Another Attack on Marriage (UK Version)

[Calm]

5 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Interesting how many people get that mixed up with psychologist.  

I blame TV and movies not being up to date.  They portray a psychiatrist as doing both therapy and medications.  I nor my daughter have never had actual talk therapy from a psychiatrist and we have been to a number of them.  They just don’t have the time to do both, there are too few out there apparently, so they are booked with just dispensing the drugs (after talking about issues and what drugs might help, if any).  Most we went to had talk therapists associated with them they referred clients to.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

don't think Latter-day Saints consider themselves disciples of Joseph Smith.

I don’t.

[The Nehor]

4 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?

Touch grass.

4 hours ago, longview said:

How to tell if they are too badly warped by wokist tendencies?

The primary indicator is that they are at least vaguely in harmony with objective reality.

4 hours ago, longview said:

What if they are prejudiced against christianity?

THE HORROR!!!!!!

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

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."

What part of this characterization do you disagree with?

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

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 all objective moral standards of both his time and ours Joseph Smith cheated on Emma. He committed adultery. Saying that he had to hide his infidelity from his wife for pragmatic reasons…….right, that is what cheating people do. That is not an exceptional response. The cheater usually hides what they did to prevent social scorn, loss of social status, and to protect the feelings and reputations of all involved.

Trying to make Joseph Smith into an exception just shows how similar the situation was to garden variety cheating.

The argument that God commanded it might be true but that is just God commanding Joseph to lie and deceive his wife. Still not a good look.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.”

None of this is telling therapists that cheating is somehow cool and good and moral. Joseph Smith was saying that it was cool and good and moral.

A lot of special pleading going on here about how Joseph’s infidelity is special.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

And not all cheating in a regular marriage is motivated purely by lust. Again, you are trying to make Joseph’s infidelity into something exceptional.

”The only moral infidelity is my infidelity. I didn’t do it out of lust. I genuinely love my affair partner so therefore it is okay”

Reducing all “bad” cheating to just pure lust and “good” cheating to higher goals is a typical Christian defense when they want to divide the world between good and bad people. When good people do bad things it doesn’t count as much and we need to forgive them or overlook their evils because they are on the right side. When bad people do bad things it is because they are inherently bad and they should be mercilessly punished. If you are curious this is one of the primary reasons that Christianity is becoming less and less respected.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Similarly, one can critique modern therapeutic guidelines that downplay the harm of betrayal in marriage without it being “ironic.”

That is not what the guidelines do as has been repeatedly shown but you are holding to this mischaracterization because it demonizes people you want to think the worst of. You read propaganda. It worked on you because it was designed for people like you. You don’t want to let objective reality get in the way because it flatters your view of the world.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.”

Not what the guidelines said and your special pleading for Joseph is pretty pathetic.

”I had to cheat on you or God would destroy me!” Oh please.

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?

Every situation is unique. I presume the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy's position is more nuanced than you give it credit for.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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"?

My assessment of Joseph Smith is that he was guilty of "Secret non-monogamy"--of repeatedly breaking "the single promise at the heart of every wedding: to forsake all others."

I think Hale's effort to rationalize Joseph Smith's behavior is a lot like using an "affirming lens" to rationalize behavior that lacked integrity.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

There are many reasons for "secret nonmonogamy." Maybe you feel you deeply love the other woman. Maybe you are bored. Maybe you just feel you really need sex with somebody different. Maybe for money? Self esteem? Fantasy? Clinging to youth? Or maybe you think an angel with a flaming sword is coercing you to do it.

Jospeh Smith's rationalizations, as imagined by you and Hales, is certainly a creative excuse to engage in behavior that lacks integrity in any other context. But ultimately it is just selectively applying a self-serving "affirming lens" to rationalize behavior that lacks integrity.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Hales’ research (which I respect) shows it caused real pain, especially to Emma...

Yes, secret nonmongamy tends to do that. The question is whether we are going to rationalize the behavior of the person causing the pain and look at their destructive behavior through an "affirming lens."

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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...

Do you think Joseph Smith keeping his promise to Emma to forsake all others would have been as "equally valid" as the choice he made to engage in secret nonmonagamy?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The argument that God commanded it might be true but that is just God commanding Joseph to lie and deceive his wife. Still not a good look.

