All Activity

Thanks for the replies so far. A few more details about me. I've been attending church for 3 years, I sing in the choir, and I worked in the library at church for a few months. I guess I'm unusual because I really like the LDS "clean living" lifestyle and the culture, even though I don't believe most of the religious beliefs that are unique the LDS faith. I believe in God and I like reading Bible, and I'm open to the idea of a literal resurrection. But I have significant doubts about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, and all that. I graduated with a PhD from a University of California school in 2020. I was not active in the church during my time in grad school in California, but I still did not like the party culture of alcohol and drug use that was the culture there. I found it impossible to have a social life with my grad student peers because social life there revolves around alcohol and drug use. Instead, I hung out with undergrads who were too young to drink. I eventually left California and a career at a prestigious institution because, among other things, the social environment was unworkable for me. So now I'm here in Utah, and I really like the culture and the people and the clean living lifestyle. I love BYU and I loved my time there as a student. I have this dilemma where if I want to be a secularist, I can't just do my thing; I would have to accept all of it, including the alcohol-centric culture and the atheism, and I'm not willing to do that. But if want to be a Latter-day Saint because I like the lifestyle and the people, I can't just do my thing; I would have to also have to believe the beliefs, and not just say that I believe them, but actually really believe them. Is there really no way to make this work? And if not, what would I do? And is there really no one else here who has questions about the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

Just in practical terms, I assume you will also need the ok/recomendation from your bishop. Even if your bishop gives that to you, there is nothing to say the next bishop will and that means you lose your job.

I agree with Cal, it doesn't sound like it's the job for you as it sounds like you would have to be dishonest to get it.

I'm not nearly as familiar with BYU as @Calm and others here, but I have found her advice to be solid. Assuming the BYU job isn't feasible but you'd still like a bit of thoughtful LDS culture in your life, perhaps with some fringe members and even a few former members in the mix to keep it interesting, this is the place. And best of all, no temple recommend requirement! In other words, Welcome! I think you'll fit right in here.

Let’s get back to the OP. The city of West Hollywood, California, has about 34,000 people and is a bit smaller than Springville, Utah. It passed an ordinance allowing three or more adults in committed relationships to register as domestic partners and receive limited local protections, including hospital and jail visitation rights and certain housing protections. It doesn't legalize group marriage. This made the local news in the LA area, and was picked up nationally by conservative outlets such as Fox News, Breitbart, the Daily Wire, the Washington Times, the New York Post, and CBN News. Much of the conservative reaction has focused on the supposed slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamy. I find it interesting that such a modest local ordinance has generated national attention. Throughout history, marriage has been defined and redefined by the societies that practiced it. It often had to do with property rights, inheritance, family alliances, and controlling women's sexuality. Women were frequently treated as subordinate to their husbands, and adultery was often defined asymmetrically: a married woman having sex with another man violated her marriage, while her husband had considerably greater sexual freedom. Of course marriage evolved and changed from society to society, but the idea that marriage "has always been centered on procreation and the rearing of children" is an oversimplification. Procreation was certainly important, particularly when children were sources of labor and legitimate heirs to family property. But marriage has never been exclusively about producing and raising children. Infertile couples have always been able to marry, and elderly couples can marry without any expectation of having children. Even D&C 132 presents plural marriage in terms of the man's exaltation and glory, with women being given to him. Whatever theological justifications one accepts, it is difficult to characterize that arrangement as primarily concerned with maximizing the welfare of women and children. As Grok pointed out, traditional polygyny—including Mormon-style polygamy—is associated with significant harms to women and children. Modern consensual polyamory can be quite different. Instead of one man maintaining separate relationships with multiple women and dividing his time, attention, and resources among them, a committed multi-partner family might involve three or more adults sharing responsibilities, resources, and childrearing. Such arrangements appear to be rare, and there is relatively little good research on their long-term outcomes. But even the research Grok cited acknowledged that some stable, low-conflict polyamorous families report positive outcomes for their children. That raises an interesting question: if two loving, committed adults can provide a better environment for raising children than one, why should we automatically assume that three would be worse? Surely the quality and stability of the relationships matter more than simply counting the adults. My impression is that a meaningful minority of Americans have at some point considered or experimented with polyamory in one form or another. But that's very different from three or more people committing to a permanent, marriage-like family relationship. I suspect the latter arrangements are extremely rare, although reliable statistics are difficult to find. And that's what makes the West Hollywood ordinance interesting. It doesn't redefine marriage, change Social Security benefits, or rewrite inheritance and custody laws. It simply recognizes that these families exist and extends a few limited protections to them. Personally, I don't see this becoming a major national social issue, much less an imminent transformation of American marriage law. The legal institution of marriage is built around two-person partnerships, and extending it to three or more people raises genuinely difficult questions about property, inheritance, medical decisions, parental rights, and obligations. But those questions are quite different from whether three committed adults should be able to visit one another in the hospital or receive some protection against housing discrimination. Right-wing media traffics in fear and hate, and I can see why they’re trying to make this an issue. But I don’t think it is an issue, and I don’t think the left is going to take the bait.

