Mormon Studies, Without The Rose-Colored Glasses

[wenglund]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

That, or you and Blair are reading what he said through rose-colored glasses--a fashion no-no in certain circles.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LifeOnaPlate]

That, or you and Blair are reading what he said through rose-colored glasses--a fashion no-no in certain circles.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That, or Bill is reading Mormon studies with beer goggles.

Edited August 1, 2012 by LifeOnaPlate

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

Divinity schools are not the secular academy. They are designed to train people for ministry, not academy. There are plenty of religious schools where things are different. But remember that just a few months ago, a leader of SBL wanted all Evangelical-oriented sessions banned from SBL.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[wenglund]

That, or Bill is reading Mormon studies with beer goggles.

...manufactured by secular academics, no doubt. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LifeOnaPlate]

It's been made known to me that one of the participants in the dialogue in this thread has been placed in a moderation queue. (Can you guess who it is?) Oddly enough, this person has actually been more moderate and civil in tone than I have. (I've employed a bit of Hamblin-esque snark.) More importantly, this person has substantively contributed to the discussion and is now being restricted for apparently arbitrary reasons. I used to be a moderator on this board. I know such decisions are largely ad hoc and behind the scenes. In this case, it seems to be an unjustified decision. And a silent one. And one that Hamblin himself would probably object to.

If I could toilet paper your houses, I would seriously consider it at this point.

Edited August 1, 2012 by LifeOnaPlate

[LifeOnaPlate]

...manufactured by secular academics, no doubt. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I doubt anyone here really thinks Sunday school should be run like a university course or vice versa. So what's the point of this little exercise, Wade?

[Bob Crockett]

Divinity schools are not the secular academy. They are designed to train people for ministry, not academy. There are plenty of religious schools where things are different. But remember that just a few months ago, a leader of SBL wanted all Evangelical-oriented sessions banned from SBL.

The distinction you draw was blurred long ago. Perhaps what you say may be true for the type of place where James White got his degree, but the leading schools in America where the New Testament is taught draw lots of atheists and agnostics. Berkeley, Fuller, Yale, Claremont are the few I can see with my own experience.

There's a Baptist college in my ward, Masters College, run by John McArthur, he of KJV-only fame in Southern California. Presumptively there to train for the ministry, it has parallel courses of study that one can take to either train for the ministry or be a NT scholar. And, since we come across them regularly (being in my ward), the program has its share of atheists and agnostics and New Age types.

What makes Bradford's announcement rather extraordinary is that it has been my experience (my grandfather was a long-time Academic VP at BYU and one-time interim president) that BYU wants nothing to do with religious studies, and its Religion Department exists solely to provide the supplementary course of instruction for general education and, in small part, to train seminary teachers. Of course, those profs in the program (like the Bokovoys of the world) probably see such professional association a complete dead-end unless one is the type I usually saw in the program, returned Mission Presidents living in Provo teaching one class a week.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[LifeOnaPlate]

Careful, Bob, you're bordering on specificity!

[wenglund]

So what's the point of this little exercise, Wade?

Primarily, to lighten as well as cool the air a bit. And, secondarily, to suggest that this may be just about semantics and/or differences of perspective which may leave ample room for agreement among friends.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LifeOnaPlate]

Primarily, to lighten as well as cool the air a bit. And, secondarily, to suggest that this may be just about semantics and/or differences of perspective which may leave ample room for agreement among friends.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And yet, room for agreement among friends is the last thing Hamblin's piece encourages, IMO. (Other than perhaps agreement among his friends, already agreed.)

[sethpayne]

Divinity schools are not the secular academy. They are designed to train people for ministry, not academy. There are plenty of religious schools where things are different. But remember that just a few months ago, a leader of SBL wanted all Evangelical-oriented sessions banned from SBL.

Hi Bill,

At YDS, there were two distinct tracks offered: an MA and an MDiv. Those who were seeking ordination studied for the MDiv. Most everyone seeking the MA were looking to move on to PhD work.

