Place in the Church for Singles

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Yes, but when you have been beaten with a bat every time you have a glimmer of hope, faith is a hard choice to make.

Never said it was easy- but it's still a choice.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Never said it was easy- but it's still a choice.

When that is all that is given, it is an insult.  As if those involved haven’t gone over their choices and decisions again and again in their own head even if they don’t view it as a choice because the perceived cost it too high (it is a choice to feed for your child or watch them starve in front of you.  It’s not easy to watch your child die in front of you, but it’s still a choice.)

You are giving rocks to those who are asking for bread in this case.

I can see responding to a parent begging for treatment for their dying child….that procedure is optional since all procedures are optional, so we won’t cover it.  I have no doubt that parent does not see defining saving their child as a choice the least rational.

Edited March 31, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

When that is all that is given, it is an insult.  As if those involved haven’t gone over their choices and decisions again and again in their own head even if they don’t view it as a choice because the perceived cost it too high (it is a choice to feed for your child or watch them starve in front of you.)

You are giving rocks to those who are asking for bread in this case.

Yet there are many people who have been through situations most would see as impossible to endure that have chosen faith.

What makes one choose faith and one not?

Edited March 31, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Yet there are many people who have been through situations most would see as impossible to endure that have chosen faith.

And when they explain how they reasoned it out, it generally makes sense.

But not everyone has the same assumptions or background to respond to challenges of faith with continuing faith.  I happen to have enough positive experiences as an adult while having a relatively protected childhood with the Church in one sense (I was around believers who explored and questioned deeply, but never doubted), so it makes sense that I can embrace a promise in the next life to come….especially since I get way more out of having that hope than I would get giving it up.  My daughter, whose body has taught her never to trust a sensation as valid because she knows she can be in a wonderful situation and feel horrible because of blood sugars and neurochemicals and that a drug can give her happiness in the midst of tragedy, and who never experienced the Spirit as an adult without the possibility that feeling was chemically induced since she got diabetes as a child and had to take drugs to manage pain, depression and anxiety due to other medical issues….it makes perfect sense she has no faith in the Spirit I believe she experienced as a young child.  She is therefore agnostic on the idea.

How in the world could you persuade her the Spirit exists when it is impossible for her to identify any feeling as spiritual?

Does she have a choice of faith in your view in the same way I have a choice of faith?

Adults who experience trauma, especially multiple traumas, as children will view the world very differently than children who have been safe, happy, and healthy.  And that programming for lack of a better world may not be possible to overcome because of changes occurring in brain structures as well as assumptions and expectations about life that are deeply embedded in their psyche.

I don’t know why God gave us bodies that could overwhelm or shutdown the spirit making it impossible to feel, but I know he has because it happened to me for three years on a particular medication that was meant to supply a missing chemical so I could sleep decently.  What it did was make my body suppress sensation, physical, emotional, and spiritual.

Would you fault someone who was allergic to bees for not choosing to be a beekeeper after having a few nasty experiences just because others who had other difficulties decided they could handle it?

Would you fault someone who never felt the Spirit for not choosing faith?

Unless you know why someone has made a choice, you cannot judge if it was a faithful one or not.  Only God knows the heart and mind well enough.

Many in faith sought to learn more about the Church because they wanted their faith to grow.  For whatever reason learning certain aspects had the opposite effect…and yet they acted in faith when they took the leap to learn more.

A relative views her son’s experience with cancer as a beautiful witness to God’s mercy because her son survive.  Her husband couldn’t bear to see his son suffer in such a horrendous fashion and lost faith there was a God because if he, a weak human, wouldn’t allow his son to endure that level of suffering, why would an omnipotent God allow innocent children to suffer that way.  I find both conclusions eminently reasonable.  Knowing their backgrounds, especially childhood, I don’t fault the husband at all.  His parents weren’t trustworthy and their love amounted to torture at times.  A God who allows his children to be tortured makes no sense to him (that is how the choice is framed for him).

Edited March 31, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

Just now, Calm said:

And when they explain how they reasoned it out, it generally makes sense.

