I agree that it would be nice if church leaders, particularly in General Conference, would suggest less exclusive methods to fulfill our divine potential than being parents. I think an effort is being made to be more inclusive. I usually dread going to the annual Relief Society broadcast because I almost always walk away deeply hurt becuase, according to the speakers, the only way for a woman to fufill her divine potential is to be a mother. Last September I was pleasantly surprised that the themes of many of the talks focused on the healing and strengthening power of feeling and knowing that God loves each of His daughters. This is a universal message to all women, not just those who are married or those who have children. While I appreciated the broader theme of that conference and while I appreciate the inclusivity of my ward and bishopric, a profound sense of inadequacy persists.

I have made every effort to serve in my ward and stake (including volunteering in the nursery Eve!) so that I feel less excluded and a contributing member to the Kingdom yet the sense that my life is incomplete remains. I do not think even a completely revised church rhetoric of Imago Dei will make me feel at peace with my situation.

Mark, thanks for the link. I have to say, skimming that discussion almost persuaded me to become a classical Trinitarian. I’m not sure our version of the Trinity is any less confusing! I agree that framing what we’re doing in terms of seeking exaltation, and viewing marriage as one of those things, seems like a more inclusive approach. On the other hand, I’m not sure about marriage as a means to an end; I feel pretty strongly that relationships (of all kinds) should be ends in themselves. Hmm.

Julie, I really like that approach. Thanks for the story.

Ziff, thanks for stating more clearly what I was trying to ask. Even if you did have to start sounding like Missionary Guide to do it.

I’m far from convinced that all people are called by God to join the LDS church in this life. Could something similar be true when it comes to questions related to marriage and parenting?

For example the Catholic approach where priests are called to devote their lives to God in a way that does not include being a parent? I like Mark’s quote of Blake and Julie’s quote of her teacher as well: It’s not as though parents are getting to have all the experiences that are going to make them better either.

“is there a way to talk about the importance of parenthood that doesn’t marginalize the non-parents?”

No.

Okay, how about this, then. Are there ways to talk about the importance of parenthood that marginalize non-parents less than other ways? To this, I think the answer is clearly “yes.” As Lynnette points out, if you say “being a parent is the only truly important thing people do in this life,” that’s a more marginalizing way, but on the other hand if you say “being a parent is a very important thing people do in this life” that’s a less marginalizing way.

Now don’t I sound like the old Missionary Guide, with my more effective and less effective examples?

Thanks for a thought-provoking post, Lynnette.

No.

That’s the million dollar question, isn’t it? I found one way to answer it a few years ago . . .

I was sitting in RS scanning the bulletin waiting for the class to start. I noticed that the lesson title was something like “The Blessings of Celestial Marriage” and that the teacher was . . . a late-40s single woman. I cringed.

She stood up, full of energy, and said (I’m paraphrasing, of course), “Today we are going to talk about how to get as close as possible to the ideal. You’ve probably noticed that I don’t reach the ideal. But guess what? Even if you have a temple marriage and ten perky, color-coordinated children, you don’t either.”

And the entire lesson was focused on getting closer to the ideal.

(FWIW, I don’t like the re-definition of motherhood to mean ‘all women.’ The last time this came up on a blog, someone asked how we’d react if we decided to honor all men on Veteran’s Day. Bingo.)

Have you seen this discussion? It asks some of the same questions you’re posing here.

If you’ll tolerate some plagiarism, this is a statement I found insightful:

The rule isn’t: “get married to be exalted.” The rule is: “do whatever will lead to the greatest growth and flourishing of life.” Marriage is just a means of furthering that ultimate goal. There are no “rules,” just the command to love as a means of growing in the way of happiness, so the “rule” is, if there is one, “act in a way consonant with the nature of happiness and that is therefore a fortiori consonant with the nature of God.”

Stole it from Blake, in comment # 113.

Lynette, I have to ask . . .do you view God as male? You consistently referred to God as “him.” If parenthood is the divine model, but but divine parenthood is masculine parenthood, eternity looks pretty bleak to me. My guess about you is that you have a much more complex idea about who/what God is and don’t limit God to being a man, so I’m curious why you choose masculine language. I don’t mean this to be too tangential, but I think it relates back to the parenthood idea. Parenthood generally takes male and female, so I don’t know why our language about divine parentage in the church doesn’t more readily reflect that.