As far as I am aware, Joseph never said God commanded him to lie, only to engage in plural marriage.  The lie part seems in my view to be Joseph wanting to make both God and Emma happy when he couldn’t do so honestly.   I don’t believe Joseph made the right choice here with lying to Emma.

I believe God commanded plural marriage though maybe not in the way it was practiced.  I don’t believe God commands people to lie, though I don’t believe lying is inherently sinful.  When it’s done to protect others from significant immoral harm I see it as reasonable, lying to a Nazi kind of thing; when it’s done to protect the other from discomfort, having to cope with the difficulty of life when they are capable of handling it, I see it as an immature and lazy choice though maybe not sinful.  When it’s done to protect oneself from a loved one’s anger or to avoid personal conflict, I see lying as selfish and therefore sinful.  At this point, I see Joseph’s choice as both lazy and selfish.  Emma deserved honesty given what she had sacrificed for him…and just because she was his chosen companion.

Emma might have divorced him if he had been honest from the start, but it seems unlikely given she stuck with him even after knowing what she knew.  It would have been much more troublesome for both from the beginning it seems like though if he had been honest.  Overall harm is pure speculation, but if it were me, the lying would have hurt me until I died.  I might forgive, but not to be trusted, etc, with the truth….that says something about how my spouse sees me.

I do believe Joseph choosing to lie to Emma was wrong as even if he did it to protect her, I find it hard to believe he didn’t realize she would eventually find out surely and be hurt by the lying.  

I am concerned with his public lies as I believe consenting adults have privacy rights about their relationships they choose.   It’s a problem for me though when it involves church members or those investigating the church sincerely who might have a problem with plural marriage.

The younger ages do bother me, but that did match the culture even if not the usual mode.  The whole attitude towards women overall in the greater culture as well as the local one troubles me much more and I see the younger ages as part of that, so I look on that accusation as missing the point.

Edited Tuesday at 11:23 PM by Calm

[BlueDreams]

On 7/19/2026 at 1:25 PM, smac97 said:

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

Thx. I don't have much time these days. I've ready about half the posts that follow this one and generally like what @MustardSeed said. 

 

When I finally read this quote I realized I actually generally agree with the sentiment. At least more than I assumed I did with the general initial set up colored by the inflammatory article. But I would also note, what stuck out to me, was not what you bolded

Being a therapist is a very different relationship than being a lawyer, ecclesiastical leader or just your average Joe with a friend. Our job isn't to convince a client to the life choices we think are correct or better. And its one of the things I need to check in myself to try and avoid doing. Early on in my career my opinionated self could quickly get in the way of having the opportunity to help someone heal parts of themselves. The result would lead to a breach in alignment that I needed to repair or at times a loss in a client as I moved well past their comfort and capacities in my suggestions. Every day, I'm brought into situations radically different from my own and I'm asked to help them find their own version of healthy within their context. And I have to have a broad enough space to allow for a different variation of health play out in my therapy setting....even when I see other areas that they may need growth in, but they don't want to address at the moment. 

 

So if I hypothetically had someone proactively cheating who has no urge to stop, what I would suggest would be similar to what they ended up suggesting....but with very different wording. My first concern would be to promote relative safety. For example, condom use to reduce risk of STI's that they may inadvertently transmit to their partner. Then I would start down an exploration as to why they're cheating and how it relates to their general values. What answer may come would inform my therapy goals. But I'd generally agree with at least working towards informing the unknowing partner of the breach in honesty....again, as long as there is general safety to do so in the relationship. Abuse patterns would further complicate how I would engage with this, as honesty may conflict with safety for my client. From there I would then work to find a system of existing in their partnership that works within their context. That could range from, working through the betrayal, to discussing openly with their desire for a different type of relationship (one that allows for an open relationship), to making space to really allow a different desire from the partner and avoid aquiecsing for the sake of keeping the marriage intact, to discernment counseling to help navigate and discuss the pros and cons of being in their relationship, to pragmatic concerns about what to do if they don't feel comfortable truly being in their relationship but can't afford to move out or have children involved and fear for ramifications on them, etc. All of this takes time. Months. And the discussions are gentle, exploratory and need to have space to allow for multiple futures that they could have and allow for them to honestly understand that none of them are easy fixes to all their problems. And that there can be beauty in a messy complex experience as we work through it. 

