Another Attack on Marriage (UK Version)

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

OVER the past week the meaning of marriage has been attacked from two directions at once, and neither attacker troubled to hide it.

The first came from the therapist’s chair. On July 10 the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, the largest body of its kind in the country, directed its members back to its guidance on gender, sexuality and relationships. Open that guidance and you find infidelity quietly rebranded. ‘Secret non-monogamy’ – ‘affairs or infidelity’, in plainer words – is called ‘a relationship model’, one the document rates ‘at least as common as monogamy, if not more so’. The counsellor is told that ‘the goal of therapy is not to stop the non-monogamous person’, and is encouraged to help clients ‘normalise how incredibly difficult lifelong monogamy is‘. 

Read that again. A husband who has broken his vows, or is minded to, may now sit before a professional and be met not with a call to faithfulness but with reassurance that faithfulness was an unreasonable expectation all along. The single promise at the heart of every wedding, to forsake all others, has been reclassified by the caring professions as a matter of taste.

"'Secret non-monogamy.'"

"'{T}he goal of therapy is not to stop the non-monogamous person.'"

Therapists are supposed to "'normalise'" this.

Quote

There is an irony worth pausing on. This same association is a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy, by which the counselling professions forbid any attempt to change a client’s sexual orientation. The profession that will not let a therapist touch a person’s orientation is content to let one wave through the abandonment of a marriage. Desire is sovereign, it seems, unless the desire is to keep one’s vows.

A salient point, this.

From The Family: A Proclamation to the World:

Quote

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.
...

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

The stuff about secret non-monogamy is pretty horrific.  Therapy seems like it's getting scary, where not all every therapist has the goal of actually helping someone become better but rather, helping them justify their bad behavior.

(Not all therapists of course!  There are many wonderful ones out there)

[MustardSeed]

I’m a therapist and would like information on what percentage of therapists adhere to this type of therapy before any claims that this is a trend at all.  I don’t believe that is true. 

[BlueDreams]

Also a therapist and I have never seen anyone reframe affairs as that either. And I'm not familiar enough with uk therapy standards to know how well this is received. In the US there modalities and diagnoses that even though "settled" are still debated. Addictions are a solid example.

What I have seen is extramarital intimate relations understood by whether or not the married couple know about it and assent to the practice. If it's a secret of some sort it's still seen as a form of betrayal. I've seen the sense of betrayal expanded to include non-sexual/relational things as well. But never have I seen it completely destigmatized from its role a relational breach. 

 

Also, I can't find where in the link it's saying what it's quoting. 

Could probably say more, but life be busy. 

With luv, 

BD 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Also, I can't find where in the link it's saying what it's quoting. 

British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy: Gender, Sexual, and Relationship Diversity (GSRD)

Quote

Common concerns

With secret non-monogamy it is easy for therapists to become focused on the non-normativity of what is being done: going against the normative rules of monogamy. However, under a GSRD affirmative approach, nonmonogamy is an equally valid form of relating to monogamy, and the boundaries between them are blurred anyway. Given this, the key issue with secret non-monogamy is its non-consensual nature (see 3.8) and the secrets, lies, and deception which are involved. There may also be nonconsensual deception and invasion of privacy on the part of a partner who has ‘discovered’ another’s infidelity.

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 such that non-monogamy can either be done consensually and openly, or the relationship can end or change if partners are too incompatible in terms of where they are at with non/ monogamy for this to be possible.

It can be hugely helpful, with secretly non-monogamous people, to normalise how incredibly difficult lifelong monogamy is (see 4.3), how it is hard – if not impossible – to get warmth and heat in the same relationship (Perel, 2007), and how many diverse ways there are of navigating non/ monogamy (see 4.3 and 4.5).

"{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

[MustardSeed]

If anyone is terribly worked up about this, take heart from an actual therapist who is well connected.  No one I know is pushing for hedonism. 
Thanks.

[The Nehor]

Looking at the actual source documents the quotes are divorced from context.

This is stupid rhetoric from people whining about how therapists aren’t enforcing religious laws correctly or something.

