All Activity

My opinion (for what it's worth) is that one of the ways the Divine communicates with us is through the circumstances in our lives. It seems like the same general pattern is showing up in your life via different specific circumstances, so perhaps there is a message in there for you. Something that has worked for me is to pray for understanding rather than for "the resolution" to a specific situation, and then to be open to that "understanding" showing up.

No. And I say this as someone who doesn't believe in the church and didn't go to my son's sealing this year. It was very difficult not to attend, but it wasn't worth my integrity, nor did I want to teach my son to live a lie. My parents love the temple and were there. If your parents knew that you couldn't go being honest about your reccomend do you think they would really want you to take them? I know my parents definitely wanted me to be at my son's sealing, but not if meant obtaining it dishonestly.

OK, so it seems like most people on here would say not, I should not move ahead with this. I really appreciate everyone's input. OK, next question. It would mean a lot to my parents if I could attend the temple with them. Would you say that this is a good reason to get a recommend in my situation, or not?

He doesn't? Sorry for the huge delay in responding. I'm getting back to this after a couple of months. I was kind of busy writing a book so didn't spend much time here. The ESV says "room" where KJV says "mansion". Which actually agrees with the video that I posted back then. You wrote: Yes, and there's no need to quibble about minutiae. We don't need to worry about the dimensions or the decor of the abode, just that there are many of them. And we can dwell there if we are worthy. You're kind of coming across like the Sadducees did when arguing resurrection with Jesus. You don't believe in the three degrees of glory, yet nevertheless you're trying to trip us up with your disunderstanding of the doctrine. Just like the Sadducees attempted with Jesus. Of course I notice Paul's wording. I also notice that you like to point at the wording and strictly use it to deny all other meaning that it could contain. Restrict, restrict, and restrict again. Because your private interpretation is paramount. So "'filled with' the fullness of God" cannot be "become God"? I disagree. If you have the "fullness of God" then you are a God. What else could "fullness" in Paul's words mean? Do you have a Paul-o-Meter that somehow measures the limit of what Paul meant? You start with the premise that God cannot or will not raise any of His children to be like Him, possibly because you worry that this reduces God to a subordinate power. Well, if He did this it would not reduce Him at all. Even God cannot make someone into something greater than Himself. Even if He wanted to! <- which is my own assertion, I grant you, but it seems reasonable, and I don't think you'd want to refute it. You've admitted in previous posts that God certainly has the power to raise someone to His own status -- while claiming that He would never do this. But you say this despite scriptural evidence to the contrary. Rather than re-list the entire list of passages I presented in an earlier post, let me present just one. "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." [Rev 3:21] What does it mean for Jesus to grant the overcomer to sit with Him in His throne? In the same way that He is set down with God the Father in His throne? Jesus states here that He is equating His overcoming to the overcoming of the one He is granting to sit with Him in His throne. Note that it's sit with Him "IN His throne," not just "NEXT to Him". When John says we will be "like him" and Paul says "heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ," where do you get the authority to deny the plain meaning of the text, especially in context with Rev 3:21? Yes, it makes you uncomfortable, but even the great Saint Athanasius, after whom the Athanasian Creed was named after (though he didn't write it himself) says of Christ: "He, indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God." - On the Incarnation of the Word, chapter 8, paragraph 54. As you know, Athanasius was a confirmed Trinitarian, like you. But nevertheless even he recognized that God wanted to raise us up to be something like Him. I'm sure that Athanasius did not mean ontologically like God, but like Him at least in a certain undefined fashion. Athanasius had been infected with the same neo-Platonism the rest of the Nicene Fathers had been infected with, but nevertheless he retained the flavor of the original apostolic understanding of what God intended us to become. Only if one is a Trinitarian. It doesn't make sense, period. Quoting the Athanasian Creed doesn't increase its comprehensibility. It reduces it. Nobody understands it because it isn't intended to be understandable. That Creed states very plainly about itself that "Whoever wishes to be saved must think thus about the Trinity." Not just that you need to believe it, or be able to recite it, in order to be saved you need to think about God in that way. Did the Apostle Peter, Paul, or Mother Mary think that way about God? I beg to believe that they did not -- simply because that mass of confusion hadn't yet been propounded. I am reminded of a passage from a book you don't believe in: But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. [Book of Mormon - Jacob 4:14] Which also describes the doctrinal cacophony of the post-apostolic ante-Nicene Fathers whose confusion resulted in the Emperor Constantine demanding they get together and correlate their understanding of God. And so they created a thing they could not understand, namely the Trinity. But the Trinity of the Nicene Creed was almost understandable, so didn't quite hit the sweet spot. They had to get together six more times, further refining the incomprehensible, unintelligible, and indecipherable into its final "Boss" form, the Athanasian. And it still wasn't properly correlated for everyone, which is why they split into the Catholic and the Orthodox churches (shades of the filioque). I will say that I've read the Apostles Creed, and I don't have much of a problem with it. But I've also read the Athanasian Creed from beginning to end, and it's like quantum mechanics in its incomprehensibility. Oh, I understand the words, all right, but I do not understand what they mean. And neither do you, despite your protestations. In contrast to that creed, I quote John 17:3... "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." You can't know God if God is the being described in the Athanasian Creed. So no eternal life for you.

