And then delivers the punch:Ortner wrote:Ostler claims to offer an expansive vision of doctrine while still holding firm to “Mormon beliefs, testimony, doctrine, theology, culture, and heritage” (p. 2). Indeed, she assures the reader she is “not suggesting a change to the fundamental principles in Mormon theology and doctrine, but rather advocate(s) for a more robust vision of what Mormon theology and doctrine already includes” (p. 17).
So, yeah: he basically seems to be saying that this is a heretical book that is dabbling with apostasy. Rather humorously, Ortner reveals just how incestuous the "thinking" is at Interpreter:Unfortunately, the book falters under the weight of its own sophistry.
As someone who is not a member of the LGBTQ+ community, I cannot speak as to whether Ostler offers a compelling book of queer theology. But judging Ostler’s book from the perspective of orthodoxy and the revealed truths of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I can say that the book fails spectacularly as an example of Latter-day Saint theology. Indeed, every page and almost every paragraph is filled with things that are directly contrary to truth revealed from heaven through modern-day prophets, seers, and revelators.
Here he provides an endnote, that leads us to this remark:From the start of the book, an observant reader is likely to see red flags.
LOL! So Petrey is a "red flag", but we're supposed to just shrug at the fact that Ortner's back up here is Greg Smith--the "hatchet man" himself? Sheesh--talk about hypocrisy. Appropriately enough, then, Ortner segues into yet another ad hominem attack:One red flag is Ostler’s reliance on the writings of Taylor Petrey who introduced her to the “queerness of procreation in Mormon theology” and “greatly influenced [her] own view of how Gods create in Mormon theology” (p. 69). As Greg Smith persuasively argues, Petrey’s writings misinterpret Church teachings on the topic and therefore find ambiguity and change in Church teachings on homosexuality where there has actually been great consistency. See Gregory L. Smith, “Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 43 (2021), 107–278,
Yikes. These are some blisteringly vicious accusations. And I wonder: why does Ostler's status vis-a-vis Church membership matter? Surely one can make sound intellectual judgments about Mormonism regardless of one's membership status, no? But these are the Mopologists we're dealing with, so dragging the details of the authors' backgrounds into the article is par for the course. For that matter, so is the article's strident and aggressively antagonistic position towards LGBTQ+ people:Ortner wrote:Ostler cultivates ambiguity in the book concerning her relationship with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One could finish the entire book unsure as to whether Ostler remains an active member of the Church. A blog post written by Ostler shortly after the publication of Queer Mormon Theology clarifies and reveals her status. She explains that she “could not have written such a faithful, inspiring, and hopeful theology while worshiping in a building that threatened my personhood,” that “leaving the pews was the best thing that ever happened to my testimony,” and that she has “no plans to return to the pews anytime soon.”8 Ostler renounces any allegiance to what she describes as “flawed institutions, cissexist and heterosexist handbook policies, or discursive theologies predicated on homogenized, white, androcentric, cis-het supremacy.”9
In other words, Ostler’s theology is unmoored from any of the foundational pillars and guardrails of orthodoxy that God has given us to ensure that we would not be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Ephesians 4:14).
"self-destructing behavior"? Gee, I wonder what behavior he has in mind? Later on, he conflates queerness with things like alcoholism and adultery:Ortner wrote:Ostler correctly argues that we must do more to love members of the LGBTQ+ communities. However, she repeatedly offers a very simplistic and distorted notion of love. For her, because “God is love, then to the extent we oppress love, we oppress our godly potential” (p. 27). Indeed, according to Ostler “there is no clear distinction between loving God, loving Jesus, loving Christ, and loving your fellow beings” (p. 27). Because “God’s love must be plural” and “God is no respecter of persons,” (p. 28), his love is unconditional and we, too, must “learn to love non-exclusively [Page 321]and unconditionally” (p. 27). Any “command or request” that conflicts with this unconditional affirmation should be “reworked, reimagined, or discarded” (p. 29). Accordingly, “[h]armful requests, mandates, and policies made under the disguise of love should be resisted through strict obedience to God’s first commandment” to love people unconditionally (p. 30).
This is not consistent with the teachings of our scriptural canon. As King Benjamin explained, “The natural man is an enemy to God” and will remain so unless he “yields to the enticing of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint” (Mosiah 3:19). As Elder D. Todd Christofferson reminds us, the Savior “cannot take any of us into His kingdom just as we are, ‘for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence.’”10 Because God and Christ love us, they do not “want to leave [us] ‘just as [we] are.’”11 Instead, they call for us to repent and change. This call to change is an act of ultimate divine love even though we may be resentful or not see this necessary correction as loving. As Elder Russell M. Nelson explains, “real love for the sinner may compel courageous confrontation — not acquiescence! Real love does not support self-destructing behavior.”12
He also accuses Ostler of "blood libel":Ortner wrote:This is a massive logical fallacy. Jesus Christ experienced all of our struggles and pain. But this does not mean he became those things. It would similarly make no sense to call Jesus an alcoholic, a drug addict, [Page 324]or an adulterer even though he likely experienced all of those pains and temptations.
It may be worth pointing out the sources that Ortner cites in the second paragraph are both Deseret News articles.Ostler is open about her disdain for the doctrines of the Church on human sexuality and the family. Indeed, she goes so far as to compare members of the Church to Pontius Pilate who “washed his hands as an innocent queer Jesus was put to death” (p. 40). According to Ostler, faithful members of the Church “have blood on our hands, and we cannot claim our innocence in the narrative when queer people across the globe are dying” (p. 40).
This blood libel is directly contrary to recent data suggesting that LGBTQ adolescents who are members of the Church experience far less suicidality than those who are not members of the Church.23 And scholars have argued that “talking about suicide in inaccurate or exaggerated ways,” as Ostler does here, “can elevate that risk in vulnerable individuals.”24
At this point, it is old news that Church practices have been terribly toxic for LGBTQ+ people, and it's hard to see what Ortner's piece is meant to accomplish. Back during the heyday of FARMS, somebody like DCP would have spent more of his time making fun of the author and ridiculing LGBTQ+ people (as he does in "Text and Context"), but this article from Ortner seems a lot more sinister and angry, to be honest. In the conclusion, he provides a clue as to why that might be:
Wow. So, in 2022, this is where Mopologetics is at: not only should LGBTQ+ people clear out of the LDS Church, but queerness will lead to "spiritual death and damnation"! Holy crap--this is real fire and brimstone stuff, and he seems to actually be saying that LGBTQ+ people are headed straight for Outer Darkness.Ortner wrote:I fear that some people will be seduced by the smooth and popular theology of Ostler’s book and will be moved away from the foundation of orthodoxy as expressed by prophets, seers, and revelators through inspired documents, including the standard works, the Living Christ, the Family Proclamation, and the Restoration Proclamation. Wittingly unmoored from these foundational pillars, Ostler walks “after the image of [her] own god whose image is in the likeliness of the world” (D&C 1:16). Unfortunately, the God she urges readers to follow in her [Page 333]proposed theology is not the loving Heavenly Father manifest in latter-day revelations but is instead a pantheistic/panentheistic “idol … which shall fall” (D&C 1:16).
I have no doubt that Queer Mormon Theology will, unfortunately, lead some people away from Christ’s church. The false doctrines contained therein may be pleasing by the world’s standard of sexual morality, but they lead to spiritual death and damnation rather than eternal life and exaltation.
This marks a departure from the Mopologists' old-school treatment of these issues, which in the past was marked more by a haughty mockery than outright hatred. But I guess times have changed, and to be sure, this sort of anger was always simmering below the surface. It will be interesting to see what fallout--if any--there is over this article.