smac97

Here you go. Your quotes are telling therapists to not force a monogamist world view on people but instead focus on the problematic non-consent. This is so simple I’d think even you could grasp it. Thank you for your thoughts. Upon further consideration, I think Section 4.4 is more nuanced than a simple endorsement of secret non-monogamy, but it does contain affirmative language that has caused legitimate concern: This treats non-monogamy (as a broad category) as equally valid to monogamy. It explicitly discourages therapists from focusing on the “non-normativity” of going against monogamous rules. The stated goal of therapy: Again, upon further review, I think you may have a point. The document does not say therapists should affirm or encourage ongoing secret non-monogamy as a healthy, permanent arrangement. The explicit therapeutic goal is to move the situation toward either: Consensual/open non-monogamy, or Ending or changing the relationship if the partners’ desires around monogamy/non-monogamy are incompatible. However, by placing “secret non-monogamies” under the GSRD "affirmative" umbrella and declaring non-monogamy “equally valid,” the document appears to frame secrecy primarily as a navigational problem rather than as a serious ethical breach of trust and consent. The document, then, is not what I initially thought it was: a straightforward endorsement of secret non-monogamy as a desirable end-state. It pushes therapists to help clients move out of secrecy toward either openness or relationship dissolution. I appreciate the pushback and critique. At the same time, the affirmative language (“equally valid,” “boundaries are blurred,” comparing it to sexual orientation) softens the moral and relational weight of deception. It treats the core issue more as incompatibility of relationship styles than as a violation of the existing monogamous agreement. My initial reading was, I think, understandable: the affirmative framing is strong. But the concrete clinical direction in the text is toward converting secrecy into consent (or ending the relationship), not affirming ongoing secret non-monogamy. Thus, I stand corrected. Thanks, -Smac

Lol. If you read each of your quotes, not a single one of them has anything to do with “secret nonmonogamy”. Gender, Sexual, and Relationship Diversity (GSRD) Note that Section 4.4 ("Secret non-monogamies") starts on page 49, as follows: Could you help me understand why you think these quotes from Section 4.4 ("Secret non-monogamies") "{do not have} anything to do with 'secret nonmonogamy'"? Thanks, -Smac

I quite agree. Could you explain what your perspective on the following excerpts from the therapeutic guidelines in the OP: "{U}nder a GSRD affirmative approach, nonmonogamy is an equally valid form of relating to monogamy, and the boundaries between them are blurred anyway." "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." Do you agree or disagree with these statements relative to "secret nonmonogamy"? Thanks, -Smac

