Mormon Studies, Without The Rose-Colored Glasses

[Bill Hamblin]

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).

This is most revealing, and is precisely as I said. Believing Mormons can be "present" if they "play by the rules of academia" which "are unfortunately too often set aside." It would take me an hour to unpack that, but suffice it to say that the purpose of this claim is simply to privilege secular discourse. It is a classic example of precisely what I described in my little essay.

The claim that we must "avoid appeals to subjective experiences" is precisely the same. (Notice first the dismissal of "subjective experiences" here.) Using this "method" we could imagine a conference on Mysticism in which secular scholars could talk and talk and talk about what they think about mysticism, but an actual mystic who has had actual mystical experiences would not be allowed to talk because his spirituality is a "subjective experience." It's exactly like I said. It's like going to a conference on music in which talk about everything about Beethoven, but never listen to his music.

[Bill Hamblin]

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.)

You haven't understood. Try reading the article again. First I am only talking about Mormon religious studies as a sub-discipline of religious studies.

Your examples in fact confirm my position. Mormon religious studies does not exist as a distinct academic discipline. (As opposed to Mormon history, for example.) The class list you gave shows a dozen classes taught outside of BYU. No one can major in Mormon religious studies anywhere in the world. Mormon religious studies exists only as a subset of religious studies programs, not as independent programs in their own right. There are very few non-Mormon scholars who are actually specialists in Mormons religious studies--they tend to specialize in something else, which overlaps with Mormonism. There are no classes anywhere outside of LDS schools on the Book of Mormon (apparently there was one on Mormon Scripture taught by an adjunct at CGU). Imagine some university claiming that they have an Islamic studies program but don't teach a class on the Qur'an. It would be considered laughable. So, people can believe what they want, but Mormon religious studies is not an independent firmly established academic discipline. None of the examples you've shown contradict this assessment. They confirm it.

[Scott Lloyd]

You haven't understood. Try reading the article again. First I am only talking about Mormon religious studies as a sub-discipline of religious studies.

Your examples in fact confirm my position. Mormon religious studies does not exist as a distinct academic discipline. (As opposed to Mormon history, for example.) The class list you gave shows a dozen classes taught outside of BYU. No one can major in Mormon religious studies anywhere in the world. Mormon religious studies exists only as a subset of religious studies programs, not as independent programs in their own right. There are very few non-Mormon scholars who are actually specialists in Mormons religious studies--they tend to specialize in something else, which overlaps with Mormonism. There are no classes anywhere outside of LDS schools on the Book of Mormon (apparently there was one on Mormon Scripture taught by an adjunct at CGU). Imagine some university claiming that they have an Islamic studies program but don't teach a class on the Qur'an. It would be considered laughable. So, people can believe what they want, but Mormon religious studies is not an independent firmly established academic discipline. None of the examples you've shown contradict this assessment. They confirm it.

I gave Bill a rep point on this to cancel out the one I accidentally gave Blair on the post to which Bill was replying.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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).

Too bad Bill didn't mention such sources, or even any of the observations they make. He also didn't mention Orsi's wonderful <i>Between Heaven and Earth</i> or Bushman's <i>Believing History</i> or any of the other work on the question of discussing religion in the academy.

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.

Here's the kicker: if God works through humans, God's work is bound up in the work of humans. People can spend time trying to run alongside Descarte's mind/spirit dualism all they want in terms of God's entry into the historical. But other people don't really think the dichotomy is particularly useful. So let's have a conversation about it. (Conversations are already happening! My complaint is that Hamblin has actually refused to enter into them!)

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.

How does Richard Bushman's <i>Rough Stone Rolling</i> fit into this dichotomous setting?

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

Would it be more useful to stand out on the porch and say "hey, you damn kids, get off my apologetic lawn!" or would it be better to actually engage aspects of the piece? Hamblin chose the former.

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).

This is an assumption based entirely upon what the future of NAMI is, though, a future which none of us have actually seen. The dire predictions are being made by people who feel like they've been stabbed in the back. Their prognostications will be affected by that. Further, Hamblin has said he wishes FARMS never made a deal with the BYU devil to start with. And he has also said that the present circumstances are a mere bump in the road for his own vision of the apologetic enterprise. So why the need to pee in the Mormon studies pool? As I said, it is because there is a little war going on in terms of audience and vision. Yes, Hamblin raises very interesting and important questions about methodology, presuppositions, academic shortcomings, and so forth. And these are issues many folks have also been discussing away from NAMI. He just doesn't engage with them at all.