I don’t have the time or interest to engage in a long conversation about this. I’ll just say: First, I don’t know who Fialho is. Unless you explain why she has extraordinary perceptions or influences about our culture, I don’t really care what her opinion is on this. Second, you said, "the traditional legal structure of marriage and family has been built around two-person, male-female partnerships.” Are you sure about that? You seem to be overstating your position. I might be misremembering, but I recall you saying a couple of decades ago that you talked about this with a BYU law professor, and were surprised to learn that the legal structure of marriage is built around a two-person partnership but that legally, there wasn’t anything in the structure that said the partnership needed to be male-female in order for it to function. For example, social security benefits are calculated based on the social security contributions of the two married people, not their sexes. I asked ChatGPT, which said: Yes, historically. But by 2015, when same-sex marriage became legal nationwide, most of the legal structure of marriage had become gender-neutral. The distinction is important. Originally, American marriage law was explicitly built around different roles for husbands and wives. Under coverture, husbands controlled much of the marital property, wives had limited legal independence, and fathers enjoyed superior parental rights. But those distinctions were progressively dismantled, especially during the twentieth century. The Supreme Court struck down sex-based inequalities in alimony, survivor benefits, property rights, and other aspects of marriage. By 2015: - Property and inheritance: Spousal rights were largely independent of sex. - Social Security: Husbands and wives could both qualify for spousal and survivor benefits. - Medical decisions: Spousal authority was generally not gender-specific. - Divorce and alimony: Either spouse could seek support. - Children: Parental rights had become substantially gender-neutral, although biological parentage rules still presented complications. Some sex-specific statutes, terminology, and parentage presumptions remained, but the fundamental legal framework no longer depended on one spouse being male and the other female. It sounds like your fundamental complaint isn’t same-sex marriage and group marriage, but rather the earlier fight that women and men should be treated equally by the law.

The Doctor has diagnosed. "He's sick!" says the Doctor. Here's what my research shows. Women are generally considered to be fully matured between the ages of 25 and 30. This period encompasses various aspects of development, including physical, cognitive, and emotional maturity. Biologically, men reach full brain maturity around age 25, while surveys and informal studies often place emotional maturity closer to age 43. I guess that means women must wait until 25, and men until 43, before marriage. So... were you fully mature when you got married? My stepmom married her first husband when she was 15. Legally, under Kansas state law at the time, with parents permission. They had a successful marriage with two children. My stepdaughter married her husband when she had just turned 19. He was 42. She wanted to marry him when she was 17 and he 40. Parents made her wait, which she did dutifully but impatiently. She is just 5 years older than her youngest stepchild. They have seven children now (and three horses, three Rottweilers, and a cat). My late wife and I were separated in age by 11 years. In our case, she was the cradle robber. You, Notatbm, come across as someone who is mainly interested in sensationalizing things to their max. This is what is called clickbait in some circles. Is this a hobby, or a calling, in your case?

