Taylor Petrey recently published an article in Dialogue titled "Toward a Post-heterosexual Mormon Theology." In it he argues that there are many different ways to think about gender, marriage, and sexuality within the LDS framework and outlines ways in which we could alter our views of homosexuality in order to accommodate the rapidly-changing social views on sexuality and marriage. I found it to be a rather well-written piece: exploratory, but not too prescriptive. Adam Miller posted a response on T&S in which he praises Petrey for doing what he (Adam) considers good theology.
Ralph Hancock responded to Taylor Petrey and Adam by arguing against both. Not only did he seem to think that Taylor was mistaken in many of his ideas, he takes umbrage with the project of speculation about theology and Adam's praising of it. He feels that this is something best done in private, rather than projecting these ideas into the public sphere.
Check all three articles out if you have a chance - I think they address two important concepts that are burdening LDS thought at the moment. First, obviously, is the place of homosexuality in LDS life. Second, how is theology to be done? There is so much unfruitful anti-intellectualism and anti-anti-intellectualism that many times the real issue gets left behind in a cloud of angry posts on T&S. How are we to approach the doctrines of the church (how to define that term is in itself a sticky situation)? Is there a place for public speculation of theology? Should we be publicly discussing our struggles with the occasional incongruities we feel between what we're taught and what we experience?
I welcome any and all thoughts on any topics connected with this idea. Bring it, people!
Alright! The first post from another author--way to go. I have started the Petrey article, but I have not yet finished it. I liked it somewhat, so far; I appreciate the task, I don't know if I agree with his conclusions.
ReplyDeleteI need to read more about what the authors mean about "public" v. "private" to really have a position there. Public in what sense--public qua publicly available (internet, book available for purchase, in a journal), qua as discussed in a church meeting, qua any non-personal conversation?
My general impression is that it is fine being public, given as to how it is carried out. Talking in terms of possibility seems fine to me, and helps break down dogmatisms with little revelatory or reasonable backing. Public discussion definitely had an influence on blacks and the priesthood. So, in other words, my initial position is that descriptive theology (here are ways things could be) is fine if it is public; normative theology (ought to be) ought to be more private (I don't see why you cannot talk about this with a group of friends, etc., but I don't know if I would want that asserted in church).