A Response To Taylor Petrey

[mrmandias]

Here's an excellent response to that Unitarian's proposal for a Mormonism without marriage and other unimportant stuff:

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerPlatosSon.html

[mapman]

Who's a Unitarian?

Edited August 31, 2012 by mapman

[jwhitlock]

Here's an excellent response to that Unitarian's proposal for a Mormonism without marriage and other unimportant stuff:

http://squaretwo.org...rPlatosSon.html

Now that was a very interesting article; thanks for sharing.

[LifeOnaPlate]

That writer misrepresents Petrey's article and throws a few unwarranted jabs at him (basically calling him a misogynist) to boot. I have neither the time nor the inclination to lay out the specifics, but if my word counts for anything I encourage people to at least read the piece she's responding to for yourself. You need not agree with it (it ain't perfect, no), but at least argue against what it actually sets out.

[Calm]

In both the canonical and ritual accounts of creation, women are entirely absent.14 Creation of the earth, organization of the elements, and even the creation of the living bodies of Adam and Eve all occur without the presence of female figures. The creation as we know it is capable of being performed with an all-male cast. This has the effect of not only making women superfluous to creation and salvation, but also of putting a male-male relationship as the source of creativity, productivity, and the giving of life itself.

I find this comment very problematic myself.

also:

Yet in LDS discourse, Heavenly Father takes on the role of a single parent nurturing His children, while Heavenly Mother does little that could be called mothering from the perspective of mortal persons.

https://www.dialogue..._V44N04_110.pdf

BTW, I read the dialogue article first and posted before I read the response.

Edited August 31, 2012 by calmoriah

[juliann]

On the other hand, don't confuse the anger with misrepresentation. I agree with Petrey that the church has given confused messages about "gender". I agree that the emphasis on motherhood to the exclusion of all else is becoming more problematic.

But it is easy to make charges of misrepresentation which will inevitably result in the content being ignored rather than encouraging discussion. Petrey not only misrepresents church doctrine at some points, he engages in quote mining from selective historical periods. I was curious about his attributing the word "apartheid" to Hudson so I read the referenced article and got to the conclusion before I found anything close....

Valerie Hudson has gone so far as to call same-sex relationships “gender apartheid.”90

I read the article cited and only found...

“Evolutionary legacy marriage” and gender apart-ness systems will enshrine male dominance and malignant patriarchy across the globe and ensure they will never be assailable again.

Now, unless I missed the word somewhere else, or Square Two edited it, changing out a word and putting it in quotes and attributing it to an author is quite a misrepresentation.

And we are still no closer to discussing the articles.

Edited September 1, 2012 by juliann

[Calm]

Petrey not only misrepresents church doctrine at some points....

And we are still no closer to discussing the articles.

He seems to be ignoring some crucial scriptures such as:

9 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and thekeys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have allpower, and the angels are subject unto them.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.

Whether or not it is "absurd", such doctrine is still canonized and I don't see it being dispensed with anytime soon. Edited August 31, 2012 by calmoriah

[juliann]

He also left out the quite persistent current church efforts at making all women feel more comfortable by untying motherhood from reproduction as he uses motherhood to mean only reproduction. (I think he is quite right that we went through a period of doing just that). That is what is kind of unsettling throughout, he leap frogs through different teachings and their popular interpretations and never really lines them up into a meaningful whole.

At any rate, even though I think the church needs to do a lot more for women, I share Hudson's reaction for the most part. The most troubling to me was removing women from the creation account. I have a lot of complaints with the omission of women in church teachings, but the one place I have felt secure is with a Mother in Heaven and the presence of a female half of god. Most disconcerting was his literalness. I think when even McConkie said that Adam's rib is figurative the debate on that one is over. He then flips to figurative readings when necessary. It was an article about male SSM, with a few hat tips to women, some of which was quite forced. For example, he uses the conception of Christ as a woman only event to give them something to compare with his men only creation account. But the conception being something women could do alone has never been a part of LDS thought which insists that God's DNA is there.