I also question the competence of the writer who is SHOCKED that the therapist isn’t exhorting their client to faithfulness. So are they stupid enough to think that is how therapy works or do they know that very well and just (correctly) hope their readers are that ignorant?

Quote

There is an irony worth pausing on. This same association is a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy, by which the counselling professions forbid any attempt to change a client’s sexual orientation. The profession that will not let a therapist touch a person’s orientation is content to let one wave through the abandonment of a marriage. Desire is sovereign, it seems, unless the desire is to keep one’s vows.

 

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

A salient point, this.

No, it is not salient at all. In the same way you aren’t supposed to try to change someone’s sexuality you aren’t supposed to dictate sexual practice to anyone. It is consistent. Acting like this is hypocrisy is just projection.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

From The Family: A Proclamation to the World:

If only therapists operated according to religious dogma……….

 

Speaking generally even the ethical non-monogamy and polyamorous communities are harsh on cheaters.

The section that this person is misrepresenting in their right-wing screed is about monogamish or “don’t ask, don’t tell” relationships where cheating is normalized.

The counsel is not to let any personal repugnance interfere with your job as a therapist. Therapists have a specific job to do and it isn’t to harangue people for not living up to their marital or relationship agreements. Ideally the therapist can help them examine their own life and figure out on their own that a lot of their behaviors are self-defeating. Just telling the patient that their behavior is wrong doesn’t help them improve.

You might as well act hysterical about defense attorneys not calling out and berating their clients for their bad behavior. I am guessing you wouldn’t do that.

 

Congrats on finding more outrage porn. Do you really have to share it? 

Edited Monday at 12:06 AM by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

If anyone is terribly worked up about this, take heart from an actual therapist who is well connected.  No one I know is pushing for hedonism. 
Thanks.

Also cheating on a spouse or romantic/sexual partner is not a good path for maximizing pleasure in any case so it is not a good route even if you did subscribe to hedonism.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Looking at the actual source documents the quotes are divorced from context.

This is stupid rhetoric from people whining about how therapists aren’t enforcing religious laws correctly or something.

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:

Quote

“With secret non-monogamy it is easy for therapists to become focused on the non-normativity of what is being done… However, under a GSRD affirmative approach, nonmonogamy is an equally valid form of relating to monogamy, and the boundaries between them are blurred anyway.”

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.

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Speaking generally even the ethical non-monogamy and polyamorous communities are harsh on cheaters.

The section that this person is misrepresenting in their right-wing screed is about monogamish or “don’t ask, don’t tell” relationships where cheating is normalized.

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”):

Quote

“With secret non-monogamy it is easy for therapists to become focused on the non-normativity of what is being done: going against the normative rules of monogamy. However, under a GSRD affirmative approach, nonmonogamy is an equally valid form of relating to monogamy, and the boundaries between them are blurred anyway.”

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.

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The counsel is not to let any personal repugnance interfere with your job as a therapist. Therapists have a specific job to do and it isn’t to harangue people for not living up to their marital or relationship agreements. Ideally the therapist can help them examine their own life and figure out on their own that a lot of their behaviors are self-defeating. Just telling the patient that their behavior is wrong doesn’t help them improve.

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.

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You might as well act hysterical about defense attorneys not calling out and berating their clients for their bad behavior. I am guessing you wouldn’t do that.

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.

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Congrats on finding more outrage porn. Do you really have to share it? 

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

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

You missed where it talked about how “secret non-monogamy” is not necessarily deceptive. I think that kind of unspoken agreement to not be monogamous is very unhealthy but the therapist acting as a defender of monogamy is not the answer.

You talk about how a defense attorney isn’t supposed to be a moral counselor or a relationship repair expert. The therapist isn’t a moral counselor either. I think you are thinking of this as more like a bishop’s interview.

Treating cutting and anorexia isn’t done by just sharing how wrong it is.

