smac97

Thank you for sharing your perspective so directly. I understand that this is a deeply felt view for you. I do not share the premise that polygamy is inherently and only a system of male power and female devaluation. In the cases of Abraham, Jacob, and (as Latter-day Saints understand it) Joseph Smith, the practice is presented in scripture and history as a specific, limited, and difficult commandment rather than a general male entitlement. That does not erase the real pain it caused in some circumstances (it worked well in others) — especially to the women involved — and I do not minimize that. The Hales’ research, for example, is quite frank about the cost to Emma. Where we differ is on whether God can ever authorize something that is costly or disruptive to human relationships. I believe He can and sometimes does (the binding of Isaac is another example of a command that appears to shatter ordinary moral expectations). That doesn’t make the human suffering less real; it does change how I interpret the action. I also do not accept that the Bible is merely “men’s stories” that conveniently justify evil. I take it as containing genuine revelation, even while acknowledging human limitations in the record. That is a foundational difference in how we read these accounts. I can critique the secrecy and the human cost in Joseph’s case without reducing the entire practice to ordinary infidelity or to a pure power play. Those are distinct categories in my view. I respect that you see it differently. These are weighty questions, and people of good faith can land in different places. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. Thanks, -Smac

And yet actually learning about them would require too much effort so you are just going to be concerned and object a lot. I have spent quite a bit of time and effort in studying this matter. Thanks, -Smac

Yet you only offer this kind of leniency to prophets. I don’t think that’s accurate. Joseph’s secrecy caused real pain, especially to Emma, and he handled these matters in some quite flawed ways. I am not pretending it was clean or ideal. The Hales document that cost honestly, and so have I. The difference is not “leniency for prophets, judgment for everyone else.” It’s that the two situations are not the same kind of claim: Joseph and the early Saints claimed they were acting under a specific divine commandment in a time of extreme persecution and legal danger. Whether one accepts that claim or not, it is a religious-historical claim with a particular context. The BACP guidance is a modern professional standard for therapists. It instructs them to treat non-monogamy (including in the section on secret non-monogamies) as “equally valid” to monogamy and to view the boundaries as “blurred.” That is a present-day institutional position about how counselors should approach clients in ordinary circumstances. I can acknowledge Joseph’s failures without reducing the entire episode to ordinary secret adultery. At the same time, I can question a contemporary therapy guideline that softens the ethical weight of secrecy and deception in committed relationships. Those are not contradictory positions. Grace and accountability are not mutually exclusive. I’m willing to extend both — to historical figures and to modern professional standards. The difference is that Joseph is long dead, whereas the guidelines under discussion were published very recently. I'll leave Joseph's accountability for his actions to him and God. Meanwhile, I think we can and should discuss modern developments such as those in the guidelines referenced in the OP. Also, I have not condemned any person. I have expressed concerns about and objections to therapeutic guidelines as referenced in the OP. I think we should critique those things. Thanks, -Smac

If the person believes that the cheating is a good thing morally because it makes them and the other feel better and the nonmonogamist believes they have a moral right to do so, what is the fundamental difference besides if God actually commanded it? For example, maybe the person believes it’s their moral duty to have children to contribute in a lasting way to society and his wife can’t get pregnant. Both Joseph and the current non monogamist believe they were acting morally, correct? First, I do not equate divinely-authorized/mandated polygamy with infidelity/adultery. Second, I do not view Joseph's behavior as post hoc or ad hoc rationalization. My assessment is based on my own study, and also the assessments of Joseph by my father, by Daniel Peterson, and by the Hales. See, e.g., here: And here: And here: And here: Third, the difference isn’t just that “they both believed they were acting morally.” Subjective sincerity exists in almost every difficult moral claim. A person who secretly cheats because they believe it will make them happier, or because they think they have a duty to have children outside the marriage, may sincerely believe their actions are justified. That sincerity does not erase the breach of the wedding covenant or the deception involved. I think Joseph’s case is different in several important respects: He and the early Saints claimed the practice was a specific divine commandment, not a personal moral insight or lifestyle preference. That claim is either true or false, but it is a different kind of claim than “I have a right to pursue happiness outside my marriage.” The historical setting involved extreme external pressure — persecution, legal danger, and the real possibility of the destruction of the church. Secrecy was framed as protection of the community, not merely concealment of personal desire. The practice was later regulated, limited, and eventually discontinued under the same prophetic authority that introduced it. It was never presented as an open-ended right to non-monogamy. I can (and do) acknowledge that Joseph’s secrecy caused real harm to Emma and still hold that the claimed religious context and the historical circumstances distinguish it from the sort of "secret non-monogamy" referenced in the guidelines. Belief that one is acting morally may be common to both, but the nature of the claimed justification and the surrounding conditions are not the same. Thanks, -Smac