Found a useful article if you haven’t already seen it https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/byu-and-religious-universities-in-a-secular-academic-world? Also saw mention elsewhere that getting published if at BYU can be harder in some fields….if you are looking to beef up your resume that way, there are several conditions making that more difficult at BYU (read the article for more details). The last bullet point reminds me I know professors who were told they had a good chance of getting hired there, got down to the last bit and then waited around for a long time to eventually be told the job was no longer available. I suspect because it is a dream job for many LDS (it was for my husband, his dad was a BYU professor for most of his career, he got the run around three times…once they pulled the funding, another time even though the donation was given for entrepreneurship they hired a marketing professor, iirc the third time the one in charge of the search kept getting sick and then the search got shut down and they just covered with adjuncts). From what I hear they rarely have a shortage of high quality candidates, so they can play such games. I might have doubts about my husband, but he got hired quite quickly when applying to the three universities he worked at. UVU even sought him out and we were down here the next semester (they were becoming a university and needed Ph.Ds, the appeal of creating the program and the paycheck being bigger and going so much further won his heart….plus his parents were in their last years and he wanted to be near them for once). Might be different in the department you are looking at, but I wouldn’t put all your eggs in the BYU basket if you aren’t in a comfortable job situation and can easily keep that job. Know too many people who assumed they would be teaching at the BYUs for their career who didn’t get there.

Hobbies, I think you need to pay attention to this part if you are not that old and would still need to work if you got terminated by BYU for whatever reason, especially if you have kids at home and will for sometime or your spouse doesn’t work. Your choices affect much more than just yourself. If you have less than five years, you lose the employer’s contributions to your retirement (at least according to Google it’s 5 years till you are vested. If you don’t plan on paying full tithing, that’s a potential weakness in your dissembling. Your bishop might be aware of how much professors pay and not be flexible on that. From what I have heard, other Utah universities besides UVU have a lot of LDS professors (we have had two in our ward who commute during the week down south) and so the culture among professors is not that different.

There is a difference between keeping your mouth shut and allowing the other guy to think what they choose to think, that is on them for not asking more question and lying, which is imo intentionally providing false information as opposed to not volunteering complete accurate info.

I’m sure there are some people that post here who have questions about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. And I’m sure there’s people that go to church every Sunday that have the same questions. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with you being a part of the church with your doubts or current belief system. I just think that if you have to lie to get a temple, recommend then the BYU job is not the job for you. It’s not fair to them and it’s also not fair to yourself because you would have to give up your integrity to get the job.

I don’t know about the current precise state at UVU (things may have changed since the shooting as that had to be traumatic), there are others who might speak up who would be more up to date, but a few years back UVU was good as far as faith was concerned and politics as well for accommodating different views, at least in my husband’s department and what he reported to me from friends outside it. What are you actually looking for? Do you need to verbally process so you know your own thoughts (something I do at times)? Or were you looking for permission to behave however you want? Or something else? You asked for people’s experiences and opinions with BYU and suggestions on how to approach a possible job offer, then when they post them, you dismiss them as irrelevant because you have to hide something everywhere. And then present the choice as black or white rather than degree when no one implied that there were other places masking would be never required in some way and act like we are imposing our opinions on you as if you didn’t ask for them. Sure, there are worst institutions out there than BYU when it comes to masking. You were discussing a particular subject though…LDS beliefs. Yes, there are ways to work around tenure protections even when the university has them. But BYU does not use a tenure system, but a system which includes an ecclesiastical endorsement….which means someone who is an untrained volunteer will be evaluating you. It will be leadership roulette.***. And you asked for an appraisal for BYU. That is what you got multiple times. You can ignore the info if you want. PS: the narrator is probably the one most dialed into BYU culture these days, my connections are more recently retired professors with a few current ones (we have a number in our ward, tons more in former wards; same house, different boundaries, so still some connections). His advice would be the most on point imo. ***How are bishops instructed in regards to personal biases? I was shocked once when my most traditional, rigid bishop actually told a friend who was an astrologer he could keep his job and get baptize as long as he used it for helping people explore personality and not foretelling. That was also 45 years ago, so no doubt instructions have changed if they are given,

OK, that's fair. So what organization would you propose I join that would produce no cognitive dissonance in me, and whose policies I agree with 100%? What organization can I join that isn't involved in some kind of activity that I would disagree with and whose values are exactly aligned with my true, actual, authentic personal values on all counts? If such an organization can be found, I will happily join it. Since I cannot currently find such an organization, I am considering this one. I was previously part of an organization for my job in California that I thought would align with my values. But free speech was suppressed there even more than than claims of free speech suppression at BYU. I was explicitly told when I arrived not to wear any clothing indicating certain points of view. I watched the other employees very clearly hiding their true feelings in group meetings because they didn't want to rock the boat. It was obvious that they were afraid to say what they really thought. It was a charade for everyone, even at a prestigious institution. Everyone was pretending. I had a similar experience here in Utah with a civil volunteer organization. I became outspoken about some of the problems in the organization. The leader of the local unit did not like this and eventually took me aside and told me to stop talking about the problems in the organization. I did stop being vocal about this to make the local unit leader happy, but that didn't make the problems go away. So yes, if you can point me in the direction of an organization where free speech is encouraged even if it upsets the status quo, and where I'll never have to stay quiet if I disagree with something the organization is doing, and where the leaders happily accept criticism, please show me where to find it and I'll join.