Of course, we can still argue over Nabakov right?

I don't get the Nabokov reference.

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?

Again, this is entirely based on the assumption that Bradford thinks Mormon studies have to be entirely secular, that one must cede faith in order to participate. Meanwhile, LDS leaders have talked about being multi-lingual, speaking the language of faith and the language of the academy. The present direction concerns hospitality and tone more than spooky secular assumptions. (Of course, the Will Schryvers of the world will tell you that hospitality equals apostasy. If you don't hang Dan Vogel by his fingernails you are hopelessly lost, even if you don't agree with all of his work. He's an excellent example of how <i>not</i> to participate in Mormon studies.)

I say all of this as a person who has defended FARMS in the past, although not uncritically, as a person who has published a review in the FARMS Review, as a person who actually likes Dan Peterson (even though his recent political blogging has been lame), and a person who sees room for ongoing apologetics: The changes at the NAMI are not the center of the Mormon studies universe. And that is not a doomsday scenario. We all still have our lives. Let's do some good.

Edited July 31, 2012 by LifeOnaPlate

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

Perfect example of the unnecessary "scorched Earth" approach to things. Seth Payne in this very thread talked about looking forward to your BoA stuff. I have said apologetics are important. I know other Mormon studies folks who feel the same. And I know other Mormon studies folks who don't feel the same, largely because some of the apologetics we've seen seems over the top. One bad apple can spoil a barrel, even if it isn't fair. I am a Mormon studies kind of guy and I have no interest in marginalizing apologetics.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

And of course, you don't consider the problem might be in your delivery. Shocker. Also, people "understand" to the extent that they agree with you. Shocker.

[zerinus]

This is most revealing, and is precisely as I said. Believing Mormons can be "present" if they "play by the rules of academia" which "are unfortunately too often set aside." It would take me an hour to unpack that, but suffice it to say that the purpose of this claim is simply to privilege secular discourse. It is a classic example of precisely what I described in my little essay.

The claim that we must "avoid appeals to subjective experiences" is precisely the same. (Notice first the dismissal of "subjective experiences" here.) Using this "method" we could imagine a conference on Mysticism in which secular scholars could talk and talk and talk about what they think about mysticism, but an actual mystic who has had actual mystical experiences would not be allowed to talk because his spirituality is a "subjective experience." It's exactly like I said. It's like going to a conference on music in which talk about everything about Beethoven, but never listen to his music.

Bearing testimony, or relating personal spiritual experiences, has no place in academic discourse—and, you may be surprised to know, in apologetics either. I am distinguishing between apologetics and academic discourse, although they have a lot in common. They have more in common in fact than there are differences between them. Nevertheless they are not the same. And “testimony bearing,” or relating “spiritual experience” has no place in either of them.

Apologetics in the classical definition of the term means defending the Christian religion against intellectual attack by unbelievers. This is done by carefully analysing the intellectual arguments, and pointing out the flaws that are in them. It is purely a logical and intellectual exercise, consisting of pointing out the flaws in the other side’s arguments. It is not done by “bearing testimony” or “relating personal or spiritual experiences”. That is not apologetics; and it certainly is not academic discourse.

Christian apologetics was started in the early centuries of Christianity when unbelieving pagan intellectuals began to attack Christianity intellectually. There was a clever Greek philosopher by the name of Celsus who wrote a treatise called The True Word, in which made some very clever intellectual attacks against Christianity. He found his match in Origen, who wrote a book called Contra Celsus (against Celsus) in which he refuted and countered his arguments. That is how Christian apologetics was born. But he did so by pointing the flaws in his arguments, not by “bearing testimony” or relating “spiritual experiences”.

Edited August 1, 2012 by zerinus

[LifeOnaPlate]

Your examples in fact confirm my position. Mormon religious studies does not exist as a distinct academic discipline. (As opposed to Mormon history, for example.) The class list you gave shows a dozen classes taught outside of BYU. No one can major in Mormon religious studies anywhere in the world. Mormon religious studies exists only as a subset of religious studies programs, not as independent programs in their own right.