I think it is entirely acceptable to speak against people who are sexualizing and grooming children. I think there are substantial numbers of LGBT people who agree with this sentiment. I also think there are extensive concerns about medical interventions associated with minors and Gender Dysphoria. We are seeing the beginning of what may end up being a large number of lawsuits about this. I think that is a healthy and appropriate course correction in society. I have provided ample references to events which involve the sexualization and grooming of children, and also problematic medical interventions. "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Matthew 18:6. There are few things as depraved as sexualizing and grooming children. Thanks, -Smac

Maybe you could try fact checking “allegations” rather than just finding them troubling? Yes. Part of that process is discussing the topic. I think there are ample grounds to be concerned about, and object to, many developments associated with pediatric sex trait modification procedures. Thanks, -Smac

No, that is not what I am doing. I’m not “rationalizing infidelity.” I’m acknowledging that Joseph Smith’s practice of plural marriage was secretive and caused real pain — especially to Emma — while also recognizing the historical and religious context in which it occurred. The key distinction is this: Joseph and the early Saints claimed they were obeying what they sincerely believed was a divine commandment in an environment of extreme persecution, mob violence, and legal danger. That is fundamentally different from a modern person secretly cheating on their spouse for personal reasons while publicly claiming monogamy. I don’t claim Joseph handled it perfectly — the Hales’ research documents the human cost. But I also don’t reduce it to or characterize it as adultery or infidelity. The Restoration context (including Joseph’s reluctance and the “angel with a drawn sword” accounts) matters. As for your hypothetical: No, I do not believe God commands people today to break their wedding vows in secret. The practice of plural marriage was a specific, time-limited commandment given to Joseph and the early church under unique circumstances. It is not a model for modern behavior. Plural marriage is acceptable only when commanded by God and practiced righteously. When motivated by lust, political ambition, or practiced without restraint, it leads to heartache, idolatry, family division, and spiritual downfall (as seen with David and Solomon). Modern revelation (D&C 132) reaffirms that the principle is tightly controlled by God. I can critique Joseph’s secrecy and still believe he was a prophet acting under difficult constraints — just as one can critique morally difficult elements in the Old Testament while believing in the Bible’s overall message. Thanks, -Smac

We are all sinners in one way or another. I don't think biological men have a legal right to enter into women's spaces (prisons, bathrooms, sports, etc.). I also think this is a matter about which the democratic/legislative processes should be utilized. I have frequently endorsed the idea of adults having broad rights to bodily autonomy. I think sex trait modification procedures should be subject to normative medical / scientific / legal scrutiny, as I think many of the following concerns are in play: Comorbidities. Informed consent. Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. Irreversibility. Sterilization. Electively removing healthy body parts of minors. Longitudinal studies essentially absent. Lifelong medical regimens. Ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. Social contagion risks. Risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society). Not sure what you mean by "it." If you are referring to sex modification procedures, I think it would be quite difficult to square such things with the Restored Gospel. However, I have ample grounds for my position on these matters over and above religious sentiments. I think the grooming and sexualization of children to be depraved and evil. I think people who endorse such things to be icky and disturbing. People with Gender Dysphoria deserve as much respect and consideration as people with any other mental health issue. I want to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. I condemn the sexualization and grooming of children. I think that position is eminently moral and decent and correct. Thanks, -Smac

I grew up in a large family but never felt any particular pressure from any family members or ecclesiastical leaders or church members to have a large family (9 kids). Apart from the generalized counsel to have as many children as we can reasonably provide for, my wife and I were left to our own preferences and the Lord's will. As it happens, she also came from a large family (5 kids), and we both wanted to have a large family and to have them within about 2 years of each other. We ended up having five children at our own pace, and then felt prompted to have one more, so we ended up with six and decided to stop. It's been a wonderful and difficult ride. Wouldn't change it for anything. And I also wouldn't question anyone else's decisions as to how to enact prophetic counsel on this very important topic. Thanks, -Smac

On the "affirming lens" comparison: The Hales do not apply an “affirming lens” to rationalize infidelity. They document the real pain it caused Emma and acknowledge secrecy as a serious flaw. They argue Joseph believed he was obeying a divine commandment under extreme persecution — not acting for personal gratification. That is, I think, different from the BACP’s guidance, which tells therapists in 2023 to view non-monogamy (even when discussing secret non-monogamies) as “equally valid” to monogamy with “blurred boundaries.” One is historical analysis of a claimed revelation in a dangerous time. The other is a modern professional standard for how counselors should approach clients today. On whether Joseph would have been better off keeping his promise to Emma: Yes. In hindsight, greater transparency with Emma might have reduced her suffering. The Hales document that pain honestly. I think the historical context matters. Joseph and the early Saints faced literal mobs and legal threats. Secrecy was primarily about protecting lives and the church, not casual self-justification. That’s not the same as a modern person secretly cheating while claiming monogamy. The BACP document, by contrast, is not operating under persecution. It’s a secular therapy guideline instructing professionals to affirm non-monogamy as equally valid and blur boundaries around secrecy. That’s a very different setting. Joseph Smith’s practice of plural marriage remains a genuine stumbling block for many Latter-day Saints — past, present, and prospective. I have not yet found a fully satisfying explanation for why God would command something so difficult and painful for Joseph, Emma, and the early Saints. Jacob 2:30 offers one scriptural rationale (“raise up seed unto me”), and biblical precedent exists (Abraham, Jacob, etc.), but the human cost was real. The temptation is to reject the entire Restoration because of this. But that would require dismissing the powerful witnesses I have that God did restore His gospel through Joseph Smith. I believe Joseph experienced what he claimed, with all the downstream ramifications that follow. How, then, do I reconcile myself to morally difficult elements in the biblical narrative — or in Joseph’s life? Both the Bible (especially the Old Testament) and the formative years of the Restoration require significant allowances for ancient context, cultural differences, translation, and presentism. My own moral intuitions are finite, culturally shaped, and incomplete. I must temper them with humility. Any assessment of these narratives begins with presuppositions about God’s character, authority, and sovereignty. The same principles apply to Joseph. He was deeply flawed — especially in how he handled plural marriage and its secrecy. I don’t need him to have been infallible. But I do not believe he was a “fallen prophet.” He died in communion with God. Mormon 9:31 seems fitting here: “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection… but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.” I leave Joseph’s sins and transgressions in the hands of God. Meanwhile, I remain grateful for the Restoration that came through him, imperfections and all. Thanks, -Smac

