Mormon Studies, Without The Rose-Colored Glasses

[ERayR]

How can you say that? We don't know what conversations might be taking place and Br. Peterson hasn't spoken on this. You are being very presumptuous in asserting something as fact for which we have no knowledge. Presumptions have landed nations into war and spouses into divorce. They can be very dangerous especially when touted as fact because you suppose that a body will act according to your expectations.

And it was handled very unlike anything in the church is handled.

[treehugger]

How can you say that? We don't know what conversations might be taking place and Br. Peterson hasn't spoken on this. You are being very presumptuous in asserting something as fact for which we have no knowledge. Presumptions have landed nations into war and spouses into divorce. They can be very dangerous especially when touted as fact because you suppose that a body will act according to your expectations.

In regard to the Peterson/MI issue, seems all but bradford and Peterson are being presumptuous with persons on this board leading the presumptuous charge in one direction and accusation and other else where charging a different direction.

[wenglund]

I'm not sure still what he considers to be "Mormon Studies".

I thought his article was clear about "Mormon Studies" being a subset of "Religious Studies." As such, if you understand what "Religious Studies" is, then that should give you a good sense for what "Mormon Studies" is or may be, though more specialized. If you don't understand what "Religious Studies" is, then here is a brief description:

http://en.wikipedia....ligious_studies

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 30, 2012 by wenglund

[robuchan]

I thought his article was clear about "Mormon Studies" being a subset of "Religious Studies." As such, if you understand what "Religious Studies" is, then that should give you a good sense for what "Mormon Studies" is or may be, though more specialized. If you don't understand what "Religious Studies" is, then here is a brief description:

http://en.wikipedia....ligious_studies

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I understand that, but then he finished by saying only Mormons are involved with Mormon Studies, so that seemed to undo everything he had said previously about Mormon Studies. What did I miss?

[wenglund]

I understand that, but then he finished by saying only Mormons are involved with Mormon Studies, so that seemed to undo everything he had said previously about Mormon Studies. What did I miss?

What you missed is the important distinction between how Bill understands the term "Mormon Studies" (i.e. a highly specialized, long developed, systematic, secular academic enterprise), and how others, like those in the "LDS blogosphere" may now be using the term (i.e a non-academic, non-specialized, non-systematic, endeavor engaged in by Mormons and their marginalized ex-mormon counterparts, etc.).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 30, 2012 by wenglund

[Calm]

He made several different points about what can and cannot contribute to making a viable Mormon Studies field, including observations about how Mormon Studies or rather what really amounts to protoMormon Studies is being done now. Nothing he says "undoes" what he previously said.

Bottomline that I got from his article is that if attitudes toward religion in general and Mormonism in specific don't change and programs continue as they are with not enough funding or academics trained sufficiently in this topic, Mormon Studies as an academic endeavour will not develop much beyond the very small and limited in usefulness field that it is today (and has been for quite some time) and which is more "protoMormon Studies" (as I labeled it above) in my opinion...perhaps expressing undue optimism that someday there may actually be a viable program out there that will point back to what is happening today as its tentative beginnings.

As Wade states, just calling something "Mormon Studies" doesn't mean it really is "Mormon Studies" at least as an academic endeavour in comparison to the fields of "Jewish Studies" or "Women's Studies" in academics today.

Edited August 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bob Crockett]

I earnestly disagree. There are untold numbers of day-to-day decisions made by managers of individual Church-owned entities that could not properly be viewed as carrying the implied endorsement of the Church or its leaders.

Let's take a couple of examples.

Day in and day out, the Deseret News takes positions on its editorial page, positions that may or may not reflect the views of its owner. I daresay that on the vast majority of these issues, the Church and the Brethren take no formal position at all, and it is improper to assume that they do.

Another example:

As a network affiliate, Church-owned KSL-TV carries commercial programming, some of which the leaders of the Church may not find necessarily praiseworthy. It would be extremely wrongheaded to suggest that such programming carries their implicit approval merely because the Church owns the station.

Any argument can be reduced to the absurd. The sale of caffeinated beverages at the Lyon House does not necessarily mean Pres. Monson has approved it.