Or, in other words: "Here, I will define what would count as Mormon studies in a way that excludes the present goings-on in Mormon studies, then I will assert that there are thus no Mormon studies."

Who is talking about Mormon studies according to your personally conceived qualifications? Show me who and I'll respond to them the same way I've responded to you. (I know of no one.)

There are very few non-Mormon scholars who are actually specialists in Mormons religious studies--they tend to specialize in something else, which overlaps with Mormonism.

I don't know that any such programs will ever exist. I don't know anyone who is claiming they do exist. You are arguing against no one. I'm not trying to prove that your vision of Mormon studies has been fulfilled. I'm instead showing what is actually going on, demonstrating what does exist, and claiming that it is in fact relevant, exciting, and full of potential. I'm also asserting that your methodological concerns (things like objectivity) are and have been discussed, continue to be discussed, by folks engaged in what I have described as Mormon studies.

PS, just to put us back on equal grounds, I might as well add: you haven't understood my arguments.

Edited August 1, 2012 by LifeOnaPlate

[Bill Hamblin]

Since some people have obviously misunderstood my point (though most here seem to have understood), I have added the following clarification to my blog:

Update and Clarification: Several people have apparently misunderstood my use of the term Mormon studies. Mormon studies is typically used in two ways.

First, as a description of the study of anything to do with Mormonism--history, art, literature, politics, religion, economics, etc.

Second, Mormon studies is used in parallel to Islamic studies or Hindu studies--that is, as a subset of religious studies. That is how I am using the term in this essay. I thought it was clear from my discussion that I was referring to Mormon studies as Mormon religious studies, that is, a subset of religious studies in general to which I compared it throughout my discussion. I'm sorry if this ambiguity was a cause of confusion.

Thus, for example, Mormon history has its own professional organization, its own annual conference, its regular professional journal. On occasion, Mormon history encompasses Mormon religion, but it also does the history of Mormon colonialism in Utah, or Mormon political impact in the early eighteenth century, etc. Mormon religious studies does not.

I have argued that, as a professional discipline in academia, Mormon religious studies basically does not exist. The exception might be the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (http://www.smpt.org/), but theology is only one subset of religious studies as a whole.

[Bill Hamblin]

Or, in other words: "Here, I will define what would count as Mormon studies in a way that excludes the present goings-on in Mormon studies, then I will assert that there are thus no Mormon studies."

Who is talking about Mormon studies according to your personally conceived qualifications? Show me who and I'll respond to them the same way I've responded to you. (I know of no one.)

I don't know that any such programs will ever exist. I don't know anyone who is claiming they do exist. You are arguing against no one. I'm not trying to prove that your vision of Mormon studies has been fulfilled. I'm instead showing what is actually going on, demonstrating what does exist, and claiming that it is in fact relevant, exciting, and full of potential. I'm also asserting that your methodological concerns (things like objectivity) are and have been discussed, continue to be discussed, by folks engaged in what I have described as Mormon studies.

PS, just to put us back on equal grounds, I might as well add: you haven't understood my arguments.

Then you agree with me. Great.

[Bill Hamblin]

And of course, you don't consider the problem might be in your delivery. Shocker. Also, people "understand" to the extent that they agree with you. Shocker.

Frankly, I don't have to take this type of crap from you.

It's just a misunderstanding. Maybe its even my fault, though most people here seem to have understood.

[Bill Hamblin]

Really, why would I discuss the problem of secularist presuppositions in the academy if I were talking about studies of irrigation techniques in southern Utah, or Mormon migration to California in the twentieth century, or Mormon literature, or even the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Do any of those issues have anything to do with the problem of secularist presuppositions? I really can't see how anyone can read my essay and not understand I'm talking about Mormon religious studies. It's perplexing.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Frankly, I don't have to take this type of crap from you.

What? The snarky tone?

Really, why would I discuss the problem of secularist presuppositions in the academy if I were talking about studies of irrigation techniques in southern Utah, or Mormon migration to California in the twentieth century, or Mormon literature, or even the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Do any of those issues have anything to do with the problem of secularist presuppositions? I really can't see how anyone can read my essay and not understand I'm talking about Mormon religious studies. It's perplexing.