 

What this is primarily about is not treating the unfamiliar as shocking or somehow inherently and always wrong. It is a common problem queer people face. Most people prefer to find a queer counselor so they don’t have to explain everything and/or deal with someone who thinks being queer is wrong and trying to correct or dismissing concerns. This is also addressed in the document. It can work the same way with minorities who want to work out their responses to racism. If their therapist believes racism isn’t an ongoing problem the therapist is worthless for that problem. This is also addressed in that document.

The demagogue whose article you posted is deliberately missing the whole point of the document and trying to craft it into a weapon to demonize therapists and their professional organizations. They honestly could use some therapy to figure out what is wrong with them.

[MustardSeed]

This thread is insulting to my profession. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

This thread is insulting to my profession. 

I agree.

Got to wonder how much therapy they have gone to or if they are familiar with anything but what they might see on the screen.

[Analytics]

On 7/19/2026 at 9:07 AM, smac97 said:

"'Secret non-monogamy.'"

I might as well say it: it is extraordinarily ironic to hear a disciple of Joseph Smith categorically condemn “secret non-monogamy.” Mormonism’s founding prophet practiced what any ordinary English speaker would call exactly that—secretly, behind his real wife's back, repeatedly, and sometimes with other men’s wives.

 

 

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I might as well say it: it is extraordinarily ironic to hear a disciple of Joseph Smith categorically condemn “secret non-monogamy.” Mormonism’s founding prophet practiced what any ordinary English speaker would call exactly that—secretly, behind his real wife's back, repeatedly, and sometimes with other men’s wives.

LOL

[MustardSeed]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree.

Got to wonder how much therapy they have gone to or if they are familiar with anything but what they might see on the screen.

We have worked hard to overcome the stigma of seeing a therapist.  Still working hard.  There are so many people, imo, who would absolutely benefit from sitting with skilled licensed therapist who could help them become self aware.  We ALL (no exceptions) develop defense mechanisms as the way of surviving childhood! As adults, those defense mechanism no longer serve us.  They get in the way of relationships and connecting- you know, Gods first and second commandments! 
Yet still, there is a belief stereotypically for many men, but also women, and strongly anecdotally, for LDS folks, to be afraid of seeing a therapist for fear that a therapist will talk them out of their religion.  It’s an absolute travesty. 

The idea that there is a movement for therapy to encourage folks to engage in debauterous behavior is as harmful, even more so imo, as claiming “newsflash-,lawyers support murder” because they defend such accused.  
 

Qualified licensed regulated therapists have helped people stay alive for goodness sake.  They have saved families.  They have helped people feel worthy to exist.  They have helped me, and I have helped hundreds . If you’re considering seeing one, DO it. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

We have worked hard to overcome the stigma of seeing a therapist.  Still working hard.  There are so many people, imo, who would absolutely benefit from sitting with skilled licensed therapist who could help them become self aware.  We ALL (no exceptions) develop defense mechanisms as the way of surviving childhood! As adults, those defense mechanism no longer serve us.  They get in the way of relationships and connecting- you know, Gods first and second commandments! 
Yet still, there is a belief stereotypically for many men, but also women, and strongly anecdotally, for LDS folks, to be afraid of seeing a therapist for fear that a therapist will talk them out of their religion.  It’s an absolute travesty. 

The idea that there is a movement for therapy to encourage folks to engage in debauterous behavior is as harmful, even more so imo, as claiming “newsflash-,lawyers support murder” because they defend such accused.  
 

Qualified licensed regulated therapists have helped people stay alive for goodness sake.  They have saved families.  They have helped people feel worthy to exist.  They have helped me, and I have helped hundreds . If you’re considering seeing one, DO it. 

Would you please share how to find one with a good fit? I suspect your knowledge would be just for the US, but maybe you have knowledge outside. 

[smac97]

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

I might as well say it: it is extraordinarily ironic to hear a disciple of Joseph Smith categorically condemn “secret non-monogamy.”

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."

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

Mormonism’s founding prophet practiced what any ordinary English speaker would call exactly that—secretly, behind his real wife's back, repeatedly, and sometimes with other men’s wives.