Suddenly inserting my belief that open relationships are inferior to monogamous ones is extremely disjointed to this process. It would be like telling someone with an eating disorder that I think the WOW is a wise outlook to health and that we need a nice healthy diet and exercise. Like cool...but not immediately applicable and harking it could not only be an irrelevant segue but could inadvertently fuel pathologies that they hold around their body, health, and shames. Which ironically moves them further away from the value. 

My values are not so fragile that seeing someone desire or choose values different from my own feels even remotely like an attack on them. It just is and I need to give space to honor that they will be responsible for their life in ways that I never will. I'm also very leary of this general movement to have what I value reflected and set as THE standard in every institution and practice. Doing so sets up a system that will have holes in practice and will broaden blindspots. 

Fostering neutral language and outlooks in therapy, is an imperfect but understandable way to try and circumvent that human impulse. It's not exactly my approach, but I do use the idea at times in therapy. I tend to practice sharing my opinions CARFFULLY and when appropriate and usually sandwiched with a ton of caveats to encourage differentiate over proscriptive orientation. So clients are often aware of my thoughts, without feeling like they have to heed them as what they should do for their circumstances. How I approach self disclosure is often fairly different to many therapists who tend to models that shrink disclosure and work to maintain a very neutral and more reflective model. Which these outlines are a variation of. 

But at no time do I think of this in socio-politcal terms of what sort of culture am I promoting: one that fits my faith or one that doesn't. That's not the point of therapy. It shouldn't be, IMHO, as it inadvertently restrains agency in another and reduces therapy options for those least aligned with my view of the world. 

 

This is all the long winded way of saying I agree with mustard seed that the article and assumptions here deeply mischaracterizes therapy as a profession. 

 

Anyways. Thems some more of my thoughts. 

 

With luv, 

BD

[Calm]

5 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

This is all the long winded way of saying I agree with mustard seed that the article and assumptions here deeply mischaracterizes therapy as a profession

Very clearly explained, imo.  Aligns with what I was taught in the psych at BYU.  You have to start where the client is, not where you are.  

Edited yesterday at 12:42 PM by Calm

[smac97]

10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Thx. I don't have much time these days. I've ready about half the posts that follow this one and generally like what @MustardSeed said. 

When I finally read this quote I realized I actually generally agree with the sentiment. At least more than I assumed I did with the general initial set up colored by the inflammatory article. But I would also note, what stuck out to me, was not what you bolded

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.  

10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Being a therapist is a very different relationship than being a lawyer, ecclesiastical leader or just your average Joe with a friend. Our job isn't to convince a client to the life choices we think are correct or better.

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:

Quote

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?

How do these behaviors fit into "Our job isn't to convince..."?

10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

And its one of the things I need to check in myself to try and avoid doing. Early on in my career my opinionated self could quickly get in the way of having the opportunity to help someone heal parts of themselves. The result would lead to a breach in alignment that I needed to repair or at times a loss in a client as I moved well past their comfort and capacities in my suggestions. Every day, I'm brought into situations radically different from my own and I'm asked to help them find their own version of healthy within their context.

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.

10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

And I have to have a broad enough space to allow for a different variation of health play out in my therapy setting....even when I see other areas that they may need growth in, but they don't want to address at the moment. 

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.

