Mormon Studies, Without The Rose-Colored Glasses

[KevinG]

Assuming the Quorum of the 12 Apostles had anything to do with the rearrangement of the Maxwell Institutes faculty assignments fits nicely with the conspiracy theory that the Mormons are a top down controlled institution ruled by the iron fist of the church leadership.

I'm not buying stock in either knowing how often the brethren have sent complaint letters back to local authorities and told them this is in your scope of authority.

I'm also not buying options in either after witnessing the politics and nonsense going on in BYU admin from the perspective of a Grad student and instructor.

The Brethren are just not that interested (or able) to control every aspect of Mormon life to that degree. While it is possible one of them knew of the decision to change direction prior to the announcement evidence suggests it surprised a lot of people and was made without a lot of outside discussion or planning.

[Libs]

Joseph, there are graduate programs? Where? I know Claremont has some kind of program, but not sure how extensive.

[Calm]

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.

What I find astonishing about this whole affair is that those directly involved, Dan and his editors, are the ones out of the loop while those who are not directly involved and some who aren't even indirectly involved have more information, as in they know that a GA was involved, they can name him and some even claim to know what he is to have directed Bro. Bradford to have done.

If this is actual knowledge and not just rumour built on rumours, then it is a very sad statement of the state of things at the MI. Why isn't Bro. Bradford communicating to those directly involved when he is willing to communicate with those who are not?

If it is just rumour, then it says something else entirely which I am still working out.

----

My own speculation---I do think a GA probably was involved but possibly just to the extent of passing on information and not any direction or even saying as Kevin mentioned in other cases...'this is for you to take care of'; I think claiming a GA is involved is a claim that would be dangerous for Bro. Bradford to make out of thin air and seeing his long career, I don't think he's stupid. OTOH, it seems very strange that Bro. Bradford was not willing to share the name of that GA with Dan which leads me to wonder why. I can think of multiple reasons...one being the GA asked him not to which if so, then his name being leaked to outsiders is not a good thing at all. Another reason could be that Bro. Bradford just wanted to spare him, didn't think that he needed to get more involved....again, if so, having his name leaked to outsiders is a big no no. A less appealing reason is that Bro. Bradford didn't want to give Dan an opportunity to get the GA's opinion for himself....perhaps there was something lost in translation? I can think of a few other reasons as well, but at this point I am afraid that no matter what actually happened, because it appears the GA's name was leaked (if there was a GA involved) Bro. Bradford does not come off looking his best. I would hope he takes some action to remedied the harm that has been done by the leak(s?) at the very least. It would appear to me that it is unlikely that he and Dan could work together again considering the history especially since much of it has been made public (though probably less than many think)---even if only one sided so taking care of the leak(s?) may be all that he can do.

Edited July 30, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bob Crockett]

Look, I'm standing pat. If you want to call Dr. Bradford and his cronies nincompoops and mindless bureaucrats off on a lark and without BYU's blessing, by all means do so. I don't think it is legitimate, and particularly if one is anonymous it is a terrible injustice to people with reputations, but I've made my points plenty of times.

[Calm]

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.

What do you think about his comment that universities are withdrawing money from specialized fields and putting it toward the more populated general studies, etc. areas? If he is correct, where do you think the funding is going to come from. Edited July 30, 2012 by calmoriah

[robuchan]

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-

Does Bill Hamblin believe that BYU is going start publishing articles in the field of "Mormon Studies" defining it the way he did in the article as secular studies done by non-believing academics?

[KevinG]

Even if a General Authority was involved in the decision it could be as simple as "Hey Elder ____ we'd like to make some changes in the direction the MI is headed, can we replace Dan Peterson as Editor...?" Answer: "Sure, that is your call as director."

None of us here will know the extent (if at all) someone was involved but if I know human beings there is a tendency to appeal to authority and place the blame on someone else when there is pushback on a decision.

[Calm]

If you want to call Dr. Bradford and his cronies nincompoops and mindless bureaucrats off on a lark and without BYU's blessing

I have not made any conclusions about or called Bro. Bradford any names (and I am totally unaware of any "cronies" who are involved anyway) save for my two conclusions about the ongoing leak needing to have been taken care of when it first appeared rather than allowed to continue and thus leading probably to damage that cannot be repaired as well as the inappropriateness of firing someone who is more than just a temporary or lowlevel hire by email (and I think it tacky to do it even with those but understand how it might be standard business practice in a large business that does not put employee relations high on their list of priorities).

it is a terrible injustice to people with reputations

Which is the way I feel about allowing ongoing leaks to continue. Edited July 30, 2012 by calmoriah

[robuchan]

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.

