Mormon Studies, Without The Rose-Colored Glasses

[Scott Lloyd]

Now that is a Shryverism if there ever was one!

Since I don't hate Will, I don't regard that as an insult, though you might.

No I don't, but reading Bro. Peterson's posts and blogs it is apparent he's identified the MI board member.

Maybe. I don't recall the specifics well enough to acknowledge that as fact.

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

Implying those of us who disapprove of his action are dishonorable?

You've ceased posting anything substantive here, Bob, and have, slipped into a mode of belligerent taunts.

Time to end the conversation, I suppose.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

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!

I am sure that Brother Bradford can be a delightful fellow. I don't even question his authority to do what he did and I don't condemn it, I don't agree but I don't condemn. What I do condemn is his methods. They were cowardly and wrong. If you can live with that so can I.

[Bob Crockett]

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.

I think they're getting their glee from two inconsistent sentences; one the one hand, reserving judgment and on the other hand, condemning the inept dismissal.

Honorable people unite! Stop trashing Dr. Bradford!

cowardly and wrong

I hope Dr. Bradford's children aren't reading that post! Judge, jury and executioner without hearing BYU's side!

Edited July 30, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

How about some links to the specifics of these programs, faculty lists, classes offered, etc. so we can see what they really entail. From my experienc such programs are often quite thin.

Note too the difference between a religious studies program where Mormonism might be one of many things taught, and an actual Mormon studies program. The two are by no means the same.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[sethpayne]

Honorable people unite! Stop trashing Dr. Bradford!

IMO, folks should stop criticizing both Dr. Bradford AND Dr. Peterson and just leave this alone. It's unfortunate all of it became so public.

I think that once the dust settles, all parties will be in a position they both desire, and enjoy.

[zerinus]

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

http://mormonscriptu...olored-glasses/

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

I think you are making too many assumptions about the course and direction that FARMS is taking, or wishes to take, and how to take them, for which you provide no evidence. You are second-guessing FARMS, without being privy to the thinking that may be behind it. That is bad scholarship, as well as likely to be counter-productive in the long run.

[Bill Hamblin]

Mods could we somehow stop all the discussion of the Bradford affair. It is pure speculation, and completely off topic. If someone wants to discuss the MI and Bradford situation, start a new thread. If the Bradford discussion continues, could you close this thread?

[Bob Crockett]

I have always admired you and have for years. But your recent position on this whole thing, including criticism of the BYU admins, seems very different than the norm. I saw what you posted and have posted and felt compelled to stick up for the poor fellow. Sorry. It seemed as if you brought it up.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Greg Kofford Books]

How about some links to the specifics of these programs, faculty lists, classes offered, etc. so we can see what they really entail. From my experienc such programs are often quite thin.

Note too the difference between a religious studies program where Mormonism might be one of many things taught, and an actual Mormon studies program. The two are by no means the same.

A quick google search, and actually inquiring from those involved in Mormon Studies, would have revealed much to you Dr. Hamblin.

Info on CGU's MS program can be found here and through related links. http://www.cgu.edu/pages/5932.asp

However, CGU's website is notoriously weak and fails to adequately show what is going on. Because GGU only offers graduate courses, the courses (usually taught seminar style) vary each semester with little repetition (as is the case with most courses in CGU's school of religion), and only a fraction of previous courses taught are listed. In the past few years, courses in MS have been taught by Richard Bushman, Claudia Bushman, Brian Birch, Armand Mauss, and now Patrick Mason. Generally, two courses in MS are offered each semester, none of which are an 'intro to Mormonism.'

Now, one could argue that it is not a real field because "Mormon Studies" denotes an object of study rather than a method or discipline, but that would also reject largely accepted fields such as Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, etc, studies. I would tend to side with highly respected religious studies programs such as at CGU and UVA, and scholars such as Stephen Prothero, who recognize MS as legit.

In my experience, it is virtually only Mormons who completely question the reality of Mormon Studies, and it is usually someone who has felt or been excluded from it for one reason or another.

I certainly agree that there remain some strong questions about what exactly Mormon Studies is and what it involves, as we explored quite a bit in a conference at CGU that I (Loyd) organized there ( http://www.claremont...onferences.html).