I suppose each of those things can fall within the rubric of Mormon studies, depending on the approach/arguments/community in which they are discussed. Mormon studies is a discursive community, it is not a platonic ideal or an empirical object verifiable by counting college departments or funding dollars. Can you show me where someone is arguing otherwise?

[Evangeline]

The claim that we must "avoid appeals to subjective experiences" is precisely the same. (Notice first the dismissal of "subjective experiences" here.) Using this "method" we could imagine a conference on Mysticism in which secular scholars could talk and talk and talk about what they think about mysticism, but an actual mystic who has had actual mystical experiences would not be allowed to talk because his spirituality is a "subjective experience." It's exactly like I said. It's like going to a conference on music in which talk about everything about Beethoven, but never listen to his music.

I can see parallels in the field of ethnomusicology. Because the experience of music is beyond the rational, a non-Islamic musicologist trained in Western music, for example, would be limited in their understanding of devotional Sufi music, since the function of the music is to create a state of divine ecstasy in the participant. There are problems in approaching the music of other cultures with the perspective of an "outsider." Often the "insiders" view the ethnomusicologists with skepticism and distrust and see their pursuit as a sort of "musical colonialism."

[Bill Hamblin]

I can see parallels in the field of ethnomusicology. Because the experience of music is beyond the rational, a non-Islamic musicologist trained in Western music, for example, would be limited in their understanding of devotional Sufi music, since the function of the music is to create a state of divine ecstasy in the participant. There are problems in approaching the music of other cultures with the perspective of an "outsider." Often the "insiders" view the ethnomusicologists with skepticism and distrust and see their pursuit as a sort of "musical colonialism."

Exactly.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I can see parallels in the field of ethnomusicology. Because the experience of music is beyond the rational, a non-Islamic musicologist trained in Western music, for example, would be limited in their understanding of devotional Sufi music, since the function of the music is to create a state of divine ecstasy in the participant. There are problems in approaching the music of other cultures with the perspective of an "outsider." Often the "insiders" view the ethnomusicologists with skepticism and distrust and see their pursuit as a sort of "musical colonialism."

This parallel is interesting and I agree that such problematics are worth discussing. I enjoy the discussion, even. But this comment invalidates very little concerning present Mormon studies, though. The extent to which an insider or outsider can reasonably or fruitfully take on the perspective of the other has been discussed, and continues to be discussed, in religious studies contexts, as well as in Mormon studies contexts. Bill Hamblin, are you saying "exactly" as though myself or folks involved in Mormon studies aren't aware of this problem? Or are you just saying "exactly" because you agree, and recognize that I and other folks also agree?

The same problematic, incidentally, exists within apologetic endeavors. Zerinus's comment above suggests as much.

Hamblin's argument at this point seems to boil down to "Mormon studies ain't big enough, funded enough, cool enough for my standards." Meanwhile, we keep on working.

Edited August 1, 2012 by LifeOnaPlate

[Hawkmoon]

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.

Yes, you have... I believe your point is "I love BYU with all my heart and soul, and I will defend it unto the bitter end with any means at my disposal." Perhaps not the best point, but a point nonetheless.

[volgadon]

With all due respect, Bro. Hamblin, your "Rose-colored" article calling - bureaucrats inept - is it not really a reflection of your earlier thoughts

I am actually a fan of Mormon studies, but I hope you do realise that the above quote is a prepostrous misuse of idiom. If you are going to fling someone's words back at them, make sure they fit what you are trying to say.

[Bob Crockett]

Yes, you have... I believe your point is "I love BYU with all my heart and soul, and I will defend it unto the bitter end with any means at my disposal." Perhaps not the best point, but a point nonetheless.

Nope. That is not my position. I think my position has been fairly stated in my various posts.

BYU is not above making mistakes, as when Lou Midgley was removed from his position for being a communist sympathizer.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Benjamin McGuire]

Blair wrote:

Again, this is entirely based on the assumption that Bradford thinks Mormon studies have to be entirely secular, that one must cede faith in order to participate.