Having said that, MA students could take any class at YDS as could MDiv students. However, I don't of any MA students who took "fundamentals of effective preaching" nor do I know of any MDiv students taking the all-Hebrew/Aramaic class on 2nd temple apocolyptic literature....

But I do agree with you -- Div schools are a different animal than religious studies programs. However, I would argue that they remain an important part of the academy.

Seth

Oh, I I didn't hear about SBL. You have piqued my curiosity and I'm going to learn more.

Edited August 2, 2012 by sethpayne

[wenglund]

And yet, room for agreement among friends is the last thing Hamblin's piece encourages, IMO. (Other than perhaps agreement among his friends, already agreed.)

To paraphrase the reparative words of Dr. Phil: every relationship needs a hero, someone willing to be a part of the solution rather than the problem, who stops looking to blame and starts looking to heal, and someone who wants to be happy more than they need to be right.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill Hamblin]

And yet, room for agreement among friends is the last thing Hamblin's piece encourages, IMO. (Other than perhaps agreement among his friends, already agreed.)

Blair, this is just plain nuts.

First you disagreed with everything I said, and accused me of all sorts of moral and psychological failings.

Then, I explained that you misunderstood, and I was talking about Mormon religious studies in the narrow sense (which seems to have been clear to everyone but you), rather than Mormon studies in the broad sense which you prefer.

Thereafter, you said you agree with me about everything I've said about Mormon religious studies in the narrow sense, and you don't know anyone who would disagree with me. (Try telling that to the lunatics on the Bedlam Board!)

Now, despite the fact that you claim that you and everyone you know agrees with my position, you are trying to tell me that I am leaving no room for agreement among friends--despite the fact that you claim everyone agrees!! This is simply incoherent. (And ignores the fact that agreement among friends is never problematic. It's disaagreement that is problematic.)

It seems that, in your opinion, no matter if my position is right or wrong, whether you agree or disagree with me, I am always somehow morally and psychologically at fault. Why in the world would I want to try to have a discussion with you? This is no better than the rantings at the Bedlam Board.

[Bill Hamblin]

Hi Bill,

At YDS, there were two distinct tracks offered: an MA and an MDiv. Those who were seeking ordination studied for the MDiv. Most everyone seeking the MA were looking to move on to PhD work.

Having said that, MA students could take any class at YDS as could MDiv students. However, I don't of any MA students who took "fundamentals of effective preaching" nor do I know of any MDiv students taking the all-Hebrew/Aramaic class on 2nd temple apocolyptic literature....

But I do agree with you -- Div schools are a different animal than religious studies programs. However, I would argue that they remain an important part of the academy.

Seth

Oh, I I didn't hear about SBL. You have piqued my curiosity and I'm going to learn more.

http://berkeley.academia.edu/RonHendel/Papers/849556/Farewell_to_SBL_Faith_and_Reason_in_Biblical_Studies

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/atk368016.shtml (+ his note 2)

[why me]

There is no evidence that they weren't involved. And they are typically involved with these types of decisions.

The problem with dan's dismissal as editor is the way it was done. It was uninspiring. I see no hand of God in this dismissal since it was done by email when dan was away from the county and away from the country. If prophets, seers and revelators were in on this decision to do it this way, I will eat my hard wool cowboy hat.

[why me]

And yet, room for agreement among friends is the last thing Hamblin's piece encourages, IMO. (Other than perhaps agreement among his friends, already agreed.)

Can you show us some examples of why you feel this way? I think that an argumentative essay declares a proposition and seeks to support it through evidence or opinion. One is certainly free to disagree with it. It is called debate. You can write your own piece on your blog and critique Bill's piece. We all look forward to reading it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Blair, this is just plain nuts.

First you disagreed with everything I said, and accused me of all sorts of moral and psychological failings.

No, I didn't.

Then, I explained that you misunderstood, and I was talking about Mormon religious studies in the narrow sense (which seems to have been clear to everyone but you), rather than Mormon studies in the broad sense which you prefer.

No, it wasn't. And as I've been pointing out all along, you're trying to create a definition of Mormon studies out of whole cloth, attributable to no one but your own imagination. I'm objecting to the straw man. Have been all along.

