In a world filled with diverse experiences and challenges, it’s essential to be aware of how we can genuinely support one another. One such approach that has gained traction recently is being an accomplice rather than an advocate. While both roles are well-intentioned, there’s a subtle yet significant difference between the two. Being an accomplice means stepping into someone’s story and experiencing it with them, offering support, healing, and affirmation. On the other hand, advocacy can sometimes feel dismissive or superficial.
Empathy isn’t simply advocacy
The Accomplice vs. the Advocate
Advocacy typically involves speaking out on behalf of others, raising awareness about issues, and championing change. While these efforts are crucial, they can sometimes feel detached from the personal experiences of those we aim to help.
An accomplice actively engages in another person’s struggle, offering support and empathy through shared experiences. This approach goes beyond advocating for change—it means truly understanding and empathizing with the individual’s journey, acknowledging their emotions, and validating their experiences.
The Power of Empathy
Empathy is at the core of being a companion. It involves stepping into someone else’s shoes and sharing their emotional experiences. When we practice empathy, we create a safe space for others to be vulnerable, ultimately fostering deeper connections and mutual understanding.
Research has shown that empathy can have a profound impact on both mental and physical well-being. Feeling understood and supported can alleviate stress and anxiety, promote healing, and create a greater sense of self-worth.
Internal Family Systems is a therapeutic model that posits that every person has multiple internal parts or sub-personalities, and these parts interact with each other to form our personality. The IFS model suggests that we all have different parts that we may not be aware of or may not want to acknowledge, but they still play a significant role in our life experiences.
Internal Family System – Part
When our partner displays behaviors that seem out of character, we can assume that their internal parts are triggered, causing them to act in a way that is not aligned with their true self. In such situations, holding space for our partner and validating their feelings is helpful. Listening to this way means creating a safe emotional space for them to express their emotions without fear of being judged or rejected.
We can hold space for our partner’s broken parts by modeling curiosity and empathy towards their subpersonalities. We can ask questions and actively listen to understand their perspective rather than reacting to their behavior. When we approach our partner’s broken parts with curiosity, we can help them identify the root cause of their behavior, which can help them understand themselves better.
When we validate our partner’s emotions, we can help them feel seen and understood, creating a more profound connection. Holding space for our partner’s broken parts can help them feel heard and validated, which can be incredibly healing. Validating our partner’s emotions can also help them regulate their feelings, leading to a more peaceful and harmonious relationship.
It is crucial to recognize that our defensive responses towards our partner’s behaviors are not necessarily directed towards them but are often defensive responses towards our internal parts activated due to unhealed wounds. By acknowledging our inner parts and working to heal them, we can create differentiation within ourselves, which can help us become more self-aware and more present in our relationships.
As a wounded healer, I understand using my own experiences of pain and healing to connect with and support my clients. I have gone through my struggles and have come out on the other side (and in some cases, things are still a work in progress) with a deep understanding of what it’s like to be in pain.
The Wounded Healer
The idea of the wounded healer is often associated with the work of psychologist Carl Jung, who believed that individuals who have faced their struggles and undergone a healing process could be particularly effective in helping others navigate similar struggles.
Being a wounded healer can be challenging because it requires a careful balance of vulnerability, transparency, and professional boundaries. It’s important to share one’s story to create a deeper level of empathy and understanding, but we must also remember that the therapeutic relationship focuses on the client’s needs.
Additionally, being a wounded healer requires a strong focus on self-care. I know I can only be effective in my work if I prioritize my emotional and physical health. This means setting boundaries and taking time to recharge and replenish my energy.
Despite the challenges, being a wounded healer is incredibly rewarding. By using my experiences to help others, I can create a deeper level of connection and understanding that can be transformative. And by being open and transparent, I can create a safe space for healing and growth.
If you’re a wounded healer like me, remember that experience can be valuable in helping others heal. Take care of yourself, set boundaries, and be open and honest with your clients. Your work can be gratifying, and you have the opportunity to make a real difference in people’s lives, despite being imperfect humans ourselves.
