DiscussMormonism.com

I'm sure that the last few months have been really rough for LDS conservatives. First, there was Trump--a very divisive figure, even for Republicans. Either you were a Trumpist, and got bummed out that he lost the election (or had it stolen, I guess?), or you were bummed out that Trump was making the Republican Party look bad. And then Rush Limbaugh died, and now there is all this "stuff" pertaining to transgendered people, and so on and so forth. Well, I'm sure that all the hardcore, Ralph Hancock-types can now breathe a sigh of relief, since DCP, "Mormon Interpreter," and Greg Smith (whom DCP describes as "brilliant and fearless") have done their darnedest to prove to everyone that the LDS Church views homosexual behavior as a "sin next to murder." The article, just posted today on the "Mormon Interpreter" blog, is entitled, "Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ," and good heavens, is it ever a doozy.

First of all, I guess Greg Smith at least deserves a modicum of credit, since this isn't a full-blown hit piece in the same vein as his Dehlin article (or other pieces he's published). But this is one of those tendentious, nitpick-y articles that are standard-issue weapons in the "classic-FARMS" arsenal. And it's very interesting that this article is appearing in the wake of Gee's attacks on the JSPP, *and* the disingenuous piece about "inclusiveness." (Everyone except for LGBTQ+ people, I guess?) In any event, despite the fact that Smith tends to focus on arguments, you still cannot escape the sense that he's seething with hatred for both Taylor Petrey (clearly part of the "new" Maxwell Institute / Mormon Studies crew), and D. Michael Quinn, author of the seminal Same-sex Dynamics book.

In any case, take a look at some of Smith's complaints:

Greg Smith wrote:I focus primarily on questions regarding the sources and use of sources in Tabernacles’s first two chapters. These chapters include questions regarding sexual fluidity, premortal sex, postmortal sex, and homosexual sin. While I can only sample Tabernacles’s use of sources, that sampling reveals serious problems.

[Page 111]So serious are these problems that, on one level, it is astonishing that this work would be published by a university press. Granted, the book’s ideological agenda and subject matter is popular in some quarters,4 and such works have their place — if they are honest with themselves and their readers about what they are.5 But what Tabernacles offers is not good history.

Tabernacles of Clay is a good argument for the necessity of review by experts in both the theology and history of the Church of Jesus Christ when academic presses do “Mormon” studies. Experts in queer and gender theory might find it compelling; anyone familiar with the religious sources ought to know better.

Yikes! That's quite the condemnation. Then again, who do you suppose Smith is referring to when he mentions "experts in both the theology and history of the" LDS Church? Looking over his citations, it becomes clear: he's referring to people like Mitton and James--FARMS authors, in other words. Of course, FARMS was always polemical; it was never academic; and it was never serious, so maybe all of this is a moot point?

In any event, you really have to wonder on some level what this is all about. Does anyone really think that Smith, Peterson, and the rest of the "Interpreter" group are really all that concerned about use of sources? Do they devote this kind of scrutiny to books by Terryl Givens or Grant Hardy? Or are they targeting Petrey because he's part of the "Liberal" New MI? Plus, if you accept Smith's own depiction of Tabernacles, a deeper problem emerges. I.e., if you accept Smith's view that Petrey's book is basically an argument in favor of greater tolerance for LGBTQ+ people within the Church, then you can see how fundamentally bigoted and nasty Smith's "review" actually is. Smith's review is actually a long, exhaustive catalog of just how intolerant and abusive the LDS Church has been towards LGBTQ+ people: the Appendixes alone are practically a horror show of cruelty and homophobia.

And Smith seems to think that he's re-enacting the "pitching it into Mt. Doom" sort of scenario in the conclusion:

Smith wrote:It should go without saying that before a reader can assess arguments, logic, and interpretation, she must first have facts and sources. No fact or source interprets itself, but when facts and sources are ignored, misrepresented, or silenced, it becomes obvious. It is beyond question that Tabernacles has done so repeatedly and extensively. Even if one agrees with its arguments, the way in which it argues must be deplored.