Thereafter, you said you agree with me about everything I've said about Mormon religious studies in the narrow sense, and you don't know anyone who would disagree with me. (Try telling that to the lunatics on the Bedlam Board!)

You're talking about the MormonDiscussions board, right? I don't hang out there. I don't really hang out here often anymore, for that matter. I just noticed this was the only place anyone was actually talking about your blog post.

Now, despite the fact that you claim that you and everyone you know agrees with my position,

Position on what? Your original blog post made multiple claims. It isn't a all-or-nothing, accept-or-reject circumstance. My argument all along is that you conjured up your own definition of Mormon studies which no one actually subscribes to (you failed so far to prove otherwise, by the way, and I can't prove a negative.) I also claimed that you raised issues (like the problem of secular assumptions and objectivity) which people involved in Mormon studies have already been talking about, even before the most recent wave of Mormon studies came about. So no, I'm not saying everyone agrees with your "position," because you advanced multiple points and I took issue with different aspects for different reasons. I know you're smart enough to be able to understand; maybe you just skimmed what I wrote?

you are trying to tell me that I am leaving no room for agreement among friends--despite the fact that you claim everyone agrees!! This is simply incoherent. (And ignores the fact that agreement among friends is never problematic. It's disaagreement that is problematic.)

I agree, it would be incoherent. But it isn't what I'm claiming.

It seems that, in your opinion, no matter if my position is right or wrong, whether you agree or disagree with me, I am always somehow morally and psychologically at fault.

I don't believe morals or psychology are really relevant here. I'm not sure what you're even referring to. (Point it out, I'm more than happy to retract any appeal to morals or psychology because my main arguments stand without that.)

I notice you never actually quote from my posts to reply to them, so I'm not sure what exactly it is you are objecting to, and you're simply misrepresenting what I believe I'm trying to articulate. Further, I've made several points which you've entirely ignored. And you think talking to me is a waste of time? I'd be more than happy to try to make myself better understood to you. Can you re-read my posts and point out where you're disagreeing with me?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Can you show us some examples of why you feel this way? I think that an argumentative essay declares a proposition and seeks to support it through evidence or opinion. One is certainly free to disagree with it. It is called debate. You can write your own piece on your blog and critique Bill's piece. We all look forward to reading it.

No, I decided there's no need to blog about it. I've put my thoughts here in this thread for anyone to read. The main reason I feel Hamblin is not encouraging wide agreement is because his piece rhetorically reads as a broadside against something he wants to call "Mormon studies," but he engages no actual thinker or writer and he demonstrates no awareness of the ongoing discussions of the very matters he is trying to address. In other words, to use your description, he is long on opinion and very short on evidence. (He refers to none.) He starts off by using denigrating terms like "fad," and proceeds to raise methodological questions which have been and are being discussed in multiple articles and blog posts and conference meetings. (If you ask me which ones I can reply, "wouldn't it have been nice if Hamblin would have brought at least one example to our attention? Hence my point.)

So feel free to read what I've written here and reply. I look forward tpo reading it, because it is helping me better think through some of these issues.

Edited August 2, 2012 by LifeOnaPlate

[William Schryver]

Blair, this is just plain nuts.

...

Why in the world would I want to try to have a discussion with you? This is no better than the rantings at the Bedlam Board.

Yes, I've noted the similarity for quite some time now. Funny how that works, isn't it? I've observed a direct correlation between popularity at the Great and Spacious Trailer Park and ... well, you know what I mean.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Yes, I've noted the similarity for quite some time now. Funny how that works, isn't it? I've observed a direct correlation between popularity at the Great and Spacious Trailer Park and ... well, you know what I mean.

I noticed Will also failed to actually respond to any of my statements here. Too busy with message board games.

Edited August 2, 2012 by LifeOnaPlate

[Bill Hamblin]

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. ...

The bold face phrases are examples of your moralizing and psychologizing rather than arguing some point. There are others, but these are sufficient to make my point.

