Jump to content

It’s absolutely terrifying what BYU has become


Recommended Posts

It’s absolutely terrifying what BYU has become.  In the link below a BYU professor teaches that Joseph (Jacob’s son) was gay.  Also that he foreshadows Christ in his feminine / gay qualities.

I kid you not!  Start listening at the 13 min mark.  Just makes me sick.

 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Durangout said:

It’s absolutely terrifying what BYU has become.  In the link below a BYU professor teaches that Joseph (Jacob’s son) was gay.  Also that he foreshadows Christ in his feminine / gay qualities.

I kid you not!  Start listening at the 13 min mark.  Just makes me sick.

 

Is this a BYU publication?

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Durangout said:

It’s absolutely terrifying what BYU has become.  In the link below a BYU professor teaches that Joseph (Jacob’s son) was gay.  Also that he foreshadows Christ in his feminine / gay qualities.

I kid you not!  Start listening at the 13 min mark.  Just makes me sick.

 

So far he is saying how the Rabbis interpreted the scripture…does he ever say this is how we have to interpret it?  So far it comes across to me as these rabbinic ideas of what a deliverer may be  is a perspective that may be helpful to some.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

So far he is saying how the Rabbis interpreted the scripture…does he ever say this is how we have to interpret it?

What Rabbis? I’ve never heard of such an interpretation. 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

What Rabbis? I’ve never heard of such an interpretation. 

He gives the time period, but so far no names unless it was in the part I skipped. If he does not write about it elsewhere and never gives references (what I hate about podcasts), I may ask him for them. He used to be in our ward unless my memory has blown a gasket.  I will try and make it through the podcast but having trouble concentrating today. If someone else could listen and make time stamps with a short description of what he says and what info is lacking, I will see if I can pass it on (it will have to be through my husband most likely as walking past the mailbox isn’t on the menu right now…though my husband might still have his email).

I am going to see if I can find something written as that will be tons easier for me to retain. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's not homophobia to shake your head at ridiculous claims every major historical figure is gay.

Blowing things WAY out of proportion, "every major historical figure" is gay? I'd love to see who thinks Otto Von Bismarck was gay. Do you have a problem when a member of the church said that Elder Orson Whitney of the Twelve was gay and after that situation was over he was cheating on his wife? the video is still on youtube, it's a talk from benchmark books

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Blowing things WAY out of proportion, "every major historical figure" is gay? I'd love to see who thinks Otto Von Bismarck was gay. Do you have a problem when a member of the church said that Elder Orson Whitney of the Twelve was gay and after that situation was over he was cheating on his wife? the video is still on youtube, it's a talk from benchmark books

I can find you a video saying Jesus was gay (John the Beloved).  King David as gay has been around forever despite his polygamy and the Bathsheba affair.  Several of the founding fathers, an Apostle or two...

Oh, and

Screenshot_20220318-200135.thumb.png.b40dc9a2abced109b697c3bddf900874.png

Actually, his grandson was the famously homosexual Von Bismarck.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment

At about 7 minutes into the podcast, Wayment states he is not interested (I think he means for the purpose of the podcast) in recovering the historical Joseph, so to me he is saying he not going to be making claims about who or what Joseph actually was, but is intending on discussing views of Joseph.  Imo, this means the opening poster is likely wrong when he claims Wayment is teaching Joseph was gay.

Not finished my summarizing, but there may be large gaps in adding to this post given my inability to focus for very long tonight, plus have a couple of things going on to distract me.  At this point, I am not intending to do the whole 1 hour, but just as long as I can stand it because I couldn’t find anything in writing to study…so someone else doing this as well would likely be helpful.  Always good to have multiple POVs and it will no doubt be a more complete coverage…(hint, hint:  if you are going to comment on Wayment, you should actually listen to him rather than assuming anyone else is providing enough, accurate info).

At about 8:30, he is talking about a literary approach because the lesson/narrative unit addresses the whole Joseph cycle.  The original authors are providing a different view of what a deliverer is.  New Testament leaves the Joseph story pretty untouched, not interested in it for the most part (his descendants and a bit where Stephen recounts the Genesis story of him).  Therefore Christians haven’t been that interested in Joseph, not a major figure or influence….unlike the Book of Mormon.

At 10:15 he says he mainly looks at the way texts interplay.  
 

From the POV of Jews, he is an incredibly interesting character. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

What Rabbis? I’ve never heard of such an interpretation. 

