwhile, synonyms for "hyperbole" include "coloring," "distortion" and "embellishment."

Let's review. You claim that self-identified gay people leave the Church because they are “constantly inundated with messaging that the Church and its members hate them.” Are you sure you aren’t the one who is guilty of distortion and embellishment, and not the person who felt that there was no room in the Church for men who are single? 

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Single members are entitled to every blessing available in the Church, including temple blessings.  

The biggest travesty in the history of the Church was the Priesthood Ban, and its attendant effect of denying our black brothers and sisters access to the temple.  But even then, the Gospel has provisions which ameliorate and rectify this.

So you claim. But the question is why do people not want to belong to the Church in the here and now. As others have said, why would somebody want to be miserable in this life so they can get to a version of heaven that will cause them to be miserable in the next? Your theoretical gospel provisions don’t solve the fundamental problem of why certain people don’t want to sit next to you in the pews.

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am again reminded of Krister Stendahl's "Three Rules of Religious Understanding," summarized here:

"When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies."

I'll note that this is in response to me asking adherents and not enemies the questions, "So how are singles treated in Church? What callings are they allowed to have or forbidden from having?” I’m glad you endorse my methodology of bringing these questions to adherents.

But I don’t think that was your point. It sounds like you wanted the Uber driver to say, “I can’t comment on why I left the Church because I lost Krister Stendahl’s authorization to comment on my faith journey the moment I ceased being an adherent."

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Mostly, I think we are doing well.  Mistreatment/neglect gets far more attention from naysayers and critics than everyday decency, love and due regard.

For the record, I never thought about this issue or commented on it until I asked an Uber driver why he left the Church, and the only reason I asked him was because I wanted to know if he left because he was “constantly inundated” with the message that his brothers and sisters in the faith hated him.  

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Can Latter-day Saints improve making singles feel welcome in the Church?  Yes.  Are they "second-class citizens" in the Church?  No.  

And yet, the Uber driver felt that way.

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Bishops and (usually) Branch Presidents are typically (though apparently not universally) married men:

Same with the stake president and patriarch:

"Should be" is an interesting word choice here (as opposed to "must be").

Note that you quoted from paragraphs that are specificslly for "Young Single Adult Ward or Branch in a Geographic Stake” and "Young Single Adult Stake and Its Wards or Branches.” Is your selective quotations on this a concession that in non-single adult church units, there isn’t a place in leadership for singles? 

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, it does not.

Yes, it is. In Catholic congregations, single men who follow Paul’s example are looked up to. In fact, they are the only ones eligible to lead congregations. In contrast, in Mormonism only married men “should” lead congregations. Those are two opposite approaches, and since you claim to care about this kind of thing, one is much more in tune with historical Christianity than the other.

You claim you listen to people and try to have empathy. So imagine this. A guy in his 30’s is a poor candidate for marriage because of certain sexual attractions he has. But he is quite happy to live the law of castity and in general loves being a part of the Church, especially with his desire to share his talents of being able to put together amazing musical productions. Then Ezra Taft Benson, the Prophet of God, says the following:

My dear single adult brethren, we are also concerned. We want you to know that the position of the Church has never changed regarding the importance of celestial marriage. It is a commandment of God. The Lord’s declaration in Genesis is still true: “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone” (Gen. 2:18).

To obtain a fulness of glory and exaltation in the celestial kingdom, one must enter into this holiest of ordinances.

Without marriage, the purposes of the Lord would be frustrated. Choice spirits would be withheld from the experience of mortality. And postponing marriage unduly often means limiting your posterity, and the time will come, brethren, when you will feel and know that loss.

I can assure you that the greatest responsibility and the greatest joys in life are centered in the family, honorable marriage, and rearing a righteous posterity. And the older you become, the less likely you are to marry, and then you may lose these eternal blessings altogether.

If the Church now teaches that it is fine to be single as long as you keep the other commandments, that is great--maybe more people feel there is a place in the Church for them.

But if you really think of yourself as the kind of guy who listens, don’t be so freakin defensive and actually listen without arguing about it.

Edited March 14 by Analytics

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

For the record, there are some callings that require someone to be single.  Such as Single Adult Ward rep.  Imagine my surprise when in our 30s my husband was called to be our ward’s single adult rep.   

I’m not exactly sure how that happened but he never showed up 🤣

Single Adult Ward rep is my least favorite calling ever. I only half-jokingly think that getting this calling is why relatively few single adults are active.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

"When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies."

Maybe you should apply this counsel more generally regarding groups you don’t belong to?

Also if you want to understand what it is like to be a single adult member of the church you should ask a single adult member of the church.