At first glance, Tabernacles of Clay might seem, as in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, “an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance,” firmly braced by rigorous scholarship. Yet, as its foundational feet of clay collide with the stony sources, it is “all broken to pieces.”455 I have examined several key bricks in its edifice, and those bricks crumbled, leaving the book’s merits difficult to sift from the rubble.

Despite these problems, like Same-Sex Dynamics before it, Tabernacles of Clay will likely continue to be lauded, cited, and brandished as evidence for many years, notwithstanding its incontestable failure to handle the sources responsibly. Too many will want to believe its claims, and thus will have reason to ignore the rot at the root of its argument.

And that is a great pity.

Again: if the purpose is to carve out greater tolerance towards LGBTQ+ people within Mormonism, they why is that "a great pity"? At the end of the day, Smith's piece is an extended, homophobic rant that was crafted in the service of continuing to alienate and discriminate against LGBTQ+ people in the LDS Church. That Dr. Peterson would praise the article as "brilliant and fearless" is both unsurprising and shameful. I anticipate that article will be lapped up by the old-school FARMS faithful.

I wonder how Smoot feels about the latest interpreter venom filled article? It has to be another shot to the body or a slap in the face. He has to be suffering having to deal with jackasses like Smith periodically. He can't help who he is, yet he has to continue to live around people who condemn him for his biology. I don't know if I could handle it.

Spot on. Question for Smith and Peterson re use of sources: kindly compare and contrast the complaints herein with Gee’s (ab)use of sources in support of the long scroll theory.

Hypocrisy is awesome when you're in the right, eh.

Another great find, doctor.

Doctor Scratch wrote: At the end of the day, Smith's piece is an extended, homophobic rant that was crafted in the service of continuing to alienate and discriminate against LGBTQ+ people in the LDS Church

To put into perspective the epic proportions of Smith's "hellfire and damnation" found in this essay, consider how his writing stacks up to infamous Calvinist preacher, Jonathan Edwards. Recall that the apologists consider the Calvinist God to be sheer evil, essentially, a police-state deity who glories in damnation.

Edward's most famous speech, Sinners in the hands of an Angry God employs the word "sin" or a variant thereof 14 times. Smith's essay in contrast cries out "sin!" 158 times! Lol! Taking total word count into consideration gives Smith's work an Edward's ratio of 6.45!! That's the highest I've ever personally calculated!

Recall your sentiments on Seariac's recent work doctor.

Doctor Scratch wrote:hey just published this obviously baloney article on "inclusiveness,"

I responded:

Exactly: the previous article was political currency to pay for publishing of *this* article.

I'm going to say I called it, even if Seariac's was an appetizer to work up to the main course.

indeed, Dean Robbers--your vision is wise, as always. Smith is absolutely exhaustive and comprehensive in his efforts to prove that the Church hates gay people--just look at all the official Church publications that he combs through in the appendices. The odd thing is that, early on, he writes:

No fact or source interprets itself

Okay: if that's true, then why go the route of interpreting things in such a way that serves to alienate and marginalize huge segments of people?

Guess what? Check it out:

Daniel Peterson wrote:There's no question, LW, that homosexuality confronts faithful Latter-day Saints with difficult challenges. We want to be loving and kind, and we want to be obedient.

"obedient"? What might that mean, from a Mopologetic perspective? And then there's this:

Wavesfromthefuture wrote:Taylor Petrey was in a bishopric of the ward I attended when I lived in Boston for a time. I distinctly remember him giving a talk that was riddled with social justice themes. To say I’m surprised by the direction of his career would be false.

It's interesting that this piece is appearing at the same time as the lighting of the BYU "Y." You have to wonder if the timing is a coincidence, or whether it was "planned" or "rushed into publication."

Looks rushed IMHO.

Dr Exiled wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 4:04 am

Looks rushed IMHO.

It really does.

For example, the reviewer argues

The misleading treatment of President Kimball demonstrated above recurs often.

