EDITORIALAs we commence the 9th year of publication of the

AMCAP Journal. we do so with appredation to all of thoseof you who have contributed to the progress of the pastand with faith and hope for continued progress this year.The quality of the Journal is primarily dependent on you-­for submission of scholarly, sound and stimulatingarticles and suggestions. We invite you to help make1983 the best year yet for the Journal. Deluge us withyour articles and suggestions. Thank you!

BCK

TABLE OF CONTENTSKnow the Truth...

by Richard W. Johnson 5

Strains Within the Mormon Subcultureby Larry K. Langlois. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. .. . .. . . .. 10

Early Recollections as a Counseling Techniqueby Ron Jacques... .. .. .. .. . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . . . .. 14

Transference to Deityby K-Lynn Paul................ .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15

Healing: Bringing the Atonement to the Clinical Settingby Val D. MacMurray... .... . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. .. . . . . .. .... . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . .. 16

The Mormon Psychotherapists: An Addendumby Genevieve and Arturo De Hoyos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20

3 AMCAP JOURNAl/JANUARY 1983

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Dear Burton:I am impressed to write today in response to Victor

Brown's address at the AMCAP convention last April. Iam most grateful that it appeared in article form in theOctober, 1982, issue of our journal. This article, entitled"Human Intimacy: Further Considerations" wassignificant to me and demonstrated what I see as theunique contribution that AMCAP can make--namely acloser in tegra tion between the gospel of Jesus Christand the professional training that most of us pursue inour efforts to constructively intervene, as invitedthrough therapeutic endeavor, in people's lives.

I believe it also demostrates what can happen when auniquely qualified person makes that effort. May Isharewhy I claim that Vic Brown is uniquely qualified?

1. He is professionally trained.2. He works in a clinical fashion within the context of a

church administered and supervised agency.3. Most importantly he has had a close alliance with

President Kimball and has conferred extensively withhim regarding clinical/religious applications that aremade in support of those whose lives are disrupted bysexual difficulty.

I note that President Kimball's biography indicatesthat he was designated specifically as one of the generalauthorites that was to work with this population. Hisyears of effort and his inspiration unquestionably haveled to significant understanding and insight. BrotherBrown has been able to glean from that effort andinspiration as is evidenced by this anecdote. On theoccasion of AMCAP recognizing Victor L. Brown, Jr. forhis contributions to the association, his father was in theaudience. As an officer in the association that year, Iwent to Victor Brown, Sr. to express appreciation tohimfor his son and for the contribution his son had made tous professionally and spiritually. Victor Brown, Sr. wasdelighted in the moment and in the experiences andevents of past years that had contributed to his son'sdevelopment. It was at that point that he shared with methat, despite his being the Presiding Bishop, he did notspend as much time with the prophet as did his son.

Somehow as I read Vic Brown, Jr:s writing, I seeevidence of significant insight and compassion. I note forinstance in this most recent article, the case of the man"who had made a career of confessing his unworthinessto Mormon bishops around the world... " (p.6) based on achildhood experience, in desperate times, of engaging inincest. The therapeutic response involved separating theact from the intent and understanding the desperateneed for human contact and comfort. The twinprinciples of justice and mercy, as taught by Alma to hiswayward son, Corianton, were used to sort out theman's feelings and to give him a chance to meet theneeds for justice by repenting for the act while still beinggiven the mercy to forgive himself for "gainingnourishment to a starving heart" through thetenderness of his sister that had been misdirected in asexual act.

AMCAP JOURNAL/JANUARY 1983 4

I cannot speak for others. I know not their mind nOrtheir heart. I can say that my mind and heart werepierced by the insight and truth that was reflected in thisapplication of the principles of justice and mercy. I'mgrateful for the Gospel, grateful for Alma and for histeachings to his son.

I had long understood that mercy could only intercedein behalf of the person, and prevent blind justice, basedon repentance, but I am not sure I would ever have"invented" the application of these principles as VicBrown has revealed it. That idea and example will havetremendous value for me as I work with individuals whoare caught in such struggles.

This insight, as shared by Brother Brown, is typical ofwhat I would hope we might achieve as we pursue theintegration of Our religion with Our professional practiceand vise versa.

Cordially,Gary CarsonPast President-AMCAP

CORRECTIONAND APOLOGY:

Regrettably there was a typographical error in thearticle of Brother Victor L. Brown, Jr., "HumanIntimacy: Further Considerations," in the October, 1982AMCAP Journal. The last line at the bott{)m of page 7,column 1, as submitted read, "Why did my [helpingperson] ask me to go to my father and tell him I lovehim?" rather than as published, "Why didn't my [helpingperson) help me to go to my father and tell him I lovedhim?"Our apologies to Vic and to those of you who weremisled by that error.

KNOW THE TRUTH...Richard W. Johnson,· Ph.D.

Presidential AddressPresented at the AMCAP Convention

30 September, 1982

There are those who don't agree with what we aredoing in AMCAP. That is, they don't think they ought tomix the Church with our professional lives. Perhapssome of us have, if only on rare occasions, wondered atthe appropriateness of bringing matters of religiousbelief into our therapeutic activities. The reasons areundoubtedly varied. Perhaps there is a feeling that weought not to bring to and, by implication, impose valuesin the counseling setting. Some might be uncomfortablediscussing religious questions with clients and wouldprefer leaving those matters to duly called authorities.Others might not yet have clarified or committedthemselves to their religious beliefs, and still othersmight think their professional knowledge has gonebeyond the point where ideas from the Gospel could addanything significant.

A central issue in all of this is, it seems, a reluctance tomix things of faith, spirit, and the heart with those basedon reason, experience, and systematic observation. It is,in a way, a reluctance to bring too close together thetruths we have achieved by rather different means. RexLee, in a recent address to BYU graduates, characterizedthese two approaches to truth as the rational processand the extra-rational process. (Lee, 1982) On therational side would be included, of course. thinking andreason, observation, insight and experience as means todiscover truth. On the extra-rational side would befound those ways of knowing that center more infeelings than in reason and past experience. Theseinclude inspiration, revelation, and perhaps mysticism.Authority would also be included here if the authority isachieved through inspiration and revelation.

It is not surprising that some choose not to mix churchwith their professional practice. As professionals wewant to appear, or better yet to be, objective, wellreasoned, intellectually sound, tough minded---truebehavioral scientists; that is, to adhere to the rationalprocess. We may fear too much yielding to the extra­rational will dilute the appearance of scientificobjectivity.

Historically, mixing truths gained through reasonwith those gained by inspiration has been somewhat liketrying to mix oil and water. It is an understatement tosay that there has always existed a certain amount oftension or discomfort between ideas based on reasonand those resulting from extra-rational processes. It isthe age-old dilemma of science versus religion. Scienceand religion have stood facing apart. casting sidelong

·Brother Johnson is an Associate Professor ofEducational Psychology and a Counselor at theCounseling Center, Brigham Young University.

5

glances at each other, science uneasy at the impliedunassailability of the authority upon which religionrests, and religion concerned that science might.through its tools. find fault with some of religion'steachings or question its authority.

These differing collections of truths that have comeinto apparent conflict were born out of distinct needs: onthe one hand, the need to maintain ties with and getdirection from Him who placed us in this mortal state; onthe other hand, to understand our surroundings andthose who preceded us here.

I'd like to take a few minutes briefly to trace thedevelopment of ideas based on these two ways ofknowing.

The approach to truth on the rational side of thisconflict perhaps found its beginning in the miraclecivilization that was ancient Greece. The philosophicalthought of Plato and Aristotle laid the foundation forscientific inquiry even though it preceded the scientificmethod by almost 2,000 years. <Boring. 1950)Philosophy is the mother of scientific thinking because ittakes nothing as a given. It looks first to discover what isreal and second to know how it is that we gain thatknowledge. (Butler, 1957) The Greek philosophers leftus a legacy of the use of insight. intuition, andintellectual processes in the pursuit of truth. They alsoturned the attention of scholars of their day away fromthe study of nature toward the study of man himself.Aristotle taught us that we can achieve understandingof complex issues through dialogue. In fact. Chessick(I977), in his book Grtat Idtas in Psychothtrapy. creditsAristotle with having conducted the first therapeuticinterview.

The Aristotelian approach to truth has persisted uponearth through the decline of Greece and the conquests ofRome into the present day.

It was in one of those conquered Roman outposts thatGod brought forth the meridian of the fulness of timesand with it His plan for the salvation of mankind. Manyof the religious truths we cherish now came forth at thattime. Christ was born among the chosen of God who hadkept a record of their dealings with the Lord. laws andcommandments to live by, narratives to inspire anddirect their worship--even an account of God's creationsof the heavens and the earth.

Christ's disciples went forth to preach the joyousword of the fulfillment of ancient prophecy and of thepromise of eternal life for man. Some wrote downaccounts of Christ's sojourn among men.

As we know, the church Christ established fell into astate of apostasy, and the power of the priesthood waslost from the earth. Even so, Christ's words and

AMCAP JOURNAl/JANUARY 1983

teachings were available through the scattered writingsof his followers. By about 300 years after his death,these writings were brought together in one volumewhich eventually became our New Testament. This, andthe religious record of the ancients, the Old Testament,were available to guide the religious practice of men, butthere was no inspiration or revelation to guide them inthat practice. In any event, by about the third centuryafter Christ, the elements for a conflict between rationaland religious ideas were in place. There existed by then abody of religious writings and also the beginnings ofscientific inquiry in the philosophical legacy left by theGreeks.

What ensued was more a matter of domination thanconflict. The apostate church of the day, in fact, showedtolerance for philosophical ideas, but was so deeplysteeped in its theology and dogma that it allowedvirtually no movement away from strict religious beliefsby any of the church's adherents. Religious ideasdominated men's thinking. The scriptures were taken asthe word of God and as the final word on all subjects.Men lived their lives focused only on adherence todogma that they hoped would save their souls fromhellfire in the hereafter. The period we are speaking ofwas, of course, The Dark Ages.

During this period the advancement of knowledgewas, in effect, held in suspended animation. Religiousbeliefs carried the day, or more accurately carried theyears, for a total of more than 1,000 years. Theologicalthought had a firm grip on men's minds. Those whoventured to understand better their earthlysurroundings were called to task if their findings did notmatch those of the theological authorities of the day. Aslate as the 15th century, men were put to death forasserting that the world was round when dogma said itwas not. (Dyer, 1961)

Historians recognize four or five events that served tofree men's minds from their preoccupation with religionand the afterlife and bring about a rebirth of learning.

The invention of gun powder in the 15th century andits use in wars to break down the feudal system of citystates helped to establish larger national units andenhanced the exchange of ideas and trade with othersuch units. Invention of the printing press in 1440 madepossible the mass production and wider distribution ofbooks once held only by an exclusive few. In search oftrade routes, Columbus happened upon ourhemisphere, thus creating a flow of riches from the NewWorld and making land available apart from that held bykings, the church, and nobles, the powerful of the oldworld. (Boring, 1950)

We sometimes think of the Protestant Reformation asbringing an end to The Dark Ages, but it was as much aneffect as it was a cause. The reformers were as critical ofscientific inquiry as was the Roman Church. (Dyer,1961)

The last event to unleash the Renaissance, the rebirthof learning, was publication of the Copernican theory.Copernicus, a Polish scholar and contemporary ofMartin Luther, removed man from the center of theknown universe. Had he not died the year his findings

AMCAP JOURNAL/JANUARY 1983 6

were published, he would undoubtedly have beencondem ned as a heretic. Galileo did suffer condemnationfor discovering the four moons of Jupiter which made11, not 7, heavenly bodies in the solar system, astheologians of the day regarded seven as a sacrednumber.

Galileo was followed by Newton and other scientistswhose discoveries refuted other religious dogma.(Boring, 1950) That, of course, was ~ot their purpose.They set about leaning over their microscopes and intotheir telescopes, probing, measuring, observing, anddissecting, with the purpose of learning about theirsurroundings. If we are talking of the apparent conflictbetween science and religion, science became a force tobe reckoned with. The Aristotelian deductive methodhad been combined with an inductive method proposedby Francis Bacon in 1620 and the scientific method hadbeen born. The 17th century saw significant scientificgrowth, the 18th century a plateau, which someonecalled a period of "slightly stunned assimilation." (p. 14)The development of science in the 19th centuryprogressed with explosive force; it coincided with therestora tion of the gospel.

Religion from the Renaissance and Reformation tothat time had seen elaboration of the Protestantmovement with a variety of sects claiming to have thetruth but none of them with divine authority. In a sense,their attention was directed toward and against eachother and away from defending the faith from thoseusing rational processes.

The real conflict between science and religion seemsto have grown along with man's increasing willingnessand freedom to do more than just think about, discuss,and look to misunderstood authority to understand theuniverse and man's mortal condition. It grew with hiswillingness and freedom to begin testing empiricallywhat pure reason and authority told him was so. Thestory goes that a group of philosophers werecontemplating and discussing how many teeth theremust be in a horse's mouth. They were aghast when oneof their number suggested they find a horse and countthem. It was when men began to count, measure, andsystematically observe that conflict arose betweenscience and religion.