Seems I'm not the only one confused by this article.

[Bob Crockett]

Which is the way I feel about allowing ongoing leaks to continue.

Quite obviously I was referring to you and your posts. Those who are closely affiliated with the MI issues seem to know the identify of the leaker.

I have not made any conclusions about or called Bro. Bradford any names (and I am totally unaware of any "cronies" who are involved anyway) save for my two conclusions about the ongoing leak needing to have been taken care of when it first appeared rather than allowed to continue and thus leading probably to damage that cannot be repaired as well as the inappropriateness of firing someone who is more than just a temporary or lowlevel hire by email (and I think it tacky to do it even with those but understand how it might be standard business practice in a large business that does not put employee relations high on their list of priorities).

What then is the point of an opening post? I call on you to condemn Bill's derision of the BYU administrators involved.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

Look, I'm standing pat. If you want to call Dr. Bradford and his cronies nincompoops and mindless bureaucrats off on a lark and without BYU's blessing, by all means do so. I don't think it is legitimate, and particularly if one is anonymous it is a terrible injustice to people with reputations, but I've made my points plenty of times.

Who here is doing that, Bob?

What I see is folks maintaining a wait-and-see attitude and refraining from jumping to conclusions with regard to how this whole thing went down, beyond what can be ascertained from known facts.

Isn't that the wisest course?

_____________________________

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

[Bob Oliverio]

The idea, offered by Mr Hamblin in his blog, that the recession and economics, is limiting the interest in Mormon studies by the academic community seems to be really grasping for self fulfilling prophecy!  I think the truth is - we need to provide credible scholarship to the world that the existence of the BOM history existed and is worth studying before we can expect any serious interest in secular academic interest and respect in Mormon history study.  Probably not accepted by the group think here, but I believe it is and will remain "our"'challenge and the defining barrier.

The original post in this thread, and the defense for Mr Hamblin's blog really come across as more of a "sour grapes" or "surrogate sour grapes" than anything else.  Sorry but just being honest.

[Scott Lloyd]

Quite obviously I was referring to you and your posts.

Then your criticism (of calmoriah) is quite unjustified.

Those who are closely affiliated with the MI issues seem to know the identify of the leaker.

Do you know who it is?

What then is the point of an opening post? I call on you to condemn Bill's derision of the BYU administrators involved.

What derision, specifically?

_____________________________________

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

[treehugger]

Am I the only who sees the irony in this?

A common characteristic of critics is not being able walk away and live/let live the object of their former loyalties.

The world is all turned upside down.....who are the critcics now?

[sethpayne]

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?

Hi Scott,

IMO, Mormon Studies is the academic -- as opposed to devotional -- study of Mormonism from the perspective of a variety of different disciplines. Having said that, I don't think the two are at all mutually exclusive.

I would include the work of Fawn Brodie, Richard Bushman, Royal Skousen, Will Schryver, Grant Hardy, Kathleen Flake, Jan Shipps, Chris Smith, Matt Bowman, and others to all fit under the umbrella of MS. Diverse opinions -- some very critical of aspects of Moronism (Brodie/Vogel), some mostly neutral (Shipps), and some very faithful (Bushman, Hardy, Flake, Skousen).

ETA -- I am really looking forward to seeing Will's paper published as I think it is going to continue to spur some very interesting discussion around the Book of Abraham. I am not well-versed in the subjet at all and would love to compare the views of Will against those of Chris Smith and others....

Seth

Edited July 30, 2012 by sethpayne

[sethpayne]

Joseph, there are graduate programs? Where? I know Claremont has some kind of program, but not sure how extensive.

While at Yale Divinity School I was allowed the opportunity to devote significant time to the Mormon Studies as part of my larger focus on theological and political ethics. Also, the fact that Oxford, Yale, U of Illinois, U of U, Claremont, and others are publishing serious work in this area is an indication that there is demand for Mormon Studies even though, as Bill points out, it will take a while for Mormon Studies to become a singular discipline.

[Libs]

I see. Thanks, Seth.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Scott,

IMO, Mormon Studies is the academic -- as opposed to devotional -- study of Mormonism from the perspective of a variety of different disciplines. Having said that, I don't think the two are at all mutually exclusive.