But not everyone has the same assumptions or experiences.

Would you fault someone who was allergic to bees for not choosing to be a beekeeper after having a few nasty experiences just because others who had other difficulties decided they could handle it?

I believe that is a false equivalency.

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Yet there are many people who have been through situations most would see as impossible to endure that have chosen faith.

What makes one choose faith and one not?

There is a difference between suffering and betrayal.

[ZealouslyStriving]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is a difference between suffering and betrayal.

You don't think the women/men that have been abused by their fathers yet chose faith and activity in the Church didn't feel highly betrayed?

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I believe that is a false equivalency.

I added a lot, please read the rest for why I don’t think it is.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You don't think the women/men that have been abused by their fathers yet chose faith and activity in the Church didn't feel highly betrayed?

Not everyone who has been abused responds the same way.  If you are going to use the abused as an example to follow, then why not point to all who have rejected God because of their abuse?

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You don't think the women/men that have been abused by their fathers yet chose faith and activity in the Church didn't feel highly betrayed?

I feel more betrayed by God Himself. That is harder to work through.

[morgan.deane]

I remember this thread because I talked about church making singles feel like a second class citizen. Well Brad Wilcox just gave a keynote or fireside address as what I believe was the big Utah Valley single's conference. There was a contingent from here in Las Vegas that went. Anyways, with that feeling of being a second class citizen in mind, listen to him at the 55 minute mark talk about how its no big deal where you are on the bus, even if you're in the back of the bus, because the bus is heading to heaven: 

As single person who already feels like a second class citizen, this is the worst thing he could say. Its a new variation of you'll get a spouse in heaven. Just sit in the back of the bus and like it because you're in the church and yay for you.

The analogy doesn't account and brushes aside the real feelings of inadequacy that come from being single. The analogy doesn't mention how every announcement on the PA system is about married people. Or how their section sure feels like one big party while we are isolated in the back. The analogy doesn't mention the myriad of ways that the bus caters to those in the front. Like every worship service has a meet cute story, or temple ceremony has a witness married couple. Church activities naturally assume you are a couple, like my ward's recent Sweetheart dance for valentines day. They may have changed this, but some careers were closed off like institute instructor (even though I'm a college history professor so I just might have some skills and training that help students learn.) But don't worry, the bus is heading to heaven so I should enjoy the back of it. 

I'm sorry, but this analogy is astoundingly clueless. Even when he tried to help, and he sure seems heartfelt, he just doesn't get it. The back of the bus analogy makes me cringe so hard and actually hurts when you already feel like you're a second class citizen in the church. 

[Calm]

After his problems with racial insensitivity before, that he uses an analogy that references one of Black Americans’ past experience with racism as no big deal is extraordinary.  Did he learn nothing?

Quote

Even when he tried to help, and he sure seems heartfelt, he just doesn't get it.

Yeah.  We need to be patient with him, I guess. (It is in his talk)

Edited June 26, 2024 by Calm

[morgan.deane]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

After his problems with racial insensitivity before, that he uses an analogy that references one of Blacks’ past experience with racismas no big deal is extraordinary.  Did he learn nothing?

Yes, I mentioned that on social media and should have done so here. It seems really on brand for him to not realize how sitting in the back of the bus is such a poor example to use for multiple reasons given his history of racial insensitivity. 

[Calm]

Just now, morgan.deane said:

Yes, I mentioned that on social media and should have done so here. It seems really on brand for him to not realize how sitting in the back of the bus is such a poor example to use for multiple reasons given his history of racial insensitivity. 

Someone who is good at picking out problems and not afraid to hurt his feelings needs to go over his talks with him beforehand.

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, morgan.deane said:

I remember this thread because I talked about church making singles feel like a second class citizen. Well Brad Wilcox just gave a keynote or fireside address as what I believe was the big Utah Valley single's conference. There was a contingent from here in Las Vegas that went. Anyways, with that feeling of being a second class citizen in mind, listen to him at the 55 minute mark talk about how its no big deal where you are on the bus, even if you're in the back of the bus, because the bus is heading to heaven: 

As single person who already feels like a second class citizen, this is the worst thing he could say. Its a new variation of you'll get a spouse in heaven. Just sit in the back of the bus and like it because you're in the church and yay for you.