I want now to turn to possible continuing causes ofthis conflict. Some of these ideas are found in anexcellent little book by Lowell Bennion (1959) entitledRt/igion and tht Pursuit of Truth.

A primary reason for the conflict between science andreligious thought has been that some religiousauthorities have taken the scriptures to be the final wordon all subjects. Recognized as the words of God, thescriptures have come to be seen by some as the onlyauthority in all matters. We noted that when discussingThe Dark Ages. Even today there are those who usescripture as documents of science when they were nevermeant to be such. Some advocates of teaching "creationscience" in the schools, I believe, make that mistake.

Scripture should be recognized as religious writingsaimed at helping men and women better understandthemselves, their relationship to God and their

fellowmen, and the purposes of this mortal existence.They were written to inspire us "to do justly, and to lovemercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." (Micah 6:8)

When in Proverbs (3:19) it says, "The lord by wisdomhath founded the earth; by understanding he establishedthe heavens. By his knowledge the depths are broken upand the clouds drop down the dew," there is no attemptto describe the universe in scientific terms. The passageis not meant to describe but rather to show the power ofGod and the wisdom that went into organizing theuniverse. It was meant to glorify God, written by men ofreligion, not of science.

A related cause of conflict between science andreligion is that those who are advocates and students ofone set of truths minimize the significance andcontribution of other truths. Since they know little ofthem, they regard them as we often do the unknown-­with apprehension, fear, and suspicion. They malign andridicule them because they do not understand them.

This might be regarded as yet another source ofconflict: the failure to adequately understand theposition taken by one side or the other. Jae Ballif (1982),Academic Vice President at BYU and himself a physicalscientist, touched on this point in a recent address to thefaculty. He said one side stands against a "godlessscience," the other against an "unscientific religion,"neither side adequately understanding the other'sstance.

Still another source of controversy is found in thosewho, too often by self appointment, feel they mustdefend the faith and restrict teachings they thinkthreaten the faith. They want to defend God's words,which require no defense, and want to limit the freedomto choose, which is, as we know, the cornerstone of thelord's plan. That plan admits choice, error, andcorrection, but some would try to protect us from error,at least as they define it. (Bennion,1959)

Before we end, I want briefly to look at each side of thealleged science-religion contest to see what contributioneach side can make to us as professionals.

Science serves us extremely well in areas to which it issuited. [ need not enumerate all it has provided in areassuch as health, travel, communication, and so manyothers. Unfortunately, its benefits have not reachedeveryone, but hopefully will some day. One small,though not insignificant, example of the benefits ofscience: science in less than a century has doubled man'slifespan, the average time God's children are able tospend on earth. That may be a mixed blessing if oneconsiders the potential glories that await us if weperform well here. Eric Hoffer once said, "Mankind is ona bus, all headed for the same destination, yet everyoneis busy jockeying for seats." Our view would be that ifwe Grt on a bus, we are attempting to prepare ourselvesto be allowed to exit at the most exalted of a number ofpossible destinations. Science is providing time for moremen and women to make the necessary discoveriesduring life to bring that about.

Science has helped open men's minds. It is, [ believe, amanifestation of the fact we are sons and daughters ofGod. We have been created in his likeness and in that

7

likeness, [ feel, have been imbued with a naturalcuriosity about our surroundings. [n the process ofgetting our earthly house in order, it seems appropriateto me that we should be poking around in the cornersand on the shelves and in cracks to see just what thosesurroundings are made of and how they work. Thelandlord wouldn't want us to forget Him, but, even so,He has blessed us with a curiosity to find out about thisearth-home. In the pre-Renaissance time we spoke ofearlier, earth life was seen simply as a means to an end, atime for waiting until one could experience the glories ofthe afterlife. Now we see in life value in and of itself,both from a scientific and a gospel point of view. Ourexistence here is part of the eternal plan.

[t is good to know. There is satisfaction inunderstanding. We feel secure and confident when weare enlightened. Christ once said, "Know the truth, andthe truth shall make you free." (John 8:32) [t seems witheach bit of knowledge we gain, we are freed fromignorance, confusion and error. We have seen many ofthe freedoms we know achieved through our scientificdiscoveries.

Science, though not directly, has helped man come to abetter knowledge of God. Scientists who observe theprecise organization of the universe feel compelled torecognize the existence of the Creator. Even thoughreligious authorities were incredulous when Copernicusplaced the sun and not the earth and man at the center ofthe universe, that very act served to humble man andhelp him see more clearly the powers of Him whoorganized the heavens, the earth, and the other worldswe are told of.

We need even more rigorous application of scientificprinciples to our profeSSional activities. We do indeedneed to be scientist-professionals. Many of the theorieswe follow are just that: theories, or even in some casesphilosophies, which still need the test of empiricalvalidation. We need science for further discovery andverification of means to assist those with whom wework. Abraham Maslow may have been the one whosaid, "If you only have a hammer, you treat everythingas a nail." We need more tools to do our work.

If science has done and promises to do so much, whythen should we consider bringing religious truths intoour profeSSional practice?

Science cannot do everything. It is quite fallible.Although its long-range accomplishments are veryimpressive, science has made many errors along theway. Science operates on a system of successiveapproximations. That is, scientists themselves recognizethey often miss the mark, but have faith that with eachattempt they will come closer to it. As many or morescientific theories are disproved as are proved each year.A scientist once wrote regarding the six basic discoveriesin physics made before the end of the last century,"There is not one the universal validity of which has notbeen questioned by serious and competent physicists,while most of them have definitely proved to be subjectto exception." (Quoted in Bennion, 1959, p. 62-63)Certainly in our science as therapists, we are alsoinvolved in the process of successive approximation.

AMCAP JOURNAl/JANUARY 1983

However, we may take far too long to make thecorrective maneuvers that will carry us n-earer our goal.We may tend to hold onto theories too IQng because they"work" or because we become comfortable with themand are too busy or lazy to look for something moreeffective. We could increase the rate at which we movetoward scientifically determined therapeutic truths ifmore of us were actively empirically evaluating ourpractices.

Another weakness of science is its essentialsubjectivity. This may sound surprising, since it isreligious beliefs that are supposed to be subjective. Evenso, any scientific theory not yet established as factresides in the mind of the theorist, not in reality. This isparticularly true in our professions where theories andnot factual discoveries abound. The concepts ofpsychotherapy proposed by Freud, Kelly, Adler,Michenbaum, Satir, and all the others reside in theirminds and in ours when we adopt them. But their realityis a long way from being proven. To bring about suchproof we need to diligently apply our knowledge ofscience.

The most important reason science alone will notsuffice in our work is that it cannot define ultimatevalue. That is the most persuasive argument forbringing religious ideas into our therapeutic practice.Science can show us the most efficient way to get fromhere to there, but it cannot tell us which direction to go.We are aware of the great discoveries of science, but weknow also that they are not always used to the benefit ofmankind. In fact, too often they are tools of destruction.They sometimes favor the greedy over those in realneed. Religion provides the basis for deciding what isgood or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral. Throughthe scriptures God has provided uS instructions as tohow we should live this mortal existence. Scriptureteaches us how to be at peace with ourselves and ourfellowmen and how to feel at home in the universe. Itteaches us how to gain our salvation and to assist in thesalvation of others. Science cannot respond to thesemost fundamental questions.

McGill (1967) comments in his book, Th. ld.a ofHapp;nm. that present century philosophers haveabandoned the search to define the good life and haveturned that search over to psychologists andpsychoanalysts. If that is the case, I doubt our knowledgeof science will suffice to show us what is true happiness.It seems that more than ever we need the help of thegospel to clarify for ourselves and our clients what thegood life consists of. It is certainly something more thanthe absence of pathology or a flat MMPI profile.

If psychology is indeed defining the good life, a lookaround us will make vivid the need for more attention toeternal values. What responsibility do we have as aprofession for the hedonism we see in what has beencalled the "I" generation, doing "their own thing" withonly passing regard for others and for authority? If wedo define happiness, has it led to the new morality withits by-products of hollow relationships, exploitation, andemptiness? Are we responsible for the existentialanxiety we see in many of those around us who fail to

AMCAP JOURNAl/JANUARY 1983 8

understand the meaning of their lives? Do we haveresponsibility for the sentiment expressed in NeilDiamond's song: "Don't think, feel, it's no big deal," thatplaces value on sensory experiences alone, on being highregardless of how one gets there, but unfortunately,often through some chemical means?

We need the guidance of gospel principles to bringsense to the lunacy we too often see about us. We needthe strength derived from recognition of our kinshipwith God, from having firm and not situational guides tobehavior; we need to know of the fulfillment gained insacrificing for others, working for what we get, beingresponsible for ourselves, and committing ourselveswith affection and sensitivity to those around us.

Another very important and related reason toincorporate gospel ideas in our professional practice isthat we are in the business of helping the sons anddaughters of God find themselves, find purpose, andfind closeness with others. The scriptures and counselfrom religious leaders center around helping people leadfulfilled and complete lives, devoid of the pitfalls of self­deceit, guilt, excess, isolation, anger, and the otherhuman conditions that bring people to therapists.Burton Kelly demonstrated so well yesterday how thewords of Christ can be used quite directly to help peoplecope with distress and guide their lives along paths thatlead to fulfillment.

We also need to admit religious values to our practicebecause many of those we attempt to assist are believersthemselves. This is a point Allen Bergin has attempted tomake for a number of years through various nationalforums. It is a real inconsistency that psychotherapistsas professionals are so often irreligious when so manywho seek their help hold strong religious beliefs.(Another possibility exists: perhaps there are morereligious therapists around than we suspect, but theychoose to sidestep issues of value and belief in favor ofobjectivity. This might take its toll with the therapist. Acolleague, Burton Robinson, told our staff that apresenter at the recent APA convention who waspromoting the use of values in treatment speculated thattherapist burnout may result from therapists doingthings they don't believe in.)

By acknowledging our religious beliefs as therapists,we can be attuned to the counsel of our Church leaderswith respect to the work we do. A case in point: atgeneral conferences in 1969, Alvin R. Dyer and EzraTaft Benson both spoke out against certain practices ingroup therapy. Some professionals felt the brethren"simply didn't understand the nature of group work".Yet within 18 months our colleagues in the helpingprofessions were themselves calling for a re­examination of a field that was approaching chaos. Nudegroups, multimedia groups, non-verbal sensoryawareness groups, primal groups, and others of more orless face validity were flourishing nationwide. Youmight recall Jane Howard (1970) spent a yearparticipating in a number of these groups and laterwrote a best selling book called Pl••s. Touch about hersometimes startling experiences. Many groups wereconducted by leaders whose experience consisted only in

having participated in one or two groups themselves.Shostrom (1972) wrote at the time that some of thesegroups had been "useless, stupid, dangerous, corrupt,and even fataL" (p. 477) Even Albert Ellis was reported tohave recognized some of them as "dirty fun" butcertainly not therapeutic. Fortunately, alarm within theprofession led to some moderation of radical, invalidpractices, but problems still exist

Church authorities have recently spoken out on otherissues pertinent to us as therapists, including abortion,the value of the traditional family, the maintenance ofappropriate legal protection for women, and defenseissues with direct bearing on Church members. I believethe wisdom of these statements goes beyond thewisdom of men and that time will prove that so. We needto be attuned to such pronouncements in ourprofessional work.

Perhaps the final and overriding argument forincluding religious beliefs in our practice is that we needa source of knowledge that goes beyond our limitedintelligence. Operating as rational creatures, our reasonwill seldom lead us all to the same decision or conclusion.This is evidence that our rational processes are flawed.When we need ultimate truth to which there is noexception, we must resort to that provided throughgospel principles, inspired leaders and personal prayer.

We have talked of the conflict between science andreligion sometimes calling it an apparent conflict. A finalquestion remains: is there a real conflict. Are scientificand religious truths irreconcilable? Some say conflictbetween them is inevitable.

But truth is absolute. Something is either true or itisn't. If the gospel embraces all truth, it must,therefore,embrace the truths of science. There are no separatetruths. As Ezra Taft Benson (I957) once said, "Religionand science have sometimes been in apparent conflict.Yet, the conflict can only be apparent, not real. forscience seeks truth and true religion is truth ... the gospelembraces all truth ... the two are meeting daily ... truth isconsistent." (p. 1811 Richard l. Evans (I 957) said, "Truthis a great thing. It is a thrill to search for it, a thrill to findit. Search insatiably and have patience where there isdoubt and controversy for God is not in confusion andone segment of truth is not in conflict with another. If itseems to be, it is simply because we do not knowenough." (p. 180)

If there is conflict, "it is simply because we do notknow enough." We either do not know enoughregarding the science we see in conflict with religion, orwe have not yet received the religious knowledge weneed to answer some questions posed by science.