I would include the work of Fawn Brodie, Richard Bushman, Royal Skousen, Will Schryver, Grant Hardy, Kathleen Flake, Jan Shipps, Chris Smith, Matt Bowman, and others to all fit under the umbrella of MS. Diverse opinions -- some very critical of aspects of Moronism (Brodie/Vogel), some mostly neutral (Shipps), and some very faithful (Bushman, Hardy, Flake, Skousen).

Seth

Thank you, Seth. I think your points are valid.

I guess what I would object to is the notion that for Mormon Studies to flourish, Mormon apologetics must be suppressed. I find such thinking abominable.

I also don't see the great need to genuflect to the holy grail of objectivity. I don't believe true objectivity is even possible, let alone desirable. I would agree with Bill Hamblin that "both non-Mormons and Mormons are biased in their study of Mormonism in their own way. The proper path forward is for everyone to recognize and admit their biases."

_____________________________________

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

[wenglund]

Does Bill Hamblin believe that BYU is going start publishing articles in the field of "Mormon Studies" defining it the way he did in the article as secular studies done by non-believing academics?

I will let Bill speak for himself, since he knows what he thinks far better than me. However, from what I can tell from his article, no--at least not in the near or foreseeable future. They may publish articles, whether by believing or non-believing academics and non-academics, in the field of "Mormon Studies" as others have loosely defined it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 30, 2012 by wenglund

[treehugger]

Wouldn't calling ones employer and or superiors be an unwise course; not to mention the admonition of Christ against calling another person a fool.

[sethpayne]

I guess what I would object to is the notion that for Mormon Studies to flourish, Mormon apologetics must be suppressed. I find such thinking abominable.

I could not agree more and posted about how Mormon Studies *can* be a form of apologetics at Worlds Without End last week:

http://www.withouten...es-apologetics/

By no means do I believe that MS should be the *only* form of apologetics. There needs to be a devotional form of apologetics as well. I think a good example of this would be Richard Bushman's "Believing History." I also think Dan's Asherah article falls into this category as does the work of David Bokovoy published by FARMS.

Polemics probably has a place as well. For me, polemics should be reserved for the likes of Ed Decker and Bill Schoebelen. Their work is of such poor quality and so full of vitriol it *needs* to be smacked down -- hard. On the other hand, thoughtful critics like Rob Bowman and JP Holding deserve a thoughtful response.

I also don't see the great need to genuflect to the holy grail of objectivity. I don't believe true objectivity is even possible, let alone desirable. I would agree with Bill Hamblin that "both non-Mormons and Mormons are biased in their study of Mormonism in their own way. The proper path forward is for everyone to recognize and admit their biases."

Again, I fully agree. Any scholar worth reading will attempt to be objective but 1) recognize this really isn't fully possible and 2) be upfront about what those biases may be.

Seth

Edited July 30, 2012 by sethpayne

[Bob Crockett]

So we're letting apostates control the discourse now?

You (the royal "you") are throwing them softballs.

[Bob Crockett]

Do you know who it is?

Now that is a Shryverism if there ever was one! No I don't, but reading Bro. Peterson's posts and blogs it is apparent he's identified the MI board member.

Time to condemn the attacks on Bro. Bradford once and for all! Honorable people unite!

Edited July 30, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

You (the royal "you") are throwing them softballs.

I guess what I'm asking is why, in a search for truth, we should care what apostates think about how we go about it.

And I disagree that reserving judgment on who was responsible for the deplorable events at the Maxwell institute is "throwing them softballs."

They've already gotten their full measure of glee and giggles with the inept way in which the dismissal of Daniel Peterson was handled.

[Greg Kofford Books]

Joseph, there are graduate programs? Where? I know Claremont has some kind of program, but not sure how extensive.

Claremont does not offer a specific degree in "Mormon Studies." However, Mormon Studies is offered as a specialization for the general masters degree in religion (one of the eight), and is one of the 3 'tracks of study' (along with Coptic studies and Zoroastrian studies) for other degrees in religion.

With that said, most universities have multiple "X Studies" programs for which degrees are not given.

Some nonLDS universities which explicitly have Mormon Studies programs, centers, and/or chairs include Clarement Graduate University, Utah Valley University, Graduate Theological Union, Utah State University, the University of Utah, and the soon-to-be-announced MS program at the University of Virginia (which has one of the--if not THE--largest religious studies programs in the country).

Also, if a university was required to have at least a dozen professors specifically doing 'X Studies' for them to be considered doing X Studies (as Hamblin states), then hundreds of programs in universities all over the world would suddenly be discredited.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Greg Kofford Books