Resistance isn’t a sign of something bad, it’s a sign of healing.
I’ve learned that struggle and resistance are often seen as negative things – signs that we’re on the wrong path or that something is going wrong. But I’ve realized that they can also indicate that things are working.
When we try to make changes in our lives, whether it’s in our relationships, our work, or our society as a whole, there will always be resistance. This is especially true when we’re challenging the status quo or trying to disrupt systems that have existed for a long time.
Resistance can take many forms. It might come from other people who don’t agree with our ideas or who are threatened by the changes we’re proposing. It might come from within ourselves as we struggle to break old habits or overcome self-doubt. It might come from external circumstances that make it difficult to move forward.
It might be a sign that we’re doing something right. But here’s the thing: resistance doesn’t mean we’re doing something wrong. When we push against resistance, we’re testing the limits of what’s possible. We’re challenging ourselves and others to think differently and to consider new perspectives. We’re creating space for growth and change.
Of course, this doesn’t mean we should always ignore the resistance and plow ahead. Sometimes resistance is a warning sign that we can adjust our approach or reconsider our goals. But when we’re confident in our vision and committed to our values, we can use resistance to help us stay on track.
It’s easy to fall into the trap of following external suggestions from others, especially when those suggestions seem to come from sources of authority or expertise. But we can remember that those sources may have agendas and biases and that our experiences and perspectives are just as valid or far better. The key is to stay focused on our intentions and make choices rooted in our values rather than getting derailed by externalities.
So if you’re facing resistance or struggling to change your life, take heart. Keep pushing, keep learning, and keep growing. The resistance will eventually give way, and you’ll emerge more robust and resilient on the other side. It might not be easy, but it’s a sign that you’re on the right track.
I have recently started doing a small amount of work with Meomind, a mental health startup, and a top 10 therapy app on app stores. Meomind aims to create a library of simulated audio therapy sessions for individuals who may be interested in receiving psychotherapy but are unsure of where to begin. Many individuals face difficulties accessing proper therapy due to cost, stigma, or low provider availability. Meomind offers listeners the chance to be matched to the most relevant sessions in their library based on their self-identified mental health needs. Their library contains sessions where listeners can hear the client (either actual or played by an actor) and the therapist, providing insight, comfort, and strategies they can implement. Meomind’s advisory board includes esteemed clinical psychologists such as John C. Norcross and Bruce Wampold.
Working with Meomind has been a unique experience for me as a psychotherapist. Creating a psychotherapeutic session with a client where rapport wasn’t built can be challenging. The client-actor often brings their real-life experiences into the session, making the sessions very real, even when the typical clinical groundwork hasn’t been established. These conditions add a layer of authenticity to the sessions, making them a valuable option for those who may be apprehensive about seeking traditional psychotherapy.
One of the small struggles I experience with the Meomind platform as a “clinician” is navigating through just one or maybe two sessions when with real clients, there is an arc of treatment that often spans 3 to 10 sessions. Typically, there is a goal-oriented treatment plan in traditional psychotherapy, and it can be less than ideal to conduct a session without that trajectory and format.
The future of telehealth or online therapy environments is rapidly evolving. Technology is providing us with new tools to augment traditional “talk therapy.” Meomind is pioneering a unique aspect of this, and I’m excited to have a “toe in the water” as part of my involvement in the mental health community.
Overall, I’m very excited about what the future brings. The Meomind platform provides a unique way to offer psychotherapy to individuals who may be apprehensive about seeking traditional psychotherapy. As a psychotherapist, I believe that these platforms have enormous potential to augment and provide innovative ways to deliver mental health services.
Being a dad at 50 is a unique experience. As a dad in my 50s with a second marriage, I have a small handful of adult children from my first marriage and a young child in my current marriage. It’s a journey full of ups and downs, but one that I’m both committed to and enjoying.