It is not hard to see how our science could be in error,or incomplete, and thus in conflict with revealedreligious truths. We have already shown that scienceapproaches truth in small steps, making errors in theprocess. It is also subjective and unable to show us whatis of ultimate value. It is also dependent on our fallibleintellectual abilities.

It is more difficult to understand why revealed truthsometimes does not address questions posed by science.We have already touched on the answer by suggesting

9

scripture and revealed truth have been provided so wecan know of essentials we need to understand and, if wechoose, to participate in the Lord's plan for our salvation.There has been little effort made to enlighten us onother matters. Alvin R. Dyer (1961) once said,

"For th~t which man strives to learn by earthly scientificmethods, pertains to laws already established and well knownby our Father in Heaven ...but supposing these things wererevealed to man. what would be the advantage? How would itbenefit him in the search for truth that he should learn from hisearthly existence...God in his gn~at wisdom has spoken directlyto his prophets for the best ultimate good of man to provide forhim that which he could never learn for himself without divineinterce-ssion." (p. 27)

Nephi wrote, "and it mattereth not to me that I amparticular to give a full account of all the things of myfather, for they cannot be written upon these plates, forI desire the room that I may write of the things of God."(I Nephi 6:3)

Scripture and revealed truth are to treat the "things ofGod" and provide man "that which he could never learnfor himself without divine intercession." For the rest ofour knowledge we have to use the powers of reason thatGod gave us. With patience as suggested by Richard l.Evans, we will see truths gained by reason andexperience merge with gospel truths until we have alltruths as they exist: "The two are meeting daily."Science has yet to discover many truths and there are yetmany important things to be revealed. The Lord hassaid,"All their glories, laws, and set times shall berevealed in the days of the dispensation of the fulnessoftimes." ID&C 121:31) When they are, we will see truthunified.

50 that we can go away with a practical challenge, Isuggest we all examine our professional lives to see ifthere is an area there in which we could'function moreefficiently. If we find such a "soft spot," the challengewould be then to focus intently and intensely on theproblem much as Newton is reported to have done.Through intense pondering, reading, discussing,observing and valadating with our best practical.scientific tools, we will gain confidence and competence.Discovery comes from such intense and persistentfocus. However, as we engage in our best scientificbehavior, we should not proceed without guidance fromthe gospel so that the eventual outcome, whatever itmay be, will be consistent with the plan meant to bringus eternal joy.

REFERENCES

B.lilf. ).R "Unto Whom Much IS Given - Address to the Faculty,Bngh.am Young Unlvfrslty. August. 1982

£Honnlon, L l R.,llllo" .,.J flu PII'flfl' ~ Tn"". S.l1t lilkr City. Desertt

Book. 195"Benson. E T Quoted In S.F Co. 0., LnJm S"..t Salt lake City:

Deseret Book. 1957Bonng. E G 1\ Hu',,", '" Ez"..".,.,.1 P,yc••Il/fY New) o,k. Appleton-

Century-Crofts. 1950Butltr, D I F~, .. , Plt,louplt'N Nrw York. H'fpeor &. Row. 1957Chrssl<". R GrN' JJ,.u "' Ps~c"otlttT"n Nrw' ork. Juan Aronson. 1977Dyer. A R H, Mtc"'1 '" T,.t'. Salt lake City, Deseret Book. 1961.

con"nwtJ on pGgt 22

AMCAP JOURNAL/JANUARY 1983

STRAINS WITHINTHE MORMON SUBCULTURE

. Larry K. Langlois, * M.S.Presented at the AMCAP Convention

1 October, 1982

The Mormon subculture has developed a family formwhich is both typical of the broader American cultureand unique to itself. A major element of this family formis Mormon fertility rates. Its development is reflectedclearly in historical trends.

The available data on Mormon fertility shows thatduring the period from the formation of the Church in1830 to about 1870 the Mormon subculture wasdeveloping and establishing itself as a separate entity.During that period Scholnic et al. (1978) have shown thatthe Mormon population (particularly in frontier Utah)was a natural fertility population, i.e. one in which therewere no constraints imposed on fertility. This was nottypical of the general U.S. population. After 1870, withcompletion of the intercontinental railroad and theturning of national priorities away from the painfulravages of the Civil War, more attention was focused onthe Mormon community. Between about 1870 andabout 1920, there was a tendency for Mormon fertilitypatterns to regress toward the national mean. Thetrends in these two periods are shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Child Wom.n R.tio • Ut.h .,.d U.S.(# per thou••nd women)

White. only. 1850·1920

1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920110010501000

950900850800750700650600550500450400

U.S.

The evidence indicates that this movement away froma natural fertility population toward a closerapproximation of the national trends was the result ofMormon women who married young beginning tosuppress fertility pre-menopausally as their family size

"Brother Langlois is Managing Director of Broderick,Langlois and Associates Family Counseling.

AMCAP JOURNAL/JANUARY 1983 10

approached the community norm. This appears todescribe the trend which has resulted in the modernMormon population; that is, young marriage followedby prolific fertility during the early years of marriage,then a curtailing of births at a relatively young age asfamily size approaches the community norm. Thatgeneral norm among Mormons, though consistentlyhigher than the U.S. figure, has remained closely parallelto it with some divergence occurring in recent years.This can be seen clearly in Figure 2.

The graph demonstrates the parallel fluctuations ofthe Mormon and U.S. fertility rates, with Utah andProvo-Orem added in the later years.

As the percentage difference between the Mormonand the U.S. rates demonstrates, the difference betweenMormons and the overall U.S. rate has grownsignificantly during the past 50 years or so. In 1920 theMormon birthrate was 37.2% higher than the U.S. rate.During the post World War II baby boom, the Mormonrate maintained itself consistently at over 50% higher.During the fertility upturn of recent years, the Mormonrate approached 100% above the U.S. rate. Thus, eventhough the fluctuations in rates have been roughlyparallel. the Mormons have been steadily andconsistently widening the gap.

Without going through the statistical analysis, let memerely suggest that this parallel fluctuation reflectingthe trends in U.S. society within the Mormon subcultureis repeated in many areas other than fertility. Theseareas include total number in household, femalehousehold heads, and illegitimate births.

So, the widely observed phenomenon of Mormontypicality mixed with Mormon peculiarity is clearlydemonstrable by demographic data. It can also be shownthat these differences, rather than attenuating over theyears; have actually been becoming more accentuatedduring the past one-half century or so.

These differences help to sustain a sense ofseparateness and destiny among Mormons which hasbeen noted by various obervers (see especially Leoni1979, Arrington, 1978, and O'Dea, 1955), but they arealso the source of great strains within the Mormoncommunity. It is some of these strains I would like toexplore with you today.

First is a set of strains caused by a conflicted Mormonview of the gentile community. There is a pervasive anddeep-seated ambivalence among Mormons in theirattitudes and actions toward non-Mormons. Thisambivalence is rooted in two contradictory roles intowhich gentiles are cast in the Mormon subculture.

During the period since World War II to the present,

the Mormons have generally been well thought of,treated with respect by the press, and, in general, havehad a fairly positive image in most parts of the freeworld. Before that time for more than 100 yearsMormons were generally viewed by gentiles as a cultish,clannish, fringe group of polygamists. Thus, the long­term collective Mormon experience with gentiles is oneof conflicted feelings. On the one hand, gentiles arepotential converts to be befriended, courted and broughtinto the fold. On the other hand, they are a threatening,sinister, evil and errant lot to be shunned and avoided.This ambivalence is a paradox which can be puzzling andconfusing to Mormons and non-Mormons alike. Ingeneral Mormons tend to be outgoing, helpful,sympathetic, politically active and socially involved. But,at the same time, they can also be clannish, suspicious,withdrawn, exclusive and ethnocentric. The strainwithin the Mormon family and community resultingfrom this ambivalence is very real and can be painful. Asan example, teenagers and young adults are urged to bemissionary-minded and to consciously nurturefriendships among non-Mormons with the hope ofeventually influencing them to convert to Mormonisn.But, at the same time, they are cautioned not to datenon-Mormons or marry out of the fold. Local ward,stake and regional activities are generally thought of asperfect opportunities to involve non-Mormons as a wayof doing missionary work, but, should a Mormon girlmeet a non-member boy at one of these activities andbegin to date him, her parents may be upset, since theyprobably encouraged her to go to the dance hoping shewould meet a nice Mormon boy. There is a built-inparadox.

In one sense this paradox reflects a direct conflict

between the Church and the family, at least to theextent that the Church goal is to proselyte and spreadthe gospel, and the family goal is to manage and controlthe processes of mate selection. But this view, as you willall recognize, is too narrow. Mormon families andindividuals tend to internalize the goal to spread thegospel, and the Church is clearly interested in managingthe mate selection process to insure that Mormonsmarry Mormons and has made that goal explicit in anumber of ways. These two conflicting goals represent avery real institutional, family and individual dilemmawhich is the cause of genuine and significant strain at allthree of these levels, but particularly in the context ofthe family where the mate selection process tends tofocus.

I remember as a young man hearing a non-membertell of having made a date with a Mormon girl for thehigh school Prom, and then showing up on the appointednight only to be informed by the girl's father that shewas going with another boy because she did not datenon-Mormons. Now that causes me some cognitivedissonance. This was obviously a clumsy, inept way ofhandling a delicate situation. As an idealistic, youngreturned missionary, I was inclined not to believe thisstory, convincing myself that it was obviously a sinisterdistortion diabolically calculated to make the Churchlook bad. I hope a few years of age and experience hasmade me wiser and not just more jaded, but I believe itnow. I can imagine the machinations that went on in thathome to arrive at the course of action which wasultimately taken.

"But, Daddy, I'm not going to marry the guy, he's justa friend."

"You marry who you date. I won't have a daughter of

FIGURE 2

Birth Rote per 1000 Populotion • Mormon ond U.S.

1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1976 1977

U.S. 27.7 25.1 21.3 18.7 19.4 20.4 241 25.0 23.7 19A 18.4 14.8 14.8 15.4

Mormons 38.0 32.0 29.7 27.9 31.9 32.1 373 37.6 34.6 272 28.4 27.8 29.8 31.7

Utoh 295 22.5 25.3 2eU 28.6 29.8

Provo-Orem 30.4 31.3 39.7

Mormons 37.2 27.5 39.4 49.2 64.4 57.4 54.8 50.4 46.0 402 54.3 87.8 101.4 105.8

'lb higher

1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1977

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

-----~

11

•

Proyo-Orem

Mormons

~":'==~U'"~ U.S.

AMCAP JOURNAl/JANUARY 1983

mine dating a non-member.""1 was talking to him about the Church, and he was

really interested. I was just trying to do some missionarywork." ,

I'll let you take it from there. You might want torewrite the ending to your satisfaction. That littleexercise might tell you something about how youmanage that particular strain. The point is, the conflict isreaL and it focuses pressure directly on the family.

Another example of this ambivalent attitude towardgentiles can be found in the Church sponsored Scouttroops, which often attract non-Mormon boys. In manytroops this is thought of as a perfect proselyting tool, butin others it is discouraged. The Scouting program has fora number of years been integrated into the broaderAaronic Priesthood youth program. For a while it wasChurch policy that the non-member boys were excludedfrom the top leadership positions in the Scout troopsbecause of this broader organizational linkage. This waschallenged by some non-member Scouts and the policywas subsequently modified, but the nature of theconflict and its resulting strains have not changed. If youopen the Scout troops up wide and encourage non­member participation, the missionary effort ispresumably furthered, but some members will see thisas depriving their boys of leadership opportunities towhich they may consider them entitled. Again, theambivalent attitude toward gentiles causes a push-pullsituation which focuses directly on the family.

Another manifestation of the same dilemma is foundin the fact that adult Mormons are urged to becomeinvolved in civic activities and cultivate friendships withnon-members. But if they do so and become too deeplyinvolved, they may be suspected of straying from thefold to follow worldly pursuits.

This two-edged sword of doing missionary workamong the gentiles while remaining loyal and servingthe individual needs within the Mormon family andcommunity constitutes a very real double bind which noMormon can entirely escape. It is a pervasive,underlying cause of tension which must be managed anddealt with within each family as the instances arise. It isparents who fight these little daily battles, manage thedecision-making process, and engineer the sometimesagonizing compromises which must be made, andMormon parents do so under the awesome pressure ofknowing that, "No other success can compensate forfailure in the home." (McKay, 1964)

There are several issues related to this centralambivalence of Mormons toward gentiles. First,Mormonism constitutes a divinely instituted restorationof ancient pure Christianity. A clear implication of thisstance is that other Christian churches are nol divinelyinstituted. This stance, of course, does not ingratiateMormons to non-Mormons.

Within the Mormon community itself, this hasresulted in the development of a world view which isanother major source of strain and anguish for someMormons.

