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:
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?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.
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:
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.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.