I agree that the article was inflammatory. I should have found a more moderate treatment of the guidelines under discussion, or just discussed the guidelines themselves. I appreciate that clarification. As a lawyer, I’m generally called upon to provide legal advice. I try to keep that advice as clinical and objective as possible, but often there are pragmatic components that come into play. Consider, for example, Rule 2.1 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct: “In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors that may be relevant to the client’s situation.” In other words, lawyers are not robotic or clean slates. We are given the option of laying out "considerations" that require value judgments and deliberations. In family law or probate matters, for instance, it is not only appropriate but often necessary for me to encourage a client to consider the impact of a legal decision on intra-family dynamics, children, long-term relationships, or even the client’s own emotional well-being. Withholding that broader perspective would be doing the client a disservice. I currently have a client who is suing her niece over a contract dispute. We just won the case a few days ago, so the next steps will be to finalize the judgment, then enforce it. By "enforce it," that may mean foreclosing on the niece's home. The niece previously agreed to pay the contract amount over a period of years in monthly payments, but she reneged after a few months, so my client is not willing to trust her with a structured payoff of the judgment. There are alternatives, such as garnished wages and foreclosure. My client wants to pursue the latter because the former (garnishment) would take years to pay off. But as you can imagine, foreclosing on a family member's house could have severe familial repercussions. So we have discussed "other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors that may be relevant to the client’s situation." Do similar principles apply in therapy? If a client is engaged in secret infidelity, can/should a therapist’s role include helping them honestly examine the relational harm, attachment damage, trust erosion, and potential consequences? How does this relate to framing non-monogamy, particularly the "secret" forms, as “equally valid” with “blurred boundaries” under an affirmative model? I’m not suggesting therapists should preach or berate. But do professional standards allow (and/or encourage) candid exploration of self-defeating or relationally destructive patterns, just as lawyers are expected to give well-rounded advice? I am curious about this: "Our job isn't to convince a client to the life choices we think are correct or better." Are therapists not supposed to differentiate between healthy/unhealthy, harmful/unharmful choices and behaviors? From a prior post: How do these behaviors fit into "Our job isn't to convince..."? I appreciate you sharing how you approach your work — it’s helpful to hear it from a practicing therapist. I’m trying to understand the framework. At first blush, the idea of helping clients find “their own version of healthy within their context” sounds like therapy functions primarily as an affirmation mechanism. But I assume I’m missing nuance there. For comparison: A medical doctor diagnosing a broken arm doesn’t defer to the patient’s “own version of healthy” — treatment follows medical standards and ethics. As an attorney, I lay out legal options and likely outcomes based on facts, law, and practical realities. I don’t simply affirm whatever the client prefers as “their truth” if it’s legally or strategically unsound. So I’m genuinely curious: Do therapists have an obligation to call a ball a ball and a strike a strike? Are there objective or clinically recognized “healthy” vs. “unhealthy” relational behaviors (e.g., honesty and fidelity in marriage, or the harm caused by secrecy and betrayal)? Or is the role more open-ended — helping the client define their own version of healthy, even if it involves patterns most people would consider self-defeating or harmful to others? I’m not suggesting therapists should preach or impose personal morality. I’m asking where the guardrails are in this model. I understand the need for space in therapy — not every issue can or should be confronted immediately. For me, the preliminary concern with the BACP guidance is different. It does not simply create space. It actively instructs therapists to adopt an affirmative approach that treats non-monogamy as “equally valid” to monogamy (even when discussing secret non-monogamies) and states that “the boundaries between them are blurred anyway.” That seems to go beyond neutrality or waiting for client readiness. It risks downplaying the harm of secrecy and betrayal in committed relationships as just one valid way of “navigating” things. I appreciate the thoughtful approach you describe — safety, exploration, and working toward honesty where possible. The BACP guidance seemingly goes further. In the section on “Secret non-monogamies,” it instructs therapists to use a GSRD affirmative approach that treats non-monogamy as “equally valid” to monogamy and says “the boundaries between them are blurred anyway.” As I see it, that framing risks minimizing the inherent harm of secrecy and betrayal rather than treating it as a serious breach to be addressed. It would seem that a neutral therapist can explore values and consequences without affirming the behavior as part of a valid relational spectrum. I appreciate the nuance you bring from your experience as a therapist. From my perspective, the distinction between "gently" exploring values and actively affirming behaviors as “equally valid” is important. The BACP guidance doesn’t stop at neutrality or careful self-disclosure. In the section on secret non-monogamies, it directs therapists to adopt a GSRD affirmative approach that treats non-monogamy as “equally valid” to monogamy, with “blurred boundaries” between secret and consensual forms. That seems a bit different from your careful, exploratory style. It risks downplaying the harm of secrecy and betrayal rather than helping clients confront it. I'm not sure that the concern is about imposing faith-based values. It’s whether professional standards should affirm deception in committed relationships as part of a valid relational spectrum. I would appreciate any further insights/thoughts you have on this topic. Thanks, -Smac

