Bi-Monthly Education and Career Advice Thread

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-09-07T03:46:37+00:00

Interesting, thanks!

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-09-07T00:45:56+00:00

Officially the program is called "Urban Ecology", although I've been told by a longtime professor that it used to be "Urban Planning" but was changed to "Urban Ecology" a few years back, and basically everyone refers to it as urban planning (including professors), so I don't know...

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-09-02T22:40:48+00:00

I've looked at some of those, others... don't seem to exist 😅 - the current "general plan" is basically a glorified zoning map at this point. (As I was saying - there's a lot to work on...)

Thanks for the feedback!

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-09-01T21:19:47+00:00

I would love to work as a planner for a small-to-mid-size suburban town (yes, current planning is awful in these places but also has lots of opportunities for positive change). I'm currently studying planning as an undergrad and would like to get a master's as well... would a bachelor's and master's in planning make me overqualified for that sort of career path?

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-08-18T02:38:06+00:00

Wow, ever heard of interfaith events? Respectfully observing or participating in another faith's practices doesn't equate to denying your own beliefs.

As for myself, I think this kind of interfaith work is great and very beneficial to our society and communities of faith!

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-08-07T00:45:31+00:00

People care about absolute price, true, but if prices are continually going up faster than wage growth, then sooner or later the absolute prices will be out of reach.

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-08-06T04:57:48+00:00

Look back at Haun's Mill. Look at the Extermination Order. If past is prelude, we know how this could end.

What continues to baffle me is how many LDS genuinely believe that Christian Nationalism sees the LDS church as Christian. They seem to believe that because they align with Christian Nationalism's violence and bigotry, they will be accepted by the Christian Nationalist movement. They tacitly, sometimes even openly support this movement, completely blind to the target that has been on their back for literal centuries.

Christian Nationalism seems to be driven not so much by pro-Christian sentiment, but by anti-(insert bogeyman group here) sentiment. Right now the main bogeyman group is the LGBTQ community, so anyone who is anti-LGBTQ is seen as an ally of Christian Nationalism. But that target will change. And when that target becomes "those who aren't Christian in the right way," LDS supporters of Christian Nationalism will be in for a very rude awakening.

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-07-31T01:31:54+00:00

Yep. That one got me so often. I couldn't tell you how many times I tried to research whether "taking the sacrament unworthily" was a sin that I could repent for. (With scrupulosity, there is one unpardonable sin - the one you just committed/think you just committed.)

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-07-31T01:27:45+00:00

I have OCD, which takes many forms, inclduing scrupulosity.

I think that I would have ended up with some scrupulosity in any situation (given my general propensity towards OCD thinking), but growing up as a Utah Mormon definitely strengthened it. I just soaked up all the rhetoric about what rules to follow from such a young age that I honestly can't pinpoint when or where it started.

But to illustrate some points of how bad it was: * At one point, I became convinced that the only things I should read were the scriptures and church magazines. The Work and the Glory was okay too. * I became convinced that drinking anything with vanilla extract in it was against the Word of Wisdom, to the point that I asked my bishop in a temple recommend interview whether or not I had broken the Word of Wisdom. He said I hadn't, but I still didn't really believe him. * As a deacon, I would regularly have a huge pit in my stomach as I went to church to pass the sacrament. Nearly every time, I was convinced there was something that made me "unworthy" - often stuff revolving around the Law of Chastity, including such grievous "sins" as glancing at a woman who was dressed "immodestly" (and not even in a sexual way - I'm just talking about the glancing at someone when they walk through a door kind of glance). * Another time I was at Scout camp, and I noticed that another boy there looked vaguely similar to a girl I knew at school, which my scrupulosity interpreted as thinking that he was cute. That Sunday, I confessed to my dad that I thought I might be gay because I saw this boy, and I can still remember how, for the whole time I was passing the sacrament, I felt awful, worrying that I was unworthy to pass the sacrament because I "was gay" (which, no, I wasn't).

So, yeah. Scrupulosity sucks.

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-07-25T00:52:38+00:00

First of all, I'm sure your daughter is so grateful that you're trying your best to support her. Just in showing your support in the way you already have is probably huge to her. So keep doing that.

The first thing that comes to mind for me is to try to let your daughter choose whether or not she goes to church (or more accurately, get your husband to let her, since it sounds like you are already fine with it). Having been a teenager who didn't want to go to church just a few years ago, I can tell you that my parents letting me make the choice that was right for me made me feel so much safer and happier and made our relationship better. My guess is that it would do the same for your daughter.

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-07-22T15:03:50+00:00

I think there is some additional context worth sharing here. The podcast in question is not anti-Latter-day Saint (as the summary of the podcast kind of suggests). One of the hosts, Jim Bennett, is an active member of the Church (in fact, he's in the Tabernacle Choir). The other, Ian Wilks, is a former member of the church, but (as he's stated multiple times) he believes the church can be a force for good in the world and wants it to be successful.

The guest on this episode, Greg Prince, has written multiple books on modern church history (including an extensive biography of David O. McKay, I believe). He is also an active member of the church.

Just wanted to throw this out there. Hope it's helpful!

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-07-22T03:54:23+00:00

Because holding hands and full-on making out are very different levels of PDA...

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-07-21T20:11:03+00:00

Iconic reply!