I don’t know if you have a spouse or kids (not sure if y family you mean you as a parent or child…we lived on the same a ward as my husband’s sibling, so I don’t assume family means the usual). If you do and you choose to work at BYU while not being open about your personal beliefs, aren’t you also asking your family to hide your beliefs for you? Or you have to hide beliefs from them so they always speak of you as believing. You live in Utah currently, so you must know the social life of kids is heavily tied to church activities and friends and acquaintances at school are often in the same stake. It would be a shame if they felt they were the cause of you being called in or even losing your job. Sounds draconian, from some reports it’s actually that way, but even if not, your spouse or kids’ friends may say something harmless to someone else who is over the top and that person reports to the bishop or BYU. There are members out there who want to purge BYU of any hint of nonconformity to their own viewpoint. It’s the negative of going to church with neighbours. OTOH, I love that I have gotten to know so many neighbors, some quite well. Even growing up 60 years ago, unless there was a friends between kids connection, we barely knew our neighbors. In Utah we have regular neighborhood get-togethers outside of church and when I go for walks, I strike up many a conversation, people are waving. It’s nice to know if there is an emergency I can contact anyone within 3 houses and there won’t be a blank stare with “and you are?”

There are other things to like about the Church as a non-believing Bible reader. Royal Cult Studies help me appreciate the quasi-royal-cultisms in many Christian groups, especially in Latter-day Saints. I'm fascinated by pre-Columbian trans-oceanic diffusionism. You might stay unswayed by historicity of the Book of Mormon or the authenticity of the Book of Abraham and still see a wealth of overlap with these subjects to gain a rudimentary faith, like as inspired fictions. But your scenario reads less like a genuine seeker looking for counsel and more like a classic rhetorical setup or impossible choice prompt designed to box believers into a corner or poke at institutional policies. Most here will say trying to execute this strategy is a profoundly bad idea, both ethically and practically. BYU is not a casual social club membership. You must affirm a literal testimony of the Restoration through the Prophet Joseph Smith, including the Book of Mormon. The law of tithing requires paying ten percent of one's increase, based on what you believe Lord has blessed you with and return a tithe to God. It is not based on whether an institution "needs" the funds. Do you understand your clever lifestyle hacks and attempting to "fake it" will be a deliberate deception? For someone with a PhD and a background in academia, knowingly misrepresenting one’s beliefs and compliance to secure employment is an ethical violation that destroys your integrity. If discovered living a double life or quietly discarding core tenets usually catches up with people. The professional consequences are swift and severe. The "clean living" culture of Utah is downstream of the religious faith, but you do not need a temple recommend or a BYU paycheck to participate in Utah’s cultural environment. There are thousands of secular, moderate, or non-religious families living in Utah right now who enjoy the exact same neighborhoods, parks, and community life without having to lie to a bishop to do it. What you propose seems like a recipe for psychological misery. Whether from a grinding cognitive dissonance over time, or the paranoia of being "found out", or the exhaustion of performing will burn out even the most committed cultural enthusiast. Everyone should encourage you to try to build an authentic life.

