- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was talking with a friend of mine who is a member of the church and is single, he has never married. He paints a bleak picture of how he feels as a single male in the church. I got married a year or so after my mission so I do not have this perspective. I have absolutely no reason to doubt him at all. I just wanted to understand what he said better so I can better be there for him as a friend. He’s going through a tough time and I would suggest this site but he is very TBM. I don’t want that to change about him as a result of dealing with this. So we all know the “menace to society” comment that Brigham Young supposedly said. It doesn’t matter whether it was really said or whether it was never said, the damage is done so to speak. Everyone knows the quote and I don’t think it even matters whether members bring it up to single members. The single person knows the quote and people are often their own worst critic.
Back on topic. My friend told me that as a single male he can never be called to be a bishop and could never be called to be a temple worker. He also said that intellectually he understood why. Good or bad/right or wrong, I came up with a reason why I thought the church wouldn’t want a single man to be a bishop but I couldn’t come up with a reason why single men couldn’t be temple workers so I asked him what his intellectual reasons were. We left of being a bit stumped by that one. So:
1) Is this worldwide church policy?
2) Why?
I think one aspect of church culture/policy that has really worked against my friend is this notion that he’s not honoring his priesthood by remaining single. It’s a shame, I’m sure he already feels alone and having those additional feelings come at you isn’t going to edify. He really feels the weight, more so than single women. The culture from his perspective is that people pity the single sisters while they blame the single brethren.
Perhaps the only thing worse than being a single man over 40 in the Church is being a gay man in the Church – or a single woman over 30 in the Church. Our rhetoric about being single is messed up, and our Single Adult programs generally don’t help. Not calling single men as temple workers is one of the policies I like least, but I don’t know if it is current or enforced globally. It makes no sense whatsoever to me. I can’t think of a single good reason for it.
nibbler wrote:The culture from his perspective is that people pity the single sisters while they blame the single brethren.
Yeah, I could talk for awhile on all this. As for blaming single brethren while pitying single sisters, I think that comes from the belief that men have control over when then get married, but women do not. With some exceptions (as could be the case with Nibbler’s friend) my experience has been that it is primarily a person’s attractiveness (how attractive they are) and selectiveness (how picky they are), not their gender, that determines how much power they have to get married. Attractive people (based on personality and appearance) have the power to get married easily, while less attractive people have much less power over when they get married and who they get married to. People who are attractive and not picky get married very easily, while people who are unattractive and picky have great difficulty getting married.At some future point I will probably post more about all this because I’m extremely frustrated with all of it.
nibbler wrote: Quote:My friend told me that as a single male he can never be called to be a bishop and could never be called to be a temple worker.
I don’t know about never being called to be a bishop. But, in our stake, I know there are single men that have never married & are temple workers. I also know of a divorced woman who serves as a temple worker. I don’t think it’s a universal policy.
nibbler, I say this with genuine concern, but the one thing I would ask your friend is, “Who the hell cares what other people think?”
If I wanted nothing more in life than to be a temple worker and I were single (or gay), I would ask to meet with the Temple President, and respectfully and without demands or ultimatums, explain that I would love to be a temple worker and ask how we could make that happen. If I get an answer that I was not qualified due to any of the above reasons, I’d ask if there is a way to get special permission from the FP. If I were then stonewalled or denied in any way, I’d go buy a Harley and ride it exclusively during the time that I WOULD HAVE been serving in the Temple until I started to feel better about not being allowed.
I married when I was 30, and I do know some of what your friend refers to. I recall some remarks from ETB that really riled me during this time when I was single. It is a hard road, and I know people who have left the church because of it. True, he can’t be a bishop but to me that’s not a big deal since I wouldn’t want to be anyway.I don’t know why that is a policy (I think it is a policy, not doctrine). However, our ward has several single men, some older and some younger, who are at least veil workers in the temple. My son actually was before he left on his mission. I think rather than going to the temple president, although he certainly could, I’d start with the bishop. The requirement that Bishops be married is based on 1 Timothy 3:2, which says: Quote:A bishop then
mustbe blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; The interesting part of that verse that never gets discussed is the obvious implication that polygamists were accepted in the early Christian Church – but that is not a topic for this thread.
On Own Now wrote:I say this with genuine concern, but the one thing I would ask your friend is, “Who the hell cares what other people think?”
Yes, I agree. I also think that at various points in my life that sentiment was hard to live despite how much I wanted to will it into my reality. If it was hard to get there for myself it’s got to be even harder helping someone else get there.
The culture can nourish persecutory delusions, the culture even actively persecutes. It’s especially hard to get to a place where you no longer care what others think when you feel like your world is a place where everyone is out to get you. I could tell them to stop caring what other people think but I doubt anything will come of it until the impetus comes from within; not from some external source. I guess the thing to do is to just continue to be a supportive listener, which is almost always the answer.
From what I’ve seen the policy, where enforced, appears to be any single male over the age of 30, apparently you’re fine up until the age of 30.
If you look in the handbook, it makes it clear that single men over 30 cannot be ordinance workers (unless widowed). It’s a universal policy (though how effectively monitored may vary from place to place). It’s an odd policy,in my opinion, and is probably based on the assumption already mentioned that men have an infinite ability to choose and if they are single after 30 it is because they have not exercised that ability. It makes me think of a young man of my acquaintance who is in his late 20’s. He is a bit on the homely side and his social skills are a bit off but very good-hearted, devout, and certainly interested in getting married. But I heard him say one time (presumably after another dating failure) “I’m just not what girls are looking for.”
How do we address the needs of these men who are “not what the opposite sex is looking for?” They may never marry but still deserve to have a life as rich in service as they wish it to be.
How do these men feel about dating and/or marrying outside of the church? Do you ever feel like the church would rather have people not marry at all than marry outside? I encourage anyone to marry outside the Church rather than remain single throughout life. If happiness is the object of our existence, and if becoming two-made-one is taught as the ultimate chance for happiness, it’s the only view that makes sense to me. Why can’t we just accept all at the table? As they are. Today. Like Christ would have done. We talk about it, but we don’t do it.
silentstruggle wrote:Why can’t we just accept all at the table? As they are. Today. Like Christ would have done.
We talk about it, but we don’t do it.
:thumbup: Quote:Why can’t we just accept all at the table? As they are. Today. Like Christ would have done.
I agree with that, silentstruggle. If someone is single, we should accept them as single – and if someone wants to remain single, we shouldn’t try to pressure them into marriage. God bless them on that journey.
However, I believe we also need to open opportunities for single members to marry that are closed to too many currently. For someone who wants to marry, doing so outside the Church with someone they love and who loves them is better than a lifetime of being single. We shouldn’t consign those who want to marry to remain “as they are” for the rest of their lives when we have been able to marry and leave who we were.
Ann wrote:How
do these men feel about
dating and/or marrying outside of the church? Do you ever feel like
the church would rather have people not marry at all than marry
outside?
My bishop made a very kind and open minded comment about that.
I think nearly all the women I’ve liked are outside the church, and
other than an annoying tendency to get crushes on missionaries and other
people’s wives, I have not clicked with anyone in the church.
Why am I not married? Well, here’s a few reasons.
1) I am heterosexual, but not good with women.
2) Am quite introverted.
3) Many women do not interest me, and with others my interest is purely
physical.
4) My earnings are crap, my job history bad.
5) I probably don’t fit some people’s physical criteria.
6) The women who’ve shown an interest in me recently are older, and I’d prefer to have children.
It often seems like the church wants men to be locked forever to their first girlfriend.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.