Rather, here, we are dealing with a very visible Journal, the pet project of Elder Maxwell. We already know that some General Authority squelched the Dehlin piece, so we can assume that the MI had attracted a certain amount of attention. We also know that Daniel Peterson was its voice and guide since the Review's inception, and a highly visible spokesman on Church and religious matters (recall, the Smart trial). We also know that once the "firing" was made public, the Trib ran an article and BYU confirmed the story about going in a different direction.

One must assume that the institution has spoken.

Really now, it is unhealthy to the apologetic community to disparage Bro. Bradford and others who might have been involved in the ouster. Focus on apologetics rather than one's own dirty laundry. The apostates are getting too many yucks over your position.

[Calm]

We also know that Daniel Peterson was its voice and guide since the Review's inception, and a highly visible spokesman on Church and religious matters (recall, the Smart trial).

Which is why it is such a departure from things as they usually are done to have Dan completely out of the loop on this and only informed of what was going on through an email telling him he was dismissed. Why did no one talk to Dan to get his side of what the Review is and could be before making such an all-encompassing decision about its future?

And because it seems to me a departure from how things are usually done, I don't think it is safe to make any assumptions about what is going on in the background based on 'how things are done' at BYU.

Really now, it is unhealthy to the apologetic community to disparage Bro. Bradford and others who might have been involved in the ouster.

At the moment since no one else has been identified in the ouster besides Bro. Bradford, I don't see anyone else being disparaged.

And sad to say, Bro. Bradford brought this on himself by not acting on previous leaks, thus ensuring this would go public as other private discussions had done so in the past.

Edited July 30, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bob Crockett]

Which is why it is such a departure from things as they usually are done to have Dan completely out of the loop on this and only informed of what was going on through an email telling him he was dismissed.

And because it seems to me a departure from how things are usually done, I don't think it is safe to make any assumptions about what is going on in the background based on 'how things are done' at BYU.

You only have one side of the story.

[wenglund]

You only have one side of the story.

And, you seem to be drawing assumptions from no side of the story. I don't know if that gives you a leg up--not that I disagree with you about refraining from publicly disparaging Jerry Bradford.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Joseph Antley]

Disappointed to see Dr. Hamblin's negative outlook on the future of Mormon studies. I think one of the main ways to ensure a positive future is to have a positive outlook.

[Bob Crockett]

And, you seem to be drawing assumptions from no side of the story. I don't know if that gives you a leg up--not that I disagree with you about refraining from publicly disparaging Jerry Bradford.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That is quite untrue. I draw assumptions from Peterson's story (about the General Authority interceding; thus indicating high-level attention; about his long-time affiliation with the Review and the MI; about his request to step down), from BYU's press comment, from the Trib article, and from the absence of comment from BYU beyond the press comment.

A lot could be said about Dr. Peterson's version of the events to question it. But, given we don't have BYU's explanation, I think it is wrong to (1) condemn his version, or (2) accept it without reservation. The best we can say is that it appears that BYU's continuing silence beyond its press release means that its act was an institutional one. As to the reasons for it, it is so hard to reach any fair conclusion because other than Bradford's rather elliptically-worded email we don't have an explanation other than what Dr. Peterson says is the explanation. I count Dr. Peterson as a friend or acquaintance, but it is no shock or concern to me that heads topple in academia, nor is it a reflection on their worth or reputation. But without a full explanation from BYU, we should reserve judgment and get on with the task of apologetics.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

You only have one side of the story.

Is that not the point? You only have one side of the story as well so how can you draw any of the conclusions you are drawing?

All we know is that Dan was not involved in any discussions of possible changes in direction for the Mormon Studies Review, contrary to what has happened in the past.

So it seems to me drawing any conclusions based on how things are typically done is using an unwarranted premise that this occurrence is somehow typical when it obviously is not.

Edited July 30, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

about the General Authority interceding

Where has Dan said a General Authority actually interceded as opposed to unsubstantiated claims being made that one did?

about his request to step down

Dan's request to step down from what and when? Edited July 30, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Disappointed to see Dr. Hamblin's negative outlook on the future of Mormon studies. I think one of the main ways to ensure a positive future is to have a positive outlook.

I think it is necessary, but not sufficient.

[Scott Lloyd]

One must assume that the institution has spoken.

Again, I'm not bound by what you say "one must assume." Too much false doctrine and misconception is promulgated and perpetuated that way.