This subconsciously scripted world view implies thatMormons should be more righteous, happier, more

AMCAP JOURNAL/JANUARY 1983 12

inclined to honesty and integrity, more successful and,in general, superior to non-Mormons. The pairedassumptions, of course, are that gentiles are moredecadent, less happy, less inclined to honesty andintegrity, less successful and, in general, inferior toMormons. On the one hand this suggests an arrogilntethnocentricity which fights against the friendly,outgoing missionary spirit. On the other hand, it setssome Mormons up for painful disillusionment. Ourworld view suggests that our way of life is God-inspiredand thus constitutes in its purity the best of all possibleworlds. Any good person of integrity and persorWhonesty, we like to tell ourselves, will convert toMormonism once he sees how superior it is as a way oflife.

This superiority stance applies strain on Mormonsfrom two different angles. First, we tend to feel we mustlive our lives as an example of Mormon superiority. Thistends to place an enormous burden on the shoulders ofmany Mormons. When these Mormons see non­members who are not impressed thilt their Mormon wayof life is superior, they feel like failures.

"What am I doing wrong?" they ask themselves. '1know gospel living is superior, so I just must not bemeasuring up."

As an example, I had a woman tell me a while backabout a convention she attended with her husband whowas a salesman. While her husband and the other menwere in their meetings, the wives had a wonderful timeshopping, sightseeing and restaurant hopping-all butmy client. When the others ordered drinks, she ordered7-Up. When they laughed uproariously over little off­color comments, she tried to maintain some dignity, butwithout much success. When the others spent moneyfrivolously, she would prudently refrain. On Sunday,she went to church among strangers and spent most ofthe day alone while the other women enjoyedthemselves.

Most Mormons go through this type of experiencefrom time to time, but it gets filtered, tempered and re­interpreted for use in fast and testimony meeting orelsewhere in Mormon lore so that it always ends withthe defeat of evil and the triumph of righteousness. Thestories as they get retold result in someone gettinginterested in the gospel, or in the heroine getting newinsight into how truly shallow and miserable thesepeople really are, and a new understanding of thehappiness the gospel brings, or by resisting temptationand sticking to righteous principles, a terrible disasterwill be averted.

It was almost in tears of humiliation and guilt that thewife cited above confessed to me that in reality thoseother women seemed to really have their lives together,and had a wonderful time, while she was never somiserable in all her life. The fact that they were happyand she was miserable in that situation translated to heras personal failure, both because she was unhappy andbecause as a missionary she was a total failure.

The second strain caused by the Mormon world viewof superiority is that many Mormons look around withintheir own ranks and see the same problems that are

found in the larger community and becomedisillusioned. "How could those who live God's truereligion," this reasoning goes, "be subject to the samefailings and weaknesses as those who don't." ElderPacker put his finger on this strain this morning as hetold the incident about being asked what is the purposefor the occurrence of disasters.

I was seeing a teen-aged incest victim a while back.Her father was a member of the high council in theirStake, and was a friendly, outgoing, highly respectedand well-loved man in their ward. (I have to admit that asa relatively new, inexperienced therapist the situationshocked me a bit. I can imagine what she was goingthrough.) All during the years the incest was going on,people would come up to this girl at church and saythings like, "Your father is such a wonderful man. I'msure he'll be the next bishop of the ward."

She told me that the only thing that kept her fromlosing her testimony during that period was that in spiteof what everyone said about her father, he was nevercalled as bishop. This is a testimony to me of theinspiration of priesthood callings, but it is not a soundbasis for a testimony of the gospel.

Many Mormons tend to idealize Church officials at alllevels, and then are shocked and disillusioned when theyfind they are human too. But this perfectionist attitudeis not restricted to Church officials. Anothermanifestation is the belief that if you just live the gospel.everything will work out. As therapists you all know thehavoc this can wreak in peoples' lives. But that belief iswidespread and persistent among Mormons--even a lotwho should know better.

When I first went into private practice as a therapist, Italked to my dentist, who was a regional representativeat the time. As I explained my plans to him, he looked alittle puzzled and said, "Well, fortunately with ourbishops to handle those kinds of problems and theChurch organization what it is, we really have no needfor those kinds of services among Church members."

The strains caused by these two factors--the need tolive a superior life style, and the belief that seriouspersonal problems should not exist within the Mormoncommunity--are acute. A great deal of energy is devotedto establishing and maintaining an image, both for non­Mormons and for Mormons themselves, that theMormon way of life is superior. Trying to live up to thatsuperior image is a potent factor in motivating Mormonaction, but the resulting tension is palpable. Theproblems flowing from this tension have been variouslytermed the "Patty Perfect syndrome" and the "EmmaRay Riggs McKay syndrome." These two syndromesfocus on women and ignore the fact that men seem to beabout as susceptible to them as women.

Another issue closely related to the place of gentiles inthe Mormon-world view is that of ambivalent loyalties.It has been explicitly stated and often reinforced in theChurch that a person's prime loyalty is to the family.This axiomatic stance is challenged, however, byanother axiom that Mormons should always be readyand willing to make personal sacrifices for the Church.The law of sacrifice, as we understand it, and the general

13

willingness of active, converted members to dedicateenormous amounts of time and energy to the Churchplaces another strain on the Mormon family. There is animplicit conflict of loyalties to Church and family.

It has been my unfortunate lot to counsel more thanone bishop who was dedicating so much energy to hischurch work that his family was disintegrating. TheChurch and church service can become an escape forpeople to throw their energies in to avoid facing the factthat they have serious marital and family problems.

With such high expectations of family living alongwith the exhaustive demands of church service, it isinevitable that these two areas of expectation come intoconflict at times. When one adds the furtherexpectations of civic and community involvement, andpersonal success and achievement, the pressures can beoverwhelming. The strains attendant to these heavy andsometimes conflicting expecta tions can be demoralizing.Any Mormon who is sincerely trying to practice hisreligion has faced agonizing choices between his sense ofloyalty and duty to family, career, Church, communityand personal fulfillment. Managing this strain of dividedloyalties is a major fact of life for dedicated Mormons.

In these few minutes together we could not hope to domore than scratch the surface of how the myths and therealities about the Mormon family put strains on thefamily structure and on the individuals within it. Wehave not even touched the major subject of the changingrole of women in America and how this influences theMormon family. Nor have we looked at the sexualrevolution in America and the strains it causes amongMormons. These, as you will all recognize, are bothmajor areas of strain and conflict within the present dayMormon community, and again that strain focusesdirectly on the family.

The spirit of this conference has been such that Iwould like to close by bearing you my testimony. Thethrust of this conference as / see it has been on being intune with the Spirit and using divine inspiration inproviding professional therapy services. This ia a greatresource which most of us,/ think, do not tap enough. Itwas my great privilege to be trained as a therapist by Dr.Broderick, and one of the first things he taught me washow to be sensitive to the Spirit in my work, when andunder what circumstances to give blessings, and to seemyself as an instrument in the Lord's hands for helpingto heal those he leads to me. I can say without questionthat some of the choicest and most spiritual experiencesin my life have occurred during therapy sessions. I knowthat the Lord has led people to me and used my skills tohelp them.

/ also know that being in tune with the Spirit is nosubstitute for professional competence. It must not beused as a cop-out. Spiritual guidance and inspiration canbe a powerful tool in the hands of a skilled professionaltherapist, but it will not make up for a lack ofcompetence. / am certain that given the choice betweenreferring a member of his stake to a non-religioustherapist who is competent, and an inspired sincerespiritual leader who is a mediocre therapist, Dr.

{ontinuta on pagl 22

AMCAP JOURNAl/JANUARY 1983

EARLY RECOLLECTIONSAS A COUNSELING TECHNIQUE

, Ron Jacques, * Ed.D.

Most undergraduate psychology students rememberAlfred Adler as being a "student" of Freud andoriginating the term "inferiority complex." Moreadvanced students may remember such concepts as"lifestyle" and "social interest." School counselors maybe acquainted with DUSO (Dinkmeyer, 1973), STEP(Dinkmeyer, 1976), teacher consultation techniquesUacques, 1983; Jacques & Fuston, 1982), and the fourgoals of misbehavior (Dreikurs & Soltz, 1964). Manyfamily counselors may have learned about the familyconstellation (Nikelly, 1972).

More recently, Adlers contribution to the field ofpsychology has received greater credit (Eckstein, 1980).Several texts provide an excellent introduction to thetheory and application of Adlerian Psychology(Dinkmeyer, Pew, Dinkmeyer, 1979; Nikelly, 1972;Sweeney, 1981). Members of the LDS Church would beespecially interested in Allred's book (1968) as it appliesto child rearing within the Church.Early Recollections

One of the primary responsibilities of an Adleriancounselor is to uncover the client's style of life. Oneassessment tool used in this process is the collecting andinterpreting of early recollections (ER's). The purpose ofthe Life Style Assessmen t is to become aware of theunique beliefs, motives, and pa tterns of an individual(Mosak, 1958). A basic belief of Adlerian Psychology isthat people only remember those events from earlychildhood that are consistent with their present views ofthemselves and the world (Dinkmeyer, Pew,Dinkmeyer, 1979). In other words, memories are notrandom, insignificant occurrences, but are an expressionof the "story of my life."

Kopp and Dinkmeyer (1975) presented a standardizedprocedure that can be used.

Think back as far as you un to the first thing you canremember...something that happened when you were veryyoung (it should be before you were seven or eight years old.) Itcan be anything at all··good or bad, important or unimportant-­but it should be something you can descri~ as a one~time

incident (something that happened only once). and it should besomething you can remember very clearly or picture in yourmind, like a scene.

Now tell me about an incident or something that happened toyou. Make sure it is something you can picture. somethingspeciFic, and something where you can remember a single timeit happened.

Phrases such as "we were always .......·would always ....."'usedto...,'· or "would happen" suggest incidents that occurredrepeatedly. Ask the student to choose one specific time whichstands out more clearly than the others and tell what happenedthat one time. If one particular incident does not stand out over

·Brother Jacques is Assistant Professor of Psychology atNorthwest Missouri State University,

AMCAP JOURNAL/JANUARY 1983 14

others, eliminate this event I;nd choose a different eulymemory which un be described u a single incident.

Before moving on to the next memory, ask the folowingquestions and write down the student's responses:

Do you remember how you felt at the time or whIt relctionyou had to what wa. going on 7 (If .0), please de.cribe it. Why didyou feel that way (or have that reaction)7

Which part of the memory .tands out most clearly from therest--like if you had a snapshot of the memory, it would be thevery instant that is most vivid Ind clear in your mind7 How didyou feel (what was your rel;ction) at that instlnt?

Our experience indiutes that, Ilthough we cln begin to see astudent's basic beliefs and motivations in the first memory, theaccuracy of these interpretltions increlses when they Ife bl5edon additional memories. The counselor's usessment thusshould be bued on ,It least three memories. Typiully, fromthree to six memories are collected (p. 24). ..

Sweeney (1975) provides some additional guidelinesabout how to utilize the early recollections.

-Is the individu.l active or pusive7-Is he/she an observer or participant?-Is he/she giving or taking?-Does he/she go forth or withdraw?-What is his/her physical posture or position in rel.ation to wholtis .around him 7-15 he/she alone or with others?-15 his/her concern with people, things, or ideas?-What relationship does he/she place him/herself into withothers? Inferiod Superior?-What emotion does he/.he use?-What feeling tone is attached to the event or outcome?-Are detail and color mentioned7-Do stereotypes of authorities, subordinates, men, women, old,young, etc. reveal themselves?-Prepare a "headline" which captures the essence of an event;for example, in relation to the women's recollection of the icecream, Girl Gets Job Done!-Look for themes and overall pattern.-Look for corroboration in the family constellation information(p.49).

Interpretation of ER'S: An ExampleJanice. a woman in her mid-twenties, sought

counseling to deal wi th her depression. suicidaltendencies, and to "find my testimony." She wasexperiencing marital difficulties and had recently losther newborn child due to a birth defect. She had beenprogressing quite well in therapy and was expressing agreater interest in attending church. She knew herhusband was not interested. but she was. After severalweeks with no progress toward attending any churchmeetings, she was asked to relate some ER's of her earlychurch experiences.

Recollection A, In Primary, we had a dinner of some .ort, Idon't remember what the occasion was. AU the parents wereinvited, and as usual. I had no parents there. They had a bunch

co.'innl D. p.gt 22

TRANSFERENCE TO DEITYK-Lynn Paul,· M.D.

"God doesn't care about me--He doesn't want me:'declared a depressed person. "If you displease God in theslightest way, He will 'zap' you:' insisted a compulsiveperson. These statements might be considered to becharacteristic or symptomatic of the types of problemsfor which these individuals sought help, but they mightalso represent examples of transference--transferenceto Deity!

Transference is the unconscious "transfer" to others(often the therapist) of feelings and attitudes that wereoriginally associated with important figures (parents,siblings, etc.) in one's early life. The therapist may thenuse his observations of these feelings which have been"transferred" to him to better understand and help thepatient.' Sometimes, however, the patient transfersthese attitudes and feelings nol to the therapist, but toDeity, as illustrated in the following case examples.

