All Activity

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? 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 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. Yes, there are ways to work around tenure protections even when the university has them. But you asked for an appraisal for BYU. That is what you got multiple times. You can ignore the info if you want.

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 "faking 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.

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.

Yes, academia is an absolute disaster, I know. That's one of the reasons I left my "dream job" in California. In my particular field, there isn't too much worry about infringing on any Church doctrines, and I don't see AI replacing this particular line of work anytime soon. I did hear about a plan from someone in leadership that wanted to replace the general education curriculum at BYU with a more Church-centric curriculum, and this has been paused because of massive faculty pushback. It seems like the Church doesn't really care about people's private beliefs. The Church does care about what people say publicly. As long as I don't say anything to anyone about my unorthodox beliefs, there wouldn't be any way for anyone to find out, and my scholarly wouldn't wouldn't demand that ever say anything about it. If I go to Church and just sit and listen, no one is going to know that I have doubts about the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. It may come down to my own experience, whether I am able to tolerate or thrive in that environment. And whether or not I am comfortable redefining what the words "testimony" and "faith" mean for recommend interview. Again, the Church doesn't care what I privately believe, it's what I say publicly that matters. I guess it's a matter of personal integrity, and whether I am willing to live with that. The thing is, there is no organization in existence that 100% matches my personal values, beliefs, and lifestyle preferences. If I were to say that I cannot participate in any organization unless I 100% agree with everything the organization teaches and does, I could not join any organization. In my experience at BYU, no one is going to ask me whether or not I really, really believe that the gold plates were real. It's a matter of being willing keep my unorthodox beliefs to myself and allowing others to have their beliefs. But I would have to do that in any organization, not just the LDS Church. No one really has the privilege of being able to completely remove their filter and walk around spouting off to everyone what they really think.

There are plenty there who privately have doubts or lack belief. However, from what I've been told by several people at BYU (most of them very believing), the situation there (ala academic freedom) is the worst it has been in decades, with some in the leadership pushing their own particular orthodoxy and agendas, and reasonable speculation that classes and professors' work are being spied on or scrutinized for that orthodoxy in ways that were not happening for the first part of the century. Life will be more difficult for you at BYU, and depending on your field, it may be harder to find employment elsewhere because of your employment there if you (or leadership) decides you shouldn't be there. Academia regardless of where you go is an utter mess right now due to political agendas and AI. Your advisors should have told you to run away from it before you got into too much student aid debt. Sorry for being such a downer.

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.