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

He gives the time period, but so far no names unless it was in the part I skipped. If he does not write about it elsewhere and never gives references (what I hate about podcasts), I may ask him for them. He used to be in our ward unless my memory has blown a gasket.  I will try and make it through the podcast but having trouble concentrating today. If someone else could listen and make time stamps with a short description of what he says and what info is lacking, I will see if I can pass it on (it will have to be through my husband most likely as walking past the mailbox isn’t on the menu right now…though my husband might still have his email).

I am going to see if I can find something written as that will be tons easier for me to retain. 

Wayment cites Louis Ginzberg's multivolume Legends of the Jews.  Perhaps he got his rabbinic interpretations from there.  Nibley used to use that source as well.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Durangout said:

It’s absolutely terrifying what BYU has become.  In the link below a BYU professor teaches that Joseph (Jacob’s son) was gay.  Also that he foreshadows Christ in his feminine / gay qualities.

I kid you not!  Start listening at the 13 min mark.  Just makes me sick...................

One professor = all of BYU???

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

So far he is saying how the Rabbis interpreted the scripture…does he ever say this is how we have to interpret it?  So far it comes across to me as these rabbinic ideas of what a deliverer may be  is a perspective that may be helpful to some.

That may be especially the case for those who think in super macho categories, i.e., that real men are hard and lacking in compassion, etc., which is a lie.  The notion that one must be gay to be a good man is just plain silly.  A real man resists seduction because he has integrity and honor, not because he is gay -- and therefore not attracted to Potiphar's Wife.  Jesus (and any real man) had compassion because he was a real man, not because he was gay.

Aside from all that, I was disappointed that Wayment did not understand Jesus quoting Psalm 22 on the cross (the whole psalm, even though we get only the opening lines) because it applies to Him throughout.  He also comments on the Philistines twice without actually realizing who they are (he makes false statements about them).  Of course he is a New Testament scholar, and openly stated that he was not concerned with the historical nature of Genesis.

Link to comment

Thank heavens he isn't trying to pursue a historical Joseph, because there is an absolute mountain of anachronism in these interpretations. Sexual orientation itself did not exist in the conceptual universe back then, much less the association of fancy clothes with any such sexual orientation. 

Also questioning what it means to call a behavior a "gay behavior." 

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Prof Wayment actually says "Joseph is a hottie."  He interprets that passage as "Joseph is attractive and handsome," which is a reasonable translation.  He suggests that Joseph riding with Pharaoh in his chariot can mean he is Pharaoh's "consort."  He repeatedly speaks to the "sexual undertone."   He frankly says that Joseph might be viewed as a gay character, "queered."   He says that as a youth, Joseph was attracted to other boys.  He wore a "fancy" coat.  He resisted the wiles of Potiphar's Wife because he was not attracted to her.  He asks whether Joseph and Jesus' selfless behavior is a gay behavior.  What about Jesus' "beloved" disciple?  What does that mean?  Wayment does employ an overarching sexual interpretation of text. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Is Wayment saying this is his view or is it a perspective that was presented by rabbis and possibly others?

Is he exploring narratives or establishing one as correct?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Wayment cites Louis Ginzberg's multivolume Legends of the Jews.  Perhaps he got his rabbinic interpretations from there.  Nibley used to use that source as well.

Dang, I purged that a few months ago. Think it is online though. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Wayment cites Louis Ginzberg's multivolume Legends of the Jews.  Perhaps he got his rabbinic interpretations from there.  Nibley used to use that source as well.

Quote

In spite of his scholarship there was something boyish about Joseph. He painted his eyes, dressed his hair carefully, and walked with a mincing step. 

https://www.sefaria.org/Legends_of_the_Jews.2.1.5?ven=The_Legends_of_the_Jews_by_Louis_Ginzberg_[1909]&with=all&lang=bi
 

When I first read this when a teen, I interpreted it as a description of his vanity, which fit with how Ginsburg described Joseph due to his bragging about his dreams and lying to his father about his brothers. Unfortunately Ginsburg does not reference where he got this from, at least not the online version unless I am blind tonight.  Have read up to Joseph being sold to the Ishmaelites and besides his extreme beauty and sweet smell that lasted even in his bones after death, I am not getting anything else that could even in current context be taken as ‘gay behaviour’. Beauty and sweet smell seems instead to be signs of being favored by God. 
 

There was nothing about Joseph playing with boys as a teen. 
 

So he must have used other sources. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Calm said:

.......................There was nothing about Joseph playing with boys as a teen. 
 

So he must have used other sources. 

Probably.  The Talmud (from which Ginzberg got most of his material) is a vast collection of Jewish legends and commentary.  Nearly anything can be found therein.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...