Cast 1: Mrs. Jones (not her real name), a 48-year-olddivorced mother of one adult son, was seen forsymptoms of depression and alcoholism. During thecourse of her treatment she related, "God doesn't careabout me--He doesn't want me." Mrs. Jones was theyoungest of four children and the only girl. Repeatedlyduring her childhood her mother had emphasized to herthat she (the mother) never wanted a daughter, justsons. While there were reasons in the mother's owntraumatic background which made these statementsunderstandable, the effect on the impressionable youngdaughter was profound.

Mrs. Jones had two given names--Donna Gene (nother actual names). She despised Donna, a traditionallyfeminine name, and insisted on being called Gene, aname frequently used for males. Her favorite pastimesas a teenager were horseback riding and hunting withher brothers. She obtained a university degree inengineering, which at that time was even more of a maleprofession than today.

Mrs. Jones eventually married and had one son, butthe marriage did not work out, and her husband left her.Her son now grown had some concern for his mother,but was stationed in a distant part of the country in themilitary service and could not provide the emotionalsupport that she needed. Living alone, Mrs. Jonesgradually became more depressed, began drinking, andconcluded that no one wanted her or cared about herand, above all, even God didn't care about her and hadabandoned her.

Cast 2: Mrs. Jan Walker (not her real name), a 30-year­old married mother of two young children, originally

1 Amerinn Psychi.tric Anociation. Ii Psyrh!ldru GJOSUlry. 3rd Edition.W••hington. D.C., 1969.

"Brother Paul is a psychiatrist at the University ofOklahoma Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City,Oklahoma.

15

came with her husband for marital counseling, but aftertwo sessions it was apparent that her symptoms weremuch more distressing than his. Mrs. Walker spoke withintense feeling of how she was always trying to live up towhat everyone expected of her and was failing. Shedemonstrated marked anxiety and some depression. Shehad many compulsive personality traits and wasexperiencing physical symptoms of anxiety such asdiarrhea.

Mrs. Walker's father was a highly demanding,extreme perfectionist. As a child Jan struggled as hard asshe could to please him, but never succeeded. He alwayscriticized her, but encouraged the perpetuation of herbehavior by implying that if she just tried a little hardershe would earn his approval. Even now that Mrs. Walkerwas grown, she found him almost impossible to please. Ifhe were visiting Mrs. Walker's home and she didn't doeverything his way, he would threaten to leave andnever come back. One time when Mr. Walker stood up tohis father-in-law, the man didn't speak to them for ayear and a half. A typical example was an argument overthe cooking of the bacon for breakfast. Jan's fatherinsisted that the bacon be cooked in a pan. Jan's husband(who was also somewhat of a perfectionist. though notas extreme as his father-in-law) wanted it cooked in themicrowave so that it wouldn't be so greasy. With thesetwo men making opposite demands, Mrs. Walkerattempted to please both by cooking some of the baconeach way. Her attempt at pleasing both, however,usually resulted in both being mad at her.

Mrs. Walker held the view that God was even more ofa tyrant than her father. If a person displeased Him inthe slightest, He would "zap" that person, and she couldquote scriptures from the Old Testament to prove herpoint. She declared that all her life she had "been on thebottom," and she was going to make sure that in the nextlife she came out on top. There was only one way toaccomplish such a goal and that was to live all of thecommandments perfectly. Accordingly, Mrs. Walkerparticipated in all of the activities suggested to Churchwomen (such as cooking, cleaning, baking, canning,sewing, gardening, mothering and visiting the sick) andtried to do them all simultaneously and as intensively aspossible. Efforts to counsel moderation failed and she didnot slacken her pace until she was exhausted, contractedpneumonia, and nearly died. Only then was she able tosee the need to live more reasonably.

DIscussion. In the first case, the woman "God didn't careabout," the attitudes and feelings that Mrs. Jonesexpressed about God might have been regarded assimply the gloomy ruminations of a depressive.Depressed people frequently claim that others don't careabout them, but even more frequently they feel thatthey have failed others. To tell whether such statements

(Of1t,,'UtJ on pagl 23

AMCAP JOURNAl/JANUARY 1983

HEALING: BRINGING THE ATONEMENTTO THE CLINICAL SETTING

, Val D. MacMurray,· Ph.D.Presented at the AMCAP Convention

1 October, 1982

I approach this topic, one that some might find moresuitable to a sacrament meeting than a professionalconference, with a certain amount of diffidence. On theone hand, a discussion of the Savior within the contextof the clinical setting may smack of a glib religiosity'thatignores the demands for clinical excellence our clientsdeserve. And on the other, I feel so keenly about theliving power of the atonement of jesus Christ that I amnot comfortable with a clinically analytical discussion ofthat atonement, as though it were just anothertherapeutic technique.

Let me preface my discussion with the observationthat even my limited understanding of the atonementhas been an experience so significant that to it Ican tracemajor developments in my professional and personalmaturation as a therapist. I have found--sometimesthrough unpleasantly pointed experience--that it is notenough to be professionally and technically competent.It has also been inadequate to be only prayerful andspiritual. As President Kimball observed in hiscentennial address at BYU, we need to be "bilingual" andspeak the language of faith and also the language ofscholarship. I For me, the language of faith echoes andre-echoes with the atonement of jesus Christ, the centerof our faith.

Some years ago, I was faced with a very complicatedcounseling situation involving not only the use of mytechnical knowledge and expertise but myunderstanding of central principles of the gospel. Ayoung man referred to me came with a chaotic record ofself-indulgence and violence. Although he was amember of the Church, he had utterly and completelyrejected his parents' teachings. He had agreed to comeinto therapy--even sought it--because he wantedsomething different and wondered, without reallyunderstanding the principles he had heard all of his life,if they could make the difference. He was engaged to ayoung woman who was an active member of the Churchand whose love made him long to change. He had studiedthe principles of the gospel and acknowledged them astrue but could not find the power, even with the love ofhis fiancee, to change his behavior.

He was suffering deeply. It was obvious during oursessions that he felt a terrible division in his life. Heknew what was right and what he wanted to do, yet hehad no foreseeable hope that he could attain his desire;and his current efforts, even more forcibly than his past,reminded him repeatedly that he had never been

"Brother MacMurray is Assistant Commissioner ofLOS Social Services and Executive Director of theThrasher Fund.

AMCAP JOURNAL/jANUARY 1983 16

successful in changing. He felt no connections to Godand thought prayer futile as long as his behaviorcontinued to be characterized by willful disobedience.He felt out of control and had frequently been involvedin incidents of extreme brutality accompanied byobsessive-compulsive behavior that, according to hisown description, "totally consumed" him.

His symptoms were indeed serious and, by aUprofessional measures, any prognosis for improvementwas poor. Medication and at least temporaryhospitalization seemed indicated but neither producedany change. Medication, in fact, exacerbated hiscondition by manifesting nearly every contrain(Jicationpossible. As I continued to work with him, I started tofeel the limitations of my technical skills. I seemed tomake fewer and fewer positive contributions. For hisown good, shouldn't I refer him to another therapist?

One morning, as I anticipated our afternoon session, Ireviewed his file of dictation and diagnostic tests. As Iclosed the file, fully intending to go through with myplans of referral, it occurred to me that we had nevertalked directly about his attitude and desires toward thegospel and God. In our session that day, I asked him ifhehad any interest in speaking about his feelings towardhimself and God. He did! As we read scriptures togetherand I explained my understanding of those pertaining tothe Atonement, many feelings we both had surfaced. Heseemed more open to a more positive view of himself. Heseemed surprised at how Christ might view him. I foundmyself sharing more of what I was learning about thelove of Christ and His unconditional love for us all. Myclient seemed to absorb an awareness that Christ couldforgive him in his current condition, and that He lovedhim.

Over the ensuing weeks, I saw a purposeful effort toemplo'y approaches, principles, strategies, and action­oriented behavior that we had discussed many times butwhich simply had not "worked" before. He had a newfeeling of hope. The despair about himself left and hebecame aware that he was healing. Over severalmonths, the obsessive behavior slowly subsided. Oneday in our session he remarked, "I actually feel God lovesme and that I'm a good person. I can't remember whenI've ever felt this way or thought these thoughts. Butknowing that He loves me even in my worst possiblemoment of sin has made a difference I can't describe. Ithas given me a faith that I can change and repent."

I have no question that a miracle took place in thatyoung man's life, but I want to stress that there wasnothing of the magical in it. The Atonement of jesusChrist is not a formula or a technique that can be applied

with X person in Y situation to produce Z results. It is arelationship between two individuals, one of whom hasunimaginable power, love and concern, and the otherwho usually has debilitating and even cripplingweaknesses. I believe that one reason for my initial lackof success with this young man is that I was focusing onthe wrong things. I was trying to make him behave as ifhe were strong instead of acknowledging his weaknessand turning to the source of strength. My approach was"You can do it!"--when he had overwhelming proof thathe couldn't. Perhaps I was expressing faith in himinstead of faith in the Savior and asking him to buildfaith in himself when he needed to develop faith inChrist.

Obviously, a discussion of religious themes andspiritual qualities of life was appropriate in this casebecause this young man was trying to return to theChurch and gain a testimony of the gospel at the sametime that he changed a series of devastating personal andsocial habits. Such candid discussion is not alwaysappropriate because our client may not perceive hisagenda as what we would call "repentance." I wonder,for those of us who work with lOS clients frequently,how often we might accelerate that process if weunderstand the process more clearly.

It seems to me that we are able to be useful to others ifwe ourselves know the source of healing, and that wehave also drunk from the living waters. Christ is able toheal because he is our Redeemer. By the nature of ourtasks we are also engaged in a redemptive work and may,appropriately, call on those powers. Iam deeply indebtedto Eugene England, an English professor at BYU, whosethoughtful approach to the Atonement and personallove for the Savior has been an inspiration to me. Heobserved several years ago:

A deep f~ling of estrangement haunts modern life...Thefeeling is not at all new to human ex~rience.but in OUT time weuem np«i.Jlly conscious of it. More men (and women) seemcaught up by the divisions in their lives to a terrible anguish or anumbed resign.ition. We find ourselves cut off from others.relating to each other as things. not as ~rsonal images of theettrnal God; unable to say our truest thoughts and feelings touch other.

We find ourselves cut off from God. without a deep sense ofjoyful ..I.tion to him: ..

And we find ourselves cut off from ourulves. We sin. We actcontrary to our image of ourselves and bre~k our deepntintegrity. We do not just make ml5t~kes through tICk ofknowledge or judgment. but consciously go contrny to oursense of right; ~nd therefore we not only suffer the naturalcons~uences of all wrong action (however innocently done).but we ~Iso suffer the inner estrangement of guilt·-thatsupreme hum~n suffering which gives us our images of hel!.l

The sense of estrangement that he talks about is verydeep and very real. All of us have felt it in anguishedmoments when our consciences accuse us. My youngclient lived, numbed and bewildered, with that flayingpain. The anguish goes beyond the loneliness,discouragement, and weariness that we all feel,sometimes for days on end in varying degrees. Thefeeling of being unloving is, in many ways, moredamning than the feeling of not being loved, because it is

17

harder to confess. Our loneliness comes, not only whenwe realize a void in our lives, but when we reach out forconnections and find no one there.

I will never forget an experience I had only a few yearsago while doing research on the Faculty of Medicine atthe University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada. Theparticular project I was working on involvedobservations of a medical team working with the chiefmedical examiner for the province of Alberta. Datacollection occurred in the morgue at Foothills Hospitalwhere autopsies were performed. I recall walking intothe autopsy room one particular morning and seeing thebody of a man on the table. His case history was brief andbleak. He was thirty-four (my exact age at the time),married with three children and had a history ofdepression associated with his current condition ofunemployment, he had taken thirty ounces of vodka andtwenty valium tablets. Because I had arrived early, I wasthe only one in the room. I walked over to review hismedical file and the police report. I looked at him as he laythere and many thoughts crossed my mind. Could thishave been me? How desperate must this man have beento take his own life? Could someone have stopped him?Did he know his wife and children loved him and neededhim? How much despair had he been feeling in his lifeand for how long?

In trying to answer some of these questions, itoccurred to me that the personal loneliness andestrangement and desperation that England talkedabout must have been very real for this man. He hadexperienced a lethal division within himself--analienation from his self-respect, an estrangement fromhis wife and children, and likely no feelings ofconnection with God. I recall touching his hand andbeing wrenched by the profound sadness and the painthat this man likely had experienced just prior to makingthe decision to take his life.

Most of us are not brought to suicide by ourloneliness. but all of us, I think, feel it. The young manwhose story I began with perceived it as a seeminglyirrevocable estrangement--from sources ofrighteousness in himself, an apparently unbridgeablechasm between his knowledge of correct principles andhis ability to translate them into behavior. To sin andknow that we sin is devastating enough. To sin and toknow that we may turn again to our sin at the firstopportunity is the stuff of which despair. even suicidaldespair, is made.