But do you treat these as a systemic or cultural issue or as individual events, where the issue is one person’s behaviour with limited impact on society? I think sexual misconduct is "a systemic or cultural issue." I do not think it is unique to any particular "community" based on sexual orientation. Yes. We need to address these matters. Prevent and mitigate. Punish and deter. Encourage self-governance and constraint. I don't know what you mean here. Does talking about a topic mean it (the topic) is a "cause" for the speaker? How do you get there? The Church is a "cause" for me. I'll own that all day long. But individualized topics that have some sort of nexus to the Church, such that I occasionally read items about those topics and participate in online discussions of them - are these "causes" for me? Nope. I started this thread in 2022, at which point disputes about "pronouns" were, I think, becoming a big deal. I also started many other threads around that time: YouGov Poll on 35 Religious Groups, Orgs, Etc. (4th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case Update on the "Cake Wars" - Re: Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Nondiscrimination Statutes 5 things Latter-day Saints should know about ancient Christians A Breath of Fresh Air: "Do not diminish the peace and happiness many church members enjoy" Church Member in Rochester Going "Sam Young" The Church as the 5th Largest Private Landholder in U.S. Latest Story About a "Mormon" Abusing Children Stanford band mocks Christians during BYU halftime show. Interesting Article Re: Conversion to Catholicism Explicit Graffiti at Logan Tabernacle Fire in Richfield, Utah Colorado Nightclub Shooter is a (Nominal) Member of the Church Discovery of Previously Unknown Document Authored by Joseph Smith AZ Article Re: Former Bishop Accused of Abuse, Won't Be Charged Rolling Stone Article Re: Armpit Crabs at BYU Controversy Re: "The Chosen" (Claim of Referencing/Paraphrasing Book of Mormon) Kiev Temple Reopening Church Hit by "Cyber Attack" Police Chief for USU Police Warns Football Team re: Sex w "Mormon Women" - Part II Presiding Bishopric Speaks of Environmental Stewardship Christian Pastor on Trial in Finland - Part II Witnesses to the Non-Plates Artifacts (Sword of Laban, Breastplate / U&T / Liahona) Court Ruling on Polygamy/Polyamory (New York) JK Rowling steps in it (re: The Book of Mormon) Assessing the Evidence: A Case Study Tribune Stirring the Pot on Huntsman Lawsuit (or Trying To) Minerva Teichert's Grandson's Lawsuit Against the Church - Part II Update on Temple in Dubai, UAE BYU will honor two members of Wyoming’s Black 14 this weekend On the "F&^% the Mormons" Chant at the BYU Game Church joins interfaith coalition letter supporting LGBTQ rights in Florida News on Temples Murder-Suicide of "Mormon" Family in Maryland Notorious Mormon Murderers The Church and Potatoes Nelson Holder Ritchie, a Black Mormon pioneer Missionaries' "Nope" Response to Lesbian Doormat Racial Slur at BYU Game - Real or Hoax? Former Primary Teacher sentenced to jail/probation for child sex abuse during sleepover Latest BYU Controversy: Pamphlets and Drag Shows (RaYnbow Collective) I was also participating in many other threads started by other posters. Lots and lots of different topics. Most are about, or intersect in some way with, the Church. None is a "cause," though. This is just a message board. As you can see, the topics here create a sort of constellation around the Church. Church history and doctrine. Current events. Legal issues. BYU. Controversies. Some of these pertain to matters of sexual misconduct. Fast forward to June 2026, I added a post in this thread to discuss recent news items about "pronouns." Nehor, as is his wont, criticized my post. No surprise there. One of his more common complaints is that I give undue attention to "LGBT" issues. As you can see from the above list, I don't think that is an accurate critique, as I start and participate in threads about all sorts of things pertaining to the Church. Nevertheless, you now seem to be joining Nehor in that assessment. I'm not sure why. In any event, I think you are demonstrating the "Fallacy of Relative Privation," and also imputing bigotry to me because I am addressing sexualization of children relative to the LGBT community: I do not accept the premise here. This is a message board, and we talk about all sorts of things. I don't think you go around tut-tutting other posters for talking about topics other than "that which harms the most." Also, I totally agree that "sexualization is a pervasive element in our culture." I frequently raise or respond to topics associated with this issue. Again, from a prior post: Also, I do not agree that I "focus on sexualization from some in the queer community," or that I "spend an inordinate amount of time on that aspect of sexualization while ignoring the greater social context that such is rooted in and is most often displayed in heterosexual sexualization." Again, see the above topics which I have started. A few more: (5th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case BYU Study: Pornography use at any level harms romantic relationships (4th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case Latest Story About a "Mormon" Abusing Children AZ Article Re: Former Bishop Accused of Abuse, Won't Be Charged Former Primary Teacher sentenced to jail/probation for child sex abuse during sleepover (3rd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case (2nd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case Idaho Bishop Released, Charged with Abuse Update on AZ Abuse Case Byu Prof Charged: Sexual Misconduct These all pertain to sexual misconduct by heterosexual persons. When I started them, I do not recall you complaining that I "focus on sexualization from some in the {heterosexual} community." Again, I think sexual misconduct is at or near the apex of societal ills. We also see substantial problems with substance abuse, caustic communications, factionalization (political, religious, racial, etc.), technology, and so on. I believe the remedy to these developments is what the Church is teaching. Faith in God creates belief in an a sense of accountability to an external and higher moral authority. "Behold I say unto you that ye shall have hope through the atonement of Christ and the power of his resurrection, to be raised unto life eternal, and this because of your faith in him according to the promise." (Moroni 7:41) Repentance allows and incentivizes the individual to correct an erroneous course of action, since he knows that forgiveness is possible. Forgiveness of others allows us to come back together again after having been estranged by offense or error. Gratitude and humility instill in us happiness for what we have, and keep things in proportion, and are excellent attributes to counter pride, envy, anger, and so on. Education and hard work help us improve ourselves, our circumstances, our communities, and allow us to provide for our families. The Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity help us constrain and control our appetites and passions. Imagine how many problems would go away if we all worked to live in accordance with these principles. In short, belief in and emulation of Jesus Christ is the best way. "Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God." (Ether 12:4). I think examining the Church's teachings is a worthwhile endeavor. Mostly, this should involve straightforward efforts: reading/studying/pondering the scriptures, prayer, fasting, attending Church and keeping the Sabbath, daily repentance, service, and so on. One further option, though, is to evaluate both the doctrines of the Church and social issues by applying Joseph Smith's maxim: “By proving contraries, truth is made manifest." Thus, I think it a worthwhile endeavor to examine not only the doctrines of the Church, but broader societal precepts that contradict them. I think mandatory "pronoun" usage is, in the end, problematic. It is compelled speech. It is coercive and dishonest, in an "Emperor's New Clothes" sort of way. It contravenes the Proclamation. It is a manipulation of language, not evolution of it. I view it a subversive ideological endeavor. I view it as perhaps initially innocuous, but now unhealthy and potentially damaging, exercise relative to those with mental health disorders (I do not think incongruent-with-reality notions should be endorsed or incentivized or normalized). I think the social pressure/harassment associated with it are unreasoned and intended to stifle free inquiry and discussion and debate. These things are, or ought to be, antithetical to the thought processes I deploy as a Latter-day Saint. I think we ought to be able to have reasoned discussions about difficult topics without being harangued and hectored for daring to broach a difficult topic, or to have and express thoughts about it that might rankle others. I am as interested in the pursuit of truth as, I think, you and others are. If I harbor misconceptions or errors or biases or whatnot in my thinking and analysis, I am open to such things being pointed out. The "You're a Bigot!" schtick has long lost whatever passing potency it had. If anything, I think this indicates that its users are unwilling to participate in the Marketplace of Ideas because their position is weak or unreasoned or devoid of or contrary to evidence, such that it cannot withstand legitimate scrutiny. It's a distraction, an effort to silence by shouts what cannot be countered by civil disagreement. The Tone Policing / Fallacy of Relative Privation / Whataboutism stuff is obviously less problematic, but still seemingly intended to stifle discussion. Thanks, -Smac

