Mormon Studies, Without The Rose-Colored Glasses

[LifeOnaPlate]

Bill, here's a blog post that basically does a good job of saying the sorts of things I haven't said well enough:

http://www.patheos.c...mormon-studies/

Like the author of the post I also see plenty of space for Mormon studies and apologetics to coexist, and I don't see them as entirely disconnected pursuits, though there are a range of differing approaches and operating assumptions which need to be taken into account. Like the author of the post I think you set up expectations for what "Mormon studies" should be according to you, and I reject your expectations. Like the author of the post I've become familiar with the actual things being said and done within Mormon studies, whereas your post suggests you don't have much familiarity with it. Hence my responses to you. I'm saying that your piece is a warning cry against no one. So why write it? The issues you raise are already being discussed. Did you know that? If so, why not engage in any of it?

Regarding the "fad" thing, the denigration isn't just from one statement. Going on to say no such thing as Mormon studies exists, and also trying to say that Mormon studies must be bound to secularist assumptions (not sure how you reconcile those claims other than that it seems you were just being a bit cheeky) lends into why I believe your piece wasn't a charitable or even accurate response to what is actually happening in real life with real scholars at real schools in real journals and conferences.

I'm simply making some observations about the current state of affairs in Mormon religious studies.

I'm simply pointing out that your observations are not representative of the current state of affairs in Mormon studies at all, even though you raise a few methodological questions that people are already aware of. You provide no specifics, no examples, and show no concern for the ongoing dialogue amongst actual people in actual places on actual topics. In effect, you showed up at the Mormon studies conference, set up your own podium over in the corner, and started talking to the wall. Meanwhile, the rest of us are over here in the conference rooms having ongoing discussions and doing actual research and publishing.

Edited August 2, 2012 by LifeOnaPlate

[Bill Hamblin]

Like the author of the post I also see plenty of space for Mormon studies and apologetics to coexist, and I don't see them as entirely disconnected pursuits, though there are a range of differing approaches and operating assumptions which need to be taken into account.

You do. I agree they can coexist. So? Others don't. If you agree they can coexist, then I'm not talking to or about you.

[Bill Hamblin]

Like the author of the post I think you set up expectations for what "Mormon studies" should be according to you, and I reject your expectations. Like the author of the post I've become familiar with the actual things being said and done within Mormon studies, whereas your post suggests you don't have much familiarity with it.

And, for the fifth time, I'm not, and never have been talking about Mormon studies in the general sense. I agree with regarding the situation in the broad use of the term. I'm using the term in my essay in the narrow sense of Mormon religious studies. Can you understand that idea? Please, please, please get the idea straight in your head.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm saying that your piece is a warning cry against no one. So why write it? The issues you raise are already being discussed. Did you know that? If so, why not engage in any of it?

Good grief, of course the issues have been, are being, and will be discussed. So? Because other people have discussed them, are discussing them, and will discuss them, does this mean that I, alone, must not discuss them?

Edited August 2, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

Regarding the "fad" thing, the denigration isn't just from one statement. Going on to say no such thing as Mormon religious studies exists, and also trying to say that Mormon religious studies must be bound to secularist assumptions (not sure how you reconcile those claims other than that it seems you were just being a bit cheeky

Note my boldface corrections to your perpetual misunderstanding or misrepresentation of my position.

[Bill Hamblin]

and also trying to say that Mormon [religious] studies must be bound to secularist assumptions

Please increase reading comprehension. I did not say religious studies must be bound to secularist assumptions. I said, the way religious studies is done in the academy tends to be based on secularist assumptions. I argue that this should not be the case.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[zerinus]

And, for the fifth time, I'm not, and never have been talking about Mormon studies in the general sense. I agree with regarding the situation in the broad use of the term. I'm using the term in my essay in the narrow sense of Mormon religious studies. Can you understand that idea? Please, please, please get the idea straight in your head.

Are you saying what Mormon Studies is, or are you saying what it should be? If you are saying what it is, then you are mistaken, because it is not exclusively religious. If you are saying what it should be, then you are entitled to your opinion, which is not shared by everyone.

Edited August 2, 2012 by zerinus

[Bill Hamblin]

Are you saying what Mormon Studies is, or are you saying what it should be? If you are saying what it is, then you are mistaken, because it is not exclusively religious. If you are saying what it should be, then you are entitled to your opinion, which is not shared by everyone.