The analogy doesn't account and brushes aside the real feelings of inadequacy that come from being single. The analogy doesn't mention how every announcement on the PA system is about married people. Or how their section sure feels like one big party while we are isolated in the back. The analogy doesn't mention the myriad of ways that the bus caters to those in the front. Like every worship service has a meet cute story, or temple ceremony has a witness married couple. Church activities naturally assume you are a couple, like my ward's recent Sweetheart dance for valentines day. They may have changed this, but some careers were closed off like institute instructor (even though I'm a college history professor so I just might have some skills and training that help students learn.) But don't worry, the bus is heading to heaven so I should enjoy the back of it. 

I'm sorry, but this analogy is astoundingly clueless. Even when he tried to help, and he sure seems heartfelt, he just doesn't get it. The back of the bus analogy makes me cringe so hard and actually hurts when you already feel like you're a second class citizen in the church. 

That is the problem when members who aren’t single, gay, POC (fill in the blank) think the answer is “wait for the next life”, “put it on the shelf”, “all will be made right”, or “being married, straight and white has it own set of problems” (privileged, much?). 

Edited June 26, 2024 by Peacefully

[Stargazer]

19 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

That is the problem when members who aren’t single, gay, POC, fill in the blank, think the answer is wait for the next life, put it on the shelf, all will be made right, being married, straight and white has it own set of problems (privileged, much?). 

My apologies, but I've read this sentence over several times and I still can't figure out what you're trying to say. 

[mfbukowski]

34 minutes ago, morgan.deane said:

I remember this thread because I talked about church making singles feel like a second class citizen. Well Brad Wilcox just gave a keynote or fireside address as what I believe was the big Utah Valley single's conference. There was a contingent from here in Las Vegas that went. Anyways, with that feeling of being a second class citizen in mind, listen to him at the 55 minute mark talk about how its no big deal where you are on the bus, even if you're in the back of the bus, because the bus is heading to heaven: 

As single person who already feels like a second class citizen, this is the worst thing he could say. Its a new variation of you'll get a spouse in heaven. Just sit in the back of the bus and like it because you're in the church and yay for you.

The analogy doesn't account and brushes aside the real feelings of inadequacy that come from being single. The analogy doesn't mention how every announcement on the PA system is about married people. Or how their section sure feels like one big party while we are isolated in the back. The analogy doesn't mention the myriad of ways that the bus caters to those in the front. Like every worship service has a meet cute story, or temple ceremony has a witness married couple. Church activities naturally assume you are a couple, like my ward's recent Sweetheart dance for valentines day. They may have changed this, but some careers were closed off like institute instructor (even though I'm a college history professor so I just might have some skills and training that help students learn.) But don't worry, the bus is heading to heaven so I should enjoy the back of it. 

I'm sorry, but this analogy is astoundingly clueless. Even when he tried to help, and he sure seems heartfelt, he just doesn't get it. The back of the bus analogy makes me cringe so hard and actually hurts when you already feel like you're a second class citizen in the church. 

I have not yet listened to the video, but as a topic alone, I have some feelings.  Yes I have been married for a long time.

But by this logic, we don't need all the effort based on genealogy either.

So stop building temples for the Millennium too, right?  Why does God need this dusty old glob of mud and water circling the sun if every knee shall bow anyway?  Why must ceremonies which lead to exaltation be performed on this "third rock"?

BECAUSE WE NEED THE EXPERIENCE OF TRUE LOVE BOTH HERE ON EARTH AND FOR THOSE WHO WENT BEFORE.  OR "the earth will be WASTED at his coming".  It will have had no purpose!!   OUR purpose here is to learn to 1- Love God, and 2- Love each other!!

And where do you learn that?  HERE!  

So practically and symbolically we need the earth to LEARN its purpose- the immortality and eternal life of humanity!  YOU ONLY GET THAT EDUCATION ON A WORLD.