His evidence starts with this quote:

"by 1969 [Kimball] had published his pastoral magnum opus, The Miracle of Forgiveness. With all of its hopefulness about the possibility of repentance, Kimball represented same-sex relationships in the darkest terms — “revolting,” “detestable,” “ugly,” “repugnant,” and so on. While his earlier public statements had been harsh with a dose of pastoral empathy, Kimball’s rhetoric in this book was vitriolic (70–71).

After which he states that:

Tabernacles must demonstrate that such language is uniquely “vitriolic,” not merely assume it or leave the reader with that impression.

But even though nothing in the first quote said Kimball was "uniquely 'vitriolic' ", the author spends the next 12 to 15 paragraphs explaining how Kimball was disturbingly "vitriolic" about many sins, and therefore was only 'normally' vitriolic about homosexuality.

Which was what the book reviewed actually stated.

The author continues

The misrepresentation continues when Tabernacles claims “[Kimball] placed same-sex intimacy just below murder in the hierarchy of sins” (71).

Tabernacles’s evidence is The Miracle of Forgiveness, pages 77–85 (71n95). This is misleading — these pages contain the entire chapter on homosexual acts, [Page 242]and Kimball says nothing therein about placing them “just below murder in the hierarchy of sins.”

Except that according to the reviewer, he does. The author quotes Kimball, in direct contradiction to his review:

Kimball does place opposite-sex sin as next to murder in the preceding chapter. (In fact, the entire chapter is titled “The Sin Next to Murder.”

And then the reviewer quotes Kimball

Let it therefore be clearly stated that the seriousness of the sin of homosexuality is equal to or greater than that of fornication or adultery;

The reviewer then equivocates, saying Kimball didn't really mean what Kimball said:

“Equal to or greater” does place homosexual sin next to murder — but the context of the entire chapter would reveal that homosexual sin was being treated the same as all sexual sin.

So... 'equal to or greater' means 'the same as'??????

That's only one section of the article that I looked at. Once again, the nonsensical nature of playground peer review seems to have utterly missed these inconsistencies.

Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 3:39 am

Wavesfromthefuture wrote:Taylor Petrey was in a bishopric of the ward I attended when I lived in Boston for a time. I distinctly remember him giving a talk that was riddled with social justice themes. To say I’m surprised by the direction of his career would be false.

Like social justice is a bad thing?
How about this version.

Wavesfromthefuture? wrote:Jesus Christ was in a teacher near the synagogue I attended when I lived in Jerusalem for a time. I distinctly remember him giving a talk that was riddled with social justice themes. To say I’m surprised by the direction of his career would be false.

Here comes Midgley:

For those unfamiliar with Taylor Petrey, he has at least twice come after me on this blog. The reason is that I believe that I accurately summarized something he published in the now defunct Maxwell Institute journal entitled Studies in the Bible and Antiquity 7 (2015): 66-70. Carl Griffin, who once was a "research professor" at the Maxwell Institute, invited a group to assess "Hugh Nibley and Early Christianity." See Griffin, "Looking Down a Dark Well: And Editorial Introduction, pp. 55-59. Petrey was one of those invited to opine. His assessment of Nibley was entitled "Siding with Heretics: Evaluating Hugh Nibley Today," pp. 66-70. Since those asked to evaluate Nibley today had only access to a patch of text lifted from a very long, rambling preliminary setting out of Nibley's very first research on the early post-biblical Christian church, I provided an essay entitled "Situating Nibley on Early Christianity: A Bibliographical Note," pp. 71-80.

If anyone would care to know what Hugh Nibley actually published on "Early Christianity," then one will find a list of his published items, and also a full account of the very interesting dispute that took place between several then very prominent scholars. Otherwise, all that Carl Griffin did was assemble a few "scholars" who picked on what had been provided for them to criticize. I now urge anyone interested to actually read my essay and then compare and contrast it with what Petrey wrote, and especially what he drew from Elizabeth Clark on page 69, where one finds that the new way of looking at the early Church is to focus on such things "as the body, sexuality, race and ethnicity, empire, and material culture..." rather than on a "real church" and the decay of orthodoxy, and so forth.

One should also have a look at the following: https://kzoo.academia.edu/T.... One will find that Petrey is a widely published and also very learned advocate for his own views on "sexuality."