Place in the Church for Singles

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

What do you think the activity rate is among adults singles and compared to adults married?

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What do you think the activity rate is among adults singles and compared to adults married?

I have no clue except to guess it’s likely lower. I think it would depend a great deal on where one lived.

Edited March 14, 2024 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

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.

Holy cow! Sad and unbelievable!

Yes, that's Utah. Here in the rest of the LDS world, I have seen nothing like that 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Holy cow! Sad and unbelievable!

Yes, that's Utah. Here in the rest of the LDS world, I have seen nothing like that 

I have in Northern California back in the 70s and 80s. 

[Raingirl]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

So many ways to get to know other singles? Maybe if you’re young and in a singles ward. If you’re a woman past child-bearing years, there are very few singles, much less social opportunities. Past a certain age, nothing is offered. In the first ward I was in, we took it upon ourselves to organize her-together. There was no support from the church. As far as dating goes, I knew of exactly three single men in my age range in the previous stake I was in.  Of those, one was still pining for his ex wife after years of divorce, another had never been married, and the third re-married to a non-member. When I expressed a desire to have an eternal companion to my then-bishop, he chastised me for “wanting more”.  And proceeded to expound upon why I wasn’t marriage material - I didn’t smile enough, etc. The single women I’ve known across the stakes I’ve resided in have had similar experiences. 

[Teancum]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Holy cow! Sad and unbelievable!

Yes, that's Utah. Here in the rest of the LDS world, I have seen nothing like that 

Happens outside of Utah as well.

[smac97]

21 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Men and women aren’t the same on average. That banal statement tells us nothing about individual men or women.

I think discussions about disputed topics - particularly emotionalized ones - can benefit from establishing or defining the core terms being used.

For example, I practice law in Utah, with a particularized emphasis on real property.  Because a person's home is very important, disputes can often involve evaluating the specific wording of statutes which govern real property issues.  In the Utah Code (the compilation of legislatively-enacted state statutes), Title 78B, Chapter 6, Part 8, governs evictions.  The very first section, Utah Code sec. 78B-6-801 ("Definitions"), includes definitions for things like "occupant of real property," "owner," "tenant," and more.  "Owner" is defined as follows:

Quote

(5)	"Owner": (a) means the actual owner of the premises; (b) has the same meaning as landlord under common law and the statutes of this state; and (c) includes the owner's designated agent or successor to the estate.

You might think that defining "owner" is going to be unnecessary, even "banal" (that is, "devoid of freshness or originality; hackneyed; trite," with synonyms including "stupid," "vapid," and "mundane").  But let's say that a tenant is very far behind on his rent, and is eventually sued for breach of contract and "unlawful detainer" (unpaid rents).  Let's also say that the tenant tries to argue that the lease is a legal nullity because it was between him and a property management company, whereas county records show that the property is actually owned by someone else.  The tenant's argument challenging the validity of the lease would fail because the foregoing statutory language defines "owner" as including "the owner's designated agent" (here, the property management company).  Now, it could be that the tenant has a personal story that involves all sorts of interesting twists and turns.  The foregoing exercise in using a statute to ascertain clarity of meaning and application of particular words and phrases may have an undesirable impact on the tenant's personal story and narrative, but it will resolve the substantive dispute between him and the landlord.

In a somewhat similar vein, many of the popular discussions and debates about "gender identity" and the like are often stymied in ambiguous and equivocative usage of key words and concepts, such as "man," "woman," and "gender."  It can be helpful, then, to create a legally authoritative set of definitions for terms about which there is room for misunderstanding.  See, e.g., this May 2023 article:

Quote

Lawmakers in Montana, Tennessee and Kansas have voted in the past few weeks to narrowly define who is "female" and who is "male" in state law using such terms as "gametes," "ova," "sex chromosomes," "genitalia" and "immutable biological sex."

The bills in Montana and Tennessee have passed the legislature and are headed to governors' desks. The Kansas bill, called the "women's bill of rights," was vetoed by Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, but the Republican legislature was able to override her.

Advocates for LGBTQ rights say these bills are one more step in the ratcheting up of politics and policies against transgender and nonbinary people.

Republicans sponsoring the bills say the definitions are important to keep sex from being conflated with gender.