Someone who reveres him as a prophet and believes Section 132 is from God. Okay. I don't think Latter-day Saints consider themselves disciples of Joseph Smith. Do you think there is any difference between therapists utilizing "an 'affirming lens'" in their professional capacities versus a private person assessing, in a religious context, the actions of a historical figure nearly 200 hundred years ago? Also, do you think the Hales' assessment of Joseph's secrecy can be fairly reduced to "he was just doing what God told him to do"? I am curious if you are on board with the guidelines' take on "secret nonmonogamy." You’re highlighting what you see as irony about my perspective, but I think the situations are quite different. I don’t categorically defend Joseph Smith’s secrecy in plural marriage. The Hales’ research (which I respect) shows it caused real pain, especially to Emma, and it was an imperfect, even substantially flawed, way to introduce a difficult commandment. However, Joseph and the early Saints faced literal mobs, legal persecution, and existential threats to the church. Secrecy was driven by survival in a hostile 1840s environment, not casual disregard for fidelity. By contrast, the BACP document is a modern professional guideline for therapists in 2023. It explicitly frames non-monogamy (in the section on “secret non-monogamies”) as “equally valid” to monogamy, with “blurred boundaries.” This isn’t about life-threatening persecution — it’s secular counselors being instructed to downplay the harm of secrecy and betrayal in relationships. I think I can critique both Joseph’s approach and modern therapeutic guidance that normalizes or softens infidelity without contradiction. One was a flawed response to extreme danger under claimed revelation. The other is a contemporary professional standard that risks minimizing real relational harm in stable societies. The suggestion of irony isn’t lost on me — but the contexts and stakes are very different. Thanks, -Smac

Yes, this is clearly a “both sides” problem. /s Funny how that works out. We each think the other is failing to meaningfully contribute to the discussion. Perhaps there is simply too much ill will, too many uncivil interactions in the past. I regret my part in contributing to that, and am trying to do better. In the end, I wonder if our philosophical worldviews, presuppositions and ideological commitments are simply too divergent from each other to allow for meaningful discussions. Thanks, -Smac

Could you elaborate on the irony you see here? First, could you clarify what you mean by "a disciple of Joseph Smith"? Also, the PDF document characterizes "secret non-monogamy" as "{a} relationship model that is at least as common as monogamy, if not more so, is secret non-monogamy, generally taking the form of affairs or infidelity." You raise a fair point about irony, and it’s one worth addressing directly. I acknowledge that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage secretly in many cases, including without Emma’s full knowledge or consent for most of the sealings. Faithful scholars like Brian and Laura Hales document this openly in their research (Joseph Smith’s Polygamy). They acknowledge that the secrecy caused real pain, especially to Emma, and that Joseph’s approach was imperfect. That said, there are some distinctions work addressing: Joseph and early church leaders taught that plural marriage was a divine commandment introduced gradually under difficult circumstances (legal persecution, mob violence, and the threat of destroying the young church). Public announcement would have invited immediate destruction. The Hales and other LDS scholars argue the secrecy was primarily pragmatic necessity, not deception for personal lust. Most of the women involved later spoke positively of Joseph and the principle. By contrast, the BACP guidance is a modern professional standard for therapists that explicitly frames non-monogamy (including in the context of discussing “secret non-monogamies”) as “equally valid” to monogamy, with “blurred boundaries.” It instructs therapists to avoid focusing on the “non-normativity” of going against monogamous commitments. I think the two situations are not equivalent: Joseph claimed divine direction for a religious practice in a hostile 1840s environment. The BACP is a secular therapy organization telling counselors in 2023 to treat secret infidelity through an “affirming lens.” One can recognize that Joseph’s secrecy was a flawed approach to implementing a very difficult divine commandment in an extremely hostile environment, without imputing lust or deliberate unfaithfulness as the primary motivation. The six-year gap between his marriage to Fanny Alger and the next recorded plural marriage (Louisa Beaman), along with the repeated “angel with a drawn sword” accounts and Joseph’s own reluctance, provide substantial grounds to view his actions as driven by religious conviction rather than personal desire. Faithful scholars like Brian and Laura Hales document these challenges openly while defending Joseph’s prophetic calling. Similarly, one can critique modern therapeutic guidelines that downplay the harm of betrayal in marriage without it being “ironic.” The two situations are not equivalent: Joseph claimed revelation for a religious practice under threat of destruction; the BACP is a secular professional body instructing therapists in 2023 to treat non-monogamy (including in discussions of secret non-monogamies) as “equally valid” to monogamy with “blurred boundaries.” Thanks, -Smac

