Taylor Petrey'S Dialogue Article

[maklelan]

I didn't see anything on this, so I thought I would start the ball rolling. Taylor Petrey has an article in Dialogue (available here) entitled, "Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology." It asks, basically, could there be room in Mormon theology for homosexual sealings? It's a provocative piece. See also the lengthy discussion post at By Common Consent and from Adam Miller.

Edited December 10, 2011 by maklelan

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Criminies Mak, I clicked to read it and it's 36 pages! Want to provide a short summary for the time impaired? Also, your thoughts would be good on the issue. It sounds like you think there is some wiggle room? Or by provocative, do you simply mean it as thought provoking but you don't agree?

[William Schryver]

I didn't say anything on this, so I thought I would start the ball rolling. Taylor Petrey has an article in Dialogue (available here) entitled, "Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology." It asks, basically, could there be room in Mormon theology for homosexual sealings? It's a provocative piece. See also the lengthy discussion post at By Common Consent and from Adam Miller.

I confess I did not thoroughly read all 36 pages, nor all of the notes at the end, but I believe I read enough to have grasped the fundamental argument. I also read through a good portion of the discussion at BCC. I have therefore formed, in my mind, a fairly well-articulated response to the argument. However, I think I will refrain at present from posting my impressions on this thread. I agree with mak that it is, to say the least, a "provocative" paper. It does not, in my judgment, constitute anything in the way of an innovative argument, except to the extent that an increasingly pervasive perspective is being applied to the question of homosexuality within the context of Mormonism.

I will follow the thread as it progresses and choose a point at which I will offer my views on the question.

[Brade]

Could there be room in Mormon theology for homosexual sealings?

Sure. Will there be? I'd be willing to put money up against it.

[Bob Crockett]

I read the entire article. He operates from the premise that the Church's prohibition against homosexual relations is based upon what he sees is a flawed understanding of gender both in this life and in the hereafter. He makes some mind-bending statements about the possibility of same-sex reproduction, citing, for example, Adam's production of Eve and Mary's production of Jesus. Right.

I guess anything is possible if you assume away the axiom of gender; that people are male or female. If you assume that, as this author does, men are not necessarily male and women are not necessarily female it is just as easy to assume that God will someday condone fornication.

While in the middle of reading him I thought, gee, he reads a little like Ostler and then, bang, he cites Ostler.

Edited December 10, 2011 by rcrocket

[William Schryver]

I read the entire article. He operates from the premise that the Church's prohibition against homosexual relations is based upon what he sees is a flawed understanding of gender both in this life and in the hereafter. He makes some mind-bending statements about the possibility of same-sex reproduction, citing, for example, Adam's production of Eve and Mary's production of Jesus. Right.

I guess anything is possible if you assume away the axiom of gender; that people are male or female. If you assume that, as this author does, men are not necessarily male and women are not necessarily female it is just as easy to assume that God will someday condone fornication.

While in the middle of reading him I thought, gee, he reads a little like Ostler and then, bang, he cites Ostler.

You should check out the discussion at BCC, especially the comments by Loyd Ericson ("the narrator") wherein he argues against the statement from the proclamation on the family that reads:

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

Ericson argues that gender cannot be a characteristic that is independent of our physical bodies, and that therefore premortal (or eternal) gender identity is a fallacious concept.

Edited December 10, 2011 by William Schryver

[Storm Rider]

I didn't say anything on this, so I thought I would start the ball rolling. Taylor Petrey has an article in Dialogue (available here) entitled, "Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology." It asks, basically, could there be room in Mormon theology for homosexual sealings? It's a provocative piece. See also the lengthy discussion post at By Common Consent and from Adam Miller.

This topic seems to capture the minds of many people; even more interesting it hold their focus captive and prevents almost all other thought to occur....at least from what I observe of those who are preoccupied with this specific topic.

It was interesting in the article and in what others stated. As I think about the scriptures and the history of God as known by the LDS people, I recall that God proclaims truth or reveals his will and there are some that follow it and others that don't. To contextualize the problem as a problem that the LDS Church has is not accurate.