There are reasonable arguments to be made for most "sides" of this issue, but legal disputes of this sort need to get resolved sooner or later, and typically the best way to do that is through the legislative process.  It ain't perfect, but it's the best system available. 

Quote

How the bills define 'sex'

The Montana chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics says the bill language in that state is scientifically inaccurate and that it isn't inclusive of people with chromosomal variations, such as intersex people, or people with diverse gender identities, such as transgender or nonbinary people.

The bill is based on a person's chromosomes and whether or not they produce eggs. A "female" produces eggs and a "male" produces sperm. The bill also includes language that there are exactly two sexes.

But research shows that sex can be more complicated than just male or female. Sex chromosomes can indicate one thing, anatomy can indicate something else and other genetic factors can play a role.

The Montana bill was passed into law and is currently being challenged by the ACLU.

Quote

The Kansas law legally defines a woman as someone whose reproductive system is designed to produce ova, and a man as someone whose reproductive systems are designed to fertilize ova.

Here is a portion of the statutory language of the Kansas bill (which was passed into law and became effective on July 1, 2023) :

Quote

Section 1. (a) Notwithstanding any provision of state law to the contrary, with respect to the application of an individual's biological sex pursuant to any state law or rules and regulations, the following shall apply:

(1) An individual's "sex" means such individual's biological sex, either male or female, at birth;

(2) a "female" is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova, and a "male" is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female;

(3) the terms "woman" and "girl" refer to human females, and the terms "man" and "boy" refer to human males;

(4) the term "mother" means a parent of the female sex, and the term "father" means a parent of the male sex;

(5) with respect to biological sex, the term "equal" does not mean "same" or "identical";

(6) with respect to biological sex, separate accommodations are not inherently unequal; and

(7) an individual born with a medically verifiable diagnosis of "disorder/differences in sex development" shall be provided legal protections and accommodations afforded under the Americans with disabilities act and applicable Kansas statutes.

So a "woman" is a "human female," and a "female" is "an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova."  This all but eliminates, as a matter of law, current popular notions about "gender identity," about a "woman" being "anyone who identifies as a woman," and so on.

Now, it is no doubt true that there are individuals in Kansas who are biologically male and "identify" as female (and vice versa), and these folks will be affected by this law.  It is likewise true that these individuals may have personal narratives with all sorts of interesting twists and turns.  The application of the foregoing statute to ascertain clarity of meaning and application of particular words and phrases may have an undesirable impact on an individual person's story and narrative, but it will resolve the substantive dispute between him and other members of society (such as those who want women's bathrooms to be accessible only by human females).

Notably, the new law does not define the term "gender."

Quote

In Tennesee, the language used to define sex is "a person's immutable biological sex as determined by anatomy and genetics existing at the time of birth."

"When this body has used the term 'sex' in the Tennessee code over the years, it has, in fact, referred to one's biological sex," said Republican state Rep. Gino Bulso on the House Floor. "It has meant male or female. It has meant men or women. It has meant boys or girls," he added.

LGBTQ advocates, like Naomi Goldberg at the Movement Advancement Project, say there is no need to clarify sex in state code.

"Fewer people know someone who is trans than know someone who is gay or lesbian, for example," says Goldberg, "so there is an opening there for opponents to introduce misinformation, to introduce concerns about realities that merely do not exist."

I respectfully disagree with Ms. Goldberg.  I think there is ample need to "clarify sex in state code" (and "gender," and "male" and "female," and a few other key terms).

I wonder, though, if the language of the TN bill is going to be effective in providing such clarification.  Of the three bills referenced in the above story, I think the one from Kansas is the most useful.

21 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What characteristics do you think men have that women don’t? And vice versa.

See section (1)(a)(2) of the Kansas statute quoted above: "a 'female' is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova, and a 'male' is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female."

I think this may end up working well.  No doubt some will attempt to argue against the law by pointing to people who are "intersex" (that is, they experience some sort of what is more formally called "Disorder of Sex Development" ("DSD")).  These conditions are exceedingly rare, but are nevertheless addressed in section (1)(a)(7) of the Kansas statute.  In any event, "intersex is not a subjective ideation," so it has no real application to discussions involving those with Gender Dysphoria or Trans-identification.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 14, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

So many ways to get to know other singles? Maybe if you’re young and in a singles ward. If you’re a woman past child-bearing years, there are very few singles, much less social opportunities. Past a certain age, nothing is offered.

