[Rob4Hope]

amateurparent wrote:

Rob4Hope:

I guess I was getting the feeling that you were calling all LDS women cold and all LDS men sexually deprived.

And I wanted to yell, “Not at MY house!!

Yes, I’m sure it is out there, and I find that really sad.

Because of who I hang out with, assume their more open world-views carry over into most areas of life.

AP…it’s all good.

I love this site. Everyone here is so polite…but you all really lay it out there.

I want to say how glad I am others had different experiences than mine, because the challenge for me is not how to return to baptism…it’s why would I.

And…I confess openly that my view is heavily colored by my life experience, and in this area I was hurt…so I feel defensive often.

It is a challenge to sometimes see other perspectives. I’m trying…I’m trying.

You all just don’t be stopping on your side is all I ask.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

[Rob4Hope]

TataniaAvalon wrote:

This has been an interesting thread for sure. I met a man on my mission who had been ex’d but still attended church. He wanted to get his membership back but the FP kept saying no. He was ex’d for teaching really false doctrine and unfortunately he still taught it, so I can see why they said No. The bishop did try to work with him on it though.Thanks R4H for sharing part of your story. I do know someone who was disfellowshipped for fornication for 6 months after a nasty divorce. This was a very close friend of mine, and at the time I had different thoughts on the repentance process. Now I very much feel it is between God and I and I really don’t need to involve another person (Bishop) to receive forgiveness for ANY sin. However that is not what is taught unfortunately. I do think excommunication should be reserved for extreme circumstances, perhaps only teaching false doctrine. I personally don’t think adultery or any other sexual sin is a reason to ex someone. There are so many other ways to help the person with love and forgiveness than saying, oh you committed adultery too bad you’re ex’d. I know adultery doesn’t always end in excommunication but it still feels extreme to me. I know another friend of mine who’s husband was ex’d because of adultery, but he was mainly ex’d because he didn’t come clean at the time, instead he kept it for several years and served in PH roles, gave blessings ext. They said if he had come clean when it happened then he probably would have been disfellowshiped, but since he did all those things he was mocking his PH. For those of you who have served in leadership roles would you have ex’d this man?

Excommunication for many is like getting hit in the head with a hammer. It can smart right bad….

It is also so easy to get lost out there in the crowd and be forgotten. According to SWK, being X-ed is worse than being dead, which doesn’t do anything positive for shame either.

Anyway,…I am unusual. I refuse to be lost…I have too big of a mouth! 😆

[Rob4Hope]

amateurparent wrote:

1. How can you paint the women of SLC with such a broad brush and assume the men are somehow untouched by the same system? Do you see any components of the Madonna vs Whore dilemma within the male population? If not, why do you think the men of SLC are unaffected by something that you think has so heavily afflicted the women?

I don’t recall making any such assumption about the men not being affected. I do know, for example, that Finalyson-Fife mentioned the message taught to men and women is quite different. Woman are often considered the “gate-keepers” of sexuality, and as such, undo pressure is placed on them in many respects to control things. Now, unless I am misquoting, she (and I agree) think this is rather unfair–but it has happened in a lot of places, not just pockets of LDS areas.

I think many men are frustrated and hurt to. In fact, just on this staylds web-site, there was a reference to an article here: https://medium.com/@ungewissen/the-naked-people-in-your-ipod-f770a27fdb59

The comments by and about Callister were rather interesting.

amateurparent wrote:

2. My experience has just been so completely different. I didn’t grow up in Utah, but some of my really close friends did. When the girls go out for dinner and the bawdy talk gets going, there is no doubt in my mind that these LDS ladies are living very happy married lives in all aspects. They are the RS president. The bishop’s wife. The primary pianist. The compassionate service leader. Each is a very spiritual person .. And very sexual too. Girls do talk a bit .. And I’ve known this group a very long time. They seem like a very balanced bunch of ladies.

GOOD FOR YOU that your experience was different. Wonderful.

I have a friend who works at the temple, as in the Jordan River. She talks with her friends who are angry because they have husbands who want to have sex with them, and they want to be left alone to do more “important” things. She has delved, and it is a “good girl” thing going on.

I know a former Stake President who adores his wife, and she doesn’t want to touch or be around him, because “good girls” don’t do those things. It is a “duty”…(as in duty sex), but it isn’t something she has to like. And, how could she enjoy such an experience when there are other more “important” things to do?…like planning a RS lesson. The marriage is hanging by a thread.