Could you elaborate? What sort(s) of "power and possession" do you think were being sought? Also, Brian Hales' article, "Joseph Smith's Personal Polygamy," raises some interesting questions about whether Joseph had in mind "dynastic” polygamy, that is, plural marriages that were primarily about creating eternal family links and priesthood connections rather than (or in addition to) earthly cohabitation or romantic/sexual relationships. Joseph Smith sealed himself to a number of women who were already married to other men (polyandry). Hales argues many of these were dynastic or eternity-only sealings. The purpose was often to bind influential families or individuals into Joseph’s eternal family network through priesthood sealings, thereby creating a web of eternal relationships and priesthood authority. In these cases, the sealing was understood as an eternal ordinance. Earthly (sexual) relations were not necessarily expected or practiced. Hales distinguishes these from the smaller number of plural marriages that appear to have involved conjugality. The dynastic interpretation helps explain why some sealings involved women who remained with their legal husbands and why documentation of sexual relations is absent or ambiguous in many of those cases. Not all of Joseph’s plural sealings were about establishing concurrent earthly households. A significant portion appears to have functioned as eternal, dynastic connections meant to link families in the eternities under priesthood authority. This is one of the central interpretive tools Hales uses to make sense of the more complex and controversial sealings (especially the polyandrous ones). Thanks, -Smac

