As a Marriage and Family Therapist, I begin my work with couples by having them sign what I term a “Limited Secrets Policy.” I explain that if at any time during my work with the couple I happen to be communicating with them individually- whether that’s over the phone, text, email, or an individual session- and they disclose a big enough secret that their partner is unaware of (ie. an affair, a secret bank account, etc…), we will need to address it. Either the secret is required to be brought up during the next couples session or I will discontinue couples therapy. 

I make this clear one- because I’ve been burned before, and two- because holding a secret that 2 people know and 1 person does not can be detrimental to the therapeutic process and lead to feelings of betrayal. 

I have found over my years of being a therapist that secrets can do significant damage in relationships, both for the person holding the secret and the person in the dark. Secrets, by nature, imply a lack of trust in the other person or a fear regarding potential consequences should the secret be revealed. They create a burden for the secret holder, often using more energy and effort than being able to tell the truth, and they impact the relationship for the person in the dark, even if they aren’t aware a secret exists. 

I see the same problematic dynamics play out in certain areas of the church where members are told to keep ceremonies secret. Or when leaders are encouraged (forced?) to hold information such as various historical facts or church operations secret thereby keeping that information inaccesible from the average member. Though church leaders have warned members over the years about the dangers of “secret combinations,” there seems to be a tendency within the church to lean into secret-keeping. 

But what if it’s sacred? 

Sometimes the church will require a secret under the guise of information being too “sacred” to share. While it makes sense to me that there is a time and a place for certain information, I wonder if this is too often used as a measure of control- whether that’s control over the information or the church member. It also comes down to trust- does the church trust its members enough to allow them to share their own sacred experiences when they feel it’s appropriate to do so? From what I’ve seen, the answer would be no. 

Ultimately, I wonder how sacred an experience can be when a person doesn’t have autonomy over the memory of it?

An easy example of the harm secrets can cause plays out in the sharing of temple names. Women share their temple names with their husbands before marriage while men do not. This happens in the very first ceremony a soon-to-be-sealed couple takes part in, thereby beginning their marriage on a secret that is held by and tied to the church. The church knows the man’s name and the man knows the man’s name, but the woman does not, creating an unhealthy 2-1 dynamic. And like couples therapy, that 2-1 dynamic can create feelings of betrayal in the party that is left out and put added burden on the party that is in the know. 

So why does the church require these secrets?

One theory is called Costly Signalling. This theory proposes the idea that people within a group need ways to convey their “status” or commitment to one another and to people outside of the group. Requiring secrets, on some level, measures a person’s willingness to comply with the church’s expectations and requirements. The more secrets a person holds for the church, the more that person is committed to church. So by giving each member a temple name and then requiring secrecy regarding that temple name, the church is able to create commitment and status. 

But the problem lies in the imbalance between the in-group and out-group. In the 2-1 dynamic created between men and women regarding their temple names, men are placed closer to the middle of the “in-group” and women are a step removed. This harms both men and women because men are burdened with a secret they may not even want to keep and women are left in the dark. Their marriage is stuck with the church right in the middle, governing whether this secret is allowed to be shared. 

The temple name example is easy to point to when talking about the potential harms secrets can cause, but it’s not the only one. Many other secrets in other areas of the church cause significant harm to members, whether they are burdened with the secrets or in the dark.  I wish the church would “teach correct principles and let them govern themselves”- even, or especially, in areas of more sacredness. Such sacred experiences should be up to the experiencer to share or not share.

Whether it involves information or sacredness, the church does a disservice to its members by requiring secrecy. The sacred environments provided by the church can be healthy and fulfilling, but the secrets are not.