See my post #109. Have you read my essay?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This thread is interesting. My head is spinning.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Bill, your attempt to distinguish between Mormon studies and religious studies doesn't really make sense to me. The two aren't equivalent, or entirely separable. I don't see anyone but you talking about your version of "Mormon religious studies." Your version certainly does not reflect what is actually happening presently, nor does it seem to reflect anything anyone is anticipating. People expect to see more academic discussions of Mormonism, perhaps some more classes, maybe more things like Claremont's structure, more books, articles, academic folks talking about Mormon studies. People are excited to ask new questions of Mormon history, philosophy, theology, culture, etc. Meanwhile, as I've said all along, you've non-systematically constructed an idea of Mormon religious studies which doesn't exist.

But our conversation was useful for me in helping me better conceptualize what is actually happening, even though your observations don't match it, so for that I am thankful, and I say that sincerely. Check out that blog post at Patheos I linked to.

Edited August 2, 2012 by LifeOnaPlate

[LifeOnaPlate]

Good grief, of course the issues have been, are being, and will be discussed. So? Because other people have discussed them, are discussing them, and will discuss them, does this mean that I, alone, must not discuss them?

And, for the fifth time, I'm not, and never have been talking about Mormon studies in the general sense. I agree with regarding the situation in the broad use of the term. I'm using the term in my essay in the narrow sense of Mormon religious studies. Can you understand that idea? Please, please, please get the idea straight in your head.

I guess it was difficult for me to understand your idea on the account that I believed you were actually trying to be relevant to real life circumstances which are actually occurring right now.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill, your attempt to distinguish between Mormon studies and religious studies doesn't really make sense to me. The two aren't equivalent, or entirely separable. I don't see anyone but you talking about your version of "Mormon religious studies." Your version certainly does not reflect what is actually happening presently, nor does it seem to reflect anything anyone is anticipating. People expect to see more academic discussions of Mormonism, perhaps some more classes, maybe more things like Claremont's structure, more books, articles, academic folks talking about Mormon studies. People are excited to ask new questions of Mormon history, philosophy, theology, culture, etc.

But our conversation was useful for me in helping me better conceptualize what is actually happening, even though your observations don't match it, so for that I am thankful, and I say that sincerely. Check out that blog post at Patheos I linked to.

Can you distinguish between Mormon studies in the broad sense and Mormon history? Or Mormon art? Or Mormon literature? Can you understand that, while they may be part of Mormon studies, but also distinct, with their own methodologies, etc.? Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp. It's really very simple.

There is a standard academic discipline called "religious studies" in the academy. Mormon religious studies is a subset of both general Mormon studies, and religious studies. But it is not the same as either. Mormon religious studies shares a methodology with general religious studies, but content with general Mormon studies. While they are related each is distinct in its own way.

This is the standard academic methodology and categorization. It's nothing unusual. It's just the way things are done. It's bizarre you just can't get it.

But, at any rate, I'm done trying to explain it to you. This is really pointless.

[Bill Hamblin]

I guess it was difficult for me to understand your idea on the account that I believed you were actually trying to be relevant to real life circumstances which are actually occurring right now.

So your position is that religious studies is "not relevant to real life circumstances which are actually occurring right now?" And Mormonism can't be studied as a religion? And there are no unique problems and methods related to religious studies? Got it.

Is there an academic discipline called religious studies?

Could the study of Mormonism as a religion possibly be considered as a subset of religious studies?

Could it be possible that this is what I'm talking about in my essay rather than what you want me to talk about?

Is it possible that I might be interested in religious studies even though you personally don't think it is relevant?

[zerinus]

See my post #109. Have you read my essay?

This is what you said in that post (emphasis added):

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.

This seems to be an artificial classification. You have not provided any documentary evidence to demonstrate that "Mormon Studies" is used in these two classifications. It seems to be an artificial classification that you have made for yourself, but which is not reflected in reality.

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.

Except that that is your own arbitrary classification which is not reflected in the real world.

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.

First of all I am not sure that is the case. "Mormon Studies" will include many subjects from which "religion" is not excluded. Secondly, from reading your essay it seems that your have been shifting your ground several times over this issue. The pursuit of Mormon religious studies as a purely academic discipline is not incompatible with the wider discipline of "Mormon Studies". At first you seem to be arguing that this type of study, because it is not "faith based" (i.e. it is not approached with genuine belief), it therefore is going to be of little value or even detrimental to Mormonism; which is also an unsupported proposition. "Islamic Studied" as an academic subject in Western colleges and universities is not "faith based" (i.e. approached with genuine belief) either; but no one would argue that it is therefore a worthless exercise from the point of view of Islam, or detrimental to its cause. "Mormon studies" will likewise include many fields of study including religious study, but without being "faith based"--which would no more be detrimental to the cause of Mormonism than a purely academic study of Islam has been to the cause of Islam.