While some LDS thinkers imagine an eternally pregnant Heavenly Mother, I see no reason why we must commit

to this kind of literal pregnancy as the reason for divine female figures.

He sets up an either/or situation in which it is a literal mortal condition of pregnancy all the way (and I do think his description was lacking in respect) or women have no necessary part at all. Now, there really is an in between there and since this is all theoretical anyway, there is a lot of picking and choosing going on as to what will be represented.

I do not think it the least surprising that a women's rights advocate with international standing would be enraged with this. I agree with her.

We women are rightfully suspicious of men’s “nostalgia for the one,” a paternity unsullied by maternity, a love unsullied by the need to interact with female anatomy or psychology. After all, it is women, not men, who are being erased on a global scale by the tens of millions, as if the presence of two XX chromosomes constituted the worst possible genetic defect (Hudson and Den Boer, 2004). A 2005 UNFPA estimate suggests that over 163 million women are missing due to such causes as sex-selective abortion, female infanticide, and passive neglect of female children. That women are not only dispensable globally in the fallen world, but also in an “LDS” theology reimagined by a purportedly LDS man is deeply ironic, for this viewpoint is a marker of the most radical form of patriarchy.

[Calm]

His article came across at the very least as very naive about the history of women being relegated to nonstatus in plenty of societies.

[CV75]

Here's an excellent response to that Unitarian's proposal for a Mormonism without marriage and other unimportant stuff:

http://squaretwo.org...rPlatosSon.html

My response" "Taylor Petrey, I don't like your movies. Still, I'd go see "Madea Joins the Mormons"

[LifeOnaPlate]

I was curious about his attributing the word "apartheid" to Hudson so I read the referenced article and got to the conclusion before I found anything close....

I read the article cited and only found...

Now, unless I missed the word somewhere else, or Square Two edited it, changing out a word and putting it in quotes and attributing it to an author is quite a misrepresentation.

Petrey did not change the word. Hudson, or someone else with her publication, changed it. The misrepresentation occurred on SquareTwo's end. The article has evidently been edited without annotation, which is unprofessional at best, borderline dishonest, coming from a publication that pretends to SquareTwo's editorial standards.

For some evidence of this change, back in 2009 an article on the FPR blog discussing the Hudson piece quotes the "apartheid" bit:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2009/04/a-feminist-response-to-valerie-hudson-on-ssm/

[diahman]

On the change in the Square Two article see also here: http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/05/15/is-there-a-trade-off-between-rights-for-women-and-acceptance-of-homosexuality/ . In comment 39 J. Nelson-Seawright references Hudson's use of "gender apartheid" in the article.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Here's an excellent response to that Unitarian's proposal for a Mormonism without marriage and other unimportant stuff:

http://squaretwo.org...rPlatosSon.html

PS- Petrey's Mormon. But Greenwood knew that.

Edited September 3, 2012 by LifeOnaPlate

[LifeOnaPlate]

Here's the definitive evidence courtesy of the way back machine. She uses apartheid over and over through the whole piece.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090411151736/http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerMarriage.html

[juliann]

On the change in the Square Two article see also here: http://bycommonconse...-homosexuality/ . In comment 39 J. Nelson-Seawright references Hudson's use of "gender apartheid" in the article.

Wow, a lot of ad hominem in there.... Thanks for clearing up the word change mystery. I do prefer the apart-ness to apartheid.

I get it that the many despise Hudson with a red hot passion and it becomes more about demonizing her than the topic...which is too bad because it is an important topic. Not to mention her international credentials get in the way of dismissing her with a few waves of ad hominem.

Comment #17 is prescient...

This discussion reminds me of an interview with author Richard Rodridguez last fall on Salon.com wherein he touches on the link between feminism and the gay rights movement.

