Cite Keepa

Regrettably, meanies have stolen content from Keepa in the past! I'm confident you will choose honesty and cite this page like this:

MLA: Parshall, Ardis E. "Exclusive Singles Dance." Keepapitchin.org, 08 Jun 2015, https://keepapitchinin.org/2015/06/08/exclusive-singles-dance/.

APA: Parshall, A. (2015, Jun 08). Exclusive Singles Dance. Keepapitchinin.org. https://keepapitchinin.org/2015/06/08/exclusive-singles-dance/

HTML: <a target="_new" href="https://keepapitchinin.org/2015/06/08/exclusive-singles-dance/">Exclusive Singles Dance</a>

8 thoughts on “Exclusive Singles Dance”

  1. Having kicked around for many years in singles wards before finding someone foolish enough to marry me, I understand the need for strict enforcement of the rule against anyone participating in a singles activity who is still legally married.

    However, the wording does seem to suggest that this dance is only for people who have experienced divorce. I assume that’s bad wording and not the actual intent, but I suppose you never know.

  3. I understand what they meant and why they meant it, but that’s not what they said. My family has been arguing about a better wording, and we haven’t come up with anything really short. Would it better to be inclusive?

    Singe, widowed, or legally divorced members welcome.

    OR explicit?

    Previously married persons must have a legal divorce.

    Or maybe I need to stop overthinking the weekly church bulletin?

  5. Um . . . you know that works just fine. You outthought 3 Nielsens. Maybe we can claim that our minds were blunted by fasting or something?

  7. Isn’t being legally divorced before going to singles’ dances covered in “LDS Standards Apply?”

    Thank heavens I don’t practice domestic relations law, but I seem to recall from law school that to prove infidelity (dangerous in divorce proceedings) all you needed was evidence of intent and opportunity. Attending singles’ dances might be evidence of intent, especially if you start sparking up one individual – but opportunity? Maybe if you drove that special someone home . . . .

  8. I expect that line on the flyer is to protect people who are actually single from people who aren’t, not to protect people who aren’t single from their own legal missteps. Besides, if I recall correctly, adultery doesn’t actually matter much in divorce cases in Utah (where it appears the flyer is from).

    (It matters more, as I recall, if the infidelity is the cause of the breakup. However, if someone’s already separated, but not yet legally divorced, potential infidelity at an upcoming stake dance probably isn’t the cause of the breakup.)

Comments are closed.