And this brings us to the second major point thatProfessor England makes.) As you have all heard manytimes, the word atonement or "at-one-ment" suggestsits healing power, its ability to heal the divisions in ourlives, its ability to remove the estrangements and makeus into new and whole beings.

Paul's simple statement, "While we were yet sinners,Christ died for us," (Romans 5:8) is deeply important tome. I have come to understand some of the dimensionsof that relationship by understanding that as humanbeings we come equipped with a sense of justice, asEugene England has pointed out. When we sin, we knowthat we must repent. Yet paradoxically, the sense of

AMCAP JOURNAl/JANUARY 1983

guilt that accompanies recognition of sin impedesrepentance. We feel the need to make restitution, to paythe penalty of our sin in some way, bu~, of course, wecannot. "God pierces to the heart of this paradoxthrough the Atonement," says England, "and it becomespossible for man to personally experience bothalienation and reconciliation, which opens him to the fullmeaning of both evil and good, bringing him to acondition of meekness and lowliness of heart, where hecan freely accept from God the power to be a god."

In other words, love unbalances the sin-justiceequation. It does not exchange forgiveness for oursuffering or repentance, but "takes a risk, withoutcalculation, on the possibility that a man can realize hisinfinite worth. It gets directly at that barrier in man,lovefor himst/f--unable to respond positively to his ownpotential, because he is unable to forgive himself, unableto be at peace with himself until he somehow 'made up'in suffering for his sins."

This attempt is, of course, futile. Because of the fall ofAdam, sin has become part of our world and part of ournatures. As we learn from the Book of Mormon, thenatural man is an enemy to God, The atonement is theredemption and transformation of that nature. c.s.Lewis put it this way:

God descends to re-ascend. He comu down; down from theheights of absolute being into time and 'pur. down intohumanity; down further still, If embryologists ue right. torecapitulate in the womb ancient and pre· human phues of life;down to the very roots and na-beod of the Nature He hadcreated. But He goes down to come up again and bring thewhole ruined world up with Him. One hu the picture of astrong man stooping lower and lower to get himnlf underne.thsome great complicated burden. He must stoop in order to lift;he must almost disappear under the load before he incrHfiblystraightens his back and marches off with the whole musswaying on his shoulders. Or one- mJy think of • dive-r, firstre-ducing himself to nJke-dness, the-n glancing in mid-lIir, the-ngone- with a spll.Sh, vanished, rushing down through gre-en andwarm water into black and cold water, down through increuingpressure into the deathlike region of OOlt and slime and olddecay; then up again, back to color and light. his lungs almostbursting, till suddenly he breaks surface again, holding in hishand the dripping, precious thing th.t he went down torecover.·

This analogy has the weakness of all analogies, ofcourse, the first one being that Lewis's treasurecooperates neither in its fall nor it its coming forth. But itis quite accurate in the idea that we find ourselves inmortality, in a condition separate from the sunlight,which we are powerless to change. The atonement is notonly an agent of change in itself, but it also makes changepossible.

The Atonement does not deny, ignore, reject, or judgeour mortal condition. It accepts it, descends into it andbelow it--just as Lewis's diver descends into the water-­and then transforms and transfigures it withforgiveness and new possibilities. I like TrumanMadsen's meditation on the experience of Christ inGethsemane:

Throughout His life, climaxed by those incomprehensiblehours in a garden beyond the brook Cedron, He suffered

AMCAP JOURNAl/JANUARY 1983 18

'according to the f1e.h' the p.in. and .ff1iction. of .11 the form.of evil doing. He particip.ted voluntarily in the actu.1 condition.that followed the wake of deliberate tran.grellion. He 'tookupon Him' the cumul.tive impACt of our vicious thoUlht.,motiv.., .nd .ct•...Out of hi. life came. full knowledge ofrighteou.nell .nd • full knowledge of the effecll of .in. Thi.melln. thlt no hum.n encounter. no tUlic lou, no lpiritUliIf.i1ure i. beyond the p.le of hi. present knowledge .ndcompallion g.ined 'according to the flesh--th.t he mightsuccour hil people Kcording to their infirmitiel.' (Aim. 1)S

And possibly the greatest and most gallant of thoseinfirmities is the wish and desire to somehow atone forourselves, to suffer enough to pay for our wrongdoing,to somehow present the slate of our suffering setagainst our misdeeds in the hopes that it will be anacceptable sacrifice to the Lord. I am in no wayundervaluing the role of earnest effort in repentance, aneffort that is often accompanied by bitter tears ofremorse, shame, and sorrow. It is the attempttocome toGod, clean and whole, aflt' we have repented, lwca"u wehave repented, that I refer to. Professor England's thirdpoint--a simple and powerful concept, is that we do notrepent in order that God will forgive us.' We repentbtea"u God has forgiven us.

When Amulek pointed out that the Atonement"overpowereth justice," it was precisely man's ownsense of justice that he was talking about. When werealize that Christ is already extending forgiveness tous, not waiting impatiently to see if we can somehowmerit His forgiveness, then we can accept it. Englanddescribes it this way:

~bn's usual nllture in his dealings with other men. and, mostimportant to my point here. in his dealings with himself, is todemand SIItlsfution be-fore he can ucept. to demand justicebe-fore he can forgive-. ThIS is not Christ's way ... ft has a qUlllityof mercy which II110ws us to be- at one with ourselves and thusgllin the strength to be- the new person thlt our sense of justicein tht' first pillee demlnded that we M. We do not repent inorder Ihat God will forgive us Ind atone for our sins. but rltherGod atones for our sins Ind be-gins the process of forgiveness.by eKtendlng uncondition.llove to us, in order thlt we mightrepent Ind thus bring to conclusion the process of forgiveness.And the center of the experience somehow is Christ's Ibility tobreak through the blrrier of justice, in those men (and women)who can somehow Ireely respond, with the shock of etern.lloveexp~sst'd in Gethsemane.'

Mother Teresa's eloquently simple thoughts expandon the ways we as professionals may extend the loveexpressed in Gethsemane;

It is not possible to engllge in ... (direct service) without Mini asoul of prayer. We must be IWlre of oneness with Christ as HeWIIS ~wlre of oneness with His Father. Our activity is trulyservice only in 50 fIr liS we ~rmit Him to work in us andthrough us, with His power, with His desire. with His love. Wemust become holy, not bee.use we want to f..1 holy, butbee.u.e Christ must be .ble to live His life fully in us. We are tobe all love, .11 f.ith, .11 purity. for the ..I.e of (those) we serve.'

In short, in the therapy-change process theAtonement brings the hope of change, it brings the faiththat motivates the work to change, and it creates thecharity in which such efforts to change are nurtured andnourished.

Once we understand and accept the "shock of love"extended to us in Gethsemane, we can begin tounderstand the role of the atonement in healing thesense of estrangement we feel within ourselvesseparating us from our righteous selves, separating usfrom those we most long to love, and separating us fromGod. A group of our clients are those who need tounderstand the process in this way. They have come tous, usuaUy, because their sins are controlling their livesand causing their pain.

However, this discussion would not be completewithout some attention to another group of our clientswho are deeply troubled, in pain, and bewildered by thecauses of their own pain. Although they areundoubtedly making mistakes, we cannot attribute theirsuffering to their sins.

Not too long ago, a couple approached me to discuss anexperience they had with an LDS counselor. I was theirbishop at the time and they came in considerabledistress. They felt that their family, to use their ownwords, was "disintegrating before their very eyes" andhad, at the point of desperation, come to this particularcounselor. They explained the problems ofcommunication, the seemingly unsuperable obstacles ofemotional isolation, the pain of their particular problem.The counselor listened, then asked, "Are you keepingthe commandments? Are you praying regularly? Areyou attending your meetings?" etc. This couple honestlyanswered the questions in the affirmative--and as theirbishop, I was in a position to know how accurate theywere. In addition to the bewilderment they felt fromthese questions, which did not seem relevant to theirparticular situation. they were deeply hurt by what theyperceived as disbelief on his part and thoroughlydiscouraged by his advice to go home and pray more.read the scriptures more. and be more faithful in theirChurch duties.

As it turned out. this couple did have some veryspecific problems related to ineffectively dealing withtheir teenagers. With some effective short-term therapyby a very competent counselor. who spent time teachingspecific skills in relating to their teenage children. thisfamily was able to solve what appeared to be anunsolvable problem.

Crucial as the Atonement of Christ is to theconquering of sin, it is equally crucial. I believe. inaccepting the fact of unmerited suffering. There is aspecial agony in witnessing the torment of innocentchildren. the seemingly purposeless anguish ofunnecessary bereavement. the agony of the innocentbystander whose hopes and dreams are shattered by thecarelessness or malignance of a stranger. If the Saviorhad not also accepted that kind of suffering. descendedbelow it, absorbed it, and sanctified it with the promiseof restitution and renewed love. even the most confidentfaith in the direction of the universe might well falter.

Professor England points out again that beyond theinitial unjust suffering of the innocent are the horrifyingconsequences:

Victims and dispossesnd and their allies have turned backin ...f'sc,llation---blow for blow. hurt for hurt, raid for raid. riot

19

for riot. all defend~ in the name of justice...Each of us must come to a kind of love that can be extended

equally to victim and victimizer, dispossnsed and dispossessor­and even to Qurselves--a kind of love that moves us to demandjustice in society and within ourselves and then goes beyondjustice to offer forgiveness and healing and beyond guilt to offerredemption and newness of life.

I am convinced by my thought and experience and the deepestwhisperings in my soul that there is a source of that love--onethat transcends all others and is therefore our salvation.'

As counselors and therapists, it behooves us to besensitive to the dimension of innocent suffering andhow the Atonement can there too bring healing. Yet thisdimension is sometimes a difficult one to grasp. I wouldlike to discuss some of its ramifications in a theologicaland literary framework provided by the Book of Job.

In reading this book. we usually think of ourselves inthe position of Job and draw comfort in our afflictionsfrom his own situation. However, I would like to discussthe role of the three friends who came to console him butwho actually end up accusing and condemning him. Atone point. exasperated by their responses, he stops themwith some vehemence: "Miserable comforters are ye all.Will your long-winded speeches never end: What ailsyou that you keep on arguing?" Gob 16:1-3; NewInternational Version.)

That phrase. "miserable comforters" struck me. Eventhough our working situations are far different fromthose of Job and his friends, I found myself looking at therole they played in his circumstances and seeing in theirbehavior some pitfalls that may also confront us astherapists.

Job's needs were real. He had lost all of his children,become alienated from his wife, suffered loss of socialstatus. had lost the physical and emotional resources toserve others. was in physical pain from his afflictions,had a future of poverty to look forward to. and was heldin derision. Furthermore. as someone who had dailysacrificed to God and whose worship was deep and real.he also felt alienated from God. His response to thissituation was. not unnaturally. deep depression.possibly verging on suicidal thoughts. anger at thesituation and at the comforters, and a reaffirming of hisown integrity in the face of a desperate situation.

His comforters. however. after their initial silentmourning with Job which recognized the magnitude ofthe disasters that had befallen him. launched into aprocess of reinterpreting his experience in their ownterms that should make us all very uncomfortable. Forinstance. they seemed unable to grasp the concept thatJob may not have been concealing some secret sin forwhich God was punishing him. They obviously felt thatthe solution to this paradox of apparent innocentsuffering was to unmask the secret sin. Relentlessly.they hammered away at him. Bildad asked. "Does theAlmighty pervert what is right? When your childrensinned against him. he gave them over to the penalty oftheir sin." (8:1) What grief piled upon grief for a fatherwhose children lie dead to hear that God was punishingthem for their wickedness! Eliphaz insisted. "Is not yourwickedness great? Are not your sins endless? Youdemanded security from your brothers•...you gave no

AMCAP JOURNAL/JANUARY 1983

water to the weary and you withheld food from thehungry....and you sent widows away empty-handed andbroke the strength of the fatherless. That is why snaresare all around you." (22:4. 6-7. 9-10) This scenario wouldadequately explain Job's punishment. but there was onething wrong with it. It wasn·ttrue. Job had done none ofthese things. Thus. in addition to his other pain. he hadto bear the grief of being falsely accused to his face by afriend. Job's friends had only one explanation for evil: Itlay within the individual not within the universe. "It isunthinkable." they told him. "that God would dowrong ...Job speaks without knowledge... to his sin headds rebellion." (34: 12, 35, 37) Apparently. their view ofmortality did not allow for a God who would permit evil.and they felt that someone had to cause it--either Job orGod. Since God could not do wrong. then perforce. Jobhad to.