Some of the writers who are aware of this problem are Laura Brothers who calls it “good girl syndrome”, Lori Schade PhD from BYU who I’ve spoken with and asked personally about this cultural phenomena and her experience down in the family center there for training therapists, Finlayson-Fife who is a name more recognized, and others.

I have no desire to paint with a broad brush as you mentioned. I think this happened more in pockets, but it appears more common in SLC. And, you bet men were affected.

AP,…because you have only “heard” of this problem and never really met anyone dealing with it, do you then assume it doesn’t or has never existed? Good girl syndrome and “good boy syndrome” both exist. Are you saying that they don’t?… Please help me understand your perspective here….

PS…I don’t want to hijack this thread, so perhaps a new thread might be in order. Anyway,…like I said before, I’ve hashed this one out a lot in other places. I believe damage was done, I have met others who corroborate both sides–the lack of damage that you have found AP, and the side that I have encountered with damage. I still hold onto the idea that sometimes religious groups are influenced culturally and at deeper levels with Calvinistic ideals about mortifying the flesh and killing all pleasure. Because sex can be .. er…rather pleasurable, it certainly makes sense that it could, for whatever reason, be attacked. GGS and GBS are one possible outcome.

[Rob4Hope]

Ray, you are right about this MacKay example of the priesthood ban.

I wish I was more privy to similar things of a more contemporary nature. I am not aware of anything like this happening for a while.

[Rob4Hope]

Old-Timer wrote:

I also appreciate the changes you mention in Preach My Gospel. There still are too many MPs and missionaries who don’t get it, but there are a lot who do.

Fwiw, I find it highly ironic that many of the same people who complain the most vocally about retention rates in earlier days of questionable baptisms now complain just as loudly about a lower number of baptisms. Most of them can’t see the irony due to their focus on needing to complain, but it is there in spades.

One other thing. I am aware of this inside myself, and it is dangerous for me. Satan uses logic against the saints,..or at least against me.

In my earlier college days, had to take classes in logic (computer science and math stuff). There is an argument called contraposition. It goes like this: “A” implies “B” if and only if “B not” implies “A not”.

OK…those of you how are reading this…don’t freak out…I will give an example. Weather is a good choice here.

Suppose certain conditions for rain exist. If those conditions exist,…it rains. If, however, it is not raining, then those conditions don’t exist.

There it is.

There was a directive in our mission, and I was told it came from headquarters — ie. the GA level. That directive was that each missionary should work to baptize a person each month.

Now, we are told over and over that God will never give us a direction that he will not prepare a way for us to accomplish it. And, we are taught that the prophet will never lead the church astray…so this “directive” was authoritative.

Here is the damage.

If you have enough faith … you will baptize. If you are not baptizing, you obviously don’t have enough faith.

BAM!

In my mission, the average baptismal rate was 1/2 a baptism per missionary per MISSION. I personally know missionaries who went home totally demoralized, feeling like utter failures BECAUSE they didn’t have enough faith–as they supposed.

I think this type of logic–supported by the BofM by the way “unto such it shall be given to baptise thousands” (read the verse and look at the logic behind it)–does damage.

Sometimes these types of policies, they may seem small, but they can cause real problems. Just saying….

I now a therapist who believes her purpose in life is to pick up the pieces of return missionaries, and those who get through being destroyed by their bishops who solve problems by telling members to read more scriptures, say more prayers,…etc.

---

SNAP! Dang, there is a lot of bitterness coming out of my fingers tonight. I’m sorry folks.

[Rob4Hope]

amateurparent wrote:

Quote:

Rob4Hope wrote :”The church does a very poor job of handling sexual dissatisfaction inside of marriage, and IMHO, have created some of the problem themselves.”

r4h, I looked back at your comment, and I would love you to expand on it. How has the church created some of the problem? Is it church or culture?

I grew up in the church knowing that virginity until marriage was the expectation, but after that anything was fair game within the relationship .. As long as both parties agreed and no one was injured.

BUT .. I have met women who were told “only missionary position” was allowed and that temple garments were supposed to be worn at ALL times. I consider that weird. I have met women who demanded their children be delivered while garments were worn. More weirdness. I have heard stories of women who felt guilt about sexual pleasure. That one just flies in the face of the long history of polygamy in the church. I don’t know where these things originate.

I like to think it came from some “SNL Church Lady Convert”.