My ward's Relief Society regularly has activities for its members that can be characterized as "social opportunities."  Does this not happen in other wards?

I am not aware of any Church-sponsored activities designed to include married Latter-day Saints and exclude single Latter-day Saints.  I suppose there could be here and there a "Strengthen Your Marriage" fireside, but I don't recall any in my stake.

My wife regularly invites women in the ward to our house for tea parties.  The sisters, young and old, married/divorced/widowed/never-married, with children or not, all seem to really enjoy these activities.  

48 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

In the first ward I was in, we took it upon ourselves to organize her-together. There was no support from the church.

What sort of "support from the Church" do you have in mind here?  My ward's sisters occasionally hold informal activities in the ward building, but otherwise I'm not sure what you have in mind here.

48 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

As far as dating goes, I knew of exactly three single men in my age range in the previous stake I was in.  Of those, one was still pining for his ex wife after years of divorce, another had never been married, and the third re-married to a non-member. When I expressed a desire to have an eternal companion to my then-bishop, he chastised me for “wanting more”.  

I am sorry to hear that.

48 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

And proceeded to expound upon why I wasn’t marriage material - I didn’t smile enough, etc. The single women I’ve known across the stakes I’ve resided in have had similar experiences. 

This is quite unfortunate.  I hope things change and improve.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

 

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

21 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What characteristics do you think men have that women don’t? And vice versa.

See section (1)(a)(2) of the Kansas statute quoted above: "a 'female' is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova, and a 'male' is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female."

I think this may end up working well.  

So when Mr Bukowski said (the context in which I made my reply):

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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".

 

You think the core differences he is trying to understand has to do with gamete size and function?

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So when Mr Bukowski said (the context in which I made my reply):

Quote

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".

You think the core differences he is trying to understand has to do with gamete size and function?

His comment about "understanding" was about marriage ("marriage is the best way I know of for better understanding of the other 50% of humanity").  So he did not seem to be talking about trying to understand "differences" per se (though that is surely part of the overall concept).

His comment that "one would also have to believe that men and women are not 'the same'" seems to speak mostly (entirely?) to justifications for "not allowing gay marriage."  

The most readily quantifiable differences between men and women are rooted in biology.  So yes, "understanding" the "core differences ... has to do with gamete size and function."  Such an exercise "has to do" with other matters as well, but the biology is both the start and end points.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 14, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

many ways to get to know other singles?

I mean online.  Very different than when I was young. I know quite a few couples in the church who met their spouses online, our friends were in their late 30s, early forties. Married women with children in most cases I know personally. 
 

However, obviously not a cure all, especially for older singles.  And this option is not provided by the Church, though some intelligent members have made good money off of offering these services. 

Edited March 14, 2024 by Calm

[Raingirl]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

My ward's Relief Society regularly has activities for its members that can be characterized as "social opportunities."  Does this not happen in other wards?

I am not aware of any Church-sponsored activities designed to include married Latter-day Saints and exclude single Latter-day Saints.  I suppose there could be here and there a "Strengthen Your Marriage" fireside, but I don't recall any in my stake.

My wife regularly invites women in the ward to our house for tea parties.  The sisters, young and old, married/divorced/widowed/never-married, with children or not, all seem to really enjoy these activities.  

What sort of "support from the Church" do you have in mind here?  My ward's sisters occasionally hold informal activities in the ward building, but otherwise I'm not sure what you have in mind here.

I am sorry to hear that.

This is quite unfortunate.  I hope things change and improve.

Thanks,

-Smac

I can’t even remember the last time the Relief Society in my current ward held any kind of activity, much less one that would resemble a social opportunity for both sexes. It sounds like your ward operates differently from any of the ones I’ve been in. It sounds like it has a lot more going on. 
 

I like your wife’s ideas. She sounds like a great person. 
 

The church here supports and sponsors activities for the younger singles.  If you’re past your thirties, you’re invisible.  My former bishop and I tried to organize Family Home Evening (and other) activities, based on what I and other older singles had organized in my first ward, but we were unsuccessful. 
 

Most single women around my age group have given up on marriage. It’s just not going to happen in the church. 
 