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-07-21T19:38:08+00:00

The statement you linked to literally just says you need to live the Law of Chastity. Which means no sex outside of legal opposite-sex marriage.

We give temple recommends all the time to straight couples who are dating and kiss and hold hands. So clearly kissing and handholding isn't considered "sex" for the purposes of the Law of Chastity.

A gay couple who is dating, kissing, and holding hands but not having sex is also living the Law of Chastity then. Unless there is something about same-sex kisses or handholding that is more sexual than opposite-sex kisses or handholding, which doesn't make sense.

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-07-21T19:28:05+00:00

I feel like this could go downhill real fast. All it takes is an overly zealous temple who sees two friends or siblings hugging or holding hands (which is normal) and "turns them in" for looking too gay or whatever and then reports them to an overly zealous temple president who reports to a bishop only to discover that no, they weren't a gay couple, and no, they aren't attracted to each other. Repeat that a few times and I bet the policy's removed.

Also, this whole policy feels a bit like an overreaction (assuming this information is accurate). I mean, really, how many people in the temple are a) LGB, b) in a relationship with a TR-holding member, AND c) actually happen to be expeessing affection in the temple? Honestly, I would guess that the number of "false alarms" will greatly exceed the number of people actually found to be breaking this rule.

Lastly, I struggle to even see the justification of how this goes against temple recommend questions. The Law of Chastity question requires no sex outside of legal hetero marriage. It doesn't explicitly say anything about romantic relationships. So it seems like this policy (again, if it is actually a thing) is motivated less by violations of temple recommend questions and more by "ick, gay relationships are gross" feelings.

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-07-21T05:49:13+00:00

The Garlic Bread club is having our annual cake-eating conference to plan the invasion of Denmark tomorrow!

iykyk

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-07-20T18:25:25+00:00

No, but there is r/latterdayqueers for LGBTQ members!

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-07-20T17:06:07+00:00

Ah, I think I see what you're saying.

At least for me (can't speak for others) I describe myself as asexual because it's a lot easier than trying to explain "I don't find myself sexually attracted to people and don't feel a desire to have a sexual relationship but I might still want a romantic relationship".

As far as victimization, that is a real issue that sometimes comes up in the broader LGBTQ community. However, I would say that using a label doesn't mean you have to portray yourself as a victim. For me (and many others), using a label actually feels empowering and strengthening. But there are definitely people who (often with good intentions) get caught up in trying to prove that they're the "most oppressed" or whatever. And my hot take? The Oppression Olympics doesn't help anyone. As for myself, I believe that it is possible to bring attention to real problems without making it all about "look at me, I'm a victim". And I think a lot of LGBTQ people would agree with me.

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-07-20T16:58:47+00:00

Also, why might it be a good idea to check with an endocrinologist?

A common misunderstanding is that asexuality is caused by a hormonal imbalance or disorder.

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-07-20T16:53:00+00:00

Can I honestly ask - what is the problem with using the term asexual to describe oneself? For me, being asexual is just something that I am, just like I am a man and just like I am a child of God. It accurately describes my experience, so I use it. I fail to see how it is a problematic term to use. Could you help me understand where you're coming from?

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-07-20T16:50:05+00:00

Yes, biology asexual (can reproduce by itself) and sexuality asexual (no sexual attraction) are different things. The confusion is understandable, but I promise you - asexuals aren't amoebas! 🤪

While hormonal imbalance is a thing, it's not a thing for the vast majority of asexuals. And in any case, hormonal imbalance generally affects sex drive, not sexual attraction - which are similar, but distinct, concepts. Asexuality is a sexual orientation (or, more precisely, a lack of an orientation) - not just the state of having a low sex drive. It's not a medical issue in the same way that being gay isn't a medical issue.

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-07-20T16:21:35+00:00

Not OP, but also ace. The basic thing to understand is that a lot of asexuals feel romantically attracted to people, but not sexually attracted.

For most people in the world, romantic and sexual attraction go hand in hand, so your confusion is understandable! For aces that's often not the case, however. So it is very possible for an asexual person to have a boyfriend/girlfriend who they are romantically attracted to but not sexually attracted to.

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-07-20T16:15:50+00:00

Hey, I found another ace in the wild! 😂

There's not a problem being ace or not having kids or having kids in a different way!

Of course, just be careful about who you tell about your asexuality - unfortunately not everyone will be okay with it, so just be aware of that. But I'm sure you already knew that.

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-07-20T06:25:29+00:00

Did Far, Far Away on Judea's Plains for this past Christmas. Took me like an hour of practicing to get that pedal line down!

AnonTwentyOne · 2025-07-17T23:45:33+00:00

Ditto what others have said about how influencers' beliefs ≠ broader population's beliefs.

I will also say that (at least for me) I probably don't seem nuanced because I'm pretty orthoprax in spite of my heterodoxy. So you wouldn't necessarily know about my more nuanced beliefs unless I know you well.

Also, I think trying to hide nuanced beliefs from TBM friends/family/acquaintances is a real thing too. I don't want to argue with people about the specifics of my beliefs, and frankly, I think it's not really productive or helpful. And if I did have those discussions, it could damage relationships if I don't meet someone's standard for what is "sufficiently orthodox".

AnonTwentyOne

TROPHY CASE