MrShorty

Screwed up the one and only good relationship I've ever had because I was dealing with an undiagnosed mental health condition and it was affecting my judgement. 
Am now staring down 40 with zero prospects and no means to support anyone anyway due to how little I make at the local-level newspapers I'm with. 
All I can do is trust that whatever will happen will happen. 

A celestial marriage takes both a husband and a wife.  From what you said it doesn't sound like you had a righteous and willing partner wanting to be and remain sealed to you. 
But regardless of what happened in the past, rest assured that there is great cause for hope in all blessings!!   It is not too late.  Even if you don't find and marry someone in this life, it's not too late.  The plan of salvation allows for all blessings to the faithful!  This is one of the great truths of the restoration.  Jesus Christ is your hope!!   As you seek Jesus, all blessings remain available to you because of Him.
Here are some quotes from a recent Liahona article ( https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2023/06/06-acting-in-faith-while-hoping-for-marriage-8-ideas-for-adults-who-are-single?lang=eng )
 
 
 
 
The Lord intends to bless you with a celestial marriage and exaltation.  Have faith and hope in Jesus's power and ability to provide all blessings to the faithful, even if you don't understand the how.  Live according to that faith.  Here's one last quote:
 
 
=== Edit to add this from Revelation 21:2-4
 

If failure were enough to deny us the blessings of exaltation, none of us would ever be exalted.  Repent as needed, continue faithful to the end.  Despair is Satan's tool.  Don't give in to it.  Find hope in Christ.

I was raised in the Church, and was always taught that those who do not have the opportunity to receive the blessings of eternal marriage in this life, will do so in the next life.  And, yes, one must be sealed to a spouse to enter the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom; however, if one does not have that opportunity during their mortal probation, they will have that opportunity in the next life, so long as they are worthy.

Is your heart pure and your eye single to God's glory? If so, you have nothing to worry about, my friend.

I feel for your situation.  I'm basically in the same.  Been divorced for 23 years now.  I'm just a couple of years younger than you and not sealed to anyone.  I worry about my exaltation as well.  I don't think you and I are the only ones in this boat.  

I have been married three times.  I’ve never cheated or been abusive.
*My first wife was a non-member but was active in our Ward.  She even had a calling.  She always said that she might join the church.  She bore us two children and then had an affair and wouldn’t stay away from the guy.  I tried for three years to “fix” the marriage but ultimately she wanted a divorce.  She ended up marrying the guy.
*I met my second wife through mutual single friends in the church.  We both had temple recommends.  We married and spent ten years together.  She started hanging out with a gay woman who was a member.  She started coming home well after midnight an eventually asked for a divorce and moved in with this other woman.  A few years later she remarried in the temple so our sealing was cancelled.
*I met #3 on a church dating site.  We were sealed in the temple and married for 18 years.  Almost from the start she was saying she shouldn’t have left her grown daughter behind and then she kept saying she wasn’t happy.  We moved to Louisiana because she wanted to.  I ended up being called to serve on the High Council there. Then I consented to move anywhere she wanted if it would make her happy.  At that point she told me she didn’t want anything to do with the church and she wanted a divorce.
*I met a nice woman from Utah.  After a while we wanted to be sealed in the temple.  She had strong feelings about me still being sealed to my previous wife.  The previous wife had told me she was going to request a cancellation anyway so I went ahead and initiated that.  After the cancellation and a lot of my money spent she said things weren’t working out.  This after she told me repeatedly, “***, I would never leave you”.
So here’s my dilemma and I praying someone has some comforting and encouraging words; I want to be exalted more than anything, but I’m not sealed to anyone and although I’ve been a member all my life, I don’t have confidence in my understanding of where this leaves me.  I’m 68 years old and love being married, but the opportunities are few, even on dating sites.
‘I’m begging to find some comfort and confidence.  Please!