One of the unique challenges as a dad in my 50s is the lack of sleep. Raising a young child requires a lot of energy, and I often feel drained. Despite this, I wouldn’t trade these precious moments for anything. I cherish every moment with my child, no matter how exhausted I may be.
The grief associated with raising a child at this stage of life is another challenge. I am constantly reminded of what it was like when my other children were young, and it is difficult not to compare. I try to remain present and embrace this new chapter in my life, but the memories are always there and come back frequently.
Wisdom is a helpful tool for raising a child, but it also promotes my anxiety. I constantly second-guess my decisions and worry about whether I am doing the right thing for my child with the information in my head. But I remind myself that I am doing the best I can and that every parent goes through this. The phrase “ignorance is bliss” has merit.
This experience is not just a new chapter in life. It’s a whole new book. The world is so different today than it was 20 years ago. The rapid pace of technological advancements and the media’s influence has changed how we raise our children. Even parenting styles have changed, and staying informed and up-to-date on the latest trends, and best practices have been helpful for me.
Another significant difference I’ve noticed is the economic pressures that parents face today. The cost of living has increased, and it has been challenging to provide for my family and make ends meet. But, I am grateful for the opportunity to be a dad at this stage of life and to be able to provide for my family. My changing careers didn’t make this any easier.
It’s interesting to see my young child associated with her half-siblings, who are a generation apart. I watch as she interacts with them and learns from them. I wish they all lived closer. It’s also interesting to see her associate with her older half-siblings’ children, who are around the same age; she is a younger aunt. It’s a unique family dynamic that I never thought I would experience, but I am grateful for it. It’s a unique perspective on the diversity of family systems.
Being a dad at 50 is a unique experience with its own challenges and rewards. Despite the lack of sleep, the grief, and the anxieties, I wouldn’t exchange this journey for anything in the world. I am grateful for the opportunity to be a dad at this phase of life and, most of the time, embrace the unique challenges.
Quality mental health is a critical aspect of our lives that affects our daily functioning and well-being. While we may think that we are making good choices for ourselves, our unconscious mind is often driving our actions. This is where mindfulness helps by promoting healthier experiences.
Mindfulness is being fully present in the moment, with an open and non-judgmental attitude toward our experiences. This allows us to make conscious choices that align with our core values and desires. When living unconsciously, we often find ourselves stuck in patterns and routines that do not serve us in the long run.
For instance, when it comes to coping strategies, it is better to choose unhealthy ones consciously rather than participate in healthy ones unconsciously. This is because unconscious coping strategies can often lead us down a path that does not align with our values and goals. By being mindful, we can choose coping strategies that align with our purpose and promote long-term well-being.
Individuals can understand and reflect on the reasoning behind their actions. They can consider the potential consequences of their choices and make a deliberate decision to either continue with the unhealthy behavior or seek alternative coping mechanisms. On the other hand, when coping strategies are performed unconsciously, individuals are less aware. Unconscious behaviors are often automatic and repetitive, limiting an individual’s ability to change and find healthier coping strategies. Consciously choosing unhealthy coping strategies, although not always best in the short term, can provide an opportunity for self-reflection and growth toward finding healthier methods.
Mindfulness is a helpful approach to creating a strong balance and forward-looking life experience, as it allows us to make conscious choices to improve developing experiences. By being present in the moment and aware of our path, we can avoid getting stuck in unhealthy patterns and routines.
As my grandmother told me, “there is more than one way to skin the cat.” Because of modern science, we understand with great precision what types of things cause other things. We also recognize the diversity of influence from a broad range of domains on the human experience. In psychology, we consider social, psychological, cultural, and biological factors.
Included in the diversity of these domains are a myriad of theoretical models and their incorporating assessments and interventions. When I first began practicing as a therapist, I would often think, “I wonder which model is the best and which impacting factor is most important.” I have come to learn that the answer is: all.