I accept some years ago, that as long as I remain a member, I will be alone for the rest of my life. And I’ve already been alone for many years. I don’t think humans are meant to be alone, but for some of us, that’s our lot in life. 
 

I have a co-worker who complains about her husband every single time she talks about him. Drives me crazy. And, yes, I know we don’t know what anyone is really like, but still. 

[CV75]

On 3/13/2024 at 1:29 PM, 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.

Your Uber ride partner may have interpreted Church doctrine as relegating some people to be single by not marrying them, and that denying any single person the rite of marriage denies them a place in the Church. He may consider himself single because of that, but if his circumstances or choices prevent him from marrying someone of the same sex outside the Church as well, he might see that the Church has a place for him on those other particular points after all.

[Analytics]

36 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Your Uber ride partner may have interpreted Church doctrine as relegating some people to be single by not marrying them, and that denying any single person the rite of marriage denies them a place in the Church. He may consider himself single because of that, but if his circumstances or choices prevent him from marrying someone of the same sex outside the Church as well, he might see that the Church has a place for him on those other particular points after all.

His problem wasn’t with church doctrine so much as with church sociology. He found a niche in the church as the man who would never be a priesthood leader,  but who could produce amazingly inspired musical productions. When he was released from a calling that really felt like a calling because the music he chose wasn’t “Mormon enough,” he no longer saw the point.

He also cited a couple of more doctrinal issues that to him indicated the church was obviously fake, but his big complaint was how he was released from a calling because the music he found to be inspiring wasn’t Mormon enough. He had a very here-and-now practical approach. If it works for you that’s great, but if it doesn’t, find a religion that does work for you.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I mean online.  Very different than when I was young. I know quite a few couples in the church who met their spouses online, our friends were in their late 30s, early forties. Married women with children in most cases I know personally. 
 

However, obviously not a cure all, especially for older singles.  And this option is not provided by the Church, though some intelligent members have made good money off of offering these services. 

I think this online dating thing is the way to go nowadays. I've never tried it, but it's worked for my two sons.  And what other options are there really, besides the single wards etc. and bars. But I know there are many other ways too.

[Doctor Steuss]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

 Most singles, especially older singles, did not like the singles activities. Some even termed such social events as "meat markets" for dating and marriage.

I've only been to one single adult activity, and that was enough.  I had started attending church again (maybe mid/late-20's) after being inactive for a few years.  I was too old to attend University Ward stuff, so I cruised on over to a "single adult activity."  I was by far the youngest person, and as an added bonus, while at this little "meat market," I bumped into my childhood friend's mom.

The awkwardness is as fresh with recalling it, as it was with experiencing it.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

His problem wasn’t with church doctrine so much as with church sociology. He found a niche in the church as the man who would never be a priesthood leader,  but who could produce amazingly inspired musical productions. When he was released from a calling that really felt like a calling because the music he chose wasn’t “Mormon enough,” he no longer saw the point.

He also cited a couple of more doctrinal issues that to him indicated the church was obviously fake, but his big complaint was how he was released from a calling because the music he found to be inspiring wasn’t Mormon enough. He had a very here-and-now practical approach. If it works for you that’s great, but if it doesn’t, find a religion that does work for you.

I wasn't addressing the particulars of his feeling socially out of place, but the deeper perspective that would result in his unusual summation of these particular problems as "there isn’t a place in the Church for singles."

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

So when Mr Bukowski said (the context in which I made my reply):

 

You think the core differences he is trying to understand has to do with gamete size and function?

Read my reply.

I gave you several references 

[mfbukowski]

On 3/13/2024 at 2:51 PM, mfbukowski said:

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

REPEATED @SeekingUnderstanding

Edited March 14, 2024 by mfbukowski

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Read my reply.

I gave you several references 

I read your reply?? And your references are fine. There are real sex differences. The physical ones (say descended testicles instead of ovaries in humans) manifest in most (but not all) animals born with particular sex chromosomes. Sure. Further on average there are tons of other differences. Men on average are larger and more violent. But the second you go from that banal example to talk about individuals all bets are off. Which partner in an opposite sex marriage is stronger? More violent? More nurturing? More kind? More loving? Well how could you possibly say in advance? Better suited to earn a living in the modern world? Better suited to provide primary care to young children? The idea, then, that only opposite sex marriages should be allowed because of this becomes patently absurd. 

