I probably wasn’t clear about the details of my situation. I did talk to my bishop, who recommended that I write the Office of the First Presidency (the office, not the people themselves) in the hopes that some secretary would know the correct committee and direct the inquiry. The letter was then forwarded to my Stake President, whom I thought had been addressed by my bishop on the matter, but was apparently blindsided and embarrassed, and questioned my faithfulness and testimony in return.

With this in mind, I haven’t the least idea how to identify the other people you listed, nor would it likely be appropriate considering I’ve already damaged the bridge between me and my SP.

Same thing goes for any grass-roots attempts to organize things for singles on my part. I suspect that would be seen now as an act of rebellion.

Unfortunately, this leaves my hands tied and me frustrated and trying not to be bitter.

I currently am in a small unit. There is also a small university in town so we get a handful of LDS college students/YSA people. Some of these have shaky testimonies and their activity varies. Others are returned missionaries well grounded in the Gospel. We had a situation a couple of years ago where the person called as institute teacher began to isolate the college students/YSA from the rest of the branch–in essence she created a quasi-student unit within our unit. At the time our BP thought that it might be a good thing if there was a YSA GD class so they wouldn’t feel uncomfortable with “family” discussions. The institute teacher’s husband was called to teach this class. Institute teacher and her husband also oversaw a YSA FHE in their home. While all these were intended to aid the YSA what happened was that she cut off (and I think it was intentional) the YSA from the rest of the branch. Students would be in the branch for a couple of years and no one knew who they were. The needs of the singles were not being met. Occasionally, singles who had made mistakes confessed to the institute teacher rather than the BP. We in the branch presidency finally had to release this sister from all her callings regarding the YSA. We dissolved the YSA GD class and have assigned different families in the branch to host YSA FHE in their homes on a rotating basis so that we can integrate the YSA into the branch.

Sorry for taking up too much on this comment, but I believe it is crucial to involve the singles in a very meaningful way. Under certain circumstances, I realize a need for singles wards or student wards (singles and young marrieds). That said, in most cases it is important to integrate singles in traditional wards in meaningful ways. BTW: In my small unit we certainly utilize the 30+ singles, that’s for sure.

I think that if we in family wards (there it is again, sorry) think that we need to help the singles get married, it’s dead from the start. If we take the approach that we just need to befriend everyone, then it seems to work better. No one needs to be a project; everyone just needs to have friends and be included.

Ditto for comments I don’t post here. They’re an intrusion. Keepa is a different kind of blog. People needn’t agree with me all the time, but they do have to be respectful of Mormonism and Mormons.

Non-Mormons and former Mormons are welcome to participate. Some do. And the ones who do contribute regularly and peaceably are freer to disagree with me a lot more vociferously than you, a stranger, will ever be permitted to do.

I absolutely loved this post. Thank you.

The kind of manhandling you’re talking about by someone who refuses a direct request not to touch is not normal, rational behavior, though, so normal social distancing wouldn’t work, I admit.

I think your suggestion would work only where neither party is actually romantically interested in the other.

If mere friendliness/pastoralness is what caused them to make an incorrect assumption in the first place, then continuing it without some other way to correct the misunderstanding just compounds the problem. I suspect that some people, desperate/dysfunctional or not, are just incapable of conceiving that friendliness to them by an unmarried person of the opposite gender is anything but romantic/affectionate interest.

I’m thinking of a couple experiences in my past where even casual interactions became intolerably painful to me due to the toxicity and open wounds of the other parties. It was like they were wiping their open wounds on me merely by them speaking to me.

A couple more recent cases, two sisters thought they had the right to casually, but unnecessarily, touch me frequently during conversations. One of them literally refused to comply when I stated categorically to stop touching me and that she specifically did not have my permission to touch me. A week later, she made a point to cross an empty room, get closer than what was needed and do it again. I had to get 3rd party help with her. But I still never got an apology for what she did (after I told her to stop) and I never got a promise that it wouldn’t happen again.

So no, I’m not a fan of pretending the misunderstanding is not there, at least not until the other party corrects their understanding. I think that if they can’t grok that friendliness does not equate to romantic interest, then the rules of respectful decorum seem to suggest breaking off even friendly contact. One can’t, or shouldn’t force friendly social contact where it is not welcomed. And in the other case, where romantic interest is felt by the “glommer”, then I think the glomm-ee has a right to withdraw.

I think the scritpures give some good advice on how to handle it in the passages about being offended: D&C 42:88-89, and Matthew 18:15-16.

The downside to that is that you become so good at not noticing the signals that you no longer remember how to encourage or return signals when you *are* interested, or think he is. sigh