He says “…we need to identify the relationship between feminism and homosexuality. These movements began, in some sense, to achieve visibility alongside one another. I know a lot of black churches take offense when gay activists say that the gay movement is somehow analogous to the black civil rights movement. And while there is some relationship between the persecution of gays and the anti-miscegenation laws in the United States, I think the true analogy is to the women’s movement. What we represent as gays in America is an alternative to the traditional male-structured society. The possibility that we can form ourselves sexually — even form our sense of what a sex is — sets us apart from the traditional roles we were given by our fathers.”

Hudson’s attempt to counter this reasoning falls far short. She has no good evidence to support her assertion, and as bbell says “it’s pretty intuitive” that she’s just plain wrong. I’m also curious as to her motivation. Trying to have it both ways? [emphasis added]

#20 makes it even more plain as she refers to her own 2009 blog entry, "Are conversations about feminism and heterosexual marriage now harder to have?" A question she asks is "I think it is time to ask how the goals of Mormon homosexuals and married Mormon feminists might support or conflict with each other." I do not think Mormon feminists foresaw this particular wrinkle, however.

Here is my previous post flushing out these points. I’m not sure I still agree with all of it, but I still think that the relationship between feminism and gay rights is more tense than it sometimes seems: http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/02/05/uneasy-bedfellows-what-prop-8-means-for-mormon-women-and-heterosexual-couples/

Hudson noted that the feminists have largely been silent. I think they are in a real tough spot when there is a clash between competing interests and this is a clash. Hudson carefully does not call Petrey a misogynist, she refers to his theory so that is a distraction that goes back to the original problem, these conversations are going to be harder to have. For a feminist, the ultimate insult should be the removal of their sex. This is what Petrey is moving toward. To call that mysogynistic is inflammatory but unfortunately accurate. For whatever faults the church may have in its approach to gender, the one thing it offers is an assurance that femaleness is eternal, our sex is not something to be done away with or fixed.

At any rate, it seems this thread is just another Hudson bashing exercise of sorts.

[Buckeye]

I agree with others' sentiments that there does appear to be some hesitancy on behalf of some feminists to support gay rights. That probably has something to do with the fears expressed in the Cassler article. But I do not believe those fears are necessary.

For me, here is the key paragraph in the article:

No doubt Petrey would argue that what he is advocating is the construction of or, alternatively, the realization of, a plethora of genders, not one gender. No doubt he would also argue that his vision is meant to be emancipatory for women, constrained as they truly are by unjustifiably narrow cultural gender roles across the world. However, as a woman, I believe Petrey deceives himself and his readers. When I read Petrey’s essay, I see a different bottom line: Women are no longer necessary for the Plan of Happiness to obtain. Women are no longer necessary for temple sealings to take place. Women are no longer necessary for the work of the gods in the eternities, or for there to be brought forth spirit children: indeed, there need not be a Heavenly Mother, or, for that matter, earthly mothers. Women are dispensable in Petrey’s rethinking of LDS doctrine.

I believe Cassler's error is in assuming that any of us are "necessary" for the plan of salvation. Apart from the Savior, any of us can drop out and the plan continues on just fine. The real issue is whether allowing a space for homosexual couples in the plan would harmfully affect the space allotted for women in the plan. And I don't see the harm, provided that women are given equal access to priesthood roles. Women would still have every opportunity for ordinances, blessing, unions, and growth. Nothing is denied them. Far from "dispensable", they would play an even more expansive role than they do now.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Buckeye

[Calm]

Far from "dispensable", they would play an even more expansive role than they do now.

At the cost of eliminating the role they play now?

[Buckeye]

At the cost of eliminating the role they play now?

If homosexual unions were allowed, what roles would women be denied that they currently have? I do not see any. They will still be wives, mothers, sisters, leaders, providers, nurturers, teachers, etc.

[juliann]

I agree with others' sentiments that there does appear to be some hesitancy on behalf of some feminists to support gay rights. That probably has something to do with the fears expressed in the Cassler article. But I do not believe those fears are necessary.