I think we often get stuck in attempting to fix a problem through the first thing we identify:
I drink too much; I must be addicted to alcohol.
My husband cheated on me; he must not be sexually fulfilled.
I cannot find a good job; I must not be outgoing enough.
I am overweight; I must have bad genes.
And why there “may” be truth in short-drawn conclusions, there are also various determinants, not as alternatives, but as contributors. If true, we can take a holistic approach to complex situations that generate better perspectives, lasting changes, and more permanent resolutions.
I remember working with a client who struggled to find a partner. He felt he wasn’t handsome enough and spent most of his time trying to make himself physically attractive. I felt there was more to his situation. As it turned out, he had a tiny social group, and he thought he wasn’t likable because he was older. He also was taught you marry somebody who has never been married because that was the acceptable “way”. These were not small influences for him.
As we worked through these details, my client began to date more, often women who had been in a previous marriage. Eventually, he found his match. Imagine as we wrapped up, he realized looking “good” was only a small part of a giant puzzle.
For members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and various fraction branches), The Book of Mormon contains many important themes, primarily the process of coming to Christ. In the early part of the book, there is a story told by one of the prominent characters named Nephi about a dream called The Tree of Life. On October 6th, 2019, Church leader Neil Anderson described the importance of the Tree of Life dream in a conference talk aired to Church members worldwide. In his talk, Anderson spoke critically of distracting voices and portrayed the Tree of Life dream from a church-obedient perspective. I want to offer what I feel is a healthier perspective for believing and nonbelieving Mormons.
Lehi’s VIsion of the Tree of Life
The Tree of Life dream describes a path leading to a beautiful tree with highly desirable fruit. For those along the path, arrival at the anticipated destination is ensured by holding firmly to a rod of iron. Grasping the rod is significant since the path is occluded by a mist of darkness. In the dream, some lose hold of the rod by listening to the shaming voices of individuals in a large and spacious building who mock those who travel along the path (1 Nephi 8, Book of Mormon).
In the Book of Mormon, the iron rod is interpreted as “the word of God” (1 Nephi 11:25, Book of Mormon). While not mentioned implicitly, many Church leaders have taught this is the equivalent of following the prophet, because the word of God is found in the scriptures, and the scriptures are superseded by the words of the living Prophet (Nelson, 2009). Not all agree with this interpretation. Some have suggested the rod of iron is best interpreted as personal revelation (Cook, 2018; Pontius, 2002). This uncommon reframing of this symbol yields healthy perspectives in contrast to Anderson’s views.
Elder Neil Anderson accurately describes the symbolic representation of the tree, as interpreted in the Book of Mormon; the tree represents the love of God. Anderson takes creative license and adds the following additional interpretations including the fruit of the tree is synonymous with ordinances of the Church, contemptuous individuals are mocking followers of Christ, holding the iron rod means obedience to commandments, assailants in the building are the construction crews of Satan who operate with “Internet megaphones”, and more.
Anderson’s perspective is not entirely new. An obedience-oriented interpretation is straightforward. It provides a framework for strict adherence to church leaders, creates an othering strategy to dissuade individuals from listening to non-approved sources, and provides value for an open canon (i.e., living prophets). However, this approach severely minimizes the experience of hundreds of thousands of Mormons whose experiences are not simple. These experiences include sexual orientation and identity differences (LGBTQ+), non-nuclear family formats, differing spiritual beliefs, and a broad diversity of cultural backgrounds.
In contrast, the Book of Mormon defines the fruit of the tree as the love of God (1 Nephi 11:22, Book of Mormon). If the destination of the path doesn’t lead to God’s love, or one’s experience of God’s love is not a part of self-love with the divine, it may not be a path worth celebrating. Isn’t God’s grace and unconditional love the fruit by which we know Him (Matthew 7:16, King James Version).