Note that what I said was "The latest fad in the LDS blogosphere is the praise of Mormon studies.” which you turn into me supposedly saying that I am somehow "denigrating" Mormon Studies itself "as a fad." What I said was the praise of Mormon studies is a fad. If you want a serious discussion, please try to read plain English clearly rather than changing grammatical antecedents to match your rhetorical needs.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

No, it wasn't. And as I've been pointing out all along, you're trying to create a definition of Mormon studies out of whole cloth, attributable to no one but your own imagination. I'm objecting to the straw man. Have been all along.

...

My argument all along is that you conjured up your own definition of Mormon studies which no one actually subscribes to (you failed so far to prove otherwise, by the way, and I can't prove a negative.)

I explained my use of the term Mormon Studies in post 109. I'm not inventing a new definition; it precisely parallels the use of terms like Islamic studies = the study of Islamic religion, or Hindu studies = the study of Hindu religion, or Buddhist studies = the study of Buddhist religion. It is the study of Mormon religion as a subset of religious studies. This was clear to nearly everyone who read my paper. Since it was unclear to you I have clarified what I meant. What term would you suggest I use for Mormon religious studies?

[zerinus]

I explained my use of the term Mormon Studies in post 109. I'm not inventing a new definition; it precisely parallels the use of terms like Islamic studies = the study of Islamic religion, or Hindu studies = the study of Hindu religion, or Buddhist studies = the study of Buddhist religion. It is the study of Mormon religion as a subset of religious studies. This was clear to nearly everyone who read my paper. Since it was unclear to you I have clarified what I meant. What term would you suggest I use for Mormon religious studies?

Islamic studies is more than just a study of the Islamic religion. It includes a study of Islamic art, literature, music, architecture, politics etc. In those cultures it is often not possible to separate religion from the other aspects of life. They are deeply intertwined. This is what Wikipedia says about Islamic Studies (emphasis added):

In a Muslim context, Islamic studies can be an umbrella term for all virtually all of academia, both originally researched and as defined by the Islamization of knowledge. It includes all the traditional forms of religious thought, such as kalam (Islamic theology) and fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), and also assimilates fields generally considered to be secular in the West, such as Islamic science and Islamic economics.

In a non-Muslim context, Islamic studies generally refers to the historical study of Islam, Muslim culture, Muslim history and Islamic philosophy. Academics from diverse disciplines participate and exchange ideas about predominantly Muslim societies, past and present. In spite of their non-religious approach, some non-Muslim scholars have written works which are widely read by Muslims. Before 1980, such non-Muslim scholars in this field were called "Islamicists" and the discipline was known as Oriental studies, now often Asian studies. Many universities offer academic degreeson the subject of Islamic studies. Source.

Here is how Oxford University defines it "Islamic Studies" department (emphasis added):

The Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies provides a meeting point between the Islamic and Western worlds of learning. Through good scholarship it promotes a more informed understanding of Islam - its culture and civilisation.

The Centre is committed to the advancement of academic excellence in teaching, research and publication. Its outreach activities sustain dialogue and promote mutual understanding at national and international levels. Source.

I am sure the same principle applies to Hindu studies and Buddhist studies etc.

[Bill Hamblin]

The main reason I feel Hamblin is not encouraging wide agreement is because his piece rhetorically reads as a broadside against something he wants to call "Mormon studies," but he engages no actual thinker or writer and he demonstrates no awareness of the ongoing discussions of the very matters he is trying to address.

Blair, how can I get you understand that you have misunderstood my point.

I am not arguing against "Mormon Studies." Here's what I actually said: "I say, let a thousand flowers bloom! If some want to do Mormon studies, let them. If others prefer apologetics, so be it." How is this arguing against Mormon studies?

I am perfectly aware of what's going in the broader conception of Mormon studies. So? Does that contradict my point of the lack of Mormon religious studies? Note, for example that I said, "there are excellent journals of Mormon history, the study of Mormon religion is related, but still distinct." How can I be ignoring the broader context of Mormon studies when I explicitly mention it!? Did you actually read my article with any modicum of comprehension?