Who knows what Bradford thinks. As I said, I think he is naïve. What I am saying is that you cannot have your body of work accepted in the academy without going through this process. And, whether Bradford understands this issue or not, he certainly seems to be embracing it in his essay. First his list:

I take a more traditional approach and view religious studies in terms of the following characteristics: (1) It necessarily requires the study of more than just one tradition; in other words, it is inherently a comparative, even cross-cultural, endeavor. (2) It advocates studying religious traditions in comparison with known ideological and philosophical challenges to religion that often function much the same way in society. (3) Because of the multidimensional makeup of systems of faith, it requires that such phenomena be studied from the perspective of several disciplines. (4) It proceeds on the basis of maintaining a distinction between descriptive and structural studies on the one hand and attempts at grappling with religious value judgments and truth claims on the other. (5) And, of particular importance, it requires that students learn how to approach their subjects from the vantage point of those they are studying.

These are the five characteristics that Bradford sees in Religious studies. What I am most interested though is in Bradford’s discussion. So here is the first comment of interest here:

The study of religions should also be done in comparison with influential ideologies—Marxism, various forms of nationalism, secularism, and scientific humanism, for example. This is because such views of the world often function in society much like religious traditions (allowing, of course, for obvious differences) and because they are often bent on challenging and competing with established systems of faith. On this view, religious traditions and comparable ideologies should be dealt with along similar lines; that is, they need to be studied historically, structurally, and theoretically. In both instances, attempts should be made, to the extent possible, to see things from the perspective of such believers and followers. And before attempting to resolve questions of truth or value, the goal should be to show the influence and power of these ideas and practices in the real world and to discern how they interact with other aspects of human existence.

Now, this isn’t all that different from other such descriptions of what is generally referred to as the phenomenological method in the study of religions. Here is another description of this part of the method:

Just as Husserl suggested in a philosophical context, the first state in the phenomenological method entails bracketing out or suspending a researcher's previous ideas, thoughts or beliefs about the truth, value or meaning of the religion under study. The phenomenologist wants to observe the phenomena of religion as they appear rather than as they are understood through opinions formed prior to their being observed. This means suspending personal beliefs and withholding judgments on academic theories about religion. If, for example, the observer is a committed Christian who believes that Jesus Christ is the true and complete revelation of God, acting as a phenomenologist, the student of religion must suspend that judgment and try to allow the phenomena under observation to speak for themselves without their being filtered though Christian presuppositions. (Cox, An Introduction to the Phenomenology of Religion, 2010)

A little further in his essay, Bradford is clearer that this is where he is drawing these ideas from (not this particular book, but this method of inquiry):

As noted, it is helpful to distinguish between historical, descriptive studies and reflections on religious values and truth claims. Indeed, historical studies, coupled with phenomenological, structural, and theoretical investigations, can be seen as having a certain logical priority over efforts at dealing with questions of the truth of religion. That is, it seems emphasis ought to be given first to understanding religious traditions and the influence they yield before attempting to grapple with their claims to truth and value.

This prioritizing can be discerned in the amount of work that is informed by what can be called a phenomenological sensitivity, attempts at describing and explaining religions in ways that accurately portray the practices, values, beliefs, and attitudes of various adherents without either endorsing or rejecting them. Put another way, religious traditions need to be studied in ways that do not privilege one particular tradition over another and in ways that result in descriptions and explanations that are not only well informed but also evenhanded.

I note, as an aside, that perhaps this is part of Bradford’s dislike of apologetics – where clearly, the priority is all about truth claims. More on that in a minute. What seems clear to me is that Bradford is advocating an academic approach to the study of religion – including the study of Mormonism. And he is describing the method that he feels ought to be used very much in a way that is in line with a traditional understanding of the academic study of religion. I am not opposed to such a study – just so everyone is clear about this. I think that such approaches are wonderful ways to help people think about their own faith traditions. However, I think that such approaches, described in the way that the academic field describes itself (and not softened as Bradford has done) would be appalling to those in the church who are very much interested in prioritizing claims about truth at the top of the list and not at the bottom. And, as I noted, it is a recognized feature of such approaches that they do decrease faith in a particular religious belief system for many people (this isn’t such a problem for many academics – and it has had the interesting side effect in recent years, in the dispute between the academic study of religion and the religious study of religion in that Christian apologists have begun declaring that Christianity is not a religion and so isn't really subject to these comparisons).