The point was that if Mormon feminists are silent about what this theory does to women, they appear to be giving up their own fundamental values. I think you have misunderstood the point. Petrey's theory about the woman essentially disappearing stands apart from all else. This isn't about gays, it is about women.

[Calm]

If homosexual unions were allowed, what roles would women be denied that they currently have? I do not see any. They will still be wives, mothers, sisters, leaders, providers, nurturers, teachers, etc.

I am speaking to TP's view of the eternal role of gender.

[Calm]

I believe Cassler's error is in assuming that any of us are "necessary" for the plan of salvation. Apart from the Savior, any of us can drop out and the plan continues on just fine.

As individuals perhaps, as a group it seems to me both men and women are essential participants with God and LDS doctrine seems to be quite clear on this as well....if mankind in general disappeared the Plan would hardly continue on just fine. If at this point, all women just "drop out" then the Plan would come to a grinding halt. However, under TP's vision---which is not about individuals, but is speaking about categories----eventually women as a group would not be essential, he also appears to think that women have never been all that essential as far as God's involvement...Heavenly Mother being an absentee parent, no female involvement in the creation, even Eve's creation is strictly through male only participation. Edited September 6, 2012 by calmoriah

[Buckeye]

Thanks for your responses Juliann and Calmoriah. I really am trying to understand this from a woman's point of view. Your comments are helpful.

First, can you point me to the part of Petrey's article in which he discusses women or motherhood "disappearing" or "dropping out"? I can't find it. Perhaps that is how some people interpret his article, but for me it doesn't seem to be the point. It would be nice to agree on whether this "disappearing" idea is actually something Petrey is advancing or just the way some people read his article.

Second, let's consider whether it is critically necessary for a woman to bear children in the womb in order to fulfil her role as a mother. On one hand, it seems obvious - a mother is someone who gives birth. But on the otherhand, there seems to be a strong push - particularly from the current women's leadership in the church - to define motherhood to include all women, even those who cannot bear children. Yes, the hope may be that women denied in this life can still bear "spirit children" in the next (whatever that means), but logic would dictate that if women can fully be mothers in this life without bearing children, then they could also be mothers in the next life without bearing children. I would like to know your thoughts on this (admittedly) difficult issue. Can a woman completely fulfill motherhood without bearing children?

Finally, and this is what I really think is Petrey's push, is there any way we can allow for homosexual unions without harming motherhood? I think the answer is "yes." Admittedly, we do not know how "creation" will be accomplished by celestial beings, but even assuming it is the same manner in which we mortals procreate, it is possible for homosexuals to provide guidance, examples, teaching and direction to children, even if they are not biologically their offspring, and in that very important sense become fathers and mothers. I don't see any difference between this idea and the ideas taught by President Beck and others that women can be mothers without bearing children.

[juliann]

Buckeye, I understand the desire to create a place for homosexuals. I find no fault in that. But I see it as a completely separate issue of what is being done to women to accommodate it (regardless of whether one sees a place in heaven for gays as a good or bad thing). He has framed it in a literal interpretation of the Creation accounts. That is where women disappear. (see pg 111-112).

In both the canonical and ritual

accounts of creation, women are entirely absent.14 Creation of the

earth, organization of the elements, and even the creation of the

living bodies of Adam and Eve all occur without the presence of

female figures. The creation as we know it is capable of being performed

with an all-male cast. This has the effect of not only making

women superfluous to creation and salvation, but also of putting

a male-male relationship as the source of creativity, productivity,

and the giving of life itself.

So women are no longer necessary. He makes a weak effort to include women through the example of the virgin Mary but even then has to admit that needed a little male involvement. So it seems to me that this is really about male homosexuals when it comes right down to it. Whatever theory he advances following this is irrelevant, as far as I am concerned. Hudson is correct in putting this in the context of ancient thought... where it should remain, BTW.

Where the rubber hits the road is in watching where Mormon feminists go with this. If male-ness at the expense of female-ness has homosexual attached to it.... will they automatically withdraw their protection of female?