I have recently finished Brian McLaren's Faith After Doubt and am currently reading his Do I Stay Christian.  It seems to me that McLaren echoes the OP, with perhaps more of a progressive Christian leaning rather than a conservative Christian leaning. One thread that ran through McLaren's writing was a question of "gatekeepers." Should a church be open and inviting with minimal entrance requirements and boundary maintenance, or should it be more like a country club with extensive entrance requirements and strict boundary maintenance. IMO, this is where a lot of the hard work for churches is happening right now -- deciding how to balance a desire to be "inclusive" (to reflect the Great Commission that the gospel is universally applicable to all) against the need to protect the flock from being preyed on by "the world." I suppose we will see how well we do, but it does feel like Christianity is struggling a bit right now with that balancing act.

I have recently finished Brian McLaren's Faith After Doubt and am currently reading his Do I Stay Christian.  It seems to me that McLaren echoes the OP, with perhaps more of a progressive Christian leaning rather than a conservative Christian leaning. One thread that ran through McLaren's writing was a question of "gatekeepers." Should a church be open and inviting with minimal entrance requirements and boundary maintenance, or should it be more like a country club with extensive entrance requirements and strict boundary maintenance. IMO, this is where a lot of the hard work for churches is happening right now -- deciding how to balance a desire to be "inclusive" (to reflect the Great Commission that the gospel is universally applicable to all) against the need to protect the flock from being preyed on by "the world." I suppose we will see how well we do, but it does feel like Christianity is struggling a bit right now with that balancing act.

I don’t think the average LDS needs the spiritual protection any of us here. Isn’t it sort of snotty and condescending of us to think they do?
Most don’t fall for the :: ahem :: “teachings” of Denver Snuffer or that crazy lady who killed her kids. Same with political issues. Go to a ward in Utah and start arguing for gay marriage. You probably won’t get very far. 

In my time in church I‘ve heard one speech that local leadership was worried about-and they were exactly right. The lady at a stake conference babbled about new age stuff and said other things that were flat out wrong. The SP gave a talk about it the next week. Other than that, no one has ever given a talk in church where they blaspheme from the pulpit. Never. 
 
I’d let the leadership decide when it’s time to protect the flock. It’s their job, not ours.  
 
I can’t shake the thought that “protecting the flock” really means “critiquing everyone who disagrees with me because if you don’t agree with me on everything, you must be evil.” 

I have recently finished Brian McLaren's Faith After Doubt and am currently reading his Do I Stay Christian.  It seems to me that McLaren echoes the OP, with perhaps more of a progressive Christian leaning rather than a conservative Christian leaning. One thread that ran through McLaren's writing was a question of "gatekeepers." Should a church be open and inviting with minimal entrance requirements and boundary maintenance, or should it be more like a country club with extensive entrance requirements and strict boundary maintenance. IMO, this is where a lot of the hard work for churches is happening right now -- deciding how to balance a desire to be "inclusive" (to reflect the Great Commission that the gospel is universally applicable to all) against the need to protect the flock from being preyed on by "the world." I suppose we will see how well we do, but it does feel like Christianity is struggling a bit right now with that balancing act.

I have recently finished Brian McLaren's Faith After Doubt and am currently reading his Do I Stay Christian.  It seems to me that McLaren echoes the OP, with perhaps more of a progressive Christian leaning rather than a conservative Christian leaning. One thread that ran through McLaren's writing was a question of "gatekeepers." Should a church be open and inviting with minimal entrance requirements and boundary maintenance, or should it be more like a country club with extensive entrance requirements and strict boundary maintenance. IMO, this is where a lot of the hard work for churches is happening right now -- deciding how to balance a desire to be "inclusive" (to reflect the Great Commission that the gospel is universally applicable to all) against the need to protect the flock from being preyed on by "the world." I suppose we will see how well we do, but it does feel like Christianity is struggling a bit right now with that balancing act.