We appear to be talking past each other. Thanks, -Smac

I wonder if this misses the point. The concern is less about "enforcing religious laws" and more about whether therapists should treat secret infidelity (non-consensual betrayal) with the same “affirming" lens they apply to other behaviors. Look at the document’s own wording in Section 4.4: This does not seem to be neutral. It explicitly tells therapists to de-emphasize the harm of going against monogamous commitments and to view non-monogamy (even in the secret context being discussed) as equally valid. Compare that to how therapists likely handle cutting, bulimia, or anorexia. Those are not “affirmed” as equally valid coping mechanisms. They’re recognized as harmful and addressed with the goal of reducing them. Can you help me identify why the different standard arises when the behavior involves betraying a partner’s trust? I suspect non-religious people (and many secular therapists) also worry about this. Healthy relationships require honesty, consent, and accountability. When professional guidelines tilt toward affirming secrecy or blurring boundaries around infidelity, it can undermine trust, attachment, and emotional safety — outcomes that have real, measurable harm. So I think the issue isn't really about religion, but rather about whether therapy prioritizes client autonomy above all, even when that autonomy harms others, or whether it maintains ethical guardrails around destructive relational behaviors. I also wonder if there are quasi-religious ideological underpinnings for some of these guidelines. I think the article is not misrepresenting the document — it’s quoting it directly. Here’s the actual wording from BACP’s GSRD guidance (Section 4.4 on “Secret non-monogamies”): The guidelines explicitly discuss secret non-monogamy and then instructs therapists to view non-monogamy as “equally valid” to monogamy while downplaying the importance of boundaries. Even if some poly/ethical non-monogamy communities condemn cheating (which many do), professional therapy guidelines shouldn’t blur the line between consensual arrangements and betrayal. Fidelity and trust are foundational to most marriages, and therapists should be able to name harm when secrecy and deception are involved — without being told to treat it as just another “valid” way of relating. This is not, I think, a "political" issue. Plenty of secular relationship experts, attachment researchers, and everyday people (religious or not) recognize that secret affairs usually cause deep relational damage. The concern is whether therapy guidance should prioritize “affirmation” over acknowledging that harm. I agree that therapists should not harangue clients or impose personal moral judgments. The role is to help people understand their behavior and its consequences, not preach. The problem with the BACP guidance is that it goes beyond neutrality. It explicitly tells therapists to adopt a GSRD affirmative approach, under which non-monogamy (even when discussed in the “secret non-monogamies” section) is framed as “equally valid” to monogamy, with “blurred boundaries” between them. That’s not just “don’t judge.” It’s an instruction to de-emphasize the normativity of monogamy and the harm of secrecy. A truly neutral therapist could say: “Secret affairs often destroy trust and cause significant pain to the betrayed partner — let’s explore what’s driving this and what you want for your relationship.” An affirmative approach risks minimizing that harm in order to validate the behavior as just another valid way of relating. This is not the same as helping the client examine self-defeating patterns. It can enable them by softening the ethical reality of betrayal. Helping people improve does not require unending moral neutrality on issues like deception in committed relationships. Good therapy can acknowledge harm while remaining compassionate and client-led. I don't think that analogy works. A defense attorney’s job is to zealously advocate for their client’s legal interests within the adversarial court system. Their role is not to act as a moral counselor or relationship repair expert. In contrast, a therapist’s job is to promote psychological health, emotional well-being, and healthier functioning, including in relationships. When a client is engaging in secret infidelity, a good therapist should be able to help them examine the consequences (broken trust, attachment damage, guilt, impact on children, etc.) without being instructed to treat non-monogamy as “equally valid” to monogamy and the boundaries as “blurred anyway” (direct language from the BACP guidance). No one is asking therapists to “berate” clients. The concern is whether professional guidelines should push an affirmative stance that downplays the harm of betrayal in favor of validating the behavior as just another valid relational choice. Therapists are not defense attorneys. Their ethical duty includes addressing self-defeating and relationally destructive patterns, not softening them under the banner of affirmation. The article is a bit more histrionic than I'd like, but we can and should discuss professional therapy guideline that explicitly tells counsellors to treat non-monogamy (including in the context of secret non-monogamies) as “equally valid” to monogamy and that “the boundaries between them are blurred anyway.” When a major therapy organization (BACP) frames secret infidelity through an “affirmative lens” and downplays the importance of fidelity and trust in relationships, that’s worth discussing, including in a religious setting. Many people — religious and non-religious — recognize that betrayal in marriage causes real, measurable harm. Therapy should help people address that, not soften it under the banner of diversity affirmation. If the roles were reversed and a guideline encouraged therapists to affirm cutting or anorexia as “equally valid coping mechanisms,” most people would rightly push back. Why is relational betrayal treated differently? Thanks, -Smac