Personally, I'm a big tent MS guy, who thinks that both apologetics and critical voices should be present--though they must play by the rules of academia (which should ideally be played by all, but are unfortunately too often set aside) to recognize the validity of multiple perspectives and avoid appeals to subjective experiences and claims (ie., as soon as one appeals to their own testimony, spiritual experience, or the asurety that the others' experience did not occur or is prima facie false, then all chance for discussion is over).

Edited July 31, 2012 by Greg Kofford Books

[LifeOnaPlate]

The main problem I have with Hamblin's piece is that it fails to engage any actual people, any actual arguments, aside from a brief, dismissive reference to Claremont. Hamblin doesn't define Mormon studies. Instead, he rhetorically denigrates it by referring to it as a “fad,” and offers up a caricature which can’t actually be verified by readers without considerable assumptions on the part of any given reader. Rhetorically, he has set himself up to win an easy victory against precisely no one.

So first he sets up a distorted picture of what might constitute Mormon studies, then he claims that Mormon studies doesn't actually exist. The essay is a brief exercise in de-legitimization, a political wrangling, and it tastes a little of sour grapes. I suggest this is the case because, as Hamblin argues, some of the folks who fancy themselves part of Mormon studies have criticized the work of FARMS to which Hamblin feels (felt) a deep allegiance. He says people have claimed apologetics should be out of bounds. This fails to discriminate between people who don't like apologetics altogether and people who merely object to a certain style or approach of particular apologetics. This explains why he can claim: The fact that the director of the Maxwell Institute has decided to no longer allow the Institute or its employees to publish LDS apologetics will, in the long run, not even put a small dent in the effort." Other than Hamblin and DCP I haven't seen anyone say NAMI will no longer publish apologetics.

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?

No, and I don't think anyone said it did. But perhaps Hamblin's assumptions would require such a strange notion.

Oddly enough, one of the best analyses of Mormon studies as a newer phenomenon appeared under the editorship of DCP in the FARMS Review! Gerald Bradford wrote it:

http://maxwellinstit...19&num=1&id=640

It isn't perfect, but it does a good job of laying out the conclusion that Mormon studies is in fact a rising interest in the academy. (Also, someone alert the HBL Library at BYU, because they think MoStudies exists, too: http://guides.lib.by.../mormonstudies/)

Joseph Antley speaks well:

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.

Hamblin's conclusion says:

Furthermore, for the most part, only Mormons--or their marginalized and ex-Mormons counterparts--actually do Mormon studies...The fact of the matter is that, up until now, there simply have not bee enough interested non-Mormons willing to devote the time and study necessary to master the field. Ask yourself: who are the top ten non-Mormon scholars on Mormon religion?

I doubt anyone here could name the top 5 scholars or journals of biochemistry, theoretical physics, Islamic studies, or botany. I don't think that actually proves anything. But I can immediately name 5 non-Mormon scholars off the top of my head who have done great work in MoStudies (which is, basically, the study of religion using the various tools of a variety of academic approaches and methodologies, ie, a subset of religious studies) who don’t fall under Hamblin's categorization: Turner, Gutjahr, Mould, Shipps, Maffly-Kipp. Claremont's journal, Dialogue, the Journal of Mormon History, and the International Journal of Mormon Studies are all good journals as well. And here is a list of university courses, small but growing, on Mormon themes:

http://timesandseaso...tudies-courses/

As others have noted, no one is claiming that Mormon studies is going to take over the world, that it will dominate the university, that it will revolutionize human existence and demand attention from all scholars. Instead, we see it as a growing interest in the academy that may or may not stick around for the long term, but the present prospects are promising, and they are producing some wonderful work. And most importantly, the work does not exclude apologetics, even if a very tiny fraction of it criticizes various apologetic attempts or approaches.

Just to reiterate my most important point: Hamblin tries to make the argument that Mormon studies doesn't exist, and that in order to be legit, it must have large departments at multiple universities. This is simply a subjective opinion about what might legitimize a particular academic study. Such academic studies as fields are socially constructed---they exist to the extent that communities of scholars participate in their discourses through conferences, journals, blogs, books, etc. So Hamblin argues against (and skews) the discursive community of Mormon studies, and then argues that it doesn't actually exist, in addition to arguing that it isn't big enough to count, ignoring any counter evidence. His arguing against it proves its existence, even if he doesn't like how it is constituted. (And even then, I think he misrepresents how it is constituted.)