Two comments:
First.  I drive a 94 GMC Suburban and a Trek Madone (the current going value has the Trek worth more than the Suburban but the Suburban still gets 18 to 20 mpg runs like new (never replaced the engine or trans) and will pull our river running equipment (5,000 lbs trailer).   Replacing the Suburban makes no cost sense.  I can purchase a lot of gas for costs of replacement.  I need to do some upgrades to the Trek – front and rear crank and gear set.  I put more miles on the Trek than the Suburban.
Second.  As to the op of this thread.  There are no problems with any church, business or organization – only the people that run them and implement policy.   What I have learned over the years is that the great mistake of Churches or people in a church is to focus on “converting” everybody.
Many years ago, I read a little book by an Atheists philosophically critical of Christianity.  I have forgotten the author and the title of the book, but I remember two criticisms.  He compared Christians to a gaggle of ducks that waddle around in the mud by a pond for 6 days and then on the 7th day the ducks would waddle through the mud to get to gather to talk about flying for a few hours then waddle back through the mud to their muddy place by the pond to waddle in the mud for 6 more days before waddling through the mud to get together to talk again about flying.
The other criticism was that Christians are obsessed with heaven and making sure that they get there, but they have no idea what heaven is, what it is like or what they will do if and when they finely get there.
 
The Traveler

Gen Z to Boomer: I have some concerns about the church.
Boomer to Gen Z: Really? Let me tell you some French/Spanish jokes.

 That's all you have to say?
I think this thread has  

Following the example of "Books of Mormon", I'm going to say "Batsman".

French Jokes
After an explosion at a French cheese factory… All that was left was De Brie.
I asked a French man if he played video games...  He said, “Wii!”
What would you call the Eiffel Tower if it falls over?  ...The I Fell Tower!
What did the baguette say when it was being sliced? ... Ouch! Le pain!
Don’t eat the French fish...  It’s poissan.
Why do the French only serve one egg in their omelets? ... Because one egg is un oeuf.
A wealthy Frenchman was showing off his yachts. “This is un, this is deux, this is trois, this is quatre, this is six…” “What happened to five?” his wife asked. “Cinq” he answered.
To kill a French vampire, you have to drive a baguette through its heart...  Sounds easy, but the process is painstaking.
What do you get when you cross a potato with a hand grenade?  Bomb de terre.
 
Spanish jokes: 
Why is the fish the laziest animal on earth?  What does it do all day?  Nada.
How does Superman fly over a crowd? ...  Con supermisoooo.
How do you make a bread talk?  ...  You put it in water and ya está blando.  (OK, it doesn't have an English component.  But it's pretty funny).
 

Is it?
The traditional definition of Damnation is eternal punishment in Hell.  I don't see the three degrees of glory as doing that.
If you tone it down to merely being torture and punishment in the afterlife...I still don't feel the three degrees are torture and punishment.
They are a reward.  It shows the great mercy and love of our Father and the Savior that even those worthy of a Telestial Glory are given such.  It is not a punishment nor is it torture, it is a glory of heaven given to those as an eternal reward.
I know those who claim that if they don't get the Celestial Kingdom they will regret it or be sad...but how do we know that?
My feeling is that we basically will go where we choose to go.  Those that do not want to go to the Celestial Kingdom will choose not to because they would be uncomfortable if they were there.  It would be torture for them to be there and they will realize it.  So they will go to a place where they will be most comfortable and happy instead.
In a like manner, the only ones that do not get to a glory of heaven are those who reject it. They will NOT accept the atonement and thus by their own choice choose to go to outer Darkness. 

I don't view it that way.  I know some that do, but I do not.
I view anything that is in the Kingdom of Heaven as one of the Glories of Heaven.  It is not a Hell, it is a glory.