British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy: Gender, Sexual, and Relationship Diversity (GSRD) "{U}nder a GSRD affirmative approach, nonmonogamy is an equally valid form of relating to monogamy, and the boundaries between them are blurred anyway." "{T}he key issue with secret non-monogamy is its non-consensual nature and the secrets, lies, and deception which are involved." "Thus the goal of therapy is not to stop the non-monogamous person or people from being non-monogamous – just as we would not attempt to stop a gay or trans person from being gay or trans – rather it is helping them navigate their relationship..." "It can be hugely helpful, with secretly non-monogamous people, to normalise how incredibly difficult lifelong monogamy is ... and how many diverse ways there are of navigating non/ monogamy." Section 4 of the PDF is eye-opening (alongside several other sections): This seems like a substantial step toward supposedly credentialed "experts" straight-up ratifying hedonism. Thanks, -Smac

Here: "'Secret non-monogamy.'" "'{T}he goal of therapy is not to stop the non-monogamous person.'" Therapists are supposed to "'normalise'" this. A salient point, this. From The Family: A Proclamation to the World: Thanks, -Smac

New numbers reveal the child sex-change mania is worse than we knew This is an opinion piece, but the factual allegations are troubling. d

The bill referenced is the “Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act” or more relevantly a related measure on civil liability for gender-transition procedures on minors. As of the reported committee approval, it would: Create a federal cause of action allowing individuals (or their representatives) who underwent certain gender-transition medical interventions (puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgeries) as minors to sue the medical providers, institutions, or others involved. Allow recovery of actual damages, and in some versions, punitive damages, attorney fees, and costs. Potentially include a look-back period (reviving claims that might otherwise be time-barred under state statutes of limitations). Aim to hold providers accountable for procedures performed on minors, arguing they involve irreversible harm and insufficient evidence of long-term benefit. Malpractice lawsuits are already available under state tort law in every U.S. jurisdiction. Plaintiffs can (and have) sued providers for: Lack of informed consent. Medical negligence (deviation from standard of care). Battery (if procedures lacked proper consent). Fraud/misrepresentation. However, this federal bill would do several important things beyond ordinary state malpractice: Federal Cause of Action: It creates a uniform federal right enforceable in federal court. This bypasses state-law barriers such as: Short statutes of limitations (many states have 2–3 years from discovery or majority). Damage caps on medical malpractice. Sovereign immunity or protections for state-funded providers. State laws that might shield gender clinics or define “standard of care” to include these procedures. Presumed Harm / Easier Proof: The bill likely includes findings or presumptions about the experimental nature of these interventions on minors, potentially easing the plaintiff’s burden on causation or negligence compared to fighting prevailing medical association guidelines in state court. Attorney Fees and Punitive Damages: Many versions provide for fee-shifting (loser pays plaintiff’s fees) and enhanced damages, making cases more viable for plaintiffs’ attorneys. National Reach: A minor (or now-adult) in a blue state with strong protections for gender clinics could still sue in federal court or under federal law, avoiding hostile state doctrines. Ordinary malpractice claims exist but face significant practical and legal hurdles (statutes of limitations, expert testimony battles, sympathetic juries in some areas, evolving “standard of care” debates). This bill would create a stronger, federally-backed private right of action specifically targeting these procedures on minors, with pro-plaintiff features. It is designed to deter providers and give detransitioners/parents a clearer path to compensation, especially where state law is unfavorable. If passed, the bill will likely face immediate legal challenges on federalism, retroactivity, or First Amendment grounds. Thanks, -Smac

An update: House Judiciary Approves Bill Establishing Right to Sue for Damages on Trans Surgery I think this is an excellent idea. I have, for quite a while now, been posting and re-posting a set of bullet points as to the most acute concerns about pediatric sex trait modification treatments. I anticipate some or all of these will be heavily litigated: Comorbidities. Informed consent. Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. Irreversibility. Sterilization. Cutting off healthy body parts. Longitudinal studies essentially absent. Lifelong medical regimens. Massive ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. Massive social contagion risks. Massive risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society). I guess we'll see. Here is a Grok summary of this EO: Adults can continue to do as they please, but even then I think comorbidities, lack of informed consent, etc. will remain viable grounds for adults to file these sorts of lawsuits. We have had ample discussion about these issues, which I think needs to be an ongoing thing. I acknowledge that many people have strong feelings of all sorts about this topic. I hope Ms. Cole humanizes and puts a face to the children who have been adversely affected by PSTMs. Thanks, -Smac