Edited July 31, 2012 by LifeOnaPlate

[Greg Kofford Books]

Here is the UofU's most recent Mormon Studies newsletter http://www.humis.utah.edu/humis/docs/organization_295_1336752039.pdf

UVU's Mormon Studies page: http://www.uvu.edu/religiousstudies/mormonstudies/

A bit on GTU's Mormon Studies classes http://www.gtu.edu/news-events/currents/fall-2011/news

[Bob Crockett]

So first he sets up a distorted picture of what might constitute Mormon studies, then he claims that Mormon studies doesn't actually exist. The essay is a brief exercise in de-legitimization, a political wrangling, and it tastes a little of sour grapes. I suggest this is the case because, as Hamblin argues, some of the folks who fancy themselves part of Mormon studies have criticized the work of FARMS to which Hamblin feels (felt) a deep allegiance. He says people have claimed apologetics should be out of bounds. This fails to discriminate between people who don't like apologetics altogether and people who merely object to a certain style or approach of particular apologetics. This explains why he can claim: The fact that the director of the Maxwell Institute has decided to no longer allow the Institute or its employees to publish LDS apologetics will, in the long run, not even put a small dent in the effort." Other than Hamblin and DCP I haven't seen anyone say NAMI will no longer publish apologetics.

There certainly is a lot there with which I'd agree. It could very well be that Bradford merely disagreed with the last two issues of Review, in terms of topic selection (including the unpublished one) and said, "enough is enough" on this disagreement, we'll get somebody else. And then we'll see apologetics merely edited by somebody else at the Review.

I certainly had forgotten about UVU's program (and E. England's role in all that). Seems that Mormon Studies has a foothold in some campuses. Certainly at CGU, where I've observed it firsthand.

[Benjamin McGuire]

I think I am more inclined to agree with Bill Hamblin than with some of the others here. I think their comments miss what Bill Hamblin is really trying to say.

One thing that stands out to me is that religious studies in general are secular studies. There has been a great deal written about religious studies over the years. Some of it I have found highly educational. At least two relatively recent works have had a great deal of influence on me. The first is Jonathon Z. Smith's Drudgery Divine (University of Chicago Press, 1990) and the second much more recent is Thomas Athanasius Idinopulos, Brian C. Wilson, and James Constantine Hanges' Comparing Religions Possibilities and Perils? (Brill, 2006).

Yes, we do have things that have been published that fit under an umbrella of Mormon Studies. However, at this point we run into a challenge that Bill noted, but which most of those participating in the thread have failed to recognize. Religious studies are secular. Religious studies at their core deal with the naturalistic development and evolution of religions as a naturally occurring phenomenon. They don't privilege one religion over another. And because of this, there is a recognized bias within that field. As I noted in another thread a while back:

First, in religion, unlike other fields, nonskeptical accounts are hidden apologetics, so skeptical accounts are to be preferred as more honest and fitting in the humanistic academy. Second, nonskeptical accounts treat religion as irreducible, as autonomous, as sui generis, thus protecting religious meaning from being explained, leaving religion inexplicable, and thus defeating the goal of explanation, so skeptical accounts are to be preferred as not self-defeating. Third, nonskeptical accounts posit a mysterious “supernatural” or “sacred” cause or ground for religious experience and meaning, thus thwarting the attempt to explain religion at the crucial point of its origins, so skeptical accounts are to be preferred as not obscurantist. Hence, the only legitimate approach to religion in the liberal academy is a skeptical one arising from the criticism of religion." (Journal of Religion, April, 1991, Vol. 71 No. 2, p. 244)

Now, there of course, a lot of religious people who participate. And they attempt to deal with this bias. Only last month (June 2012) we saw an article in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion titled "Religious Studies as a Scientific Discipline: The Persistence of a Delusion". Will it change the trend? I doubt it. Mormon Studies, as an academic subgroup of Religious Studies will be just as secular, will seek to understand Mormonism just as it seeks to understand all religions, and it will do so from a purely secular, naturalistic perspective. If it doesn't, it will not gain any traction in the larger academic world.