[Bill Hamblin]

This is what you said in that post (emphasis added):

This seems to be an artificial classification. You have not provided any documentary evidence to demonstrate that "Mormon Studies" is used in these two classifications. It seems to be an artificial classification that you have made for yourself, but which is not reflected in reality.

Except that that is your own arbitrary classification which is not reflected in the real world.

First of all I am not sure that is the case. "Mormon Studies" will include many subjects from which "religion" is not excluded. Secondly, from reading your essay it seems that your have been shifting your ground several times over this issue. The pursuit of Mormon religious studies as a purely academic discipline is not incompatible with the wider discipline of "Mormon Studies". At first you seem to be arguing that this type of study, because it is not "faith based" (i.e. it is not approached with genuine belief), it therefore is going to be of little value or even detrimental to Mormonism; which is also an unsupported proposition. "Islamic Studied" as an academic subject in Western colleges and universities is not "faith based" (i.e. approached with genuine belief) either; but no one would argue that it is therefore a worthless exercise from the point of view of Islam, or detrimental to its cause. "Mormon studies" will likewise include many fields of study including religious study, but without being "faith based"--which would no more be detrimental to the cause of Mormonism than a purely academic study of Islam has been to the cause of Islam.

I didn't argue for any of the things you claim I said. Sorry.

[zerinus]

I didn't argue for any of the things you claim I said. Sorry.

I have been reading your PDF essay, and that is what you appear to have been saying. You also appear to have been shifting your ground quite a bit since then. In your essay you definitely come over as being contemptuous of "Mormon Studies," whereas now you appear to have been back-peddling from that.

[Bill Hamblin]

I have been reading your PDF essay, and that is what you appear to have been saying. You also appear to have been shifting your ground quite a bit since then. In your essay you definitely come over as being contemptuous of "Mormon Studies," whereas now you appear to have been back-peddling from that.

Well, you've misunderstood, but what can I do? Lot's of people have understood me correctly. Why don't you quote the specific phrases from the essay that you think justify your claims.

[zerinus]

Well, you've misunderstood, but what can I do? Lot's of people have understood me correctly. Why don't you quote the specific phrases from the essay that you think justify your claims.

It is time for me to go to bed right now, but I will try tomorrow!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Lot's of people have understood me correctly.

True. And these people tend to be those who don't actually know what is happening presently in Mormon studies, or religious studies for that matter. All the people with actual direct experience with these things aside from Hamblin (in this thread) are understanding me correctly. (See the patheos piece linked above.)

[LifeOnaPlate]

PS- Bill, perhaps it would help me understand you better if you would identify a specific person/publication who actually argues that there is, or should be, the exact sort of "Mormon religious studies" that you're trying to describe. That way I can analyze the claims that are being made compared to the way you are articulating them to get a better sense for what is concerning you, why you decided to write your piece.

[wenglund]

True. And these people tend to be those who don't actually know what is happening presently in Mormon studies, or religious studies for that matter. All the people with actual direct experience with these things aside from Hamblin (in this thread) are understanding me correctly. (See the patheos piece linked above.)

Guilty as charged. I don't know what is presently happening in "Mormon studies" or "religious studies," nor do I know what, if anything, is happening presently in "Mormon religious studies."

Perhaps my not knowing these things keeps me from getting defensive and maybe feeling the need to protect turf, leaving my mind more amenable to understanding--or not. Who knows?

What I do know is that none of this is worth the degradation of friendships and brotherhood in Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill Hamblin]

Guilty as charged. I don't know what is presently happening in "Mormon studies" or "religious studies," nor do I know what, if anything, is happening presently in "Mormon religious studies."

Perhaps my not knowing these things keeps me from getting defensive and maybe feeling the need to protect turf, leaving my mind more amenable to understanding--or not. Who knows?

What I do know is that none of this is worth the degradation of friendships and brotherhood in Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You're right. Mods, lock it down. It's going nowhere fast.

[Calm]

You opened the thread and can lock it yourself because you are a "contributor". Check lower right hand corner where it says "Back to General Discussions" and it should say "topic moderation" and it has the choice of closing the thread for you.

[why me]

What I do know is that none of this is worth the degradation of friendships and brotherhood in Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think that academics can beg to disagree with one another without it being a threat to friendship or have an influence on brotherhood or sisterhood. What this disagreement does show is that mormonism is a diverse religion with many viewpoints within it. It also shows that mormonism is not a cult-ism since members are free to disagree with each other.

In academia there is no room for thin skinned people.

[why me]

In academia there is no room for thin skinned people since in academia, academics are at times in constant debate about their thesis. Debate is also a learning experience where the people involved learn to clarify their thinking.

Edited August 3, 2012 by why me