If, however, the iron rod is epitomized as personal revelation, the application of the dream becomes adaptive for both observing and transitioning Mormons. Instead of Anderson’s description of the rod being strict orthodoxy, individuals create a pathway to the divine (the tree) by establishing a personal relationship to God in a way meaningful to them. This substitutes the building’s naysayers from nefarious anti-Mormons to individuals who openly resist others who claim spiritual sovereignty. This approach creates space for a broad spectrum of spiritual experiences. It reinterprets the relationship with God (and one’s spiritual journey) as a personal experience of growth thwarted by ignorance instead of obstructed by questioning. It replaces being lost from “rebellion to authority” with a traumatic response to shame.
I know this perspective is threatening for some believing Mormons. It suggests there is more than one path to the symbolic tree and proposes the building of detractors could be insiders of the faith. This interpretation wouldn’t be untimely. In the dream, the building is described as ornate, and its occupants are dressed to the nines (1 Nephi 8:29, Book of Mormon). Critics of the Church suggest many presentations of the Church and its members match this description. According to the dream, the outcome of the building’s occupant’s criticism results in path-seekers falling away and becoming lost. There is nothing more lost than disconnecting from one’s own journey to God (or whatever that is for them) whether they are a faithful member or not. If the fruit of the tree is, according to the Book of Mormon, the most precious above all, the product of the journey along the path, with the rod, must be more than church ritual. This path must include the unique diversity of a plan tailored for an individual by way of personal revelation. Wouldn’t a loving Creator want nothing more?
I’m a Mormon and an advocate for marginalized communities and children. As a graduate student in the mental health field, I’m interested in how institutional policies affect individuals, especially in the context of cultural traditions.
In a recent opinion article published in the Deseret News (a paper owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), BYU professor and church employee David Dollahite commented against the recent “Protect LDS Children” movement lead by Sam Young. Dollahite is an active church member and former LDS bishop. Dollahite currently teaches marriage and family life classes at BYU. Young is also an active LDS church member and former bishop. Young is petitioning the LDS church to change a long-standing policy where LDS bishops conduct one-on-one interviews behind closed doors and ask sexually explicit questions.
While I respect the dialog, I take exception to Dollahite’s arguments and feel impressed to comment on his article.
Dollahite suggests research supports the current LDS interview policy. Dollahite correctly cites Kenda Creasy Dean who says Mormon teens were ”the least likely to engage in high-risk behavior and consistently were the most positive, healthy, hopeful and self-aware teenagers” (Dean, 2010, p. 20). However, Dean does not conclude this was a result of one-on-one interviews. In fact, she suggests positive Mormon-youth outcomes stem from high-level religious observance, religious vitality, and spiritual congruence between beliefs and practice. What Dollahite is doing is taking a correlative factor and implying causation. Dean also cites several other Mormon practices including family devotion (family home evening), ritual service, peer accountability, goal oriented orthodoxy, and religious education (seminary) as key influences (Dean, 2010, p 52). Dollahite correctly mentions Dean’s opinion that non-parental role modeling is a positive contributor for Mormon youth. However, most role leader-to-youth modeling is performed in a public setting with a diverse set of adults. Healthy role modeling does not occur in private settings with a man. In short, while research suggests Mormon social practices are adaptive, this study doesn’t conclude the results come from LDS interview policies.
Dollahite also references a study where at-risk youths who participated in mentoring programs experienced less depressive symptoms, had greater acceptance among peers and experienced higher levels of positive experiences at school (Herrera & DuBois and Grossman, 2013). While this study speaks highly of one-on-one mentoring, it says nothing about one-on-one interviews behind closed doors involving sexually explicit questions. Furthermore, the authors express their inability to describe how this process works, suggesting uncontrolled factors were not isolated (Herrera & DuBois and Grossman, 2013). Also, the authors remark the study is problematic due to self-reported exaggerations and a lack of emotional disclosure. Dollahite’s confidence in drawing conclusions from this study are misleading and potentially unethical.