This topic is a troubling one for me, but I am making progress. I have posted on other sites–ad nausium–about this topic. I will say this much,….(and I saw a comment on this in another thread here). I believe there is a Calvinistic thread about mortifying the flesh and the passions of it that has woven its way through LDS culture, and I think it came primarily in SLC where the conservative culture was so pronounced. I don’t know if it was everywhere, but it was where I was, and others I’ve spoken to were also hurt.

Let me give you 2 examples,…and then some data to support it.

1) In the book Mormon Doctrine (that one I know wrankles many), in the section “Sexual Desires”…there is no information, but the reader is directed in the notes to see “Sexual Immorality”. The general idea is that sexual desires are always immoral. The church has followed that up with a recent (THANK GOODNESS IT CAME OUT) FHE lesson where they indicate that so much is said by the church about sexual immorality, that the message is often understood that sexuality is itself wrong. Just the basic desire.

I’m surprised but heartened that the church would admit that the emphasis almost exclusively on the negative aspects of sexuality might actually cause problems about people thinking sex is bad in the first place. It has had affect on many.

2) On the 5th Sunday lesson, several years ago, a local therapist visited many of the churches in the SLC area as authorized by the Area Authorities. I was there. This guy’s mission was to talk about the sexual messages we were giving our children. In a moment of candor, he explained that we teach our children like this: “Sex is bad, it is disgusting, it is wrong, it is nasty….you need to save those things for someone you love.” In the quest to “protect”, we send a cultural message about how bad and evil sexual sin is,…to the point we actually kill the natural desires in the first place, poisoning them, and then all of the sudden, we somehow expect these people to heal and becomew hole in marriage. Many of the messages carry over, and the damage sets in.

OK…now some hard data. Many know Jennifer Finlayson-Fife. I heard a pod-cast with her and Bill Reel. I also purchased her dissertation and read it pretty carefully. She found examples over and over within female members of the LDS church where spirituality and sexuality were actually placed in variance against each other. If you are spiritual, you are not sexual; and if you are sexual, you can’t be spiritual. This thread “resonates” as absolutely true in the culture where I grew up, and it has affected many.

I’ve asked others here, and most simply say: “The Church is totally messed up about sex”. Hunh? I’m not making this up. Many I have talked to, my age, say the same thing. The SWK days really did something to many here.

It seems that the damage isn’t as strong outside of the SLC valley, but damage there is.

---

I don’t want to go much further than this. There are other examples that are VERY clear, but ask yourself this question. Have you heard GAs in talks or writings explain that we as parents should warn our children about the dangers of pornography use at age appropriate times? Yes. I’ve heard this counsel.

Have you heard GAs encourage parents that they should teach their children about the goodness of sexuality in marriage? The only time I heard this message was the VERY recent FHE lesson published.

Many families deferred teaching things like sexuality to their children because they deferred to the Church. We are to “Follow the prophet”.

Have any of you asked yourself this question: If we are to follow the prophet and do what he says we should do,…does that not imply we are to NOT do the things he says nothing about? This message about not thinking for yourself has affected generations, and it is not just doctrinal, it has become cultural, woven right into the very fabric of families and generations.

Anyway,..nuff said. I am working on forgiving and moving on. I was hurt by that culture. Only thing positive for me is to let it go.

[Rob4Hope]

OK….bad example but possibly relevant. Didn’t some of the Nazi war criminals say: “We were just following orders”….and weren’t they summarily convicted regardless?

(Yes,…I KNOW this is a harsh and bad example,….but at what point does the principle apply where the line is drawn?)

Another point,…we are to follow the prophet–we are all taught that. But isn’t the prophet required to use persuasion, long suffering, meekness and love unfeigned? Doesn’t the statement that “NO POWER OF INFLUENCE CAN …. ” apply to the prophet as well?

Is this an example of God being a respecter of person?…the commandments don’t apply to the prophet in this case?

And—Ok…on a role here

---

I would really like to hear the prophet say: “I have asked God about <> and have not obtained a response”….or “God has not chosen to respond to my request at this point, so the policy as it exists is still in affect.”

I have no idea how others feel, but it feels like the prophet stands apart from the membership. I don’t like that. I remember hearing GBH say in a talk: “We are all in this together”…and my immediate reaction was: “What?….no we aren’t. You are the prophet. You are saved and have nothing to fear. Not me.”

And, for that matter, what in the world was Paul saying when he likened the church to the Body of Christ,…and the head can’t say to the fingers, I have no need of thee? The head says to the fingers, do what I say and don’t push back, or I will have you cut off.