Edited March 15, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[mfbukowski]

On 3/13/2024 at 12:23 PM, mfbukowski said:

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".

@SeekingUnderstanding

I stand by what I actually said.

And I justified it with a philosophical explanation for my position.

Please don't put words in my mouth, it only reflects on you.

The words indicate a hypothetical position: "but one would also have to believe that men and women are not "the same".

And then I gave scientific evidence on numerous ways in which men and women ARE IN FACT DIFFERENT.

I justified that position also religiously- citing temple differences.

Then I cited a philosophical position justifying that belief, IF one takes that position.

And you come back with genital size, and shape as I implied you would.

Take your last word if you like, then goodbye.

I won't bother you again.

 

Edited March 15, 2024 by mfbukowski

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

@SeekingUnderstanding

I stand by what I actually said.

Which was a whole bunch of nothing. You started with sex organ differences (and then you take me to task for acknowledging sex organ differences are almost universal). You then provide two wiki links which provide more average differences. Links that are long and say nothing to justify your remarks. Average differences say nothing about the specific differences of two individuals married to each other. 
 

You also refuse to provide any context about why you think those differences are enough to justify a ban on same sex marriage. You provide a vague temple reference that is far from official doctrine, and that your co- religionists on this board disagree with. Are you saying that every single female is less cursed by “the blood and sins of this generation”? What does that even mean and how could it possibly relate to marriage?? You don’t say. You refuse to say. 

 You then go on to creepily talk about girls masturbating and talking to bishops. If there was a coherent thought in your post, I certainly missed it. That’s why I didn’t respond until you badgered me. There is nothing there to respond to. 
 

If you have a point to make, I’m all ears. But you like all other religionists who push this nonsense are unwilling to actually say what it is that makes all women so different from all men that that justifies opposite sex marriage. 
 

If you want to have a conversation please explain to me what sex differences, are 1 universal, and 2 are different and unique enough that it justifies god requiring opposite sex marriage to understand.  

 

Edited March 15, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[BlueDreams]

On 3/13/2024 at 10:42 PM, The Nehor said:

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.

My husband had that calling for 12 years. He was telling me the other day that that was part of the reason he was drifting a little religiously. At one point he asked to not be called, but the ward was super desperate. Near the end, He would go to other wards than his family ward so that they couldn't give him a calling. He still believed in the church but was burnt out of being in that calling.

He would have laughed at your half-joke, is what I'm saying.

 

With luv, 

BD 

[BlueDreams]

On 3/14/2024 at 6:41 AM, pogi said:

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.

This is interesting as a comparison. Based on this and the thread about your 8 yr old son, I'm assuming I'm about a decade behind you in age. FTR, most of my adult life has been in UT, but I'm definitely not of the mountainwest. So going into adulthood I definitely had different expectations around marriage. I always assumed I'd marry "old," like at 23 (cuz to a 15 year old, 8 years seems like an eternity away). I married 6 days shy of 30 and was single up until 6 months prior to that. So even for US averages for first marriage, I married "late"...though for college grads I married pretty close to average to slightly younger. Though for living smack dab in the middle of Utah county in singles wards with high levels of college student, I was the 3rd oldest member of my ward. 

It helped that my mom got the impression when I received my PB that I would marry older. Something about the juxtaposition of my career life, higher education, and heck of a lot of paragraphs before talking about a full life before talking about marriage cued her in I guess. Probably also helped that she married pretty late and already had 2.5 kids when she did. So my family pressure was light-ish for most of my 20's. I remember exactly 3 times it came up and always in a way that it was pretty easy to brush off. No 4, she once whispered a q if I were gay. But to be fair to her as far as she knew I hardly dated and I hadn't had a serious relationship with a man. So I was surprised it came up. Still didn't pay much heed to it. My mom's opinions can be wonky anyways. 

I never wanted to marry young. Ever. I was obsessed in my younger 20's about the stats that increased the odds of a good marriage. And I knew there was a sweet spot somewhere in the 20's that reduced the odds of divorce while peaking on degree of satisfaction. I wanted that number. It wasn't healthy, but what I'd seen of marriage wasn't healthy and I was obsessed not to have that. Over the years I'd chill out about scientific formulas for healthy marriage, but still strongly believed that I needed to be healthy, solid about who I was, etc before entering a marriage. And so did my partner. 