One of the things that Hamblin noted (although I use different language) is that views from critics and non-believers are generally seen as much more separated from discussions of truth. That is, the work of believers has a hidden agenda that is apologetic. A critic (who also has a distinctive agenda of truth claims) doesn’t get pegged for the hidden agenda. Their hidden agenda isn't attacked by the academics (and when it is by apologists, it is often labeled ad hominem, right?)

So, then the next issue – Blair wrote this:

How does Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling fit into this dichotomous setting?

If it is viewed as contributing to Mormon Studies, then it will be seen as a hidden apologetic by a faithful member of the church. Even as it recognizes that the level of scholarship is superb.

New York Times Review:

Bushman, a retired Columbia history professor who also happens to be a practicing Mormon, has a tricky dual agenda, it turns out: to depict Smith both as the prophet he claimed to be and as the man of his times that he most certainly was.

McDannell, in her review in Church History (Dec. 2006) starts off by describing Bushman's book as an attempt to "unseat the popularity of Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History".

In Kirkus Reviews, we get this concluding line: "More complete but less evenhanded than Robert Remini's Joseph Smith (2002); some readers may find parts of Bushman's narrative to be overly credulous." (7/15/2005, Vol. 73 Issue 14)

Jan Shipps review essay (Journal of American History. Sep2007, Vol. 94 Issue 2) to which Bushman was given the opportunity to respond (in the same issue), tells us quite emphatically at the end that the book is a "believer's history".

The list could go on - and despite it's clearly being the best history to date of Joseph Smith, there will always be an asterisk next to it because Bushman was a believing member of the church. Within Mormon Studies (as a potential subgroup of religious studies) it will eventually become as much a subject of consideration as a part of the history of how members view their religion as it is now a record of that history.

Back to Blair:

Meanwhile, LDS leaders have talked about being multi-lingual, speaking the language of faith and the language of the academy. The present direction concerns hospitality and tone more than spooky secular assumptions.

My concerns are pretty straight forward. I question whether or not you can enter in a discourse about the study of Mormonism (as an academic study) that also speaks the language of faith. I think that the goals that seem to be coming across aren’t going to be met by the actions that are being taken. This doesn’t mean that it isn’t worth a try. But I predict that it isn’t going to make any headway. Earlier in this thread, Sethpayne made this observation:

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).

Now, I can see the NAMI publishing works by Bushman and Flake and Hardy and Scousen. Do you honestly think that it will publish Vogel or Brodie or Chris Smith? Particularly when some of this discussion has centered around the question of whether or not apologetics should be published under the umbrella of a church managed institution (giving it some kind of legitimacy for the faithful). Despite an attempt to move towards a more secular approach, there will always be an asterisk.

I don't get the Nabokov reference.

Wasn't that the obvious point?

The other part of this which I wanted to repeat again is that we are also talking about audiences when we talk about publishing. Some of the material the the NAMI has published has had wide appeal. Some of it (probably my own piece included) not so much. But the moment it moves in the direction of prioritizing truth to the bottom of the heap and provides a more academic, secular approach, is the moment that a great deal of their readership will turn elsewhere. This is fine (as Bill noted) if your core audience is other academics, and what you are interested in is recognition by those academics. I am not sure everyone shares this vision.

And finally, one last thought – this from Russell McCutcheon in his essay in New Approaches to the Study of Religion Vol. 1, p 318:

In a 1994 special issue of the North American field’s largest circulating periodical, Journal of the American Academy of Religion,2 Sam Gill of the University of Colorado, offered the following blunt assessment:

The emergence of an academic study of religion has been disappointing despite the boost it received thirty years ago when religion entered the curricula of state-sponsored American colleges and universities … As an academic discipline distinct from the religious study of religion, it has failed to advance any sustainable body of theory, any cadre of religion theorists, any substantial body of literature. (1994: 965–66)