10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

So if I hypothetically had someone proactively cheating who has no urge to stop, what I would suggest would be similar to what they ended up suggesting....but with very different wording. My first concern would be to promote relative safety. For example, condom use to reduce risk of STI's that they may inadvertently transmit to their partner. Then I would start down an exploration as to why they're cheating and how it relates to their general values. What answer may come would inform my therapy goals. But I'd generally agree with at least working towards informing the unknowing partner of the breach in honesty....again, as long as there is general safety to do so in the relationship. Abuse patterns would further complicate how I would engage with this, as honesty may conflict with safety for my client. From there I would then work to find a system of existing in their partnership that works within their context. That could range from, working through the betrayal, to discussing openly with their desire for a different type of relationship (one that allows for an open relationship), to making space to really allow a different desire from the partner and avoid aquiecsing for the sake of keeping the marriage intact, to discernment counseling to help navigate and discuss the pros and cons of being in their relationship, to pragmatic concerns about what to do if they don't feel comfortable truly being in their relationship but can't afford to move out or have children involved and fear for ramifications on them, etc. All of this takes time. Months. And the discussions are gentle, exploratory and need to have space to allow for multiple futures that they could have and allow for them to honestly understand that none of them are easy fixes to all their problems. And that there can be beauty in a messy complex experience as we work through it. 

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.

10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Suddenly inserting my belief that open relationships are inferior to monogamous ones is extremely disjointed to this process. It would be like telling someone with an eating disorder that I think the WOW is a wise outlook to health and that we need a nice healthy diet and exercise. Like cool...but not immediately applicable and harking it could not only be an irrelevant segue but could inadvertently fuel pathologies that they hold around their body, health, and shames. Which ironically moves them further away from the value. 

My values are not so fragile that seeing someone desire or choose values different from my own feels even remotely like an attack on them. It just is and I need to give space to honor that they will be responsible for their life in ways that I never will. I'm also very leary of this general movement to have what I value reflected and set as THE standard in every institution and practice. Doing so sets up a system that will have holes in practice and will broaden blindspots. 

Fostering neutral language and outlooks in therapy, is an imperfect but understandable way to try and circumvent that human impulse. It's not exactly my approach, but I do use the idea at times in therapy. I tend to practice sharing my opinions CARFFULLY and when appropriate and usually sandwiched with a ton of caveats to encourage differentiate over proscriptive orientation. So clients are often aware of my thoughts, without feeling like they have to heed them as what they should do for their circumstances. How I approach self disclosure is often fairly different to many therapists who tend to models that shrink disclosure and work to maintain a very neutral and more reflective model. Which these outlines are a variation of. 

But at no time do I think of this in socio-politcal terms of what sort of culture am I promoting: one that fits my faith or one that doesn't. That's not the point of therapy. It shouldn't be, IMHO, as it inadvertently restrains agency in another and reduces therapy options for those least aligned with my view of the world. 

This is all the long winded way of saying I agree with mustard seed that the article and assumptions here deeply mischaracterizes therapy as a profession. 

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

Edited yesterday at 05:36 PM by smac97

[smac97]

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

Every situation is unique. I presume the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy's position is more nuanced than you give it credit for.

My assessment of Joseph Smith is that he was guilty of "Secret non-monogamy"--of repeatedly breaking "the single promise at the heart of every wedding: to forsake all others."

I think Hale's effort to rationalize Joseph Smith's behavior is a lot like using an "affirming lens" to rationalize behavior that lacked integrity.

There are many reasons for "secret nonmonogamy." Maybe you feel you deeply love the other woman. Maybe you are bored. Maybe you just feel you really need sex with somebody different. Maybe for money? Self esteem? Fantasy? Clinging to youth? Or maybe you think an angel with a flaming sword is coercing you to do it.

Jospeh Smith's rationalizations, as imagined by you and Hales, is certainly a creative excuse to engage in behavior that lacks integrity in any other context. But ultimately it is just selectively applying a self-serving "affirming lens" to rationalize behavior that lacks integrity.  

Yes, secret nonmongamy tends to do that. The question is whether we are going to rationalize the behavior of the person causing the pain and look at their destructive behavior through an "affirming lens."

Do you think Joseph Smith keeping his promise to Emma to forsake all others would have been as "equally valid" as the choice he made to engage in secret nonmonagamy?

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?

1. 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.
2. My own moral intuitions are finite, culturally shaped, and incomplete. I must temper them with humility.
3. 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

Edited yesterday at 05:25 PM by smac97

[Analytics]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

On the "affirming lens" comparison:

The Hales do not apply an “affirming lens” to rationalize infidelity....

Rationalizing infidelity is exactly what you are doing, isn't it? You believe that if God commands you to break your wedding vows, which according to your beliefs He does from time to time, you should obey God, right? The only question you are unsure about is whether you should tell your spouse about how you sincerely believe God commanded you to do this. 