Yes, even in Utah you get to live with what beliefs you want as long as you don’t try and push them on to others if they aren’t the usual. There is quite a variety here, even in small town Utah Valley. I was a student 45 years ago, so can just report on that side from what I hear now and that is as a student if you behave according to the rules and don’t share, sure. From what is being said among professors, if you are a believer there can still be some rough politics with some who use their authority to push their own agendas (not uncommon in universities in my family’s experience, which is one reason we ended up at UVU and also not at BYU even though I had thought we were forever in Canada…sigh). If you aren’t a believer, you have no way of knowing what might trigger the wrong kind of interest, what your bishop might say, etc. The big issue as I understand it is the ability to appeal a decision. You don’t have the same options or protections you get elsewhere and in my experience, getting tenure helps remove a lot of pressure. BYU has something similar to tenure, but not as reassuring from what I have heard. They claim no arbitrary dismissal, but that doesn’t include the bishop after all. So if you don’t mind getting terminated unexpectedly as well as possibly needing to lie outright if confronted (which would be a deal breaker for me, I don’t understand how some people can be comfortable with that), the whole Damocles’ sword routine might work for you. In my experience or rather my husband and friends as I never got to be actually do post graduate work myself, so while I got warned about it, I haven’t lived the reality of being a professor myself, being a devout LDS was seen as a negative by many in the university community, also being conservative, liberal, a woman, a man, an English speaker, a French speaker, a Spanish speaker, neurotypical, neurodivergent, etc….depending on where you are living and what community you want to join, there is likely always something you need to mask for or have no control over negative bias. From the other side, even if I believe BYU is going somewhat overboard in enforcement (monitoring class content is appropriate in my view, I don’t want some religion professor teaching evolution is false, for example; spying is too much imo), I believe BYU should be allowed to have faithful, believing professors if they see it as important that every class is an opportunity to teach and demonstrate faith. I don’t believe it’s right to deceive for personal or public gain except in extreme situations (primarily physical safety). I also believe faithful, believing students should be able to attend a decent university where they feel at home and not under unwanted social pressures. And this also means no parent should manipulate their child into going to BYU in hopes they will become a believer.

Ah. Thank you for the clarification. Thanks, -Smac

No, I'm not saying that about this particular situation. I'm asking "so what" even if your slippery-slope argument ends up being true.

Analytics: "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." ttribe: "{W}hy does it matter to you if the definition of marriage expands to include other types of arrangements?" I think ttribe sees the same thing that I see, namely, that this is an incremental step in efforts to legalize group marriage. Am I wrong on that point? Thanks, -Smac

As long as so-called "traditional" marriage continues to be available to those who wish it, why does it matter to you if the definition of marriage expands to include other types of arrangements? Thank you for your question. Marriage is, in many respects, a public institution, not merely a private arrangement. Its legal and cultural definition shapes norms, incentives, and expectations for everyone—including children, who do not choose their parents’ relationship structure. When the definition expands to treat any consensual adult arrangement as equivalent, it weakens the distinctive norms (permanence, exclusivity, and clear male-female parental roles) that historically oriented marriage toward stable child-rearing. Those norms are not preserved simply by leaving the traditional option available. Instead, redefinition changes what the institution is, and what it communicates and prioritizes. The decline of stable marriage has already been associated with higher rates of family instability and correlated harms to children and communities. Because I am part of this society (along with my children, their future children, my neighbors, and others who will live with the consequences) the further erosion of the institution matters beyond the preferences of those who prefer expanded definitions. Hope this helps. Thanks, -Smac

Have heard of that happening. Including a case the bishop didn’t understand the requirements and was working with the person on some minor issue and iirc tried to inform BYU he was satisfied with the repentance process, but BYU did not keep the professor on. IIRc it was talked about in the board, but it’s been awhile, so can’t pinpoint the source. It has been reported to have happened with students. That may have been the case that was talked about here and I have conflated the two.

I'm getting a bit tired of authenticity. It's too lonely and it's impractical because you just can't live an effective life when you refuse to do anything that does not feel completely authentic. As for posting under real names on this forum, even that isn't the same as having a face-to-face conversation or speaking out in a live group setting. Saying things from behind the safety of a keyboard is only moderately brave, in my opinion. It looks like things have changed a little bit at BYU. The Ecclesiastical Clearance Office looks at social media posts and online activity. I'm reading stories of professors who were dismissed or not renewed for expressing views contrary to Church teachings even in private (non-public) settings.

As long as so-called "traditional" marriage continues to be available to those who wish it, why does it matter to you if the definition of marriage expands to include other types of arrangements?

I came to this dialogue with the intention in the first instance to get a near at hand understanding of LDS. And in the second instance, similar to yourself, the lifestyle and culture. I have found the people on this dialogue to be a great group of people, and all very much individuals.