"Rant." "to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave." "Massive rants." First, I have not alleged any "community" is sexualizing/grooming children. I have found ample evidence that plenty of people in the LGBT community are disgusted by the things I have found problematic by some (certainly not all) in that "community." Second, from a previous post in this thread: A sampling of other threads I have started which address sexual misconduct: Troubling Allegations Against Former Sheriff in Pinal County, AZ (Church mbr) Lawsuit Against Kingston Group / Individuals / Businesses Former Latter-day Saint bishop charged with sexual abuse of teenager (18-19 years ago) Idaho Lawsuit Re: Abuse Claims Missionary Arrested for Rape in Utah County Vice Article on Tim Ballard I started these threads, all of which pertain to sexual misconduct by heterosexual persons. You have not disparaged my critiques of (heterosexual) licentiousness at Mardi Gras as "massive rants," nor have you characterized these various threads as "massive rants." I am curious as to why. Third, we haven't seen "massive rants" from you regarding any number of social ills. Is it your position that your or I is only allowed to speak on a particular social ill if you or I has first expressed concerns about all other social ills? Fourth, I think you are committing the "Fallacy of Relative Privation," described here: Fifth, if you start a thread about "heterosexual" sexualization of girls, will join you in condemning it. Thanks, -Smac

But the context is not a religious discussion on the marriage, We're on a message board pertaining to the Church. I think there is a religious dimension to most discussions here. Is there a "context" in which a therapist should affirm/normalise adultery? "{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." The original discussion was about therapy standards, not a theological debate about Joseph Smith. Analytics brought Joseph into the conversation to raise a charge of "irony," namely, that a Latter-day Saint criticizing modern secret non-monogamy is inconsistent given Joseph’s history. Responding to that charge required explaining why I (and many other Latter-day Saints) do not place the two in the same category. Yes, that explanation draws on my religious framework — the claim of divine authorization, the historical context of persecution, and the distinction between a claimed priesthood ordinance and ordinary breach of monogamous vows. I am not pretending otherwise. I am a Latter-day Saint; those are the premises from which I am speaking. That does not make the distinction irrelevant to the therapy discussion. The BACP guidance is a secular professional standard. My critique of it stands or falls on whether therapists should be instructed to treat non-monogamy (including discussions of secret non-monogamies) as “equally valid” to monogamy with “blurred boundaries.” One can evaluate that professional claim without settling the historical or religious status of Joseph Smith’s practice. I am not asking anyone to accept my religious premises in order to question the BACP language. I am simply not accepting the premise that my religious view of Joseph automatically makes any critique of modern secret non-monogamy hypocritical. Thanks, -Smac

So you wold be okay with the break off sects still secretly practicing plural marriage as they 1) believe they are following God’s divine commanded, 2) have been highly persecuted, and 3) if they regulated it so as not to be abusive, involving only consenting adults, etc? Ignore the fact the Church has declared them apostate since they feel the same way about us. There is no way to empirically demonstrate who is right. Just judge by what standard you describe here. I frequently differentiate religious disagreement with legal/social disagreement. But are you arguing in the beginning of this thread on religious grounds against this so-called attack on marriage (I used “so-called” because I don’t see it as a reasonable interpretation of the guidelines, the criticism seems to me written by someone who does not understand the purpose and methodology of mainstream psychotherapy)? Or are you arguing from a social stance…our societal norms/standards of marriage? My disagreement with adultery is both religious and legal/social. I acknowledge that the former disagreement is more subjective than the latter, so the grounds differ (but also overlap in some ways). As regarding polygamy, I disagree with it on religious grounds because I believe the Lord has prohibited it. I also disagree with it on legal/social grounds because I do not believe it is too fraught with challenges arising from modern society. Adultery is, in my view, categorically wrong, whereas polygamy is provisionally/conditionally so. Thanks, -Smac