For me there are more than a couple major challenges. The first, as Bill has pointed out, deals with definitions. What is Mormon Studies? There is no fully functional Mormon Studies program that has a working definition of what Mormon Studies themselves are. Blair suggested this:

Oddly enough, one of the best analyses of Mormon studies as a newer phenomenon appeared under the editorship of DCP in the FARMS Review! Gerald Bradford wrote it:

Actually, I found his comments to be very naive. There is no doubt that this is a sort of text-book description (it is quite good because it is the standard sort of spiel). However, it seems quite at odds with the other aspect of religious education presented at BYU. And it doesn't deal with how you actually do the things it proposes or what those proposals are designed to achieve. That's the purpose of the second of the two books I noted. In it, there is this early description of what this kind of study is supposed to do:

As a result of a fair-minded exposure to various religious traditions, students either adhere less firmly to their original religions or to their lack of religion, or they reformulate their prior commitment in a more sophisticated configuration. In the academy we encourage such changes as inherently good, since we believe that knowledge per se, and especially knowledge that leads to critical reflection, is inherently valuable.

To say that Bradford successfully describes the rising interest in Mormon Studies, while certainly true, really misses the point that Bradford lays out a model of what he believes those Mormon Studies should look like - and he feels it should look exactly like all of the rest of the study of religion in the academic world. I should note that I am a big fan (as is Bill Hamblin) of Religious Studies, the History of Religion, and Comparative Religion (all three are different descriptive components of religious studies in the academy). But, to suggest that a secular study of Mormonism is an appropriate fit for the NAMI seems a stretch - particularly when it is defined in these academic terms. And I think that for some who are commenting, there is a sense of familiarity perhaps with the notion of Mormon Studies that reflects a rather insulated view that comes from being a part of the academic world. NAMI publications have had a respectable (if small) readership in the past among believing LDS. That readership will dwindle once we it moves into the secular arena. Academic approaches tend to alienate many people entirely - particularly when it requires that we suspend our own belief (as recommended by Bradford) when engaging it (and this is exactly what Bradford is discussing in the essay that Blair points us to).

Of course, we can still argue over Nabakov right?

Vladimir Nabakov appears to derive an almost sadistic satisfaction from knowing that his authorial audience is intellectually well above his actual readers - although it is possible that Nabakov in fact writes for an authorial audience quite close to his actual readers but writes in order to make that authorial audience feel intellectually inadequate. (Rabinowitz, Peter J. "Truth in Fiction: A Reexamination of Audiences" in: Critical Inquiry. N. 1, 1977, p. 126)

Truth be told, I can't really see much approval (the way Bradford seems to think will come) for this as the new goal of the religion department at BYU. Helping students adhere less firmly to Mormonism isn't a description that is going to go over very well with the administration there (let alone the Religious Ed. Department).

Even more to the point, if we have to go through these steps to produce acceptable Mormon Studies, you are going to find that the pool of potential authors has just shrunk radically. Gone will be any meaningful discussion of faith, replaced by (on the faithful member side) with discussions of issues and history that are secular enough to meet the requirements of the academy - but not so far that it impinges on belief. Do we need to wonder what will come from the non-believers?

These issues I think leave more than adequate room for questions of the future of Mormon studies. Particularly after the spotlight of a presidential election starts to die down.

Ben M.

[William Schryver]

Oddly enough, one of the best analyses of Mormon studies as a newer phenomenon appeared under the editorship of DCP in the FARMS Review! Gerald Bradford wrote it:

http://maxwellinstit...19&num=1&id=640

Indeed, this somewhat forgotten article is rather revealing of the direction advocated by Jerry Bradford and his ideological cohorts.

I think we may very well hear more public reference to this article in the near future ...

[William Schryver]

I think I am more inclined to agree with Bill Hamblin than with some of the others here. I think their comments miss what Bill Hamblin is really trying to say.