Bluntly, don’t bother applying. They are looking for devout members, not just ones who feel like they belong, even if fit the culture well. If you want to live in the area, UVU is a great school. My husband enjoyed teaching there and imo it had the best faculty parties of the four universities he taught at (one in Canada). He did get frustrated towards the end as his teaching style doesn’t work well online, it’s more experiential, but since Covid they were pushing more online teaching (he taught entrepreneurship). Retired two years ago.

I have a PhD and I applied for a job at BYU, which is one of the schools I went to for undergrad. I might get the job, and if I do, I will need to get a temple recommend. I have been attending church for about three years with my family, after awhile of not attending following a faith crisis. I had a temple recommend before, but it is expired now. I have had a big struggle with it because I really like the LDS lifestyle and the people, but I don't believe most of the religious claims. I am very much a "cultural Mormon." But now I'll need to take another step and get a recommend, which is mandatory for the job. I can pay some tithing, but I don't think that I would pay 10% because I am confident that the Church does not need the money. I can wear garments when it's chilly outside, but when it's hot, I'd really rather not. And as for the beliefs about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, etc.....I just don't believe that. But the Latter-day Saints are my people, and I enjoy being part of the community, regardless of my beliefs about the religious claims. Can anyone share experiences that may give me some insight on how to approach this?

I can't interpret your revelation for you. If I saw a being that appeared only once, conveyed no information, yet terrified me, I've heard people have been known to have a single episode of Sleep Paralysis. A brief inability to move or speak while falling asleep or waking up. It often comes with fear, chest pressure, unable to speak, having difficulty breathing, feeling a "presence" in the room, and seeing and hearing hallucinations. The muscle paralysis of REM sleep carries over for a moment after your mind wakes up. You’re partly awake and partly dreaming, the real world and dream images can overlap. You could see a gremlin, a ghost or a demon in your bedroom.

I never said polygamy and Jews in the attic are "the same." An analogy is a comparison of traits shared by two otherwise dissimilar things. If I compare an apple to a tennis ball, it will likely be about their shared approximate size, not that they taste the same. My great-great grandfather was imprisoned for months. The difference is one of degree, not kind. My great-great grandfather wasn't given a trial: Clearly, Alexander was not threatened although he was treated cruelly by his 7th Regiment captors. Thomas Ackley, another military officer recorded in his journal how Alexander Macdonald, sleeping in the guard house hall, exhausted after the long march from Provo, was nearly murdered by an imprisoned soldier. Walking into the room with his ball and chain, “One of these fellows let his iron ball drop, . . . intending for it to strike the Mormon in the head, and would have killed him had it not been that he threw up his arm to save himself, but broke his arm.” (The diarist later identifies the injured man as Alexander Macdonald who was denied medical treatment for his broken arm.) Ackley later expressed amusement at observing Macdonald and other prisoners working “. . . with large sacks of sand tied to them, others with large logs of wood strapped to their backs for punishment. . . . .” Later Alexander was confined to small adobe room, barely large enough for him to stand, and with only a small pile of straw as bathroom facilities. A frantic Elizabeth tried to visit him and bring him bedding and food, but she was turned away. One of the officers had Macdonald brought to his quarters at night to secretly teach him the doctrines of Mormonism. Alexander later told his wife that the young captain believed the teachings but feared that joining the church would jeopardize his military career. Eventually the Army was embarrassed into releasing A.F. Macdonald and he returned to his wife and sons in Springville. Per this article, AF was imprisoned for six months. AF suffered. His family suffered. Many other Latter-day Saints suffered. This is surely distinct from the horrors inflicted on the Jews by the Nazis, but the distinctions are more of degree than of kind. ETA: I acknowledge a key distinction of kind, namely, that Jews were persecuted for who they were, whereas Latter-day Saints were persecuted for who they were and what they did. Nevertheless, the material similarity draws on the moral dilemma aspect. People in Europe during WWII faced a moral dilemma in deciding whether to hide Jews. 19th-century Latter-day Saints faced a moral dilemma in deciding whether to obey the law of the land or what they viewed to be the laws of God. Can you acknowledge that such a dilemma for this latter group existed? If not, why not? I agree. Ah, I did not know that (or I have forgotten). Thank you for the clarification. Understood. But it's a hypothetical. And if there was some element of the situation where you were compelled to deny your relationship with your partner, would you do it? I'm not sure you are aware of why I post in the style I do. We have a way of testing this. You could post what you think re: "why." Then I could do the same. I suspect they would be quite different. And between us, I am far better situated to speak as to the "why." Okay. Thanks, -Smac