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Rationalizing infidelity is exactly what you are doing, isn't it? You believe that if God commands you to break your wedding vows, which according to your beliefs He does from time to time, you should obey God, right? The only question you are unsure about is whether you should tell your spouse about how you sincerely believe God commanded you to do this. 

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

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That is fundamentally different from a modern person secretly cheating on their spouse for personal reasons while publicly claiming monogamy

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?

Edited 16 hours ago by Calm

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

No, it is not different. It is the clarion cry of the leader of every sex cult. Cheating on a spouse or partner for ‘exalted’ ideals makes it worse not better.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

It makes God out to be a monster certainly.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Saying God did it but He wouldn’t do it now is a really lousy apologetic. What is so special about our day that God wouldn’t throw someone into a similar situation? Nothing except a sincere desire from believers not wanting it to happen. Just like the feeling that many of the monogamists in the early Church found the whole thing repugnant.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Plural marriage is acceptable only when commanded by God and practiced righteously.

Nope. It was permitted in scripture to be practiced with sex slaves. God wasn’t holding it back only for the righteous.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Modern revelation made it compulsory on all the Saints. It took a lot of reinterpretation to try to rewrite things so that it was only temporary. I wouldn’t call that tightly controlled.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Yet you only offer this kind of leniency to prophets. Joseph got it wrong much more than what your thought leaders pretended a bunch of therapists were saying but you were treating them as moral degenerates. With Joseph you will bend yourself into a pretzel to make it seem not that bad. Maybe just extend the grace you are willing to give Joseph to everyone?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Maybe just extend the grace you are willing to give Joseph to everyone?

I very much wish we did this.  

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

That is fundamentally different from a modern person secretly cheating on their spouse for personal reasons while publicly claiming monogamy

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:

Quote

I like this latest "Mormon Scholars Testify" entry, because its author, based on years of working with the legal and business documents associated with Joseph Smith, is firmly convinced that Joseph Smith was an honest and an honorable man, and a sincere one:

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1477/gordon-a-madsen

That's my firm conviction, as well, based upon my own readings in published anthologies of his "personal writings." It's nothing that I can neatly prove, in the same way that I can construct a demonstrative syllogism, and others will, no doubt, dismiss my understanding of the man. But it's my very, very strong sense, after years of reading things that Joseph didn't write for publication: If I have any sense at all for genuineness in a fellow human being, any capacity to discern character in people, Joseph Smith was a sincere man.

Which, I think, is a very important thing to know.

The options seem to me, broadly, that he was either mad, or a liar, or a prophet. I'm convinced that he wasn't a liar, and I see no signs of insanity (and wouldn't regard madness as an adequate explanation anyway, if the Witnesses and his other associates are taken into account).
...
{B}ased upon a lot of careful reading of his personal writings, I regard Joseph Smith as having been an honorable and honest man. I was making no case for his moral perfection, nor was I arguing for a simplistic dichotomy between perfectly good men and perfectly bad men, but I think most of us can admit that there is a difference between generally honorable, honest people, on the one hand, and generally dishonorable, dishonest people on the other. I'm firmly convinced that Joseph Smith was among the former.
...
My point is that he not only cared deeply about religious issues but that he was honest and sincere. And I agree, as I said, with Gordon Madsen's verdict, reached after years of immersion in the relevant business and legal documents, that Joseph was honest in the specific testable ways peculiar to business and legal transactions. This is something rather distinct from simply "caring deeply about religious issues." Jim Bakker cared deeply about religious issues, but he was a swindler. In my judgment, the evidence regarding Joseph Smith strongly suggests that he was not a swindler.

And here:

Quote

In his first interview with the angel Moroni, Joseph Smith was told that his “name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people” (Joseph Smith—History 1:33). Joseph, who was only 17 years old at the time, must surely have been startled by such a revelation.¹ What about his life would simultaneously evoke such devotion and derision? Moreover, how can honest seekers of the truth know what to really believe about his personal character in the face of these competing perspectives?