I agree. I think it may eventually be seen as an incremental step in efforts to legalize group marriage. From the article: What do you think Fialho meant by "this law is just the beginning"? Beginning of what? What "future" do you think she is referencing? What "was out of reach"? Given Fialho's comments, and given the progression involved in "slippery slope" / "camel's nose in the tent" style analogies, this attention seems to make sense. Are you saying same-sex marriage was *not* an contributing factor in this development? I agree that marriage has varied in some ways across societies and that it hasn’t been only about producing children in every case—infertile and elderly couples have long been able to marry. But that doesn’t mean procreation and child-rearing were not central to the institution. A classic anthropological definition describes marriage as a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are recognized as the legitimate offspring of both partners. Across cultures, marriage has been the primary way societies channel male-female sexual union into stable bonds that give children recognized parents. Practices surrounding childlessness, heirs, and legitimacy show how seriously most societies treated that purpose. Exceptions exist, but they are exceptions to a procreative norm, not evidence that the norm was peripheral—just as schools remain for education even though some students never graduate. What has been consistent is that marriage involved male-female pairings (whether monogamous or polygamous). Same-sex marriage already represented an unprecedented redefinition on that point. Moves like West Hollywood’s recent ordinance—allowing throuples, foursomes, and other multi-partner relationships to register as domestic partners with certain legal protections—continue that departure. “Group marriage” is likewise an unprecedented redefinition: historically, even polygamous societies recognized marriages as unions built around a husband-wife relationship (or a small number of them), not as an open multipartner arrangement among any number of consenting adults. Treating marriage-like status as a flexible group configuration among any adults further detaches it from the male-female, child-oriented structure that defined it across cultures. The Latter-day Saint conceptualization of "exaltation and glory" has, as a key component, eternal families and eternal increase. Moreover, I think Jacob 2:30 does place polygamy as "primarily concerned" with procreation: "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." As for "the welfare of women and children," I think Moses 1:39 is apt: "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." And D&C 90:24: “Search diligently, pray always, and be believing, and all things shall work together for your good, if ye walk uprightly.” "All things" And 2 Nephi 2:25 teaches that the very design of mortal existence—rooted in the choice between good and evil—is meant for human joy: “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” I think modern consensual polyamory (what you call "Mormon-style polygamy," even though today's Latter-day Saints do not practice it) differs from traditional polygyny, in which one man divides time, attention, and resources among multiple wives—patterns associated with higher rates of depression for women and mixed outcomes for children. Nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint plural marriage was also distinct from both contemporary fundamentalist polygamy and modern polyamory: it was religiously regulated, practiced by a minority of households, centered on male-female unions, and discontinued by the Church in 1890. Modern fundamentalist groups are separate from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Even so, evidence that polyamory avoids those problems is limited. Studies of children in such families are small, short-term, and often self-selected. Some report positive experiences with additional adults, but longer-term data on stability, clear parental roles, resource division, and outcomes after breakups remain, as you note, thin. Multipartner arrangements still divide finite time and attention, manage jealousy and shifting dynamics, and risk disrupting children when an adult leaves—challenges monogamous male-female marriage has historically been structured to limit. Whatever the practical differences, multipartner configurations still mark a significant departure from the historical pattern of marriage as male-female pairings oriented toward clear parental responsibility for children. I agree that committed, permanent multipartner “marriage-like” arrangements appear rare compared with casual experimentation, and that the West Hollywood ordinance is currently limited to things like hospital visitation and some housing protections rather than rewriting inheritance, custody, or Social Security rules. That said, formal governmental legal recognition of multi-partner relationships as family units (even though at only the city level) is still a meaningful step. It treats those arrangements as socially and legally salient rather than purely private, and it creates a precedent for further expansion. The practical questions you note (property, inheritance, medical decisions, parental rights, and obligations) are real, and they arise precisely because the traditional legal structure of marriage and family has been built around two-person, male-female partnerships. Extending recognition even in limited ways begins to treat relationship structure as open-ended rather than as the historically consistent male-female pairing oriented toward clear parental responsibility. Whether or not it becomes a major national issue in the near term, the underlying disagreement is about what counts as marriage and family, not merely about current scope or media framing. Thanks, -Smac

Same here. One of my many hobbies is "seeking truth; or if not truth, then at least utility." Ime there is enormous freedom of thought in not being part of any organization. I can shift or pivot or even reverse course whenever "greater light and knowledge" (or "greater utility") comes along, and I never feel obligated to defend or at least tolerate teachings and practices that I'm not comfortable with. Actually, we do that around here all the time. Some brave souls even do so while posting under their real names. Not me, not yet anyway.