Steve Smoot's FAIR Talk Takes Aim at the Mopologists' Homophobia

[Moksha]

Yes. The Saviour invites all to come unto Him.

And repent.

And sin no more.

If President Nelson were to shout, "Death to the Infidels" then LDS apologists would make lists of why this action is necessary and how members should show obedience in their actions.

[Cultellus]

Be careful what you wish for.

[Dr Moore]

Doctor,

Thank you for bringing attention to Smoot's talk. I read the whole text and would recommend it to others.

I think the OP title misses the fuller ambition of Smoot's effort. Let me explain.

Smoot has, courageously in my view, offered up a diligently-researched seam in the wall. He doesn't call it such, but does appear to ask members to consider whether there may, or may not, be a hidden door #3, so to speak. Perhaps Smoot hopes that future LDS leaders will take notice and move the rudder accordingly, with regard to LGBTQ+ policy and doctrine.

On the surface, Smoot is arguing for a finer understanding that condemnations of ancient homoerotic behavior were wholly unassociated with pure expression of sexual identity. He does this by anchoring scriptural "proof texts" around context in which sinful homoerotic acts are associated with acts of brutality or humiliation.

In essence, Smoot wants us to vacate any notions of scriptural condemnation of homosexual identity, and logically therefore, of the possibility of a scriptural basis for condemning acts associated with homosexual identity. According to Smoot, the Bible does not actually condemn loving homosexual expression because it cannot have. In a crude analogy, it is rather like arguing that the WoW cannot have proscribed caffeinated Cola drinks because they did not exist at the time, or rather no record of their existence in the early 1800s can be found. Likewise, Smoot's case is that since homosexual identity is anachronistic to the Bible, LDS members must never assume Biblical sanction for desires and acts associated with, say, an LGBT identity or, for that matter, a loving homosexual relationship. It's a seam in the wall, so to speak, even if Smoot is careful not to identify it as such. But the logical extension of Smoot's paper is that if the Bible is necessarily silent on a properly contextualized question, maybe there is wiggle room for socially progressive policy adjustments that remain true to scriptural precedent.

I have to say, Smoot's presentation of this argument is quite brilliant. He is careful not to explicitly identify a seam in the wall, but logically I find it impossible not to see that Smoot wants to suggest that one might, or might not, be there. It's about as far as a faithful LDS scholar can go without getting into trouble, at this time, is it not?

Now I might be over-reading this moonshot aim of Smoot's paper. Admittedly, the quote below seems to throw some cold water on my reading, but it may be just a necessary disclaimer to appease current LDS leaders. However, in spite of this disclaimer, I think the paper taken as a whole does a clever job at identifying a possible space in between scriptural precedent and modern teachings.

To be clear, this is not to say that consensual homosexual behavior is therefore morally permissible in the eyes of God, but rather that the Sodom narrative is not useful in buttressing the Latter-day Saint doctrine of eternal marriage between heterosexual couples. Rather than misapply old proof-texts, Latter-day Saints who seek to affirm and defend the Church’s teachings on marriage are better positioned to do so by grounding themselves in the teachings of modern prophets as captured effectively in the Family Proclamation and subsequent discourses by Church leaders.

[Lem]

Interesting thoughts, Dr. Moore.

…Now I might be over-reading this moonshot aim of Smoot's paper. Admittedly, the quote below seems to throw some cold water on my reading, but it may be just a necessary disclaimer to appease current LDS leaders. However, in spite of this disclaimer, I think the paper taken as a whole does a clever job at identifying a possible space in between scriptural precedent and modern teachings.

To be clear, this is not to say that consensual homosexual behavior is therefore morally permissible in the eyes of God, but rather that the Sodom narrative is not useful in buttressing the Latter-day Saint doctrine of eternal marriage between heterosexual couples. Rather than misapply old proof-texts, Latter-day Saints who seek to affirm and defend the Church’s teachings on marriage are better positioned to do so by grounding themselves in the teachings of modern prophets as captured effectively in the Family Proclamation and subsequent discourses by Church leaders.

An interesting point, but maybe more in keeping with your overall point than it seems at first glance. “…Grounding themselves in the teachings of modern prophets” is a tricky thing lately, considering how often the modern prophets have ended up contradicting and reversing themselves.

[Dr Moore]

“…Grounding themselves in the teachings of modern prophets” is a tricky thing lately, considering how often the modern prophets have ended up contradicting and reversing themselves.