Sorry…rant over.

[Rob4Hope]

university wrote:

In formal or academic situations I’m in my element and very outgoing. I’m also friendly and caring. I enjoy public speaking, hanging out with people when we discuss “the serious stuff”, etc.

You are perfect just the way you are.

university wrote:

And yet in casual settings, I’m closed off. Put me in the traditional college setting–a football game or a party–and I’m the big introvert. I hate big groups. I get shy and insecure in those settings.

Nothing wrong with that in the least. You don’t like that stuff…so don’t do it. I’m a guy, and frankly, I hate watching sports events. How ‘un-guy’ is that?….duh! I don’t care. There isn’t nothing wrong with me because I feel that way. Actually, I love being different. I really do.

university wrote:

Anyway, usually when I do make a friend it means I go deep.

This is a beautiful quality. WOW! Don’t ever feel bad or apologize for this.

university wrote:

Problem is, I have more to lose if things go south. I think it makes the authenticity thing hard because I want to be appreciated for who I am not in spite of who I am.

In order to go deep, yo have to become vulnerable. Oh,…you are making VERY GOOD sense here. There is always a risk to go deep into relationships. Do you know how many people can’t even make the attempt?

You are perfect,…just perfect. Don’t change a thing. WOW.

university wrote:

I don’t have to throw my opinions all over people but the thing about my personality is…I’m really into “intellectual” topics. It’s part of how I relate to people.

There are people out there just like you, who need you, and who want to be with and close to you. Again,…don’t change. Accept this as what it is…a gift.

university wrote:

Recently I’ve been feeling frustrated with some of my friendships and even thinking to myself, “What do we have in common? I can’t be myself with this person…I love this person, but maybe I should phase this relationship out.” Problem is…if that friendship ends, that leaves how many “friends” who are left?

Some of my friendships are a big royal pain in the ass. Wish I didn’t have them, want to get out of them, and the deserve less than a gentle “phasing them out” approach.

There are friends (as in just friends), and then there are confidants who are more than friends–people who you resonate and love. There is nothing wrong with you shuffling your friends around and finding those that are worthy of more closeness. The good news?…you got a lifetime to meet people, and from what you have said, I have strong confidence that the best friendships you will ever have are in your future. Oh WOW!…what yummy things to look forward to!

University, there is nothing wrong with you. I’ve read many of your posts. You are EXTREMELY intelligent, and eloquent in your writing and persuasional abilities. Don’t feel weak because you may not like certain things, or feel comfortable in certain areas. That isn’t your thing. You are perfect just the way you are. And, I for one, see that. WOW….some people get everything…brains, talent, personality, tenderness?…dang.

[Rob4Hope]

Old-Timer wrote:

Fwiw, today’s excommunication structure and rate of use is MUCH better than it was early in our history. It actually is quite interesting to see how much better it is now than then – even if I still want it to continue to change.

Does anyone have any real idea of the return rates?

When I was young, if someone got X-ed, there was a general announcement to the “adult” members of the ward about that person. The humiliation must have been overwhelming for that person–scarlet letter type of stuff.

I wish there were some statistics about this….

[Rob4Hope]

Old-Timer wrote:

We rightly chalk up many of the problems faced within Catholicism historically to the policy that made nuns and priests remain single and celibate, but we rarely examine our own manifestations of that same misguided policy.

I marvel that in the church, it seems that celibacy is sometimes celebrated as an act of heroism or even spiritual superiority. I am aware, for example, that some of the research Finlayson-Fife discovered that spirituality and sexuality are set at variance in many LDS cultural pockets. If you “go without” one, you increase in the others, and vice versa. What a damning and damaging message that is to so many marriages and people.

Anyway,…a comment online with the original post. I have found that for me, sometimes being alone is more difficult to deal with than at other times. I, for example, hate to eat alone. I would rather eat my lunch with an enemy than alone.

Go figure. :crazy:

[Rob4Hope]

Old-Timer wrote:

The Church has not told young men they will go to Hell if they don’t serve missions. I am positive there are too many members who have done so (including local leaders), but the Church never has. Sure, there has been pretty intense cultural pressure to serve, but Hell has never been preached by the Church as the result of not going.