Dollahite also references an article in The Atlantic where the professor of psychology Jean Twenge says social media caused depression is reduced when youth attend religious services (Twenge, 2017). However, Twenge also says depressive symptoms were also reduced when youth participated in sports. Twenge is not suggesting one-on-one interviews behind a closed door with an older man with no training in human psychology and sexuality while asking sexually explicit questions is a factor, nor should Mr. Dohaite.
Dollahite suggests violations of ecclesiastical trust are uncommon and rare. I agree that the vast majority of LDS bishops are good men with no ill intent toward the children in their stewardship. However, all youth (especially girls, and minorities) are inadvertently taught grooming behaviors through current LDS interview practices. Even if the bishop is not a sexual predator, the impact to children creates psychological heuristics to trust authority figures without protective boundaries afforded boy scouts, tithing receipts, primary age children, and young women at girls camp. Such grooming practice results in adolescents or adults granting trust to potential victimizers in situations as demonstrated in the 1984 rape of an adult female LDS missionary while in the LDS missionary training center (MTC), in similar interviews with an authority figure and MTC President Joseph Bishop.
Dollahite says recent church policy changes have taken steps to ensure the protection of youth. While these baby steps are positive, they do not add anything substantial to previous policies. Bishops are not required to have another adult present, and an adult “nearby” doesn’t constitute safety. Can you imagine the outrage if LDS scouting policies allowed for a boy scout leader to sleep in the tent with a young boy, even if another adult was in an adjacent tent?
I agree with Dollahite that religious standards are healthy for most LDS youth. What Young is asking for is the end of one-on-one interviews, not a change in moral standards. Bishops are not trained in human development or psychology. Also, LDS Bishops do not understand, nor are they trained in trauma, abuse, or the complex nature of human sexuality.
Dollahite says the value of the priest-penitent relationship is valued in society. The vast majority of the supporting evidence contributing to social support for what Dollahite says is “candid and confidential conversations” comes from ecclesiastical leaders who have been trained and certified in pastoral counseling. This may be why no other mainstream religious organization conducts worthiness interviews or asks questions of their minors in the manner the LDS church practices.
Dollahite suggests there is no substitute for confidential conversations and counsel. While I agree parishioner confidentiality is important, the current LDS handbook of instructions for bishops enumerates allowances for breach of confidentiality, and do not include informed consent regarding how confidentiality is practiced (as if a minor can provide consent). This lack of pastoral care confidentiality standard creates an augmented unsafe environment for victims of abuse, individuals struggling with mental health disorders, and complicates social shaming dynamics in lay membership models.
Other religious institutions (like the Catholic church) have navigated many of these same situations in years past. Author John Cornwell, describe the horrific practices that occurred in the confessional by Catholic church leaders who didn’t understand how “shame heaped upon the laity caused incalculable and unnecessary suffering” (Cornwell, 2014). Other researchers note historical attitudes in Mormon attitudes toward human sexual behaviors are deeply problematic (Malan & Bullough, 2005). Should we be asking how many of these cultural viewpoints are influencing private conversations behind closed doors?
Dollahite fails to connect any evidence that one-on-one interviews with untrained bishops asking sexually explicit questions are connected to Mormon youth satisfaction and positive behaviors. While we agree Mormon youth success stories exist, we may disagree that private one-on-one interviews are required for healthy psychosexual and spiritual development for youth. Respectfully, Dollahite’s belief in the reliability of LDS confessional neglects the reality of real-life situations experienced by thousands of LDS children. I support Young, we should focus on creating safety for youth and children, so bishops can do their job in helping augment the goals of parents in the spiritual development of our children.
References:
Cornwell, J. (2014). The dark box: a secret history of confession. Basic Books (AZ).
Dean, K. C. (2010). Almost Christian: What the faith of our teenagers is telling the American church. Oxford University Press.