The Church has stated how we should lead our lives relatively clearly. Almost all LDS fall short to one degree or another. Falling short is not a "gay" issue; it is a mortal issue and all are sinners. God has a relatively long history of clearly stating what is acceptable and what is not. God stands at the door knocking; it is we who must respond to his call and accept his will for our lives.

One of the great weaknesses of all mortals is to accept God's will in place of our own. Some sinner will demand that their sins are reallly not sins for a number of reasons. However, at the end of the day each sinner is shown the error of his ways IF (s)he chooses to follow God. If they choose not to follow, there really is nothing to discuss. However, if we are to follow God, it really does not work telling him how he needs to accept some behaviors because it just feels right or is based on "love".

For LDS and many Christians, this life is a trial where a reward will be given in the next. Those who love God will keep his commandments. There really is not much more to discuss after that. As a sinner I know that the wages of my many sins is death, but that through repentance I am sanctified in Christ and renewed to a pure being. That is the only path I know that each sinner should walk.

[William Schryver]

One of the implicit notions of the Petrey argument is that the "theology" of The Church of Jesus Christ is susceptible to being transformed from the "bottom up," as it were, as a result of the "reimagining" of the attitudes of the individuals that constitute its membership. Or, in other words, the author envisions mechanisms inherent in the Church that would respond to public opinion by expanding its "theology" in such a way as to accommodate homosexual relationships under the umbrella of its historical teachings concerning the eternal nature of family relationships, marriage, sealings, etc.

The question that immediately occurs to me is whether or not there has ever truly been a causal relationship between evolving public opinion and the "theology" of The Church of Jesus Christ? It seems clear to me that Petrey believes there has been, and he therefore envisions the precedental basis for future theological modifications, if only public opinion can be altered towards that end.

[mfbukowski]

I would put money on it NOT happening.

For me the theology of man and woman becoming "one flesh"- the idea that the relationship between Christ and the church with Christ as the Bridegroom and the whole notion of "opposition in all things" and the complimentary nature of the sexes, with one completing the other- losing those notions or implications would be tragic.

For me, learning to be one with someone who is as different as men are from women is part of the eternal plan. The very plan itself I think is to put intelligences which differ drastically from each other together and have them create unity through love, by putting aside their differences.

Putting it bluntly, being married to a person who is drastically different than you makes you more Christlike.

Two who are of similar mentalities and physical attributes, in my opinion, would not create that opportunity.

Though unstated doctrinally, I think the dialectic of "opposition in all things" reflects the unity of cosmic forces including the complimentary nature of the sexes.

Anyone who thinks that the differences between the sexes is not as fundamental as I portray it, has not been married long enough.

[Chris Smith]

I guess anything is possible if you assume away the axiom of gender; that people are male or female. If you assume that, as this author does, men are not necessarily male and women are not necessarily female it is just as easy to assume that God will someday condone fornication.

Gender is not an axiom. As many, many scholars have pointed out, our culture's binary gender categories are just as socially constructed as any other type of category. We assume that genitalia are the measure of a person's gender because those are the most visible markers, but there are a range of other biological differences between men and women that are more difficult to observe. (Hormones, for example.) The decision to privilege genitalia over these other types of differences as the marker of gender is basically arbitrary and stems from the human prejudice toward putting people in rigid categories according to external phenotypes. (The existence of intersex persons, moreover, suggests that gender is non-binary even if we do decide to privilege genitalia.)

A few cultures have constructed gender differently than we do. The Pueblo Indians and certain groups in India recognized a third category that was essentially comprised of "sacred transvestites". In the Pueblo case, this construct was violently annihilated by Jesuits who found it morally abhorrent. In other words, our gender categories seem axiomatic in part because of how effectively they've been imperialistically imposed.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Calm]

Is there any evidence of any individual being capable of producing both egg and sperm? If not, I think that is evidence of a binary gender...since the only possible other gender is not male or female (in terms of reproduction) and while that may occur, it is a reproductive/creative deadend. Since creation, including creation of children is looked upon as a part of godhood, even if spiritual children are not created in the same way, it seems to me a god that lacks the ability to produce physical children is incomplete and therefore not perfect and therefore not god.

