All Activity

Surveys and informal studies? What? Also the age 25 thing about full brain maturity is very badly misrepresented in popular culture far beyond what the data actually showed.

Not at all. If you can obtain a temple recommend by honestly answering all of the questions then that is what matters. But you've already said that you won't wear the garments as instructed (which is a temple recommend question) and also won't pay a full tithing (another temple recommend question). I'm not sure where you land on the other questions as you haven't mentioned your stance on those. You don't have to believe all of the beliefs or do all the things to go to the temple but you do have to believe and do the specific things required in the temple recommend interview.

I don't think that's a good reason. I'd also be surprised if your parents wanted you in the temple with them under those circumstances. I have a son that doesn't have a temple recommend and I'd much much rather he not go than lie so he could go. (no harsh tone intended in any of my posts)

Similar to manol, I also feel the Divine communicates with us through circumstances, and situations in our lives. I feel manol has made a valid point. For you to pray for understanding rather than resolution seems to be for the best.

Part 1 "Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon." -MATTHEW 15:21 Jesus retreated to the region of Tyre and Sidon after His heated exchange with the Pharisees on the true understanding of the purity laws. But why, of all places, did Jesus choose to go to Tyre and Sidon? The cities were located on the east coast of the Mediterranean. In order for Jesus to get there, He would have to head north through the Jordan Valley, which was actually a swamp, and then cut and climb through a mountain range to get to Tyre. This 45-mile journey would have taken Him at least three days. In the Old Testament, Tyre and Sidon were territories given to Israel, but Israel never conquered them. At best, there were short-lived alliances during the reigns of David and Solomon with Hiram, king of Tyre, who would send cedar to build the Temple and the royal palace. Tyre and Sidon were also historical centers of Baal worship, so cedar was not the only thing they exported; they also exported Baal worship. Altogether, Tyre and Sidon were Gentile territory that had a stronghold of idolatry and demonic forces. After arriving in Tyre and Sidon, Jesus entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet He could not keep His presence secret" (Mark 7:24). Then, a Canaanite woman from the vicinity came. In the past, the Canaanites opposed Israel and their idolatry was a constant threat and temptation to Israel; God also told Israel to have nothing to do with the Canaanites. This Canaanite woman had a daughter who was possessed by an unclean spirit and suffering terribly. She probably heard about this Galilean named Jesus performing miracles of healing and teaching about the kingdom of God. It would have been an impossible trip for this woman and her daughter to travel and meet Jesus, but she learned that one day Jesus had come to where she lived. Going against all cultural expectations, she went before Jesus and begged Him to save her daughter. She believed that Jesus had the power to heal her daughter, the question she wondered was whether He would be willing and show mercy to a Gentile? Returning to the original question of why Jesus went to Tyre and Sidon, He went there for this woman and her daughter. No matter where we are, Jesus is willing to go to where we are and draw us to Him. Jesus not only made the difficult journey to Tyre and Sidon, but also from heaven to earth to seek and save the lost-He came for you and me. Part 2 "A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to [Jesus], crying out, 'Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly?" -MATTHEW 15:22 A Canaanite woman who had a demon-possessed daughter went desperately before Jesus and cried out, Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly (Matthew 15:22). From these simple statements alone, we could glean three things about her. Firstly, the Canaanite woman referred to Jesus as "Lord," which was a term of address to someone who is of higher social standing, greater resources and greater abilities. Clearly, she saw her humble position before Jesus. Secondly, the woman was a Canaanite, a Gentile; and yet, she called Jesus Son of David, a title that referred not just to a descendant of David but the descendant. Even though the Canaanite woman was not Jewish and David was not her king, she acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah. Thirdly, she cried, "have mercy on me"; this is a cry of an inferior to superior pleading for undeserved favor. For her, the question was would Jesus have mercy and compassion on her, a Gentile woman, and her daughter? When Jesus did not respond, the disciples took it upon themselves to urge Him to do something about the Canaanite woman. They were not pleading on behalf of the Canaanite woman for Jesus to help but were urging, Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us" (Matthew 15:23). The disciples found the Canaanite woman disturbing them, and their behavior showed disdain towards her. We could compare the disciples' behavior to flying and being in business class. From the moment one steps into the plane, one experiences exceptional service from the seat to the meal to all the amenities on board, which is in contrast to those travelling in economy class. The most obvious difference in status is the curtain that divides the two sections. To indicate the privilege of those in business class, a curtain is drawn shut during the flight to keep the chaos of the economy class from disturbing those in business class. The disciples felt like