I am not discounting your experience, Rob4Hope, or that of your son – but I always address hyperbole when it is recorded here. That is true when it comes from either side of the fulcrum – apologetic or accusatory. I served my mission in the 80’s, and I lived in Utah County. Cache County and Southern Utah probably were more conservative than where I lived, but not very many other places were. Many of my relatives and high school friends did, and many of my relatives and high school friends didn’t. The ones who didn’t weren’t told they were going to Hell – and quite a few of them served in various callings and attended normal wards (family and/or singles) during the years they would have been serving missions.

I am positive the area where you lived was exactly as you described, Rob4Hope, but it wasn’t that way throughout the entire Church, and that message wasn’t preached from the General Conference pulpit. Again, I know the pressure involved in framing a mission as a Priesthood duty for all young men, but that hasn’t worked on all young men at any time in our history – and Hell used to be preached as the result in the distant past when married men were called to serve for long periods of time and, sometimes, for multiple stints. It hasn’t been sated that way in my lifetime.

They didn’t say that “you will go to HELL” Ray…this is true. The message was: “You are seriously jeopardizing your eternal salvation”. I heard this from 70 type people. I don’t remember where, but it trickled down into MANY of the stakes in SLC. I was in one that had such a position, and there were others.

There is intense social pressure now still over this issue. I have a friend who didn’t go. He is still asked…where did you server your mission, and when he says “I didn’t serve one”…depending on the age group of who asked, is given a sad “Oh,..how sad for you” look. I have another friend who came home after 9 months for a medical concern, and he feels similar feelings.

The focus has changed,..but when I grew up, this was the way it was. I know of at least 3 stakes where this was the culture…VERY strong culture.

There was also a culture in the mission itself. If you didn’t baptise, it was because you weren’t keeping the rules and didn’t have enough faith. I was EXTREMELY pleased to see the emphasis change in Preach My Gospel when they made it clear that the goals you set for yourself SHOULD be things under your control–not number of baptisms.

Anyway, your point is well taken, and I certainly know that pockets of culture change from place to place.

[Rob4Hope]

DarkJedi wrote:

In my bishopric years I experienced two “returnees” (one was disfellowshipped, on ex’ed). Both were adulterers. In my experience there are far more DCs for sexual sin than for apostasy (or anything else). My general feeling is that adultery is best handled via disfellowshipping (at most) as opposed to excommunication, although like Ray I am not opposed to excommunication itself.

OK…gunna stir it here probably.

This whole adultery thing is sooooo one sided it use to make me angry. Well, I am no longer angry actually–just no longer listening to the rhetoric I have heard in this portion of the LDS vineyard in SLC. The church is vehemently opposed to divorce. The church is also addicted to paranoia about sexual misconduct. Don’t look at porn, for example, because you might get addicted. I think the church is addicted to THAT WARNING!,..and have created a different type of addiction. Sex for the safety and pleasure (Oooo,..I used a naughty word here…pleasure. Slap me now!) it affords married people is at best indirectly attacked, and at worst is ignored and marginalized.

The church does a very poor job of handling sexual dissatisfaction inside of marriage, and IMHO, have created some of the problem themselves. Then they slap people down because they succumb to temptations which are given NO LEGITIMATE OUTLET.

[Rob4Hope]

amateurparent wrote:

I have a friend who had morality issues in college. She went to her bishop. Her bishop was a wise man. He told her that God had already forgiven her … The problem now was WHAT did she need to go through in order to forgive herself for her transgression. He would do whatever she needed to get past her sin.

When she told me the story, it really made such an impression on me of what a truly Christian leader would do. The focus was on her progression — on grace, atonement, and progression.

I’m a little behind on this thread,…so catching up.

There was a report I read way-back-when that women in particular felt unheard if there WASN’T some action taken. So, when you mentioned this above AP, it makes some real sense to me…–rings true or “resonates” as many would say.

Discipline has 3 purposes: 1) save the sinner; 2) protect the innocent; 3) protect the name and image of the church. During a disciplinary council I am aware of, the focus of the bishopric was more on #3 in that list than the other 2. I know there were no innocent people (or any people at all) in danger in this particular case, and it didn’t make sense that a sledge hammer was being used rather than kindness.

There are situations where disfellowship would work instead of excommunication, and where formal or informal probation would work instead of disfellowship. I don’t understand why LOVE is not the first option.

Again, in this particular case I am mentioning, i know that this person desparetely wanted to have regular meetings with the leader, but after 17 missed appointments and broken promises, gave up. When that happens, you wonder why the bleeding “lost sheep” has to be the one to return, because there was no shepherd finding that lost sheep.