Through the efforts of The Joseph Smith Papers project, numerous historical documents pertaining to the prophet’s life and ministry have recently been made available to the general public.² Now, more than ever before, Joseph Smith’s life is on full display before the world.

In his own statements, Joseph acknowledged that he was not a perfect man. In response to allegations of misconduct, he confessed that as a youth he “fell into many foolish errors … [and] diverse temptations.”³ However, he clarified that these were not “great or malignant sins”⁴ but rather that he had “a light, and too often, vain mind, exhibiting a foolish and trifling conversation.”⁵ On one occasion, Joseph explained, “Although I do wrong, I do not the wrongs that I am charged with doing.”⁶

Joseph’s Christian piety and moral character can be demonstrated through a number of personal documents. In an 1832 letter to his wife Emma, Joseph reported that “the Lord assisting me, I have visited a grove … almost every day … to give vent to all the feelings of my heart in meditation and prayer.”⁷ Writing from a hotel room in New York City several months later, Joseph mentioned that rather than sightseeing, he preferred “reading and praying and holding communion with the Holy Spirit.”⁸ After surveying these and other personal documents, historian Richard Anderson explained, “The early Joseph is above all the Joseph of faith, of great humility, and of constant prayer.”^9
...

Finally, there are revelations from the Lord Himself that confirm Joseph Smith was divinely chosen as a prophet and that he remained the Lord’s servant until the end of his life. In 1841, the Lord stated, “Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Joseph Smith, I am well pleased with your offering and acknowledgments, which you have made; for unto this end have I raised you up, that I might show forth my wisdom through the weak things of the earth. Your prayers are acceptable before me.”¹⁴

And in 1843, the Lord declared, “I say unto you, my servant Joseph … I seal upon you your exaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your father. Behold, I have seen your sacrifices, and will forgive all your sins.”¹⁵

And here:

Quote

Joseph’s authenticated personal statements plainly reveal him to have been a humble and sincere man, struggling to do the will of God as he understood it — and this particular statement should be placed in the context of his overall life and behavior. (See Mark McConkie’s “Remembering Joseph: Personal Recollections of Those Who Knew the Prophet Joseph Smith.”)

Consider, for example, the following excerpt from a private letter Joseph wrote to his wife, Emma, in June 1832: “I will try to be contented with my lot, knowing that God is my friend. In him I shall find comfort. I have given my life into his hands. I am prepared to go at his call. I desire to be with Christ. I count not my life dear to me (except) to do his will.”

These are scarcely the words of a man who believed himself better than Christ. Nor are these, which are taken from “History of the Church” (5:401):

“I do not think there have been many good men on the earth since the days of Adam; but there was one good man and his name was Jesus. Many persons think a prophet must be a great deal better than anybody else. … I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.”

Joseph Smith saw himself as an instrument in the hands of God — no less, but also definitely no more.

And here:

Quote

Discovery of Joseph Smith’s involvement in plural marriage has tried the faith of more than a few believers in his prophetic claims.  In a number of cases, it has led people altogether out of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Lamentable though that is, it’s scarcely surprising.  Early Mormon polygamy is a murky matter, and, candidly, it’s almost certainly the most difficult issue in Mormon history.

I don’t see any good way to turn the beginnings of Mormon plural marriage, as such, into a positive draw for the faith, and I won’t pretend to do so.  Moreover, it’s ridiculously easy to turn the topic into a negative — especially in our leeringly cynical and sex-obsessed culture.  We’re all too aware of politicians, preachers, and other public figures, including vocal proponents of “traditional morality,” who have eventually been revealed as having feet of clay.

That said, I also don’t believe that Joseph Smith’s involvement in early Mormon plural marriage, properly understood, is lethal to his personal credibility or to his claims as a prophet.

Here are some items on this topic that I’ve found valuable:

Gregory L. Smith, “George D. Smith’s Nauvoo Polygamy,” FARMS Review 20/2 (2008): 37-123.

Brian C. Hales, “Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith’s Pre-Nauvoo Reputation,” Journal of Mormon History 35/4 (2009): 112-190.  This entire issue of the Journal of Mormon History can be downloaded here.