Job's comforters were not the only people who haveever fallen into this trap. Many make a simplisticassumption about the nature of mortality that could besummarized in the well-known phrase, "The righteousshall be blessed." While this statement is true. it is notalways safe to reverse the terms and say. "If you are notbeing blessed, it is because you are not righteous." oreven to imply that "the righteous will be blessed right

From the Greeks we inherit a bivalued system: If ourhappiness is a blessing. then unhappiness must be acurse. From Western civilization, we inherit theProtestant work ethic which asserts that hard workproduces rewards. In our Mormon culture these beliefshave turned into a myth: If we keep the commandments,read the scriptures daily, pray. attend our meetings. andpay our tithes and offerings. then we will not haveproblems in our lives.

It is easy to think that affliction, suffering. pain. anddifficulties are the result of sin. None of us woulddisagree that sin brings suffering and that suffering maybring even more pain to those of us who "know to dogood and doeth it not." (James 4: 17) But inunderstanding that sin brings suffering, it is alsoimportant to understand that all suffering may not bethe result of individual sin. President Romney in aconference address some time ago stated, "Just as Jesushad to endure affliction to prove himself. so must all menendure affliction to prove themselves."lo

Its also interesting to note Job's feelings of anger anddepression at the injustice of his sufferings; "Whatstrengths do I have that I should still hope?" he grieved."What prospects that I should be patient? ..My dayshave no meaning ...1 despise my life." (6:11. 7:13) Thesefeelings in and of themselves may not be sinful. but anatural result of circumstances. The Lord does notchastise Job for any of his feelings--neither hisdepression nor his anger. Instead. he affirms at theending as he had affirmed at the beginning that Job is"blameless and upright" and that it is he. not the friends.who had spoken of me what is right" 0:1. 42:7)

In short, Job's friends failed to be helpful because theyfailed to distinguish between sin and suffering but had,through their own world view. inexorably telescoped

AMCAP JOURNAL/JANUARY 1983 20

the two. No wonder he called them "miserable." Theyignored the complex reality of life's challenges and ofJob's situation. They constructed a theologicallysimplistic relationship between personal trouble, orsuffering, and sin. And they did it with a zealousnessthat focused on rules and procedures rather than on theperson and needs of Job. They seemed to be using gospelprinciples to punish Job. rather than to lift him from hisown feelings of despair and discouragement. Thus, in aneffort to provide an explanation in a situation wherethere was no explanation comprehensible to the mortalmind. they assisted in creating condemnation that onlyadded to the catastrophe.

Sometimes what is needed is not an explanation butendurance, and what a counselor needs todo is not to filla blackboard with formulae showing where someonehas gone wrong but instead to soothe pain and providestrength so that. in a moment of rest, the sense ofChrist's continued love--even in the face of theinexplicable--can begin its healing work.

Endurance was the characteristic of Job that theApostle James singled out to hold up before the Saints ofhis day; Christ's consolation to Joseph Smith during hissufferings in Liberty Jail also referred to Job's situation.(James 5:11. D&C 121:10) But. as Brent Farley pointedout recently. Job's magnificent example of enduranceand faith stems, in part. from the many points on whichhis experience parallels and even foreshadowed theSavior's.11 It raises the possibility that the Lord does notrequire our understanding in all of our situations--eventhough he respects our desire to understand andresponds to it. Instead, he requires our faith and trust inthe face of our suffering. It mayor may not consolesomeone who is suffering to suggest that his or herexperience can echo, however distantly. the Savior's.However, the psychological and spiritual benefits arereal if that person can offer his or her suffering inconsecration--not because he or she has conquered it orexplained it away or because it no longer matters--butbecause that is what he or she has to give to the Lord atthat moment.

In the case of the couple who had received suchinadequate counsel. it was obvious they were not livingperfect lives. Equally obvious, to be told that theirsufferings were caused by their lack of faith wouldprevent such an offering. They needed to feel that theyhad the potential of doing something right rather thanthe unsubtle suggestion that t'C'rrythi"g. even their mostearnest attempts to be obedient to gospel practices. wassomehow wrong.

I think it is instructive to go again to the Book of Joband see in the ending of the story some dues about whatthe appropriate role of a "comforter" is. After acceptingrepentantly the rebuke of the Lord for theirpresumption in judging Job, Job's friends enter his homeand "eat bread with him...and they bemoaned him, andcomforted him over all the evil that the Lord hadbrought upon him." In other words. they shared withhim the daily rituals of eating and drinking, the homelyrealities that signal that life goes on. But at the same

co"ti"1Ufl 0" pllgt 14

THE MORMON PSYCHOTHERAPISTS:AN.ADDENDUM

Genevieve De Hoyos,· CSW, Ph.D.Arturo De Hoyos,· Ph.D.

THREE TYPES OF THERAPY ANDTHEIR IMPLIED VALUE ORIENTATIONS

'Sister De Hoyos is Associate Professor of Social Workand Brother De Hoyos is Associate Professor ofSociology, Brigham Young University,

Thus each progressive level of therapy simplyintroduces a wider frame of reference within whichproblems can be solved: from the self-centeredindividual, to the secular temporal society, to spiritualeternal relationships.

Our religious clients, when aware of our ownreligiosity, often move on their own from one level toanother simply by wondering aloud: "Why would Godallow this to happen to me?" But sometimes the celestial

frame of reference can only be reached if we bring it up.Although the senior author has many timesspon taneously moved from the terrestrial level to thecelestial level in interviews, the appropriateness of thetherapist introducing the move was dramatically calledto her attention in an interview a short time ago.

One day, a former client called frantically. Herhusband had been asked by their bishop to shave hisbeard. He had resisted and statements had been madearound the possibility of losing not only his Churchcalling but his temple recommend. Coming from apainful, inactive background though active herself, theyoung wife was very upset. However, she felt pressuredto join her husband in rebelling against the bishop'sdemand. The three of us mel.

For some time, the husband vented his negativefeelings, blaming the bishop for not warning him thathis call (working with the youth) would demand shavinghis beard. Feeling my acceptance, he eventually admittedthat the bishop was only following an area directive thatmen working with the youth should not have beards. Herealized that his early experiences with an autocratic,arbitrary father had led him to argue and dispute. Headmitted that the bishop had actually been very kind andaccepting. Now the nex t move was his. He was to make adecision and go discuss this decision with the stakepresident, whom he did not know well.

I had participated in many such exchanges during thesixties and seventies, and at first I was not worried as, inmost cases, active members have too great aninvestment in the Church and the gospel to jeopardize itfor the sake of growing hair. But I soon realized thataccepting his feelings and then looking at alternativesand their consequences was not helping him solve theproblem. His decision was to face the stake president andchallenge him to prove to him the need for his shavinghis beard. We had reached an impasse.

Troubled, I quickly prayed for help. An idea came tomy mind: with this client. the terrestrial approach wouldnot work. I had to help him look at the problem in termsof his relationship to the lord. I asked him. "Do youbelieve that we are tested while here on earth?" and wasgreatly relieved when he answered that he certainly did.Together we went to D&C 98:12-15 where the Lordwarns us that He would test us in everything. even untodeath. We read from D&C 132 and talked aboutsacrifices in obedience (verse 50), the rewards theobedient receive (verses 49-50, 53, 55) and the losssuffered by those who cannot accept specific personalcommandments (verse 54). He was touched. and herelated an event during his mission when he was greatlyblessed for having "blindly" obeyed. Suddenly he saw

el,.""s fnco", ..It"d topl'fCf"WO" probl4omt ,nIf'tm' of hm,I, .. ,.11.1­11001'1 .. nd .. P'l'r ..'n.Irt·I.toco"sh,p h' God

io,Cunlr,lt'rot,1

Foc". on sp,',t",,1 ~ ..d,1"1"II,,.,,nc," ,,,(,1th I .net .,u,h

Colde'!' rul ..

Drpl'ndf'ncr ,·n G.odM.rcy

Ch.. roty ur Ihf'

ll,)Yf' 1)1 ChriS'Mo....I,I' ,.,

"''''1'1 ..1 pr,nClplf"(oupI"""o"Obt-ylnA .por'lvf ,hC' uw

Typ" of Thenpy

r... r(UmpotIIIIO"

Obt-YlnlllC'llt'roilhi' ~w

H.pp,nt-u[).an'ly of .,.,d ...,d",oIl

fonl' ",n IoOCwl n~'

K"owl«<l."

Tr.d,hOn4lt oIppr(»chCII_ls" (l)mforl Il"f'W.d

'f' I"rlll'l' of Kcommod .. ·110,.. to U .. "~rd. ufM'<"uwr K1CM'ly

r ...,~,s.-H .•~fflC'f'n<y1~."(It

Gf',...,otlly

Implied V,IIK-orienl,tion,

T.lnti"

[ncour... 'ul',II",.,.,of ,rwfivwtu.1. ...11­',"Ierl'd nftCh l&no1'nMlICwl ftft'ds.rwt ".1,,"

In an earlier article, (AMCAP Jou,"4/. July, 1982, pp.21-28) we analyzed the contents of the AMCAP Journ41and identified the extent to which Mormon therapistsare trying to integrate their professional training andthe gospel. In so doing, we found that the issue is not somuch whether or not to integrate but rather how thatintegration can be reconciled with professionalism.

In the conclusion of our previous article, and in orderto provide a frame of reference both for the theoreticaljustification and the methodological procedure inreconciling the gospel and professional knowledge andtraining, we suggested the need to consider theexistence of three levels of therapy, each reflecting adifferent value or moral orientation:

Ind,.odu..l. 'C'~".C'

mew.. I.,yUn'"" (om,...llllOnIndt••dUolI ',If'flIom

End "..""ft fIW..,,,

hplotullo" 01 othfo,.ConnerStlll~n....

H~nl,m

PndoFocu, on ph" ...l nHds

Cr."'""'

21 AMCAP JOURNAl/JANUARY 1983

(o.Ii••tJ fro," "..gt I J

Broderick would choose the competent therapist everytime. The secret is not to choose competence orspirituality, but to combine the two.

As therapists we must know what we are doing and begood at our craft. Elder Packer told the story thismorning about the clock repairman who could hearthings others couldn't hear and who knew what needed

(o.Ii••tJ fro," "..gt 9

Evans, R.l. QuOiN in S.F. Cox 0., u.u" 5,Nl. Salt LJk, City:Drstt,l 8001<, 1957.

Howard.J. PI",M To.(Ir: A G.,JdToara(tlt,H.",." PoInd",1M~"d. N~w

York: McGraw-Hill 1970.l~e. R.E. Commltncement Address. Brigholm Young Univenjty.

Provo, Ulah. April. 1982.McGill. V.I. nt "to of H.,,...... N,w Yor~ Pratgtr, 1967.ShoS/rom. E. -Group Th,rapy: l,l Ih, Buytr Btwor,.- in R.C.

DiNrich «< N.A. Dy, (Eds.), Gro., Pnxtfi.rrs. P.?OS<S. PnxtsStS if?O.li"mts. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 1972.

01 K,nlucky Fritd Chidtn. My PrUnory doss snwd IMdinnrr.I dropptd • plott of chid<tn in Ih, hoIlI5<OOptd il up,.nd wugoil\l to I.b il oul and strvt il. A locIy camt up bthind mt and"aliztd wh.11 w.s doing. Sh, ~,m, throw lhe food ....y.Th, floor Iooktd cltan 10 mt. Thtn! wu ,nough food to !tedour wholt f.mily for ant wholtdoy.lcouldn·lundtnl..... wholwas Ih, big dtol. I Itll foolish ..... stupid thot I didn'lundtrsl.nd. I !til liIr.t tv,ryont would talk .boul mt ..... ourdirty family.

Interpretation: The interpretation of ER's is a verysubjective process. It is a process of discovering patternsof meaning that are unique to each individual.

Th, inltrprtl.tion is nol dont st.ticoIIy-in ttrms 01 •ptnon's ~nl position-bul is. insttod continuously rtbttd10 "",'s rnovtmtnl. It rtftn 10 Ih, dirtction .nd couse 01 1Mptnon's trans.ctions wilh od"n. II also oIIudts to wlwrt 1Mptnon is goil\l ..... 10 w~1 th, ptrsOft nptCIS 10 get by his orhtr bt~";"r-tobt spteW. 10 bt in control, or to obbin spt<ioIstrvict. Thus, Ih, inl'rprtUlion ,noblts th, ptnon to !1ft 1Mpalttm of mowm,nl and ih muning ~r. Ptw,Dinlun~r, 1979, p. 95).

Thus. the interpretation of the ER is interconnectedwith the interpretation of the whole life style.

This ER would suggest a person who feels extremelyinferior. She sees herself as clumsy. dirty, and stupid.She sees others as more competent. capable andworthwhile. The world is unpredictable and full ofunhappy experiences. She really isn't good enough to goto church.

RtroIItction B: I w,nl to church wilh .n .dult Oonn ....uncomfortablt wilh Ih, word -fritncn. Iw.s in 1M sixlh grodt.During Ih, closing pra~r,1 sudcltnly got. ttrribltbloody nest.

I was afraid 10 gtl up btcaust I would blted .nowr~.