Herrera, C., DuBois, D. L., & Grossman, J. B. (2013). The Role of Risk: Mentoring Experiences and Outcomes for Youth with Varying Risk Profiles. MDRC.
Jean M. Twenge. (2017, August 3). Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation? Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/ Malan, M. K., & Bullough, V. (2005). Historical development of new mas…tion attitudes in Mormon culture: Silence, secular conformity, counterrevolution, and emerging reform. Sexuality and Culture, 9(4), 80-127.
:
Elder Neil L. Andersen – The Tree of Life [Video file]. (2019, October). Retrieved from https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/general-conference/2019/10/media/6092742593001?lang=eng
Cook, J. (2018, December 5th). Nephi’s iron rod may not be what you think it is. Retrieved from https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/12/05/nephis-iron-rod-may-not-be-what-you-think-it-is/
Pontius, J. M. (2002). Following the Light of Christ Into His Presence. Cedar Fort.
Nelson, Z. (2009). The Rod of Iron in Lehi’s Dream. Religious Educator: Perspectives on the Restored Gospel, 10(3), 5.
I’m a Mormon and an advocate for marginalized communities and children. As a graduate student in the mental health field, I’m interested in how institutional policies affect individuals, especially in the context of cultural traditions.
In a recent opinion article published in the Deseret News (a paper owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), BYU professor and church employee David Dollahite commented against the recent “Protect LDS Children” movement lead by Sam Young. Dollahite is an active church member and former LDS bishop. Dollahite currently teaches marriage and family life classes at BYU. Young is also an active LDS church member and former bishop. Young is petitioning the LDS church to change a long-standing policy where LDS bishops conduct one-on-one interviews behind closed doors and ask sexually explicit questions.
While I respect the dialog, I take exception to Dollahite’s arguments and feel impressed to comment on his article.
Dollahite suggests research supports the current LDS interview policy. Dollahite correctly cites Kenda Creasy Dean who says Mormon teens were ”the least likely to engage in high-risk behavior and consistently were the most positive, healthy, hopeful and self-aware teenagers” (Dean, 2010, p. 20). However, Dean does not conclude this was a result of one-on-one interviews. In fact, she suggests positive Mormon-youth outcomes stem from high-level religious observance, religious vitality, and spiritual congruence between beliefs and practice. What Dollahite is doing is taking a correlative factor and implying causation. Dean also cites several other Mormon practices including family devotion (family home evening), ritual service, peer accountability, goal-oriented orthodoxy, and religious education (seminary) as key influences (Dean, 2010, p 52). Dollahite correctly mentions Dean’s opinion that non-parental role modeling is a positive contributor for Mormon youth. However, most role leader-to-youth modeling is performed in a public setting with a diverse set of adults. Healthy role modeling does not occur in private settings with a man. In short, while research suggests Mormon social practices are adaptive, this study doesn’t conclude the results come from LDS interview policies.
Dollahite also references a study where at-risk youths who participated in mentoring programs experienced less depressive symptoms, had greater acceptance among peers and experienced higher levels of positive experiences at school (Herrera & DuBois and Grossman, 2013). While this study speaks highly of one-on-one mentoring, it says nothing about one-on-one interviews behind closed doors involving sexually explicit questions. Furthermore, the authors express their inability to describe how this process works, suggesting uncontrolled factors were not isolated (Herrera & DuBois and Grossman, 2013). Also, the authors remark the study is problematic due to self-reported exaggerations and a lack of emotional disclosure. Dollahite’s confidence in drawing conclusions from this study are misleading and potentially unethical.
Dollahite also references an article in The Atlantic where the professor of psychology Jean Twenge says social media caused depression is reduced when youth attend religious services (Twenge, 2017). However, Twenge also says depressive symptoms were also reduced when youth participated in sports. Twenge is not suggesting one-on-one interviews behind a closed door with an older man with no training in human psychology and sexuality while asking sexually explicit questions is a factor, nor should Mr. Dohaite.