What’s the point of this comment (and this is said about the academic study of religion in general in the U.S., not just the far smaller and narrower academic study of the Mormon religion)? The academic study of religions comes out of a history of comparison – but it’s a history that is devoted to the question of truth (which has since been divorced from it), and it’s a history of largely polemical literature. Mormon Studies too is attempting to emerge from a backdrop of comparison and polemics. I don’t think we have to sit back and watch and see what happens – we can contribute to it – but I think that the jury remains out on whether or not this sort of academic study of religions approach to Mormonism will yield something valuable that we wouldn’t have gotten through any other approach to Mormonism. I am not sure that the body of literature that we want to label as Mormon Studies will ever create a niche that is distinct from Mormon history, for example. And I am not sure that we want such a distinction or have such a need. And I think this summarizes at least a part of Hamblin's argument.

Ben M.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Ben writes:

Mormon Studies too is attempting to emerge from a backdrop of comparison and polemics. I don’t think we have to sit back and watch and see what happens – we can contribute to it – but I think that the jury remains out on whether or not this sort of academic study of religions approach to Mormonism will yield something valuable that we wouldn’t have gotten through any other approach to Mormonism.

I reiterate that it seems to me Hamblin is arguing against no actual people. And if such actual people can be identified I would likewise challenge their conception of what the current state of affairs is. But Hamblin doesn't seem to be saying the jury is still out on Mormon studies, though, nor simply issuing a warning call in regards to secular academic premises. And whatever NAMI ends up doing there will still be people thinking, writing, talking about Mormonism. (Such things preceded NAMI anyway.) There will, as far as I can see, still be Mormon studies. Since people are already talking about the sort of problems Hamblin includes in his broadside against Mormon studies, and he fails to interact with any of them, I don't find his generalizations particularly contributory.

As far as your contrasting "this sort of academic study of religions" approach with "any other approach" is concerned, my view of Mormon studies involves overlapping discursive communities, including projects in theology, sociology, anthropology, history, apologetics, and philosophy---all of these overlapping though many emphasizing particular models or questions over others depending on the location and participants. So the particularized "thing" which Hamblin (and apparently you) are calling Mormon studies doesn't seem to reflect what is actually, in real life, happening.

Edited August 1, 2012 by LifeOnaPlate

[Bill Hamblin]

Ben has it exactly right again. Odd that when some don't understand, they think its my fault.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Ben has it exactly right again. Odd that when some don't understand, they think its my fault.

Counter-claim: Bill Hamblin has some things wrong, and he doesn't understand what I'm saying. He also wants to journey on a side-track of "fault," which ignores pretty much everything else I've said in the discussion.

[is this really a fruitful direction to take the conversation, Bill?]

[LifeOnaPlate]

PS-, Ben's remark that "Mormon Studies too is attempting to emerge from a backdrop of comparison and polemics" seems to me too linear (in the developmental sense) to accurately account for what I am suggesting Mormon studies actually is. Comparison and polemics are part of the overall ecology, but it would be a mistake to hold either thing as a normative "backdrop" uncritically.

[sethpayne]

This is most revealing, and is precisely as I said. Believing Mormons can be "present" if they "play by the rules of academia" which "are unfortunately too often set aside." It would take me an hour to unpack that, but suffice it to say that the purpose of this claim is simply to privilege secular discourse. It is a classic example of precisely what I described in my little essay.

The claim that we must "avoid appeals to subjective experiences" is precisely the same. (Notice first the dismissal of "subjective experiences" here.) Using this "method" we could imagine a conference on Mysticism in which secular scholars could talk and talk and talk about what they think about mysticism, but an actual mystic who has had actual mystical experiences would not be allowed to talk because his spirituality is a "subjective experience." It's exactly like I said. It's like going to a conference on music in which talk about everything about Beethoven, but never listen to his music.

My experience doesn't match what you have described above, Bill.

At Yale Divinity School religious studies abouds. The Bible, Christian History, Patristics, and Theological Ethics are all analyzed, critiqued and explored.

Yet, every morning at 10am the bells right and students pile into the Marquandt Chapel to sing and worship. I'm sure other divinity schools operate in a similar way.

To suggest that an attempted objective analysis can't go hand-in-hand with religious expression and devotion. If this were the case we'd have to ignore the work of Richard Bushman, Royal Skousen, Grant Hard, and many many others.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.