My two main actual points in my essay are:

1- Mormon religious studies as such does not exist as an organized academic discipline. Do you disagree? (I haven't seen you do so in all your ranting.) If you disagree, show me the major academic programs on Mormon religious studies, their journals, the leading non-Mormon scholars in the field, their conferences, etc. Note the questions I asked in my essay:

Who are the top ten non-Mormon scholars on Mormon religion? What are the top ten journals of Mormon religion? Where are the top ten schools one would attend to study Mormon religion? What are the top ten graduate programs on Mormon religion?

Here's what you said in post 108:

I don't know that any such [Mormon religious studies] 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.

In other words you explicitly and completely agree with my first argument. And, notice, I'm not arguing against anyone. (You rant about this here: "I reiterate that it seems to me Hamblin is arguing against no actual people" in #121.) That's right, I'm not. So? What did I say that could possibly make you think I was arguing against someone on this issue? I'm simply making some observations about the current state of affairs in Mormon religious studies.

2- I argue that there are serious limitations to the secular modes of doing religious studies. Do you disagree? (I haven't seen you do so.) You seem to believe that everyone knows this anyway, and therefore my point is passé, not wrong. For example, in post #142 you say:

I also claimed that you raised issues (like the problem of secular assumptions and objectivity) which people involved in Mormon studies have already been talking about, even before the most recent wave of Mormon studies came about.

(Note that I said on p. 3 of my essay, that these are "methodological problem long recognized by scholars." In other words, most scholars are already aware of the problems with secular religious studies. Which means you don't disagree with my second main point either!

Then, when in #138 you respond to my observation that you seem to agree with my two main points, you berate me:

So no, I'm not saying everyone agrees with your "position," because you advanced multiple points and I took issue with different aspects for different reasons. I know you're smart enough to be able to understand; maybe you just skimmed what I wrote? (#142)

So, as far as I can tell, you actually don't actually disagree with my main two real arguments, but have tried instead to invent imaginary things that I am supposedly saying so you can disagree with them. It's preposterous. Why should I waste my time talking to you?

Edited August 2, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

Islamic studies is more than just a study of the Islamic religion. It includes a study of Islamic art, literature, music, architecture, politics etc. In those cultures it is often not possible to separate religion from the other aspects of life. They are deeply intertwined. This is what Wikipedia says about Islamic Studies (emphasis added):

In a Muslim context, Islamic studies can be an umbrella term for all virtually all of academia, both originally researched and as defined by the Islamization of knowledge. It includes all the traditional forms of religious thought, such as kalam (Islamic theology) and fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), and also assimilates fields generally considered to be secular in the West, such as Islamic science and Islamic economics.

In a non-Muslim context, Islamic studies generally refers to the historical study of Islam, Muslim culture, Muslim history and Islamic philosophy. Academics from diverse disciplines participate and exchange ideas about predominantly Muslim societies, past and present. In spite of their non-religious approach, some non-Muslim scholars have written works which are widely read by Muslims. Before 1980, such non-Muslim scholars in this field were called "Islamicists" and the discipline was known as Oriental studies, now often Asian studies. Many universities offer academic degreeson the subject of Islamic studies. Source.

Here is how Oxford University defines it "Islamic Studies" department (emphasis added):

The Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies provides a meeting point between the Islamic and Western worlds of learning. Through good scholarship it promotes a more informed understanding of Islam - its culture and civilisation.

The Centre is committed to the advancement of academic excellence in teaching, research and publication. Its outreach activities sustain dialogue and promote mutual understanding at national and international levels. Source.

I am sure the same principle applies to Hindu studies and Buddhist studies etc.

That's true to the extent that Islam and Buddhism are cultures as well as religions. But it doesn't change my point that Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc. are established academic fields studied as religions. Despite all the different ways one can approach Mormonism, and whatever term you want to use to describe this, I'm talking about Mormon religious studies as a sub-field of the study of religion. Make up a different word if you want. I don't really care what you want to call it. The question I raised is about the academic study of Mormon religion. Period.