I don’t know much about LDS family services, but has anyone else found that stereotype to be common in other places…that they aren’t that qualified but bishops know about it so they send LDS couples there?

I was shocked when my doctor friend had such a negative opinion about it. I’m sure there are many that are really good and qualified, and I wonder if they feel that generalization about LDS therapists as well.

I seemed to spend a lot of time being an apologist for my profession,and encountered a lot of hostility from leadership(not all of it conscious).

I often had private conversations along these lines,but never managed to create a more public forum,at least in part due to a sense that I was rocking the boat,I was unable to persuade those in authority,with some notable exceptions,of the usefulness or benevolence of therapy.I think it was viewed at the time as in oppositon to church authority.I just kept my head down in the end and did the work,but I knew this was troubling to many.Unfortunately my fears were born out and my recommend withheld at one point.Unconscious forces are powerful things,but we’re all human I guess. It was a very painful process.

I’m not sure if I will return to this work when I’m well-I think I may have spent more than enough time than is healthy thinking about what is going on for me and others.I do remember some transcendantly beautiful human contact though,and wish those of you on the journey a joyful walk.

A serious thanks for bringing this site to our attention. Those who do what Natasha does get my heartfelt thanks – even though I also know some therapists who need therapy more than those who see them.

I’ve noticed that for people who just don’t get an existential crisis, the whole concept seems overwrought. Those going through them need to have patience with those who do not.

The site is interesting.

As for BYU, some of the people there are excellent, some are clueless. Pretty much the same for any group of therapists. I was dealing with therapists on a professional basis (Child Advocacy Center board, Community Dispute Resolution group) and they felt I was doing better with life than they were at the one time I really felt therapy could help. Since then I’ve not been as inclined to seek therapy.

The site was interesting, though I found myself wondering if the people she deals with think of anything besides sex

I was also amused by the commenter who compared talking with one’s friends about sex to apostasy. Well, more than amused. It was hilarious.

Natasha was “taken to task” a bit on the site by someone with a more toe-the-line view about masturbation. That seems inevitable in a web site (vs. actual therapy) as there are “protectors of the orthodoxy” who like to correct any Mormons who stray out of line according to their strict interpretation. I thought Natasha handled it well and non-defensively.

Based on Natasha’s years of experience with recurring problems in the LDS community, I’d love to see a summary “Do’s and Don’ts” list for the recurring problem areas. For example, a summarized “Do’s and Don’ts” list regarding teaching children about modesty, chastity, and sexuality, or “Do’s and Don’ts” about how to react to your spouse developing different theological beliefs. Something like this would be a tremendous resource for members and leaders alike; I completely agree with her that we need to apply modern psychology hand-in-hand with our religious beliefs.

Re: bias – I have not run into much anti-religion so far, but I got my master’s at a religion-based university (not BYU) so all points of view were welcome. A post I wrote a while back on how we approach the faith of others actually came from a therapy textbook. http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/23/how-do-you-interpret-anothers-faith/
I think rejectionists would be on the most shaky ground ethically, for they may end up working against a client’s wishes. A constructionist or pluralist would be the best, imho. For exclusivists, the therapist needs to have done a LOT of self-examination regarding their interpersonal and therapeutic style, and make sure they are not even inadvertently guiding someone towards their own particular viewpoints.

As for religious therapists, I’m sure there are some that heavily involve their own religious values, but I imagine they would more likely be pastors or the like. Regardless, any professional counselor or therapist MUST disclose ahead of time in writing regarding their faith or values IF those values are going to be a part of the therapeutic process. This is especially important if the therapist is a rejectionist or exclusivist.

Do you find any bias towards religion in the psychological field? Are there any prominent views that very religious therapists (no matter what religion) may tend to lead towards counsel that coincides with their religion. And I’m not saying any would do this consciously, but are there any antagonists to religion in general for fear that it will lead to therapists allowing their ingrained beliefs to affect the patient?

In reality, I really do think therapy is extremely important, and I greatly respect those who make it a profession. I have a dear friend who is a social worker and I know the emotional pain associated with counseling others. How it is these individuals manage to disassociate that pain from their own lives is a mystery to me.

To Natasha, thank you for your great service you render to those in need!

For example, does the church and psychology disagree on masturbation, premarital sexual relations, etc.?
Regarding masturbation, I think the church and my therapeutic view are not in that much conflict. I definitely think that compulsive behaviors can cause a lot of problems, and I would work at it from that angle. As far as complete abstinence goes, I would only work with the client towards that goal if that is what they TRULY believed was in line with their core values.
Re: premarital sex, while I don’t think all premarital sex is the same, generally I don’t think it’s a good idea, and this is not just based on church teachings. However, I would never impose my values on a client, and I fully admit that if a couple is sexually active while they are engaged there may be some benefits that celibate couples do not have. Again, what is the value of the client?

If they do contradict one another, which do you side with as a therapist, the text books or the gospel?
As I said, I would side with the client’s core values and goals, with the exception of (in some cases) extreme psychopathology.

I think there is definitely a common feeling of “I don’t need therapy” among many people who probably could benefit from it. Luckily, I think that type of feeling is fading with time. But you are not the only one who has that type of feeling.

What do you do if the psychological solution or advice conflicts with the church?

For example, does the church and psychology disagree on masturbation, premarital sexual relations, etc.?

If they do contradict one another, which do you side with as a therapist, the text books or the gospel?

I know that for me, excessive guilt has definitely played a role in my life, and is, in some ways, responsible for the path that has led me from orthodoxy to heterodoxy. I doubt I am in unique in this regard.

Sexual hang-ups are also a big deal, at least for me. I think it has taken about 7 years of marriage to overcome some of these challenges. Although, at this point, I have swung in the other direction. That is, I fail to understand why God cares so much about sexual issues, especially in light of the numerous methods for preventing the problems associated with fornication.

I think it is very sad that faith plays such an important role in marital distress and can lead to divorce. In my opinion, we do a great disservice to our children by emphasizing common beliefs and faith, and temple marriage. Why don’t we give the same emphasis to love? I mention this because when differences in faith lead to divorce, I am convinced that the couple got married for the wrong reasons. A marriage based on Christ-like love, or charity, would not suffer from this problem IMHO.

I am definitely pro-therapy, although I must confess I feel some resistance to engaging in it myself (whether I need it or not). I’m not sure why this is.

Regarding the topics, even when two spouses are members, they may have different approaches to faith. For example, my wife often does not want to take on my existential crises, because it’s just not an issue for her. Also, she is a LOT more driven by duty and responsibility when it comes to church issues, and I am more driven by belief and making sure what I feel is what I’m doing. Most of the time we don’t have a problem, but there can be conflict.

Re: sexual hang-ups, this is, I think, the best aspect of Natasha’s blog – obviously she can’t do any therapy via blog comments, but just the act of being there to take questions by people who otherwise probably wouldn’t talk about it at all is a great thing, imo.

Obviously I’m in the pro-therapy camp. It is unfortunate that some scoff at the idea, but it can be very helpful for all kinds of issues, even just plain personal growth for someone who isn’t struggling with any big issue.