Most of my closest friends were all married by the time I was 23, funny enough. I knew a lot of people "lost" their married friends as their lives diverged, leaving them feeling lonely. I was determined not to, helping my friends as they all became moms well before I did, i would hang with them with their growing flock of children. I was so grateful for that. It gave me a close up look at healthy marriage, the ups and downs in it, and the difficulties of early motherhood. I didn't envy my friends who had kids in college because of it. Even though I deeply wanted children and marriage. In general I deeply believed in the importance of marriage. But I also deeply believed it shouldn't be entered willy nilly. 

In Church life, the only time I heard the menace comment was among my peers as we started to age as a joke. YSA wards would usually have a talk or two from the ward or stake leaders about the importance of marriage. Funny enough the only one I could remember was the one I had when I was 27-28. I remember it because the Spirit strongly impressed on me that I shouldn't look for someone else that year. I was like "for realz? I'm feeling a little old here." And God was like "yeah, no, this talk doesn't apply to you now." I didn't receive much counsel from leaders outside of those couple times a year. In my ward by the end I was a bit of an asset. I worked in the temple for most my 20's, taught solid Sunday school classes, and was an LMFT focused on sex therapy in a singles ward. I was well utilized, always had meaningful callings in my ward, helped a number of my fellow ward members, and often worked closely with the last couple bishops I'd have. 

The hardest part was the environment I was in. The older I got the harder it became to date. I hated dating younger, was established in my career that didn't afford dating opportunities, I couldn't afford to move, and I was surrounded by people in their middle 20's. My dance partners dried up too (I loved to latin dance). So at 28.9 ish I had to join mutual to find a dating partner. I was done being single and ready to get serious about marrying off. Plus I really was nervous of doing a latter-day saints life in my 30's as a single woman. I probably would have been fine, but I was sniffing the air the 30+ singles gave off and not enjoying it. 

I gave my last talk a week before I got married after volunteering for it. My bishop allowed me to talk about whatever I wanted. I talked about how I was excited to be married but he would always be second to a relationship with God...that that would always matter most no matter where life takes you. 

Now I'm married, I turn 36 in a couple months, and I have 1 living child. Because I have 1 child people see I could feel like a bit for an oddball still smack dab in the middle of UT county with friends that all have 3-6 children. My closest friends all have 5 or 6. But I really don't... couldn't tell you why. I think in part because no one treats me less than for having fewer children and in my age bracket there's still plenty who have 2-3 children and are capping out. Large families are diminishing even in ut county. And I don't really want their lives. Plus I've had a lot of practice walking to my own beat and differentiating myself from the prevailing culture. I haven't culturally "fit" with my environment since I was 14. Still don't now that I attend a Spanish ward. I've felt God helping me rearrange my expectations and to see the goodness in my own path. I assume I'll have 1 MAAYYYYYBE 2 more kids. But it's gotta be done by the time I'm 39. My Pregnancies have sucked and I'm not willing to push my body and soul further past then. In the most recent years I deeply resonated with the talk by the African elder about having a smaller family and then having a lot of children they cared for in their callings. I mother a lot of adults. I have time and heart space to do it because I don't have a plethora of children.

I'm grateful that I married late. I'd have loved a couple more years with my husband in my 20's but can recognize that I wasn't ready for it. I've seen close up how taxing it can be on a couple to "grow together" and am glad that wasn't my story. I'm okay that my story is very different than many active members in the church. More than okay, I'm grateful. 

 

But I'm largely rambling because I find the similarities and differences in our stories intriguing. There's no guarantee how someone will feel about being single. I do think it's harder and entails far more intrinsic motivation to remain active in a church that's family heavy when you're single though

 

 

With luv, 

BD 

Edited March 15, 2024 by BlueDreams

[Kenngo1969]

I have become what my Dear, Departed Great Granny (see ya soon, Granny, but not too soon! ) used to call "An Old Batch."  Is there anyone in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who has attempted to make me feel as though I, as a long-term bachelor in a family church, am a second-class citizen?  If there is, that is their problem, not mine.  I can simply "refuse delivery" of that message.

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/on-being-single-male-and-lds/