I just checked the federal court docket. The lawsuit is still in place, with a "Third Amended Complaint" filed on June 1. Multiple motions to dismiss have been filed, but most claims against most of the defendants have been denied. There are currently four motions to dismiss filed on June and July, none of which has been adjudicated. Here is a Grok summary of the Third Amended Complaint: More Grok-generated detail: Thanks, -Smac

I don't think what I have said speaks to privileging religious views. Yes, I think we can do this. We have done it in the past. Schools can and should focus on core academics: reading, writing, math, science, history, the arts, stuff like that. These prepare kids for life without substituting institutional preferences for parental ones on deeply debated topics. No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I want no child isolated or unsupported. Every kid deserves kindness, safety, and the ability to talk with trusted adults (especially their parents) about hard things. Reducing bullying and fostering basic human decency is worthwhile. What I oppose is public schools and libraries using their authority and proximity to children to proactively affirm contested moral and sexual viewpoints as equivalent or normative, especially for young kids. That crosses from neutral education or anti-bullying into ideological formation, which many parents (of all backgrounds, including faithful Latter-day Saints) see as undermining their primary stewardship. Acknowledging that families come in different forms is one thing. Framing same-sex relationships as morally interchangeable with the husband-wife pattern taught in scripture and the Family Proclamation is another. The latter is not neutral — it’s a particular worldview on sexuality, marriage, and family that not all families share. Parents, not institutions, should guide their children’s moral formation on deeply personal and religious questions. Transparency, age-appropriate boundaries, and viewpoint diversity protect pluralism better than one-sided normalization. Kids can be supported without public resources becoming tools for advocacy on adult-level controversies. Is exposing children to such sexualized material anywhere appropriate? I think the issue is sufficiently common/widespread that it deserves some public discussion and debate. This is particularly so where there are people openly advocating that children be exposed to such sexualized events/venues. No, that misrepresents my position. I am not calling for isolation of any child, nor equating anyone with pornography. Every minor deserves safety, kindness, and support — including queer youth. Reducing bullying is good. My concern is public institutions (schools/libraries) using tax-funded resources and authority over minors to proactively normalize contested moral views on sexuality and family as equivalent to the husband-wife pattern taught in scripture and The Family Proclamation. That’s not neutral education; it’s ideological formation on topics many parents want to handle at home according to their own values and faith. This isn’t “Christian Nationalism” or undoing the First Amendment. It’s defending parental rights and viewpoint neutrality — the same principle that would prevent public schools from teaching Joseph Smith’s First Vision as fact or pushing any particular religious or political orthodoxy on other people’s children. Pluralism means public institutions don’t get to pick winners on deeply divisive moral questions involving minors. Latter-day Saint teachings on chastity and eternal marriage come from scripture and modern revelation, not nationalism. Shielding children from premature sexualization (regardless of orientation) and respecting parental stewardship is reasonable, not extreme. I have repeatedly condemned public displays of sexual licentiousness of any sort, including Mardi Gras. Here, here, here, here, here. I am not sure if Mardi Gras is "coded" as a "straight" event. Moreover, I am not seeing anyone justifying/rationalizing exposing children to sexualized stuff at that event, whereas there is plenty of such advocacy relative to "Pride" events. The difference here is context and advocacy. I don’t see widespread efforts to bring explicit or sexualized Mardi Gras content into children’s libraries or classrooms as “age-appropriate” or “inclusive.” With some Pride-related materials, I do see that push — including non-graphic books that normalize contested views on sexuality and family for minors. From scripture and the Family Proclamation, I draw qualitative distinctions between opposite-sex marital intimacy (unitive + procreative within husband-wife covenant) and same-sex behavior. These distinctions are rooted in biology, doctrine, and observed patterns — not Christian Nationalism, not bigotry. Just reasoned disagreement. Attraction isn’t sinful; behavior is. These beliefs do not justify unkindness. The Church's teachings in this area are quite good. Public institutions shouldn’t function as co-parents or ideological tools on deeply contested moral issues. Parents hold primary stewardship. Age-appropriate boundaries, transparency, and viewpoint diversity protect pluralism better than one-sided normalization for children. Thanks, -Smac