GIT THEM SINGLES MARRIED so they learn how to LOVE as a covenant-  You don't throw away your spouse because you can't agree on the color of the bathroom- or  because you found somebody that looks better- the experience of going through all that life offers TOGETHER- good and bad- is why we are here on the earth !!

THAT is what teaches us LOVE!   

Singles should have stake get togethers- often!

At this point we are also losing singles like crazy, something really needs to be done to fix that!

 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

GIT THEM SINGLES MARRIED so they learn how to LOVE as a covenant-  You don't throw away your spouse because you can't agree on the color of the bathroom- or  because you found somebody that looks better- the experience of going through all that life offers TOGETHER- good and bad- is why we are here on the earth !!

That isn’t the issue with the video or Morgan’s criticism. He is not criticizing the value the Church places on marriage, but the apparent lack of value it places on singles in many ways. It is about how singles are often treated as afterthoughts and then told they should be happy about it. 
 

Added:  I have gone back and reread your post. Maybe you are saying something quite different, more agreeing with Morgan’s criticism than not…as in they shouldn’t be told to be happy at the back of the bus because it’s wasting their earthly time because they need the marriage experience?

Not sure if that is much better from the single POV.

Edited June 26, 2024 by Calm

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

My apologies, but I've read this sentence over several times and I still can't figure out what you're trying to say. 

I am at work and writing in a hurry plus on my phone so I don’t have the luxury of typing. I went back and added punctuation. Hopefully, that helps. 

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

My apologies, but I've read this sentence over several times and I still can't figure out what you're trying to say. 

It means that those who have the things you want tell you not to worry about not having them since in the next life it will all be fixed. Oh, and also the things you want come with their own problems so at least you dodged those problems. It is basically the equivalent of wealthy people pointing out to the impoverished about all the problems being wealthy brings that the impoverished are fortunate enough to have avoided.

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

GIT THEM SINGLES MARRIED so they learn how to LOVE as a covenant- 

Wait, so it doesn’t matter because God will fix it in the next life? Or singles are missing out on a vital learning experience?

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Singles should have stake get togethers- often!

These are incredibly depressing. There is a reason most people don’t like to go to them.

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

At this point we are also losing singles like crazy, something really needs to be done to fix that!

Tell them that the back of the bus isn’t that bad.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, morgan.deane said:

I remember this thread because I talked about church making singles feel like a second class citizen. Well Brad Wilcox just gave a keynote or fireside address as what I believe was the big Utah Valley single's conference. There was a contingent from here in Las Vegas that went. Anyways, with that feeling of being a second class citizen in mind, listen to him at the 55 minute mark talk about how its no big deal where you are on the bus, even if you're in the back of the bus, because the bus is heading to heaven: 

As single person who already feels like a second class citizen, this is the worst thing he could say. Its a new variation of you'll get a spouse in heaven. Just sit in the back of the bus and like it because you're in the church and yay for you.

The analogy doesn't account and brushes aside the real feelings of inadequacy that come from being single. The analogy doesn't mention how every announcement on the PA system is about married people. Or how their section sure feels like one big party while we are isolated in the back. The analogy doesn't mention the myriad of ways that the bus caters to those in the front. Like every worship service has a meet cute story, or temple ceremony has a witness married couple. Church activities naturally assume you are a couple, like my ward's recent Sweetheart dance for valentines day. They may have changed this, but some careers were closed off like institute instructor (even though I'm a college history professor so I just might have some skills and training that help students learn.) But don't worry, the bus is heading to heaven so I should enjoy the back of it. 

I'm sorry, but this analogy is astoundingly clueless. Even when he tried to help, and he sure seems heartfelt, he just doesn't get it. The back of the bus analogy makes me cringe so hard and actually hurts when you already feel like you're a second class citizen in the church. 

“It doesn’t matter what part of the bus you are on.” -First Class Ticket Havers

This whole analogy also makes the gospel seem so passive. As long as you stay on the bus you are fine! Really? That is how it works? Enduring to the end is primarily about making sure your name is printed on the church records when you die and that you showed up to at least half of sacrament meetings or something along those lines? That sounds like hell. People want to succeed. Success is just holding on even if there is no tangible success?