they had been upgraded to "Jesus class" but what they did not realize was that they belonged in economy. The disciples forgot that they were lowly fishermen and tax collectors. Yet, they were placed in "Jesus class" as an act of grace. They failed to remember that their upgrade was only made possible by Jesus in order to bring people to Jesus. As people who experienced the grace of Jesus, the disciples failed to extend the same grace to the Canaanite woman. Ephesians 2:14 tells us, "For He Himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility." By the grace we received, may we also extend grace to those who need Jesus. Part 3 THE SAME MASTER "Jesus did not answer a word." -MATTHEW 15:23 A Canaanite woman came in desperation to Jesus, pleading and begging Him to have mercy on her for her daughter, who was demon-possessed and suffering terribly, but Jesus did not give her an answer. Did we notice the redundancy in Matthew's writing when he described what Jesus did? He did not simply say Jesus remained silent; he emphasized Jesus's intentional deliberate unresponsiveness. Jesus did not answer a word." What kind of unresponsiveness was this? What kind of silence? Did Jesus turn His face away? Some of us may wonder, what is going on? This is not the Jesus we often encounter in Scripture when a person humbles their heart before Him. As Jesus's disciples urged Him to send the woman away, He said to the woman, I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). In other words, I am not for you. You don't have a seat at the table. There is no setting for you. You are an outsider. You are not one of us. You are not eligible. It is interesting that Jesus would say He came only for Israel because He was the One who went to a Gentile territory-to Tyre and Sidon. To Jesus's statement, the woman knelt before Him and cried, "Lord, help me!" (Matthew 5:25). When the woman asked for Jesus to have mercy on her (Matthew 15:22), it was an appeal to His heart attitude. Now, her plea was for Him to help her, an appeal for action. Jesus replied, 'It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs" (Matthew 15:26). In this statement, Jesus made a clear distinction: there are children and there are dogs. Children have rights and privileges because they are family, but dogs were considered unclean so Israel did not keep them as pets. (Although in the present day, we have dogs as pets and they are considered family; this was not the case during Jesus's time.) Dogs were a derogatory term used by Jews to refer to Gentiles. Despite Jesus's silence and negative response, as well as the disciples' rejection, the woman was not deterred. She kept pressing in. She said, Yes it is, Lord, even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their Master's table" (Matthew 15:27). This was a bold statement. The woman acknowledged that she was a dog, undeserving of bread, but she also made a point that the dog has a Master-that she belonged to the same Master as the children. It is true that the Canaanite woman did not belong to the "chosen" people of Israel, but she recognized who the true Master of her life was. Who is the Master of our lives? Part 4 YOU HAVE GREAT FAITH!" "Then Jesus said to her, Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted? And her daughter was healed at that moment." -MATTHEW 15:28 Where is our faith? Would we say it is 50% Jesus, 25% ourselves, 15% our bank accounts and 10% on who we know? Matthew 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30 give an exchange that Jesus had with a Canaanite woman begging Him to heal her daughter that was demon- possessed and suffering terribly. Although the woman encountered push back not only from Jesus's disciples, but also Jesus Himself, she was not deterred. Not even when Jesus said He was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel and that it is not good to take what is given to Israel and toss it to the Gentiles, the woman told Him that the crumbs were enough. She was not looking to take from Israel, but recognized the shared Master between Israel and the Gentiles. At this, Jesus exclaimed, Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted (Matthew 15:28). The exchange climaxed with Jesus praising the woman's faith and then proving that her faith was vindicated and validated by healing her daughter. Throughout the Gospel, this unnamed Canaanite woman was the only person whose faith was described as "great" by Jesus. As we consider the healing story of the Canaanite woman's daughter, we find it parallel to the Roman Centurion in Matthew 8:5-13, where both had a request on behalf of someone and Jesus healed them from a distance. While the centurion's faith was praised as being exceptional in Israel and the NIV translation adds the word "great" to describe his faith, it does not exist in the Greek text. The Canaanite woman was the only one that was praised by Jesus for having great faith. This begs the question, what is great faith? From the woman, we could consider three elements to great faith. Firstly, great faith is relying solely on Jesus and no one, nowhere and nothing else. Secondly, great faith is steadfast. Even though the woman was pushed back and discouraged three times by Jesus, she was a rock and did not move. She knew Jesus was the Messiah and that He was the Messiah for the whole world, including her. Lastly, great faith has limitless scope. The woman believed there was no limit to Jesus's love and His ability to heal her daughter. Jesus's gift to the Canaanite woman was not the healing of her daughter; His gift to her was taking faith and turning it into the reality of life experience. She had met Jesus and her life had changed. Where is our faith? Even when we receive push back and discouragement, will our faith remain steadfast upon Jesus?