One could bypass the essential problem by assuming that adoption or some sort of surrogacy will be allowed in the next life, but it seems to me not being 'self sufficient' in the sealed 'unit' misses the point.

Btw, I do not think that apparent mortal gender is necessarily our eternal gender. Since our bodies are often born with many 'errors', some that are so significant that they render a person unable to meaningful function as a person, I see it as a possibility that physical gender may be a mismatch just as other physical attributes aren't likely to match our eternal forms.

Edited December 11, 2011 by calmoriah

[Bernard Gui]

Gender is not an axiom. As many, many scholars have pointed out, our culture's binary gender categories are just as socially constructed as any other type of category...

A few cultures have constructed gender differently than we do. The Pueblo Indians and certain groups in India recognized a third category that was essentially comprised of "sacred transvestites". In the Pueblo case, this construct was violently annihilated by Jesuits who found it morally abhorrent. In other words, our gender categories seem axiomatic in part because of how effectively they've been imperialistically imposed.

Bacha bazi.

Bernard

[Chris Smith]

Is there any evidence of any individual being capable of producing both egg and sperm? If not, I think that is evidence of a binary gender...since the only possible other gender is not male or female (in terms of reproduction) and while that may occur, it is an evolutionary dead end (the non male/female genes can not be passed on by such an individual).

And since we all know that evolution is the arbiter of moral good, binary gender is a positive good just like genocide, male promiscuity, and the death of the weakest of the species.

[David T]

I felt the paper was fantastic, and resonated in many ways as being similar to Lester Bush's 1973 "Mormonism's Negro Doctrine", which, while highly controversial and provocative in its day (as it suggested ways in which the then-current policy of excluding blacks from the Temple and Eternal Marriage and also current explaining that it had to do with pre-mortal unworthiness was historically and doctrinally unfounded and could and perhaps should be re-eavluated),it is now highly regarded as highly important, powerful, and influential...and even somewhat prophetic.

I do feel this is a topic where the paper should be read before one gives their opinion on the topic, seeing as many of the standard "doctrinal" responses and arguments are specifically addressed and explained in the paper. It is very clear on the BCC board those whose responses came from someone who didn't read the paper.

I do feel the first step is a step back from the 'physical sexual reproduction in the eternities makes literal physical spirit babies who don't have bodies even though they were begotten by resurrected parents' as the generally assumed and accepted view of the Eternal Family, even as scripture makes no claims of that sort, and in fact is far more vocal on the point of parentage through adoption than biological procreation. That's in many way the key that holds everything together. It's a position built on a scriptural and doctrinal foundation of sand, and seems to be a strangely persistent holdover from the Adam-God stuff.

Edited December 11, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Calm]

I should have used the term "reproductive deadend" (no posterity) and lost what is in the parentheses. Not much sleep and habit took over causing me to write something not intended and then I felt the need to explain it.

I am going to change it so I don't have to defend something I'm not meaning to say....even if I did say it.

[David T]

Scripture gives priority of adoption over procreation.

* Seed of Christ through Covenant Adoption

* Seed of Abraham through Covenant Adoption

* Children of Israel through Covenant Adoption

* Seed of Aaron and Moses through Covenant Adoption

I have no problem with the idea we are all co-eternal intelligence with God, adopted by consent, and brought under his wing to bring us to His stature, and to assist in bringing others there as well.

(And Mark and Paul even seemed to believe that Jesus was adopted as the Son of God, due to his righteousness and obedience)

Edited December 11, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Calm]

.

I do feel the first step is a step back from the 'physical sexual reproduction in the eternities makes literal physical spirit babies who don't have bodies even though they were begotten by resurrected parents' as the generally assumed and accepted view of the Eternal Family, even as scripture makes no claims of that sort, and in fact is far more vocal on the point of parentage through adoption than biological procreation. That's in many way the key that holds everything together. It's a position built on a scriptural and doctrinal foundation of sand, and seems to be a strangely persistent holdover from the Adam-God stuff.