Agreed, there is enough wordsmithing here to leave room for hope that future leaders will get it right, or more right at least.

[Lem]

“…Grounding themselves in the teachings of modern prophets” is a tricky thing lately, considering how often the modern prophets have ended up contradicting and reversing themselves.

Agreed, there is enough wordsmithing here to leave room for hope that future leaders will get it right, or more right at least.

I’m just impressed Smoot would go there at all. His earlier writings that I am aware of strictly followed the standard Mopologist strategy and viewpoint. He really seems to have gone out on a limb here.

[Dr Moore]

Agreed, there is enough wordsmithing here to leave room for hope that future leaders will get it right, or more right at least.

I’m just impressed Smoot would go there at all. His earlier writings that I am aware of strictly followed the standard Mopologist strategy and viewpoint. He really seems to have gone out on a limb here.

One has to wonder if the boldness reflects growing impatience and frustration, heightened by Smoot having stuck by the church in such a public way. Despite a few conference talks, the church at large has moved at a glacial pace on tolerance and love. We get decidedly mixed messages at conference -- essentially more of the same 'love the sinner, hate the sin' and occasionally leaders just take multiple steps backward with the almost forced emphasis on the Family Proc. Then we have seen no public condemnation of #DezNat with all of its disgusting homophobia. Meanwhile, Smoot is now a full fledged adult who has invested his identity, reputation, career and future livelihood around Mormon apologetics. So I can't help but feel the tension with that reality coming through as well. Personally, I think all LGBTQ+ are better off outside of Mormonism, in its present form, and cannot see any reason why anyone would want to encourage staying or defending or waiting.

[Lem]

I’m just impressed Smoot would go there at all. His earlier writings that I am aware of strictly followed the standard Mopologist strategy and viewpoint. He really seems to have gone out on a limb here.

One has to wonder if the boldness reflects growing impatience and frustration, heightened by Smoot having stuck by the church in such a public way. Despite a few conference talks, the church at large has moved at a glacial pace on tolerance and love. We get decidedly mixed messages at conference -- essentially more of the same 'love the sinner, hate the sin' and occasionally leaders just take multiple steps backward with the almost forced emphasis on the Family Proc. Then we have seen no public condemnation of #DezNat with all of its disgusting homophobia. Meanwhile, Smoot is now a full fledged adult who has invested his identity, reputation, career and future livelihood around Mormon apologetics. So I can't help but feel the tension with that reality coming through as well. Personally, I think all LGBTQ+ are better off outside of Mormonism, in its present form, and cannot see any reason why anyone would want to encourage staying or defending or waiting.

I agree with you on there being no rationale for staying, defending, or waiting, but, the indoctrination and lifetime inculcation weighs heavy.

Sometimes I wonder if being a woman gave me an easier path out (not physically or financially or mentally, but maybe spiritually). I held no priesthood and had none of that weighing on me. Speaking to my brothers, it seems they had a much harder path, maybe because they seemed to know the truth well before I did. One brother broke my heart when he explained he HAD to go on a mission even though he knew it was not true, because he was absolutely sure our mother would have literally died if he did not, and he could not have that responsibility weighing on him.

If Smoot is struggling with pressure like that, I can't imagine the pain he is in.

[drumdude]

I’m apparently seething with rage about Stephen Smoot’s Thursday afternoon FAIR Conference talk, “Abraham and the Stranger at Sodom and Gomorrah,”
which I’ve already briefly mentioned here because I’ve read about it online.

I told Br’er Smoot of my volcanic fury during the Interpreter Foundation birthday party on Saturday night. We enjoyed a hearty laugh about it. (Of course, I temporarily managed to conceal my indignation; I doubt that he noticed my explosive displeasure at all, really.)

If I were angry and infuriated even half as often as my obsessive and bizarre Malevolent Stalker likes to claim that I am, the energy generated by my boiling wrath could probably power a medium-sized city. (People who actually know me will also know how seriously to take sensational claims of my perpetually
churning outrage.)

Grrrrrr!

I love how Peterson conveniently ignores the actual issue and just mischaracterizes the discussion about him.

Peterson could have easily engaged in the argument against Biblical homophobia by simply saying he agreed with Smoot, but his silence on it speaks volumes.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

DanielPeterson > Michael Hoggan

Have you watched Stephen's presentation or read his article?

He really did do a good job. I agree with his argument.

I mean, there it is. He agreed with Mr. Smoot. I don’t see what Dr. Scratch was getting at, To be honest.

- Doc