And that's the way that I'm feeling about it. It seems that events in my life are moving me in this direction. I would like to go to the temple. I've been many times before, and I'm willing to live the standards, but it sounds like people are saying that I can't go unless also I believe all of the beliefs. Is that correct?

You could look her up. She is the person - the attorney/activist - who first proposed the city ordinance. From the article: Again: 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"? For me, I think the answers are obvious: "Just the beginning" of efforts to legalize group marriage. Group marriage is the "future" that has been "out of reach." We don't need to have a "long conversation" for you to answer these two questions. Of course, you are under no obligation to do so. Pretty sure. I don't recall saying that. Please provide a link. The law professor I think you may have in mind, Lynn Wardle, noted that under the law in the U.S. marriage was predicated on five characteristics: number (2), sex (male-female), age (varied by jurisdiction), consent / mental capacity, and consanguinity. Number (2) enforces monogamy, promoting exclusivity, clear lines of responsibility, and stability. Sex (male-female) recognizes biological complementarity. Age (set by each state, typically 16–18 with or without consent) ensures a baseline of maturity for the legal and practical commitments involved. Mental capacity requires the ability to understand and consent to the nature of the marital contract (a longstanding common-law rule that voids or voidables marriages lacking real consent). Consanguinity bars marriages within close blood relationships (parent-child, siblings, etc., and often closer cousins in many states) to avoid incest and related social harms. In my view, these A) make sense and B) involve considerations for procreation. The male-female requirement and the consanguinity rules are the clearest indicators of a procreative orientation. Only opposite-sex unions are naturally capable of producing offspring; the sex criterion therefore channels the legal institution toward the biological reality of reproduction. Consanguinity prohibitions further reflect concern for the health of potential children by reducing risks of recessive genetic disorders. Age and capacity requirements support the expectation of mature, responsible adults who can parent. These traditional rules define marriage by its longstanding public purposes—chiefly channeling the unique capacity of a man and a woman to procreate and supporting the rearing of any children—not by hostility toward gay people or same-sex couples. The five characteristics (two persons, opposite sexes, age, capacity, and consanguinity limits) are general structural boundaries. They also exclude polygamy, group marriage, incest, underage marriages, and unions lacking consent. The opposite-sex element simply reflects that only male-female unions can naturally produce children and, historically, were understood as the core setting for raising them. This is a positive claim about the institution’s characteristic ends, not a judgment on the dignity of same-sex relationships. Distinguishing them on that basis is a rational view of what marriage is for, not evidence of animus. I think this is where and why people like you part ways with people like me. We both value marriage as an institution, but I think you view it as primarily a vehicle for adult emotional companionship or benefits, whereas I see it as that alongside the appropriate and divinely-ordained social and legal channel for procreation and the rearing of children by a complementary male-female pair. Removing or altering the sex criterion, in this view, severs that link and reorients the institution away from its historical child-centered public - and divine - purposes. Until Obergefell, two married people were one man and one woman. You may as well say that social security benefits was not based on recipients being homo sapiens. I think your AI buddy's comment here confuses the gradual elimination of some sex-based incidents of marriage (property control, alimony rules, survivor benefits, etc.) with a change in marriage’s definition. By 2015, many of the legal consequences that once differed by sex had indeed been equalized. That process dismantled doctrines such as coverture, which gave husbands extensive control over marital property and limited a wife’s independent legal capacity. Those rules were a mixed historical bag: some reflected older assumptions of female dependency or inferiority, while others (the husband’s duty of support, for example) were understood as protective of women. Their progressive removal made the legal consequences of marriage more gender-neutral; it did not redefine who may enter the status or what the institution is for. Marriage’s core legal structure—the requirement of one man and one woman—rested on a different foundation: the unique capacity of an opposite-sex couple to procreate and the judgment that this pairing is the preferred setting for raising children. That definition long predated coverture, survived its dismantling, and was still the law in nearly every state in 2015. Equalizing benefits and obligations between spouses is not the same thing as declaring that the sex of the parties is irrelevant to the meaning of the institution itself. And all this arises even without considering the religious/revelatory/doctrinal considerations about marriage within the Latter-day Saint paradigm. We believe God instituted marriage. I've said nothing to suggest that I have a "complaint" about women and men and equality under the law. I fully support that concept. Thanks, -Smac

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" coming to you.

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