Church of Latter-day Singles
Deborah writes:
Mormons are everywhere in the news, it seems. From converts leaving in droves to inflated membership numbers to blacks and the priesthood, they’ve been there from coast to coast.
Now here in DC there’s an article about singles wards! Single Mormons are about as peculiar as they come (and I say that fondly). Here’s a refreshing, candid account of what it’s like to be LDS and single from a smart single lady in the capital city. Read it and weep!
Weep? Why weep? Profanity notwithstanding, its a pretty honest charicature of the frustrations of being single and 30+ in the LDS Church. Having married late, I know what I speak. In the past I attended both Langley and the Colonial ward and didnt like either of them, so I never went back, and stayed in a family ward. Never met the woman in the article. Hope she finds a decent guy. It would be easy to write a much more harrowing account, and it would be entirely honest and truthful. However, the idea that single LDS guys in the Church over the age of 30 are mostly gay, as suggested in the article, is a load of crap. I can count on one hand the number of actively attending gay men I’ve run into in the Church, and I have attended Church as an adult in NY, CA, MD, NJ, OR, and VA, with random spot visits all over the country.
Comment by Kurt — July 31, 2005 @ 9:04 pm
Haha, I liked how they gave a short glossary at the end.
I’ve got a single LDS friend I could introduce Janna to. But he might be too unorthodox for her.
Comment by Susan M — July 31, 2005 @ 10:11 pm
Why weep? Um…out of compassion? Empathy?
Comment by Deborah — July 31, 2005 @ 10:43 pm
Deborah,
Compassion, empathy. Yeah, youre right. I wasnt sure what you meant by “read it and weep”, that conjured the image of a poker hand where the winner says “read em and weep”, so I read it as kind of “in your face”. My heart goes out to these women who have to deal with this.
Susan,
The gal in this article sounds kind of unorthodox herself, at least politically and probably some of her social views as well. But, how in the world would you ever get in touch with her. I cannot imagine the name used is her real name, at least there is no way in the wide world of sports I would ever put my real name in an alternative weekly like that one.
Comment by Kurt — August 1, 2005 @ 1:25 am
hey kurt, susan, beborah,
i hope janna is her real name, so u guys can help me get in touch with her. I’M interested, even though she IS a bit too liberal NOW. but of course las vegas is too liberal for me too, but i’m here.
any ideas? thanks
Comment by toney — August 1, 2005 @ 2:48 am
I was half-joking. But my friend is pretty unorthodox for anyone, let alone a Mormon girl. He had told me that Huntington Beach is known for being an LDS singles hot spot, but I didn’t really believe it until I saw it mentioned in that article.
Comment by Susan M — August 1, 2005 @ 5:45 am
Personally I wanted to wash her f@*king mouth out with soap and water. Maybe if she didn’t refer to the act of coitus so much, she’d actually get to do some.
Comment by jman — August 2, 2005 @ 11:19 am
I think it’s really sad when singles in the Church are marginalized and derided over something over which they have no (or very little) control.
On a couple of very “orthodox” message boards, people are slamming her for being a “bad example” of a latter-day Saint, but as Janna said so cleverly, the only thing she has to show for being “righteous” is that sh’es a virgin. And that’s *not* something she wants to be proud of. Isn’t that only human? To say she should bottle up about that is to say she should deny being human.
For the most part, they teach the same kinds of things to singles as they do the YW and YM, i.e. “just don’t do it.” But maybe there needs to be a more mature approach to “managing one’s sexuality while staying within the bounds the Lord has set” or at least being realistic about it.
In one East Coast ward I was in, the bishop said in a combined meeting (after talking for an hour about why the Law of Chastity was so important) sighed and said, “but if you’re gonna go ahead and have sex, at least use protection.” Now THAT was realistic. Other bishops I’d had challenged the adults (31-45) to not kiss anyone until they were leaning over the altar in the temple as man and wife. How realistic is that?!
I see Janna’s points as not just being about sexual frustration, but also being “invisible” as a single in the Church. As a single person, she (feels as though she) is not allowed to be too independent, too open, too sexy, etc.
Here’s what folks from another board said–it’s an all-too common response to singles’ complaints, and this is why things will never change:
“In Strength of the Youth:
quote:Before marriage, do not do anything to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage. Do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not allow anyone to do that with you. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body.
I am sure this applies to older single people as much as it does to our youth!
Why does she need to ‘feel sexy’? Sexy is not intended to be something we feel in the way we dress, it is a state in which someone can place you when involved in a sexual encounter with them. Do you think that the type of underwear we wear should change how we feel about our bodies?”
another poster said (and she herself is single!),
“”I have to sit through this situation every Sunday.”
Who’s forcing you to sit through it?
“We all know what the law of chastity is, and we all know the reasoning behind it,” she said, getting teary. “What I want to know is how I’m supposed to live this law as a 28-year-old virgin.”
You do what those of us do who converted in our 30s, 40s, or 50s, who perhaps had never kept this law but made up our minds, disciplined our bodies, & told ourselves in our hearts that we would do as the Lord expected. Or you don’t. You choose; God gave you agency.
“It’s a lot harder to say no when you’re in your 30s. Physiologically, you’re halfway there all the time.”
Halfway where? To the point of no return for motherhood, or (more, I suspect) the point where you figure why bother with “saving it” anymore? Mentally & emotionally, you’ve just about already reached THAT point.
“I definitely think I’m a lot more physical than a lot of other women. Some of them won’t even French-kiss or let guys touch their butt or lie down next to each other. Oh my goodness, puh-lease. I’m 33. I’m allowed to do that.”
Of course you’re “allowed” to do that, Hon. You’re also allowed to stick your finger in a socket or play on the freeway. That’s why your Heavenly Father gave you agency, trusting you to make wise choices. And guess what–if you get out & play on the freeway, you’re less likely to get to the destination where you wanted to go.
“If I’m not having sex, I want to at least feel sexy, and garments make it harder for you to feel that you’re attractive to men, even though I realize intellectually that attractiveness isn’t about skin. Garments aren’t sexy, and every time I go to the bathroom, that’s what I’ve got to look at.”
If sexy is so much more important than sacred, why not go the final step? If it makes you feel so out of touch with worldly ideals of sexy, what’s keeping you wrapped up & strangled in that holy piece of fabric that you resent so much?
So out of disposition and necessity, Taylor dates outside the church. “There are so many amazing, interesting men out there. If I was determined to get married in the temple, I’d be depressed every day.”
Yup, the choices are unlimited. And you don’t sound the least bit depressed now.
“I have to sit through this situation every Sunday.”
So I ask again, who put handcuffs on you & made you stay in a church where you’re chafing with resentment, hostility, sexual repression, & the desire to be “free”?”
YIKES!
“
Comment by Carolyn F — August 2, 2005 @ 3:11 pm
Just to clarify: all the text between “things will never change” to “YIKES” was quoting somewhat-liberal but obviously very uncompassionate fellow LDS.
Comment by Carolyn F — August 2, 2005 @ 3:13 pm
The quotes in question were from here.
Comment by Kurt — August 2, 2005 @ 5:53 pm