One thing that stands out to me is that religious studies in general are secular studies. There has been a great deal written about religious studies over the years. Some of it I have found highly educational. At least two relatively recent works have had a great deal of influence on me. The first is Jonathon Z. Smith's Drudgery Divine (University of Chicago Press, 1990) and the second much more recent is Thomas Athanasius Idinopulos, Brian C. Wilson, and James Constantine Hanges' Comparing Religions Possibilities and Perils? (Brill, 2006).

Yes, we do have things that have been published that fit under an umbrella of Mormon Studies. However, at this point we run into a challenge that Bill noted, but which most of those participating in the thread have failed to recognize. Religious studies are secular. Religious studies at their core deal with the naturalistic development and evolution of religions as a naturally occurring phenomenon. They don't privilege one religion over another. And because of this, there is a recognized bias within that field. As I noted in another thread a while back:

Now, there of course, a lot of religious people who participate. And they attempt to deal with this bias. Only last month (June 2012) we saw an article in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion titled "Religious Studies as a Scientific Discipline: The Persistence of a Delusion". Will it change the trend? I doubt it. Mormon Studies, as an academic subgroup of Religious Studies will be just as secular, will seek to understand Mormonism just as it seeks to understand all religions, and it will do so from a purely secular, naturalistic perspective. If it doesn't, it will not gain any traction in the larger academic world.

For me there are more than a couple major challenges. The first, as Bill has pointed out, deals with definitions. What is Mormon Studies? There is no fully functional Mormon Studies program that has a working definition of what Mormon Studies themselves are. Blair suggested this:

Actually, I found his comments to be very naive. There is no doubt that this is a sort of text-book description (it is quite good because it is the standard sort of spiel). However, it seems quite at odds with the other aspect of religious education presented at BYU. And it doesn't deal with how you actually do the things it proposes or what those proposals are designed to achieve. That's the purpose of the second of the two books I noted. In it, there is this early description of what this kind of study is supposed to do:

To say that Bradford successfully describes the rising interest in Mormon Studies, while certainly true, really misses the point that Bradford lays out a model of what he believes those Mormon Studies should look like - and he feels it should look exactly like all of the rest of the study of religion in the academic world. I should note that I am a big fan (as is Bill Hamblin) of Religious Studies, the History of Religion, and Comparative Religion (all three are different descriptive components of religious studies in the academy). But, to suggest that a secular study of Mormonism is an appropriate fit for the NAMI seems a stretch - particularly when it is defined in these academic terms. And I think that for some who are commenting, there is a sense of familiarity perhaps with the notion of Mormon Studies that reflects a rather insulated view that comes from being a part of the academic world. NAMI publications have had a respectable (if small) readership in the past among believing LDS. That readership will dwindle once we it moves into the secular arena. Academic approaches tend to alienate many people entirely - particularly when it requires that we suspend our own belief (as recommended by Bradford) when engaging it (and this is exactly what Bradford is discussing in the essay that Blair points us to).

Of course, we can still argue over Nabakov right?

Truth be told, I can't really see much approval (the way Bradford seems to think will come) for this as the new goal of the religion department at BYU. Helping students adhere less firmly to Mormonism isn't a description that is going to go over very well with the administration there (let alone the Religious Ed. Department).

Even more to the point, if we have to go through these steps to produce acceptable Mormon Studies, you are going to find that the pool of potential authors has just shrunk radically. Gone will be any meaningful discussion of faith, replaced by (on the faithful member side) with discussions of issues and history that are secular enough to meet the requirements of the academy - but not so far that it impinges on belief. Do we need to wonder what will come from the non-believers?

These issues I think leave more than adequate room for questions of the future of Mormon studies. Particularly after the spotlight of a presidential election starts to die down.

Ben M.

What Ben says above.

(Ben, thanks for being ambitious and disciplined enough to put in writing the things I'm thinking but have lost the motivation to write myself.)

[William Schryver]

Do we need to wonder what will come from the non-believers?

Nope. No need to wonder at all. Just check out the latest issues of Sunstone or Dialogue, as well as this new entry in the arena: The Claremont Journal of Mormon Studies

Edited July 31, 2012 by William Schryver

[ERayR]

Nope. No need to wonder at all. Just check out the latest issues of Sunstone or Dialogue, as well as this new entry in the arena: The Claremont Journal of Mormon Studies

There was some chatter of putting together an internet version of FARMS or another FARMS organization. Has there been any action to accomplish this yet?