Even if----and I think it highly likely----spiritual children are not formed in the same way as physical children, there are way too many explicit and implicit teachings of male/female being the eternal heavenly unit. I plan on reading the paper when I am more awake, but I don't see how that can be gotten around.

[David T]

Even if----and I think it highly likely----spiritual children are not formed in the same way as physical children,

JS seemed to believe all spirits were co-eternal with God, that all were uncreated/unformed. That God found himself among less developed spirits, gathered them, organized them, and taught them.

[mfbukowski]

And since we all know that evolution is the arbiter of moral good, binary gender is a positive good just like genocide, male promiscuity, and the death of the weakest of the species.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, I think you are leaving out the evolution of morality itself. Moral values have evolutionary value and the weakest of the species in the sense of reproduction probably would include Stephen Hawking, yet of course he has proven to be somewhat valuable to the species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=10894&ttype=2

[Chris Smith]

Unless I am misunderstanding you, I think you are leaving out the evolution of morality itself. Moral values have evolutionary value and the weakest of the species in the sense of reproduction probably would include Stephen Hawking, yet of course he has proven to be somewhat valuable to the species.

I thought about nuancing my statement to reflect that view (which is a view I personally hold), but decided it was beside the point. Suffice to say, there are circumstances under which it is evolutionarily advantageous to do things we today would consider immoral. Today we have the benefit of knowing how to stretch our resources through technology, but in past eras the survival game arguably had a more zero-sum structure, and evolutionary success required a more machiavellian kind of competition. Technology has also made it somewhat more difficult to get away with various kinds of depredations without getting caught.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Bernard Gui]

I just adore past, present, and future LDS doctrine as proclaimed by Dialogue.

No problem here. First, they will have to debunk this, and then move on with their agenda:

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose...

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife...

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity...

...we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

Bernard

Edited December 11, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Chris Smith]

First, they will have to debunk this, and then move on with their agenda:

Well, there's this.

[Calm]

The problem I have with these kinds of claims is unless one has the actual text that was on the tele prompter how can one be sure which was the original, the written text or the spoken one. People make errors in reading the TelePrompTer all the time from what I've seen. In Conference they don't have a chance for a second take.

This doesn't change the differences between the version, but if it was not an intentional change, it affects the importance of the differences.

[David T]

The problem I have with these kinds of claims is unless one has the actual text that was on the tele prompter how can one be sure which was the original, the written text or the spoken one. People make errors in reading the TelePrompTer all the time from what I've seen. In Conference they don't have a chance for a second take.

This doesn't change the differences between the version, but if it was not an intentional change, it affects the importance of the differences.

The Church has acknowledged that changes were made to President Packer's original delivered remarks for 'clarifying purposes'. There's really no confusion needed as to whether he just read it wrong, especially since whole phrases were deleted, not added, from the printed version. There were changes in content. it's been officially acknowledged. There's not a conspiracy, or a need for apologetic what-ifs.

[WalkerW]

For those interested in morality, cooperation (hence, the economic titles), and evolution, see

Michael Shermer, The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule (Henry Holt and Co., 2004).

Michael Shermer, The Mind of the Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans, and Other Tales From Evolutionary Economics (Times Books, 2008).

Frans B.M. de Waal, "How Selfish an Animal? The Case of Primate Cooperation," Moral Markets: The Critical Role of Values in the Economy, ed. Paul J. Zak (Princeton University Press, 2008).

Sarah F. Brosnan, "Fairness and Other-Regarding Preferences in Nonhuman Primates," Moral Markets: The Critical Role of Values in the Economy, ed. Paul J. Zak (Princeton University Press, 2008).

Martin Nowak, SuperCooperators: Altruism, Evolution, and Why We Need Each Other to Succeed (Free Press, 2011).

Matt Ridley, The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation (Viking, 1997).