I understand the definition you are using, but I do not accept that it settles the historical or religious question. Joseph Smith and the women involved (and later the Church) treated the sealings as marriages under what they believed was divine authority and priesthood keys. They involved covenants, obligations, and (in many cases) the expectation of eternal relationships. That is not the same as a secret extramarital affair conducted with no claimed religious authorization or marital intent. You can reject the validity of that authority. Many people do. But once you grant (even for the sake of argument) that Joseph claimed and the participants accepted a religious form of marriage authorized by God, the category shifts. It is no longer ordinary adultery as the term is normally used. It becomes a disputed religious practice whose secrecy and implementation caused real harm — which I have already acknowledged, especially regarding Emma. Calling it “adultery, full stop” requires dismissing the participants’ understanding of what they were doing and the religious framework they operated under. That is a coherent position if one rejects the possibility of such authority. It is not the only coherent position. I am not engaging in doublespeak. I am distinguishing between: a claimed religious ordinance (however imperfectly and secretly introduced), and ordinary secret sexual betrayal of a monogamous marriage. Those are not the same thing in the historical record or in the belief system of the people involved. We can disagree about whether the claimed authority was genuine. That disagreement does not make the distinction itself an abuse of language. I really don't think "desire" as used here is equivalent to "lust" (that is, "intense sexual desire or appetite / uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness"). Rather, I think "desire" here just means "to wish or long for." D&C 132:61 does set conditions, and you are right that not every one of Joseph’s plural sealings clearly satisfied every element listed there (especially Emma’s full, ongoing consent and the “virgin / vowed to no other man” criteria in every case). The historical record is complicated, and faithful scholars such as the Hales document the irregularities and the pain they caused. That does not collapse the entire practice into ordinary secret non-monogamy. The section as a whole presents plural marriage as a priesthood law that can be authorized by God under specific circumstances. Verse 61 is one statement of conditions; the larger revelation also addresses sealings for eternity, the continuation of the Abrahamic covenant, and the principle of agency and consent. Joseph and the participants operated under the claim that they were acting under that broader revealed authority, even when the implementation was imperfect and, in some instances, secret from Emma. I have already said the secrecy was a serious flaw and that it caused real suffering. I am not claiming the practice was cleanly executed according to every ideal condition in the text. I am saying that a claimed divine commandment, administered through priesthood keys, in a context of extreme external pressure, is still a different category from a private decision to break monogamous vows for personal reasons while publicly maintaining the appearance of monogamy. One can acknowledge the gap between the stated conditions in D&C 132 and the historical practice without concluding that the two phenomena are therefore identical. That is not selective judgmentalism; it is an attempt to describe the actual claims and context involved. Thanks, -Smac

Both.

Why do you see there is a right to privilege deeply held religious ideology, but don’t give the same respect to deeply held moral ideology? I'm not sure what you are saying here. What "deeply held moral ideology" are you referencing here? Who is espousing it? What are the tenets of this ideology? Why is an identical moral duty not respected by you as much as the same religious duty (to raise good children who will then help others and make the community, faith or social) better? Again, what "moral duty" are you talking about? Thanks, -Smac

I would not be okay with that on religious grounds (as I am likewise "not okay" with sex outside of marriage, adultery, consumption of pornography, same-sex behavior, and other violations of the Law of Chastity). I am generally indifferent to polygamy on legal/social grounds, except insofar as there are substantial social ills baked into polygamous communities and/or individualized situations, such as the allegations - yet to be established - referenced here. I frequently differentiate religious disagreement with legal/social disagreement. Thanks, -Smac

If someone did equate the two, would it make sense for them to view your position as ironic? (I'm not using the question as a way to imply that anyone in this disagreement is right or anyone is wrong. I'm ambivalent on the subject personally. I'm just sincerely wondering if the disagreement is a difference of opinion or something else). Yes, it would make sense from that starting premise. If someone views all polygamy — whether claimed as divine or not — as simply a form of infidelity/adultery, then a Latter-day Saint who condemns modern secret non-monogamy while defending (or at least contextualizing) Joseph Smith’s practice will look inconsistent or ironic. That is a coherent reading if the two are treated as the same category of behavior. But that's a big "if." The disagreement, then, is largely about whether those two things belong in the same category. My position is that they do not: One is presented as a specific, time-limited religious commandment under extreme external pressure. The other is ordinary secrecy and breach of marital trust without that claimed divine authorization or historical context. People who reject the possibility of divinely authorized polygamy will naturally see the distinction as special pleading. People who accept that possibility will see a meaningful difference. That is more a difference in foundational premises than a simple difference of opinion about the facts. So yes, the sense of irony is understandable from the other side of that premise. I just don’t share the premise. Thanks, -Smac

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