[Calm]

I would suspect that nothing will happen till after summer is over with and academic life resumes.....it is likely that too many people that would like to be involved are scattered about trying to get research and vacations and other stuff done that is reserved for when they do not have to teach and administer.

[William Schryver]

There was some chatter of putting together an internet version of FARMS or another FARMS organization. Has there been any action to accomplish this yet?

In the immortal words of Henry Hill: "I always think there's a band, kid."

(By this time next week, there might be a whole lot more "chatter." Only time will tell ...)

[Scott Lloyd]

Oddly enough, one of the best analyses of Mormon studies as a newer phenomenon appeared under the editorship of DCP in the FARMS Review! Gerald Bradford wrote it:

I have nothing against Mormon Studies. I wish it success. But I would be very saddened if the intent — expressed or not — is for it to supplant apologetics, which I view as also being a legitimate academic discipline, perhaps even a sub-genre of Mormon Studies. One could rush to make assurances that such a thing is not happening, but the recent actions by Bradford might suggest otherwise.

[William Schryver]

Three of the most insightful observations from the essay:

From the perspective of secular religious studies, religion is “spilled poetry”--to use the striking words of Harold Bloom--when in reality it should be described as “spilled divinity.” This problem means that secular religious studies will always fail to grasp the essence of religion. For if God really does exist, and really does intervene in history, and really is the ultimate cause of religion, then removing God from the discussion means that everything religious studies has to say about religion is at best warped and twisted, and at worst, fundamentally misguided and wrong.

Another serious problem with religious studies is that it tends to privilege etic (outsider) vs. emic (insider) discourse--a methodological problem long recognized by scholars. That is, religious studies tend to create explanatory models that make sense to non-believers (religious studies scholars) rather than believers.

Non-Mormon religious studies scholars are objective--so the argument goes--while Mormon scholars are biased. Therefore, only non-Mormon scholars can really explain Mormonism. Only when Mormon scholars ape the assumptions and conclusions of non-Mormons can they be considered scholarly. If they fail to submit, they are cast off into the dustbin of “apologetics.”

One thing I know Bill recognizes, but has chosen not to articulate in this particular essay, is that a significant number of the advocates of "Mormon Studies" (as M. Gerald Bradford understands the term) are not content to simply approach the question of Mormonism differently than do Mormon apologists. No, they desire (along with their anti-Mormon sympathizers) to silence or at least significantly marginalize Mormon apologetics, leaving themselves as the only voice speaking in the room.

I will speak to that topic in the blog post which I have been preparing for the past few weeks. It is near completion, and I hope to have it posted sometime tomorrow morning. Its working title is: The Calculated Suppression of Mormon Apologetics. I will announce it here as soon as it is posted.

Edited July 31, 2012 by William Schryver

[Bill Hamblin]

Ben understands my position correctly. Loyd and Blair not-so-much.

[Bill Hamblin]

Here is the UofU's most recent Mormon Studies newsletter http://www.humis.uta..._1336752039.pdf

UVU's Mormon Studies page: http://www.uvu.edu/r.../mormonstudies/

A bit on GTU's Mormon Studies classes http://www.gtu.edu/n.../fall-2011/news

Like I said, these are not Mormon Studies Programs. They are religious studies programs that have a Mormon component. They offer a couple of classes and offer an annual lecture or conference. Now there is nothing wrong with that per se. But they are not strong programs. You certainly can't major in Mormon studies in any of these programs, can you?

[Bill Hamblin]

Now, one could argue that it is not a real field because "Mormon Studies" denotes an object of study rather than a method or discipline, but that would also reject largely accepted fields such as Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, etc, studies. I would tend to side with highly respected religious studies programs such as at CGU and UVA, and scholars such as Stephen Prothero, who recognize MS as legit.

Straw man alert! I didn't say that, did I.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

In my experience, it is virtually only Mormons who completely question the reality of Mormon Studies, and it is usually someone who has felt or been excluded from it for one reason or another.

Your psychoanalysis of my motivation is most welcome, though unfortunately wrong.