Let me point out that what we say in this forum is not necessarily representative of what we say at Church or among Saints in the flesh. On this forum, an opinion/conversation/discussion forum, I am willing to voice ideas and viewpoints in explicit and blunt terms that I would be hesitant to do in a casual, friendly meeting of a group of Saints (e.g. an elders quorum party) and would probably refuse to do at church.
In my experience, blaming lack of attendance or participation on mean things said at Church is usually an excuse rather than a legitimate complaint. Such supposed offenses are often much lighter than represented or even non-existent. I can think of many examples through the years. I can also think of examples of people who really were treated offensively and who stuck it out. Sadly, I can think of a few where the offense, though not intended (or not intended quite as taken), did cause a rift. But that is the small minority of cases. Even in my own extended family, those who claim being offended are normally just looking for a reason to avoid taking responsibility. Frankly, I find it almost refreshing when a cousin or niece simply says she doesn't want to come to Church any more rather than look around for lame reasons to put the blame elsewhere.

My sympathies here are with two people: the leadership of the church and the liberal/moderate/agnostic on politics in the pews who just want to feel the spirit, go to the temple and not have their beliefs or voting actions questioned. The church leadership-bishops, stake president-(I am convinced of this) probably just sit there exasperated and say “Can’t we all just get along?!”
 
It puzzles me that LDS/Christians ask why their church is struggling in attendance and then insist on making divisions, playing the True Scotsman card, blaming “liberals”…you don’t need to be a communist to see how silly it is. If they do this to those groups and look for reasons to exclude people, they’ll do it to me too eventually. Even if I agree with them on everything and look the same!!!

Witch hunts are always destructive. Buzz words can be just as damaging. For example, when I taught 7th graders history last year we touched on the poor treatment of enslaved Africans. We also covered the forced treaties Native Americans had to sign--which were then broken by U.S. and state governments. Was I guilty of teaching CRT. Of course not, but THAT is how witch hunts sometimes go. Being aware of actual injustice is labeled as woke. Citing a legitimate case of racial bias or injustice is labeled CRT. Citing anything left of Glen Beck makes one a bleeding heart Democrat (or Communist). :::Sigh:::  Cancel culture is terrible--unless we're doing it--in the name of our faith, of course. 

Welcome. I think we want the same thing (Christianity and religious faith in general to grow) but differ on how to achieve it.
 
People of all stripes seek peace in the church. I’m guaranteeing you that they’ll say or think “If they look for reasons to exclude protestant mormons or liberal christians, they’ll look for reasons to exclude me too, even if I agree with them. So I’ll go play golf on Sunday instead of dealing with it. I get enough drama at work.” 
 
Heartbreaking 

Thank you. Contention is worse than worthless. However, young people do want authenticity. Sometimes the arguments are about preserving what is true. The difficulty is discerning what is central and what is dross. I believe Jesus struggled leaders who had the same difficulties. 

For the prophet is human and can make mistakes vs the Lord will not allow the prophet to lead the church astray I heard the following story that helped me with it.  (That being said I am not a historian so I do not know if this story is a some what true story or a complete Mormon Myth)

Brigham Young was speaking in the morning session of Conference.  It was a fiery speech full of instruction and direction for the Saints.   Then in the afternoon he spoke again,  He began,  by saying "This morning you heard from Brother Brigham. This afternoon you are going to hear from the Lord."  And the rest of his speech completely reversed instruction he had given in the morning speech.
That to me is an example how those two ideas work together.  The willingness to do the Lord's will over there own is one of those characteristic that seem to exist in all our prophets.  So if someone wants to say that the Priesthood Ban was "Brigham speaking in the morning" and the Lifting of the Ban was the "Lord speaking in the afternoon" I have no problem with that.
The problem comes with the idea Brigham some how bound God and God could not correct the  course until Kimball that i do not accept.  Trying to protect an image of God by rendering him powerless seems foolhardy to me.   That being said.. . Trying to understand what God is accomplishing with the Ban... what greater purpose it served...  That can be a brain twister.  The church has not told us this. So we are left to our own logic an reasons.  I found mine but it is worth exactly nothing to anyone else.