[MustardSeed]

Singles can have more callings than women so there’s that😮

[pogi]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

It is where we end up that matters and if both are working towards that end, seems counterproductive to make a big deal about where someone is at this time, especially since God doesn’t judge as we judge. 

I hear where you are coming from, but where we end up is not all that matters.  And maybe you are not saying that, but that sentiment honestly became so difficult to hear from family and members who pitied me in my mortal condition (single, then infertile).  It made me feel like my mortal life didn’t matter as much as theirs. “Better luck when you die!”

Even the church puts a heavy emphasis on the importance and purpose of joy/meaning/purpose/fulfillment in mortality.

To me, it also makes a lot of sense why singles feel like second class in the church - because the church does make a big deal about what the primary or at least crowning purposes of this life is for, and that is to learn to become like Heavenly Father by raising children in a committed relationship/marriage/family unit.  I could probably put quote marks around that and not be wrong.

The hyper focus on the family unit makes anyone else who is unable to deliver feel like “second class citizens”.  I know this from 2 different angles.  I married “late” at 27 years old (gasp!).  It is so crazy for me to now think about how young that really is, but I was made to feel ancient due to the pressures and expectations put on me.  Maybe this is an Utah thing, but it comes directly from a culture built by the church and its leaders (think of the BY “menace” quote and so many others like it) that has endured all these years.  The pressure on missionaries to marry right away was real and created by the church.   That is the expectation.  Nothing in life (school, career, finances, personal interests and development, etc.) is more important than marriage.  Nothing a single person can do in the church will ever compare to the achievement of marriage.  I was made to feel like I was a disappointment, and that my life was being wasted, and that I was not matching up with what was expected of me, or what I was capable of - because I can do anything with the help of the Lord and prayer.  No excuse was good enough.

The gay jokes about me were relentless.

Then I got married.  Hurrah! I finally have achieved a primary purpose in life!  …10 years later, and no kids yet…!  Once again, I felt like a second class saint.  General conference and testimony meetings (I am so grateful that the Lord trusts us enough to send us his precious children/souls for us to love and raise in righteousness…; I know that the family/children are central to the plan of salvation in mortality; I know that no greater joy or purpose or meaning can be had in mortality than through raising children in a committed marriage/family, etc. etc.) and Mother’s Day was the hardest for us. 
 

Now that the gay jokes were finally over, the pity from other members became relentless.

It is no surprise to me at all that so many echo the same sentiment that they feel like second class saints because they are single or without children.  

All the promised blessings of the “next life” did not help with how we were made to feel about our mortal condition and the only life that I currently know.  One of the primary purposes and aims/goals of the church is to create and strengthen new family units.  It is common to feel like the church and purpose of life is made for other people (families with children) when you are single or childless.   

Even if we focus on joy (rather than family) as the purpose/goal of mortality, then singles and infertile couples are still made to feel less-than in mortality as we are taught that no greater joy can be had in mortality than through raising children in a family unit.   You can never match up in life.

Edited March 14 by pogi

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

As I mentioned on another thread, last night I spent an hour with a gay exmo in an Uber. When I asked him why he left, he didn’t say anything about the law of chastity, gay marriage, or being inundated with the message that “Mormons hate gays.” Rather, he said that there isn’t a place in the Church for singles. 

Now obviously that is a bit of a hyperbole. Singles can be members of the Church and even get their endowments. However, they cannot get the crowning ordinance necessary for exaltation. That makes them second-class saints, doesn’t it? Of course there is always hope for marriage at a later date, but until then the card of what’s needed for exaltation will have a missing punch.

So how are singles treated in Church? What callings are they allowed to have or forbidden from having? 

According to traditional biblical Christianity, being single and celibate is better than marriage, but if you can’t control yourself get married (see 1 Corinthians 7). In other churches, being single is considered a good thing, but Mormonism turns that upside down.

Anecdotally, when I was active most the active single members felt less then included. I did not see anyone bitter or angry about it but they did share their feelings.  Most singles, especially older singles, did not like the singles activities. Some even termed such social events as "meat markets" for dating and marriage. Many opted not to participate in such activities.  When I was bishop of the Palmyra ward we had about 190 "single family units" and only a handful of those were active.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

And maybe you are not saying that, but that sentiment honestly became so difficult to hear from family and members who pitied me in my mortal condition

I mean only in the case of judgment…if they are pitying you, they are acting in the opposite way of my point because that is judgment based on the here and now and likely wrong anyway, them not being God and all.

The journey has tremendous value in and of itself, each path unique in what it is able to accomplish and therefore important and of value.  To compare so as to see which is the better quality life and which to pity misses the point of such parables as Lazarus and the Rich Man.

Edited March 14 by Calm