Dollahite suggests violations of ecclesiastical trust are uncommon and rare. I agree that the vast majority of LDS bishops are good men with no ill intent toward the children in their stewardship. However, all youth (especially girls, and minorities) are inadvertently taught grooming behaviors through current LDS interview practices. Even if the bishop is not a sexual predator, the impact to children creates psychological heuristics to trust authority figures without protective boundaries afforded boy scouts, tithing receipts, primary age children, and young women at girls camp. Such grooming practice results in adolescents or adults granting trust to potential victimizers in situations as demonstrated in the 1984 rape of an adult female LDS missionary while in the LDS missionary training center (MTC), in similar interviews with an authority figure and MTC President Joseph Bishop.
Dollahite says recent church policy changes have taken steps to ensure the protection of youth. While these baby steps are positive, they do not add anything substantial to previous policies. Bishops are not required to have another adult present, and an adult “nearby” doesn’t constitute safety. Can you imagine the outrage if LDS scouting policies allowed for a boy scout leader to sleep in the tent with a young boy, even if another adult was in an adjacent tent?
I agree with Dollahite that religious standards are healthy for most LDS youth. What Young is asking for is the end of one-on-one interviews, not a change in moral standards. Bishops are not trained in human development or psychology. Also, LDS Bishops do not understand, nor are they trained in trauma, abuse, or the complex nature of human sexuality.
Dollahite says the value of the priest-penitent relationship is valued in society. The vast majority of the supporting evidence contributing to social support for what Dollahite says is “candid and confidential conversations” comes from ecclesiastical leaders who have been trained and certified in pastoral counseling. This may be why no other mainstream religious organization conducts worthiness interviews or asks questions of their minors in the manner the LDS church practices.
Dollahite suggests there is no substitute for confidential conversations and counsel. While I agree parishioner confidentiality is important, the current LDS handbook of instructions for bishops enumerates allowances for breach of confidentiality, and do not include informed consent regarding how confidentiality is practiced (as if a minor can provide consent). This lack of pastoral care confidentiality standards creates an augmented unsafe environment for victims of abuse, individuals struggling with mental health disorders, and complicates social shaming dynamics in lay membership models.
Other religious institutions (like the Catholic church) have navigated many of these same situations in years past. Author John Cornwell, describes the horrific practices that occurred in the confessional by Catholic church leaders who didn’t understand how “shame heaped upon the laity caused incalculable and unnecessary suffering” (Cornwell, 2014). Other researchers note historical attitudes in Mormon attitudes toward human sexual behaviors are deeply problematic (Malan & Bullough, 2005). Should we be asking how many of these cultural viewpoints are influencing private conversations behind closed doors?
Dollahite fails to connect any evidence that one-on-one interviews with untrained bishops asking sexually explicit questions are connected to Mormon youth satisfaction and positive behaviors. While we agree Mormon youth success stories exist, we may disagree that private one-on-one interviews are required for healthy psychosexual and spiritual development for youth. Respectfully, Dollahite’s belief in the reliability of the LDS confessional neglects the reality of real-life situations experienced by thousands of LDS children. I support Young, we should focus on creating safety for youth and children, so bishops can do their job in helping augment the goals of parents in the spiritual development of our children.
References:
Cornwell, J. (2014). The dark box: a secret history of confession. Basic Books (AZ).
Dean, K. C. (2010). Almost Christian: What the faith of our teenagers is telling the American church. Oxford University Press.
Herrera, C., DuBois, D. L., & Grossman, J. B. (2013). The Role of Risk: Mentoring Experiences and Outcomes for Youth with Varying Risk Profiles. MDRC.
Jean M. Twenge. (2017, August 3). Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation? Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/ Malan, M. K., & Bullough, V. (2005). Historical development of new mas…tion attitudes in Mormon culture: Silence, secular conformity, counterrevolution, and emerging reform. Sexuality and Culture, 9(4), 80-127.