I agree with much of what you said above in your post in terms of standards. I have a problem with the second sentence though as if presenting same sex relationships is inherently superseding parents. That's not quite what I intended to say, but I can see how you could surmise that. I apologize for creating confusion. It is also "normal" for people to have affairs, get abortions, and do other things that reflect ongoing controversies in society. I don't think teachers and schools should be using their positions of trust to ideologically influence/instruct children toward one side of hotly-contested social issues, particularly when they do so obliquely or secretly (sometimes even deliberately subversively). Again: Literature often depicts behaviors that conflict with my religious beliefs. I view sex outside marriage, adultery, and abuse within marriage as wrong. While such things occur, I oppose materials that proactively endorse or normalize them—especially for young children. I no longer have children in elementary school, but I quite understand the sentiments of parents who send their kids to school expecting teachers to teach them the Three Rs, history, science and other topics intended to help them become functioning and productive members of society. I think many parents dislike the idea of activists and idealogues using schools and their "captive audience" students to endorse one side or the other of controversial social/moral issues, particularly when this is done so secretively and/or subversively. This video comes to mind: And this: And this: And this: Many more like this. I agree that public institutions should remain viewpoint-neutral and not favor one ideology. That's exactly why schools shouldn't be in the business of endorsing contested moral or social views, whether on family structure, sexuality, religion, or politics, by integrating them into required reading or classroom discussions for young children. "Representing the public" is best served by sticking to core academics: reading, writing, math, science, history, and the arts. These prepare kids without substituting institutional preferences for parental ones on deeply debated topics. Neutral, age-appropriate exposure to the real world's variety is one thing; proactive normalization or equivalence as part of moral formation is another. Parents, not public employees, hold primary responsibility there. A demographic quota approach (nationwide percentages for race, family structure, LGBT+ representation, etc.) sounds straightforward but quickly becomes problematic as a standard for public schools and libraries. It turns curators into social engineers, forcing subjective judgments: How much does a "minor" subplot or side character “count”? Do we weight by protagonist, page count, or implied endorsement? Older classics get penalized for reflecting their era, while newer books are prioritized for activism over literary quality. This shifts the focus from excellence, truth, and age-appropriate education to engineered outcomes. Public institutions funded by taxpayers should prioritize core skills over mirroring fluid cultural or ideological demographics, especially on morally contested issues like sexuality and family formation. Parents, not distant statisticians or librarians, should guide their children’s exposure to these topics. Viewpoint neutrality and parental rights serve pluralism far better than rough proportional representation that risks becoming one-sided advocacy. Neutral, high-quality literature reflecting human experience is valuable. Mandated demographic balancing in children’s materials is a different project entirely. I agree with much of this. For young children, literature should emphasize positive virtues, such as kindness, sharing, honesty, respect, rather than criticism or shaming. Protecting self-esteem and avoiding material that promotes disrespect is a good baseline. The challenge arises when “positive” portrayals cross into proactively normalizing contested moral or relational behaviors as equivalent to the traditional family pattern. For me as a Latter-day Saint (and many others), same-sex relationships aren’t simply another “normal” variation but fall outside the divinely ordained husband-wife pattern taught in scripture and the Family Proclamation. Presenting them as interchangeable in books for young kids can function as implicit (and, in many circumstances, explicit) moral instruction on a topic where parents hold primary stewardship. We can show realistic diversity in families without turning public schools and libraries into venues for ideological affirmation on sexuality and marriage. Focus on universal character traits and let parents guide the deeper worldview conversations. That approach better respects pluralism and keeps the emphasis on positive development rather than settling adult-level debates. Fair point. Older materials, especially in history, politics, and culture, do get far more layered and context-dependent. I appreciate you keeping the focus on civility and mutual respect. That is a strong foundation we can all agree on. I’m happy to leave it there for now or pick up the conversation later if you’d like. Thanks for the thoughtful exchange. Thanks, -Smac

This makes it sound like you’re very much against a book that shows a child with two moms being read in a child’s class. But a book with opposite gendered parents would be ok. Correct? See this prior exchange: Broadly, yes. Not quite a simple "correct," because there is some important nuance here. I apply broadly similar standards to non-graphic, age-appropriate portrayals of family life—whether a child going home to a mom and dad, or (less commonly in traditional literature) to two moms. A passing, neutral description of a child's lived reality isn't the core issue for me. Literature can and does reflect the diversity of family situations children actually encounter. Where I start to draw the line is when public schools or libraries use such books to proactively normalize and equate and advocate for same-sex relationships as being morally or functionally interchangeable with the divinely ordained pattern of husband-and-wife marriage taught in scripture and The Family Proclamation. For young children especially, this crosses into premature moral formation on a topic where faithful Latter-day Saints (and many others of good will) have reasoned, principled disagreements rooted in biology, theology, and sociology. I wouldn't support school materials that endorse Joseph Smith's First Vision as historical fact, affirm Muhammad's theophanies, take a position on abortion, or push other contested religious or ideological claims—precisely because public institutions aren't equipped or authorized to settle those matters for other people's children. Parents hold primary stewardship for their children's moral and religious upbringing. Schools act in loco parentis in a limited way for safety and basic education, not as surrogate ideologues. When teachers or librarians quietly/secretly advance one contested view on marriage and sexuality (while sidelining others), it undermines parental rights, viewpoint diversity, and trust. Children benefit from shielding against early immersion in adult-level controversies, especially when the material tilts toward advocacy rather than neutral reflection of reality. I am fine with age-appropriate literature that fosters kindness, reduces bullying, and acknowledges that families come in varied forms. But public resources shouldn't function as ideological magnets that substitute institutional/teacher preferences for parental ones. Transparency, opt-outs, and balance serve pluralism better than ideologically curated equivalence. Thanks, -Smac