What is at stake with lying about a Jew in the attic. 1. When a facist dictator is rounding up millions of Jews and exterminating them is is not the same as polygamy in a democracy. No one was being rounded up and sent to gas chambers simply because of their religion and heritage. 2. No trial is given the person in the attic. They are executed on the spot with no legal rights to go before a jury. 3. Preventing a religion from practicing polygamy is not ethnic cleansing. My partner and I have been together for 19 years, but out of respect for my children that are practicing LDS, we choose to not marry. The Church in fact discourages us being married. However, lately we have been thinking about getting married. I honestly don't care that much about marriage personally mostly because of the Church's influence. If we were married and wanted to move to a country that prohibits gay marriage, we would not choose to live in that kind of environment. I am fully aware of why you like to fisk your posts. Since my goal was to try to understand your point of view about certain subjects but your posts really don't clarifying what your beliefs are. I try to understand your position, but is all I get is you relying on semantics and ambiguities. So what's the point? I probably will take a break from interacting with you.

You can ignore my posts. Excellent. Back to the topic. Thanks, -Smac

I can’t stick to the subject when the other thinks I mean something different than I did (if the topic is color and I say red, but they insist I am saying blue). I don’t know if I will be able to ignore, but since it does seem hopeless at this point to be understood, that does seem the most rational solution.

Okay. You've had your say. Let's get back to the topic. Or you can ignore my posts. Or both. Thanks, -Smac

Well, you could just stick to the topic, or ignore my posts, or both. Thanks, -Smac

I think we have differing expectations. You seem to think "common courtesy" imposes an obligation to respond. I don't.

Board nannying? A lot of that going on here!

Why?

When what you say does not connect with what the other person said, that isn’t disagreement. And insisting it is contrary to others repeatedly saying “that’s not what I said” or other similar comments will not lead to understanding that you can then effectively disagree with.

I meant engaging with others’ comments on the topics you start rather than repeating yourself. What you say often doesn’t connect with what others say. And I make it personal because you don’t engage others’ comments on the topic, it’s not about your personality, but your method. Essentially the same that you did with Dan McClellan.

Back a decade ago, sure. Nowadays this feels unlikely when there’s one or two threads that have significant traffic, especially when a thread is essentially dead except for a post or two and you had been active in it up to that point, so a request to you wouldn’t be lost among a ton of posts. For example, here: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75498-dan-mcclellan-on-mormon-stories/page/27/#findComment-1210278189 And yes, there is no obligation, but there is common courtesy to not just walk away and start a new thread to be involved in as if the other person does not exist once you lose interest. Even just saying you are not interested anymore would be sufficient, imo, rather than leaving a request for clarification hanging. I think everyone here understands getting tired of a topic and just having enough of it.

Very well. I’ll leave it to you and Ken and Van. Probably best for all.

Thanks. I think CB's and Calm's repeated references to "other people" agreeing with them to be kind of weird. It's argumentum ad populum. Other people like my posting style, so where does that leave us? My take: It takes us to a return to discussing the topic, with each of us at liberty to ignore posts we dislike. Thanks, -Smac

Really sound like a problem in the making.

Figuratively. It's not an "excuse." It's an illustration of a principle, which is this: There may be circumstances in which it is moral to disobey civil law. For Latter-day Saints, who are commanded to obey the laws of the land, this can create a moral conundrum. Here's another illustration: If you and your husband were moving to another country, and if that county conditioned your entry and residency on you getting a divorce (because the country has laws against same-sex couples/marriage), would you obey that law? Or if the county required you to affirm under oath that you are not in a same-sex marriage, would you make that affirmation? Yes, you stacked the deck there. You are free to speak as you like. As am I. Yet again, someone is conflating disagreement with misunderstanding. I understand that some people dislike my posting style. I disagree with, and reject, requests that I alter my posting style to suit your preferences. Do you see the difference? Thanks, -Smac