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

[MustardSeed]

16 minutes ago, Rain said:

Would you please share how to find one with a good fit? I suspect your knowledge would be just for the US, but maybe you have knowledge outside. 

I don’t know about outside US  I’m afraid, but my top favorite way of finding a therapist is getting a referral from a friend who knows you and what would work for you. Next, I like psychologytoday.com- good Directory with a lot of information about each therapist to give you an initial impression. 
Always use a licensed provider.

 

[Rain]

8 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t know about outside US  I’m afraid, but my top favorite way of finding a therapist is getting a referral from a friend who knows you and what would work for you. Next, I like psychologytoday.com- good Directory with a lot of information about each therapist to give you an initial impression. 
Always use a licensed provider.

 

Thank you! As I was writing that post I was thinking about medical providers and how so many people find them through their insurance, but since insurance often doesn't cover therapy you can't always find even a list of therapists let alone anything really about them. 

[MustardSeed]

Psychologytoday.com  lists a photo, years in practice, degree type, a blurb so you can determine some personality stuff etc., price, insurance options, specialties etc.  
 

I love the photo option.  Helps to narrow things significantly for me. 
 

Here are some other considerations: 

psychologist, marriage and family therapy, social worker, and licensed counselors are all equally qualified to be a therapist.  
none can prescribe meds.  
Only a PSYCHIATRIST  can.  Interesting how many people get that mixed up with psychologist.  
 

life coaches do not need any qualifications. I do not recommend unless they come highly recommended and you do not need Actual therapy and you just need an advisor.

 

 

[longview]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Only a PSYCHIATRIST  can.  Interesting how many people get that mixed up with psychologist.  

How to determine whether psychologist and/or psychiatrist are qualified to counsel or analyze "properly" cases of "gender dysphoria" ? Were they utilized sufficiently for helping children requesting affirmative care? Or did they reflexively pass them on to medical alterations?

How to tell if they are too badly warped by wokist tendencies? What if they are prejudiced against christianity?

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, could you clarify what you mean by "a disciple of Joseph Smith"? 

Someone who reveres him as a prophet and believes Section 132 is from God.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

• 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.”

Right. We should look at Joseph Smith's infidelity through an "affirming lens" because he was just doing what God told him to do. But beyond Joseph Smith and people being unfaithful to their spouses under Joseph's guidance, nobody else should be granted an affirming lens. 

Edited 13 hours ago by Analytics

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

First, could you clarify what you mean by "a disciple of Joseph Smith"? 

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.

22 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Right. We should look at Joseph Smith's infidelity through an "affirming lens" because he was just doing what God told him to do.

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"?

22 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But beyond Joseph Smith and people being unfaithful to their spouses under Joseph's guidance, nobody else should be granted an affirming lens. 

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

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, longview said:

How to determine whether psychologist and/or psychiatrist are qualified to counsel or analyze "properly" cases of "gender dysphoria" ? Were they utilized sufficiently for helping children requesting affirmative care? Or did they reflexively pass them on to medical alterations?

How to tell if they are too badly warped by wokist tendencies? What if they are prejudiced against christianity?

You ask the therapist those questions before you start.  

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

Would you please share how to find one with a good fit? I suspect your knowledge would be just for the US, but maybe you have knowledge outside. 

Yes, this is the hard part.  I have been to 5 different therapists.  Maybe one was a good fit (unfortunately she moved before I could find out for sure).  The others helped, it was definitely worth it (especially the couples one), but for the time invested I felt I should have gotten more out of it.  Unfortunately that might have been impossible at the time due to lack of awareness of autism in older women as that may be a big contributor to my frustrations and areas where I see therapy would be helpful in helping me figure my life out.

Two of them were for my daughter and I just piggybacked.  One was a horrible fit for her (specialized in diabetes and anxiety, so on paper looked good), she just shut down.  He was recommended.  If I was willing to let her have a meltdown, force her to go in by herself, maybe that could have helped, but that looked like it would be traumatizing as it was (again, we didn’t know about the autism in the family and she is not what one typically thinks of, she reads “shy” and “introverted”).

Edited 10 hours ago by Calm