I feel horrible when I learn that MANY don’t return. I often wonder, who is out there trying to find those lost sheep?

In my case, the first thing I learned years ago was to NOT rely on the church for support or help–they had none to give. I was the one who, on my own, had to find the strength and desire to return. I am fortunate in one regard,…I am the social person who connects with people, and I am not a member.

AP,…this bishop thing you mentioned above is unique from my perspective. To that bishop,..i have one things to say…ROCK ON!

[Rob4Hope]

amateurparent wrote:

When I used to be more involved in certain political issues, those organizations felt it was important to take a much stronger public stance than they as individuals truly felt. They felt that only through taking a very bold stance was any change going to actually occur. When negotiations started, if they started from an extreme, they could negotiate to a more nuanced, rational place. I saw Kate Kelly utilizing those tactics.

Those tactics work in a democracy’s political system. Those tactics don’t work in a religion with a hierarchy framework, as the power is all with the religion’s authority figures. There is no way to negotiate when all the power is held by a central authority that is not voted into office though a popular vote or electorate college. There is no negotiation, they just remove your membership and move on.

OK…I don’t want to be trite with saying this…but this resonates with me RIGHT HERE. Because of this oligarchy structure, there really is no need for the Q15 to listen or even acknowledge those who are under them–they make the rules, they decide who gets to be heard, and they control the terms of engagement.

There seems to be a shift from the more historical times to now. Isn’t a large portion of the D&C the result of people going to JS and asking him to ask the Lord about specific questions they had? That certainly isn’t the way it is now.

The thing that bothers me is the trickle down affect. The very questions themselves are proscribed.

Am I wrong in this?

[Rob4Hope]

Heber13 wrote:

Hey Rob,

After my divorce…I noticed that feeling you were describing.

It is a big life adjustment and there isn’t really a way to prepare for it or solve it or explain it. It just is the way life is.

However…in my situation…I also remember how incredibly liberating and free I felt to do whatever the heck I wanted to do. Places in town or restaurants I hadn’t been to…just spending a saturday in the park reading…finding hiking trails in the mountains or bike paths…getting lots of exercise and walking my dog…taking a book to a coffee shop and using their wifi to download and listen to podcasts…watching Netflix all saturday and doing nothing but being relaxed and lazy…playing basketball with guys at church…I did a “walkabout” of visiting 6 different religious services…I volunteered to clean the church and do ward service…

I started to see a whole new world of things I could go do by myself and I really loved it.

When one door closes, I found 3 or 4 other doors to peek inside and explore.

In all honesty, I went through a range of emotions. Times of being lonely. Times of enjoying freedom. Times of self-reflection on how to use my time to better myself. Times of relaxing and enjoying quiet and peaceful apartments. Of course, I came from a chaotic failed marriage, so I needed some peace and enjoyed it.

When I got lonely, I started dating some, when I was ready. That was an adventure too. But helped me see there are lotsa members in our situation as older singles. It was a bit crazy. The last thing I wanted to do was cling to someone because I was lonely. I wanted to be at peace with myself before starting a new relationship of any kind. But at times, I did find being around others or dating was a good way to find some companionship…I just backed off quickly when I wasn’t ready for it. I was in control but dabbled in this and that.

But I think my time alone reading Eckhart Tolle and Joseph Campbell and others…I found that in life we get lotsa stuff, good and bad mixed together. I could accept my new chapter of my life.

In my new phase of life, I tried to keep balance and stretch myself to look for improvements. Physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. I am the captain of my ship…accepted the place in life I was at…and made choices to try new things as single LDS divorced man.

When I felt the ward was doing family stuff that didn’t apply to me, I simply didn’t go. I probably found less desire to go to church when it was no longer for the family unit and raising children and all…for just me alone…sitting in sacrament meeting…IDK…it was kinda bland. So I skipped a lot to use my weekends from work wisely for me and my rejuvenation.

What interests do you have that you want to explore with your time you have to yourself? This new chapter for you is both hard and also promising.

Heber, my loneliness is quite manageable at this point. My post thread here comes not as much from my own position, but from my reflection on the very LARGE problem of loneliness in general.

I have discovered a lot of what you are saying. And, I am dating (and being honest about my situation as well–and surprisingly, you have NO IDEA how grateful and open people are with me BECAUSE they are not use to honesty). Dating is fun,…and crazy. But there it is.

Anyway,…thanks for the response.

[Author]

Posts