,D.,i...tJ f""" ,.gt ,.

to be done. The analogy suggested that as therapists _must have knowledge and skills and do our work withcompetence.

One element in the understanding _ must develop, itseems to me, is an ability to 100It at our Mormon cultureand social system with an objectivity which wiD allow usto hen those revealing sounds that others do not hear;to be able to comprehend the strains and stresses underwhich we as Mormons operate so that _ can helppeople understand and deal with them effectiwlywithout finding it necessary to abandon the Church orreject its teachings. It is my pnyer that we might workto thus improve our skiDs and become more effectivetools in the Lord's hands to carry out His purposes.

UJUfNClS

Arrinaton. ltonUd I nr~ &,rriftu. N.Y.: Knopf 1'uWiahtn.J978.

leotw. MvtL P. RMs atM-..Mao-...e-.~,WaH.: HarnnIUniwnity Pftss, J9'19.

McKaoy, o...n.t o. e...trrnu 1lIpm. April, J964. p. 5.~., Thomu, nr M..-. Ganltn City, N.Y.: 00uNed.y ..... eo..

1957.Sc:hoInic. M., l. Bt.n tt 01. -Mormon Oooaq:nphic Hislory Indudin&

NuptWity .nd Ftrtility 01 Onct ....rriN C-Pn,· ,..,..,..St.lw.. ....ret.. 1978. Jl. S-19.

Fon._ ....... 01........ f•..,._,.,. fIII4Ift ........... .-.

Forvs on ... _ ,.,. 01

• Cf'O'Ip of StpIIiIic.MlIutIwn MIl -.n&.r ....y

FOC\IS on wU

the situation as an opportunity given to him to dednehis faith in God. and he agreed that by shaving he wouldgrea t1y upgrade his relationship tc! our Father inHeaven. solve his problem with his wnd and stakeleaders. and make his wife happy again. He saw thewhole event as a test and an opportunity for him toexercise faith and gain spiritual strength.

This experience. coming soon after the completion ofour earlier article. helped us to devise a simple schema tovisualize the possibility we all have to widen our clients'frame of reference:

There are some therapists who help the client rejecthis social obligations and thus attempt to findadjustment in a self-<:entered approach to satisfyindividual needs. Most of us. however. have beentrained to help clients move from that telestial fruitlessorientation to a socially responsible terrestrial level.Mormon therapists can help even more by moving thefocus to an even higher level.

To achieve this, Mormon therapists can use, besidestheir traditional skills, love. respect. and gentlepersuasion. This does not imply imposition of values.

Teaching higher principles needs no apology. At anyrate, whenever a therapist follows a persuasion hebelieves to be true (be it Behaviorism. Gestalt. T.A.• orthe Gospel) he naturally starts teaching that persuasion.Thus, choosing to teach the Gospel is no different inprocedure from choosing to teach any other ideology.

Combining the best methods with the best valueorientation can only result in the best outcome.

AMCAP JOURNAl/JANUARY 1983 22

So, I ....ned over, cupped my h.nds onr my nos., .nd caughtthe blood. My h.nds filled up, .nd it st.rted dripping. I k.ptthinking th. pr.y.r would n.v.r com. to an .nd. It finally did.Th. person (onc. again avoiding th. word "fri.nd") took m.tothe kitch.n and got the bl.eding stopped. I f.lt.mbarrassed .ndh.lpI.... I should be abl. to take car. of mys.lf. I f.1t angry atmyself for not knowing what to do.

Interpretation: The actual event, whether it happenedas recorded or not, is not as important as the subjectivemeaning of the event. Here we see a person, perceived asbeing incapable, needing someone else to take care ofher. She must not get too close to others because the dirt(blood) might rub off on them. From her point of view,she doesn't belong in the church because of herinferiority. She needs others to take care of her but theyrisk being tainted by her.

Summary of ER's: These ER's were collected for thespecific purpose of understanding Janice's reluctance toattend church. They also demonstrate her overalloutlook on life. While she was making progress in otherparts of her life, Janice still resisted church attendance. Itwas clearly understood and, most importantly, by Janicethat she resisted going to church because she would bean outsider, one who was not good enough to worshipthere.Conclusion

Early recollections represent an importantcontribution for counselors. They can be obtained quiteeasily and they provide a wealth of therapeuticinformation. By using ER's, the counselor is quickly ableto develop rapport with the client. They help to focus onprobable reasons for certain behaviors. ER's also helpthe counselor to formulate counseling objectives (Kopp&< Dinkmeyer, 1975).

The purpose of this paper has been to acquaint thereader with the use of early recollections in counseling.Hopefully, it has sparked an interest in one additionaltechnique that can be used successfully in a counselingrelationship.

REFERENCES

Allred. C.H. MIS",. ,., MDlhm. Salt l.k. City. Utah, Booker.ft. 1968.Dinkm.y.r. D.C. Drt',I.p,., U••ml•••,.,., Sfll ••dOlh", COUSO. D- I)

Circle Pines. Mione-solI: American Guidance' SerVICes, 1973Dinkmeyrr. D.C., and McKay C. 5ysl,mnlu Tr,mm" t", Ef(ffln', Por'"',"g.

Circle Pines, Minnesota: Amene.n GUidance Servicrs, 1976.

Dinkmeyer. Pew, Dinkmryrr. lulltrll'" (Du,uIII", ,It,d Ps!'d,olh,rap!I.Mont.r.y. California, BrooksICol•. 1979.

Dr.ikurs. R.. &. Soltz. V. Oil."., Th, 0.11,.". N.w York, Hawthorn.1964.

Eckstein. D. "The use of early fKollectlons in group counselang:'JOII'"d' for Sptna/lSls '" Growp Wo,i. M.y 1980, 87·92.

JilCqurs, R. "A mod~1 for using tr.cher study groups in consulting;'1••,.,•••1 P,ytho/.,y. 1983, J9. (2).

Jacqu.s, R.. &. Fuston. ). rwh" So""",,1 Skills. Woost.r. Ohio, Th.Soci.llnt.r.st Pr.ss. 1982.

Kopp. R., &. Dinkm.y.r. D.C. "E.r1y recoll.ctions in lif. styl.usessm~ntand couns~lin8."Tit, 5<1r~1 Cow"ulor. 1915, 1J, (1),22­27.

Mosak. H. E.uly rrcollrctions u • projrctivr trchnique. /0"""" ofProitr"., Ttrhoiqo". 1958. 22.302-311.

Nik.lly, A. (Ed.). rtrh.iq." lor Ikh...., 0 ••". Springfi.ld. Illinois,Chari•• C. Thomas. 1972.

23

Sw••ney, T. 1I./rri•• Coo."Ii.,. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 1975.Sweeney, T. AJI,ri." COJl"uli"l: Prow.. Co""pls ,,,II 5'r"t,gitS (2nd rd.).

Munci., Indiana: Acc.l.rated D.v.lopm.nt, 1981.

,o.'iurtlfrom pag. IS

are merely depressive symptomatology or transferencerequires further inquiry into the patient's background.While it is possible to overemphasize the effect of pastevents on the present, in cases such as that of Mr. Jones,the "fit" seems too good to be dismissed as coincidence.Failure to gather the background information necessaryto distinguish depressive expressions from transferenceruns the risk of leaving an essential component of theperson's problem untreated.

Examination of Mrs. Jones' background indicated thatas a child she was indeed unwanted and insufficientlyloved and cared for by her mother, and as an adult herhusband had abandoned her. Mrs. Jones' feelings wereaccurate, but the problem was magnified when sheattributed the attitudes of her mother and husband toGod as well. As a result, her despair was intensifiedbecause she did not feel that she could turn to God forhelp in a time of need, which she would have done wereit not for those feelings.

An appropriate therapeutic approach for this type ofproblem would be for the therapist to bring out indiscussion with Mrs. Jones the real source of her feelingsand to point out that just because her mother didn'twant her did not mean that God didn't want her or thatnobody would ever care about her. In persons like Mrs.Jones with such deeply ingrained ideas, the newinterpretation usually needs to be brought outrepeatedly and from many different angles before theperson begins to understand and believe it.

In the second case, I attempted early to show Mrs.Walker that God was not the tyrant that she believedHim to be. I also tried to show some of thenoncompulsive traits of Christ's disciples that wereacceptable, e.g. plucking a few grains of corn on theSabbath. Yet for every scripture I could cite (primarilyfrom the New Testament) showing God to beunderstanding or merciful. she could cite one (from theOld Testament) where He did "zap" or destroy someone.Then she would quote, .....God is the same yesterday,today and forever..... Now I am approaching thisproblem by acknowledging that there are manyscriptures which show God to be stern and exacting andthat there are many which show Him to be kind andforgiving. I am teaching Mrs. Walker that the reason shefocuses exclusively on the strict or stern descriptions ofGod is because her father behaved that way toward her.and that is why she ignores the counter-balancingscriptures. I repeatedly bring out that her frenziedefforts to please God are but a continuation andextension of her frenzied efforts to please her father,but that unlike her father, God does not expect instantperfection. By so doing I hope with time that Mrs.Walker can begin to understand the loving side of Godand can be more reasonable with herself.

Conclusion. When a troubled individual makes

AMCAP JOURNAl/JANUARY 1983

statements about Deity, those statements provide a clueto the nature and source of that person's difficulties,both in early relationships and in present life. Thosestatements often give understanding of the way thatperson was treated by parents early in life. The effect ofthese early experiences on present life and behavior canthen be discussed and utilized in treatment.

When a therapist is aware of transference to Deity anduses it in the treatment process, he provides a vitaladdition to the person's therapy. By liberating theperson from psychological problems left over from earlylife, he enables the individual to seek a more mature andsatisfying relationship with God.

conlinottl from pIIg' 20

time, they grieved with him over his "evils," the grievingitself seeming to provide comfort. Also, on animmensely practical note, everyone gave him "a piece ofmoney," so that the burden of temporal worries wouldnot be added to his spiritual and emotional sufferings.Uob 42:11) In terms of the biblical story, Job's truevindication came in receiving "twice as much as he hadbefore," but who is to say that the participation andsupport of his friends did not also playa role? Job's faithin the Lord, though sorely tried, enabled him to behealed from his afflictions.

I know of Christ's healing power. not only as I see it inothers, but just as important, as I see it and feel it inmyself. I know He is our redeemer and He can heal us.He sustained and healed Job in his suffering even withhis "miserable" counselors. I firmly believe KingBenjamin's injunction: "For the natural man is an enemyto God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be.forever and forever, unless he yields to the enticings ofthe Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man andbecometh a saint through the atonement of Jesus Christthe Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek,humble, patient. full of love, willing to submit to allthings which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him. evenas a child doth submit to his father" (Mosiah 3:29).

I believe we must be "bilingual"; we must speak "withauthority and excellence to (our) professional colleaguesin the language of scholarship, and (we) must also beliterate in the language of spiritual things."n For me, thevocabulary of the language of faith centers on Christand his infinite atonement. As one of our fellow laborersof old said, " ...we preach of Christ, we prophesy ofChrist.... that our children may know to what sourcethey may look for a remission of their sins." (2 Nephi25:26) May we who are professionally trained continueto develop our technical skills and feel a responsibility tokeep current with devlopments in our individualdisciplines and may we at the same time submitourselves to him who presides over us all that we maytruly be gospel centered therapists I pray in the name ofJesus Christ, amen.

NOTES

I Spencer W. Kimboll, "The Second Century of Brigham YoungUniversity." 5p«<h.. oflh, Y,.r. 1975. Provo. Ut.: BYU Pre... 1976. p.

AMCAP JOURNAl/JANUARY 1983 24

245.1 Eugene England... 'That They Might Not Suffer': TM Gift 01 the

Atonement" Oi.,o,o" .II 10.,..' of M....,. Tho.,hl. Autumn 1966,141-142; italics omiUed. Also in .IIMC.ilP 10....1. 1982 (3): 21-27.

, IhiJ. p. 149.• C.S. Lewis. Mi,.c1.., .II PMimiu'Y SlIIII~. New Yorlc Mxmillan

Company. 1971. pp. 115-116., Truman G. Madsen, "The Pre-Eminence 01 Christ; photocopy 01

typescript. n.p.• n.d.• pp. 3-4.I England. 0,. Oil. pp. 149, 153., IhiJ.. p. 153.• Malcolm Muggeridge, 5omrthi., 8...'i{.1 For GOlf: MllIhn Tnao 1/

C.I,."•. Garden City. N.Y., Ooubledayllmage Books 1977, p. 18.I England. 0,. Cil.. pp. 154-155... Marion G. Romney.- "The Crucible of Adversity and AfflictIan;

general conference adelr..s. 1951, in 1M If GIll .11II 1iPt. comp.George J. Romney. Salt Lake City, Ut., Oe_et IlooIt Company,1971, p. 243.

II F. Brent Farley. "Job: Parallels with the Savior; E..il". Oct. 1980"pp.26-27.

11 Kimboll. 0,. Cif.. p. 245.