Brian Hales, a faithful and active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — he was even, until relatively recently, a member of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir — maintains an entire website that’s devoted to the topic of “Joseph Smith’s Polygamy.”

Newell G. Bringhurst and Craig L. Foster, eds., The Persistence of Polygamy: Joseph Smith and the Origins of Mormon Polygamy (Independence, MO: John Whitmer Books, 2010) — particularly, Don Bradley, “Mormon Polygamy before Nauvoo? The Relationship of Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger” (14-58); Brian C. Hales, “Joseph Smith and the Puzzlement of ‘Polyandry'” (99-151); Craig L. Foster, David Keller, and Gregory L. Smith, “The Age of Joseph Smith’s Plural Wives in Social and Demographic Context” (152-183); and Ugo A. Perego, “Joseph Smith, the Question of Polygamous Offspring, and DNA Analysis” (233-256).

My friend Ugo Perego, an Italian geneticist and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, maintains a website dedicated, in part, to the subject of Joseph Smith, plural marriage, and DNA.

One of the conclusions to be drawn from Dr. Perego’s work, to this point, seems to me — and I know that he agrees with me — to be this:  The genetic evidence plainly appears to call into question the anti-Mormon portrayal of early LDS polygamy as a kind of sexual romp for Joseph, a wild orgy.  If he was as sexually driven as the critics want to portray him, one would reasonably expect quite a few children to have resulted, from multiple women.  Yet, thus far, there are none, except from Emma (his first wife).  I personally won’t actually be bothered if it ultimately turns out that he has descendants from plural wives, but the results so far seem to suggest that sex wasn’t the driving force behind Joseph’s plural marriages.  (Richard Bushman, one of Joseph’s most recent and most distinguished biographers, tentatively proposes that Joseph was driven not by lust but, to a very large degree, by a quest for kin-relationships, and there is considerable historical evidence to support that view.)

I’m aware of further work on its way from Don Bradley, Brian Hales, Ugo Perego, Craig Foster, and etc., and will probably highlight it here (and perhaps elsewhere) when it’s available.

Taken as a whole, in my judgment, Joseph Smith still emerges from the historical record as a good, sincere, and honest man.  I know that his involvement in early plural marriage can be made to look like a powerful counterargument against that judgment.  I believe, however, that the best response to that counterargument is a better understanding of the relevant history.

History is no enemy to the faith of the Latter-day Saints — though bad history, poorly understood history, polemically abused history, and glib pseudohistory very obviously can be.

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:

1. 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.”
2. 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.
3. 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

[smac97]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

 

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.

 

Yet you only offer this kind of leniency to prophets.

I don’t think that’s accurate.

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Joseph got it wrong much more than what your thought leaders pretended a bunch of therapists were saying but you were treating them as moral degenerates. With Joseph you will bend yourself into a pretzel to make it seem not that bad. Maybe just extend the grace you are willing to give Joseph to everyone?

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

Edited 52 minutes ago by smac97

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

First, I do not equate divinely-authorized/mandated polygamy with infidelity/adultery.

the following is entirely my opinion.

I personally do not believe in divinely mandated or authorized polygamy or anything else that stands to decimate another persons peace, security, loyalty, and joy.  
I believe polygamy, infidelity, and cheating are all 100 % human behaviors originally born from debasing womens value, and elevating the position of power for men. 
anyone who breaks another’s trust in such a way will pay heavily at some point for such atrocities, I can only hope. 
 

taking a little bit further, I believe that in the earliest of times, women’s ability to give birth was probably a mystery to men (not knowing how the baby got there to begin with) and that women were held in great esteem.  Once men figured out how to make women property, which is of course what polygamy is, men finally leveled the playing ground but over did it. We’ve never found our way back. 
 

I think it’s very convenient to put such a heinous practice on God rather than to take personal accountability for our own human tendencies. The bible is men’s stories written with influence of God but not hand written by God.  It has justified to a lot of evil people a lot of evil behaviors. 
 

 

Edited 18 minutes ago by MustardSeed

[The Nehor]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can question a contemporary therapy guideline that softens the ethical weight of secrecy and deception in committed relationships.

You can but it makes you look ridiculous when you do it when the therapy guidelines are saying no such thing.