Given the choice between being accepted in other social groups and being a leper on the bus Zion that is tolerated is it any wonder so many choose the former? Given the choice between being around my friends who love me and want me there or going to a Single Adult activity that is just a depressing waiting place and perhaps a desperate long chance at finding a non-bigot to date I know where I want to be.

[Stargazer]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

My apologies, but I've read this sentence over several times and I still can't figure out what you're trying to say. 

It means that those who have the things you want tell you not to worry about not having them since in the next life it will all be fixed. Oh, and also the things you want come with their own problems so at least you dodged those problems. It is basically the equivalent of wealthy people pointing out to the impoverished about all the problems being wealthy brings that the impoverished are fortunate enough to have avoided.

Ah, that makes sense finally. Thanks. Even after his repunctuation it wasn't clear to me.

 

 

[Peacefully]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It means that those who have the things you want tell you not to worry about not having them since in the next life it will all be fixed. Oh, and also the things you want come with their own problems so at least you dodged those problems. It is basically the equivalent of wealthy people pointing out to the impoverished about all the problems being wealthy brings that the impoverished are fortunate enough to have avoided.

Wait, so it doesn’t matter because God will fix it in the next life? Or singles are missing out on a vital learning experience?

These are incredibly depressing. There is a reason most people don’t like to go to them.

Tell them that the back of the bus isn’t that bad.

Thank you for explaining my quote. I hoped my meaning came through. I’ve been single, widowed, divorced and in a part-member marriage. I’ve heard a lot of those type of platitudes. 

[Rain]

19 hours ago, morgan.deane said:

I remember this thread because I talked about church making singles feel like a second class citizen. Well Brad Wilcox just gave a keynote or fireside address as what I believe was the big Utah Valley single's conference. There was a contingent from here in Las Vegas that went. Anyways, with that feeling of being a second class citizen in mind, listen to him at the 55 minute mark talk about how its no big deal where you are on the bus, even if you're in the back of the bus, because the bus is heading to heaven: 

As single person who already feels like a second class citizen, this is the worst thing he could say. Its a new variation of you'll get a spouse in heaven. Just sit in the back of the bus and like it because you're in the church and yay for you.

The analogy doesn't account and brushes aside the real feelings of inadequacy that come from being single. The analogy doesn't mention how every announcement on the PA system is about married people. Or how their section sure feels like one big party while we are isolated in the back. The analogy doesn't mention the myriad of ways that the bus caters to those in the front. Like every worship service has a meet cute story, or temple ceremony has a witness married couple. Church activities naturally assume you are a couple, like my ward's recent Sweetheart dance for valentines day. They may have changed this, but some careers were closed off like institute instructor (even though I'm a college history professor so I just might have some skills and training that help students learn.) But don't worry, the bus is heading to heaven so I should enjoy the back of it. 

I'm sorry, but this analogy is astoundingly clueless. Even when he tried to help, and he sure seems heartfelt, he just doesn't get it. The back of the bus analogy makes me cringe so hard and actually hurts when you already feel like you're a second class citizen in the church. 

I agree with all you said except for the bold. I've found church activities rarely assume you are a couple. My ward has had a couple activity once in the last 5 years and my stake never in the last 10. I recognize that some wards will have couple activities far more often. I don't think there should be a problem with a couple activity any more than having a camping or swimming activity that will also be a problem for some people. Now if all or even a quarter of the activities were couple or camping oriented that would be an issue.

But wow, the back of the bus example! Besides the black implications his example isn't about getting a ride on the bus. It's about riding in the back because he did something poorly/wrong. So now you have singles not measuring up to couples because they did something wrong plus because of history and his history you have black people not measuring up because they did something wrong.

Yes, someone really needs to go through talks with him.

 

Edited June 27, 2024 by Rain

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Thank you for explaining my quote. I hoped my meaning came through. I’ve been single, widowed, divorced and in a part-member marriage. I’ve heard a lot of those type of platitudes. 

I understood.