Really now, it is unhealthy to the apologetic community to disparage Bro. Bradford and others who might have been involved in the ouster. Focus on apologetics rather than one's own dirty laundry. The apostates are getting too many yucks over your position.

So we're letting apostates control the discourse now?

Edited July 30, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

Disappointed to see Dr. Hamblin's negative outlook on the future of Mormon studies. I think one of the main ways to ensure a positive future is to have a positive outlook.

What if one believes that a positive future is a future without Mormon Studies?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

My thoughts on the topic can be found on my web page.

http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/mormon-studies-without-the-rose-colored-glasses/

It's took long to post entirely, so I've made a link there to a pdf.

Help me...if I am a believer, I wear rose colored glasses?

[Scott Lloyd]

What if one believes that a positive future is a future without Mormon Studies?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What is "Mormon Studies," anyway? The definition seems to be somewhat nebulous. Is it ivory-tower esoterica?

Are we to assume that it excludes any scholarly activity pertaining to Mormonism up until the founding of the graduate program at Claremont?

[Libs]

Actually, Bill is saying that there is no basis or foundation for "Mormon Studies", because there are few classes and no programs, within universities, that would serve as a foundation for actual "Mormon Studies". Not even BYU has a degree program for Mormon Studies.

That would be a bit of a handicap, for any institution, like Maxwell Institute, who now wants to pursue, only, Mormon Studies.

I, suppose, they can still do their own studies and papers. I assume that is what they have in mind?

I have a kind of difficult time separating Mormon Studies from apologetics. Will the Maxwell Institute now allow papers from dissenting or critical views, to appear in their publications?

Edited July 30, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

What is "Mormon Studies," anyway?

Yes, that was my question, as well. Seems like a lot of apologetics could be considered "Mormon Studies". A lot of research has gone into some of those works, like Hugh Nibley's research and papers.

[Deborah]

Where has Dan said a General Authority actually interceded as opposed to unsubstantiated claims being made that one did?

That was my question. As I recall Dan said that someone said that someone else said.... He didn't know anything for certain. I love however how people not involved seem to know everything for certain.

[wenglund]

What is "Mormon Studies," anyway? The definition seems to be somewhat nebulous. Is it ivory-tower esoterica?

Are we to assume that it excludes any scholarly activity pertaining to Mormonism up until the founding of the graduate program at Claremont?

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Hamblin's article was clear about "Mormon Studies" being a subset of "Religious Studies." As such, if you understand what "Religious Studies" is, then that should give you a good sense for what "Mormon Studies" is or may be, though more specialized. If you don't understand what "Religious Studies" is, then here is a brief description:

http://en.wikipedia....ligious_studies

Hamblin's article specifically mentioned Claremont. Take a look.

Also, see my post above where I differentiate between Hamblin's use of the term "Mormon Studies" and how others use it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 30, 2012 by wenglund

[Scott Lloyd]

That was my question. As I recall Dan said that someone said that someone else said.... He didn't know anything for certain. I love however how people not involved seem to know everything for certain.

And how they insist on telling the rest of us what we "must assume."

__________________

Scott Lloyd, proud consumer of Chick-fil-A food since the attempted boycott/intimidation/suppression of July 2012.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Joseph Antley]

Actually, Bill is saying that there is no basis or foundation for "Mormon Studies", because there are few classes and no programs, within universities, that would serve as a foundation for actual "Mormon Studies". Not even BYU has a degree program for Mormon Studies.

That would be a bit of a handicap, for any institution, like Maxwell Institute, who now wants to pursue, only, Mormon Studies.

I, suppose, they can still do their own studies and papers. I assume that is what they have in mind?

I have a kind of difficult time separating Mormon Studies from apologetics. Will the Maxwell Institute now allow papers from dissenting or critical views, to appear in their publications?

I think Hamblin is overstating a bit...there are a number of peer-reviewed journals devoted to Mormon studies, graduate programs, and research groups. And interest in Mormonism by outsiders is only growing, and I really think that the majority of those in the field have abandoned the "us vs. them" mentality that, in my opinion, leads to much of the negativity.

Hamblin is right that Mormon studies may still be a relatively tiny field, but I only see growth and positive things on the horizon.