New Chair In Mormon Studies

[Pahoran]

Ah, so now ideological presuppositions are the foundation of who is a qualified peer reviewer I see. And you get to choose who is and is not ideologically pure, right?

I hope you know there is a difference between humanities and science, and between religion and physics.

You know, the more Cobalt posts, the more he reveals about his own attitudes.

What would a "main stream scholar" in Mormon studies look like to him, and why would a Mormon scholar be less likely to qualify?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bill Hamblin]

I can't see why the perspective of a non-Mormon should be preferred over the perspective of a Mormon in a chair on Mormon studies at a public university. I really can't.

I can. It is an ideological preference to marginalize Mormons.

[The Grimace]

Except you did.

Must I refresh your memory?

You sneered:

I didn't sneer. I wrote.

So what conclusion do we draw from the fact that you do talk that way about Mormons?

Well, we can conclude that you pick and choose what to quote. For instance, I clarified my statement in a number of posts. And we can conclude that you choose to make this a statement about Mormons when in reality I was talking about a position at a university.

Stating that I hope a non-Mormon chair is chosen because I feel a non-Mormon chair could bring a fresh or different perspective to the position does not make me anti-Mormon.

Stating that I hope a non-Mormon chair is chosen because I hate Mormons does make me an anti-Mormon.

Since I did the former, and not the latter, you are left with nothing.

[TAO]

I can't see why the perspective of a non-Mormon should be preferred over the perspective of a Mormon in a chair on Mormon studies at a public university. I really can't.

Neither can I. Either a Mormon or a non-Mormon can develop good perspectives.

[TAO]

Stating that I hope a non-Mormon chair is chosen because I hate Mormons does make me an anti-Mormon.

No, it doesn't. But make sure your reasons are good ones... ones that can't be turned around against you with another religious affilation or group as an example. That's the important thing.

Edited October 14, 2012 by TAO

[Bernard Gui]

For example, I studied Religion at a graduate level. My focus was in political ethics. My degree states that I have an MA in Religion. I currently work in high-tech software development.

With my masters I can teach religion, ethics, and perhaps political science to undergraduates. Also, with a graduate degree I can participate in most academic events in religious studies and I will present a paper from time to time on a range of subjects. I've written and presented on topics from Mormonism to the commentary on Christian ethics found in thrash metal lyrics.

In my particular case, my degree in religious studies fulfills what is an interest. My full-time job has nothing to do with religion or ethics. Although, I do hope my studies have allowed me to develop some semblance of business ethics as those seem to be sorely lacking at some firms.

Anyway, I may pursue a PhD in the future but I don't seek to be a full-time professor so obtaining a PhD would at once expand my broad knowledge of religion and ethics and narrow my focus (through the dissertation process) onto an as-yet-to-be-explored subject.

Thank you!

[Bernard Gui]

If there is one thing the internet has taught us, it is that Mormons are just as confused about what they believe as anyone else. If you ask a Mormon what they believe, chances are you will get their personal beliefs, not some codified religious belief.

Would you be as upset if they just parroted codified religious beliefs?

[Cobalt-70]

You know, the more Cobalt posts, the more he reveals about his own attitudes.

What would a "main stream scholar" in Mormon studies look like to him, and why would a Mormon scholar be less likely to qualify?

Never said that a Mormon scholar would be less likely to qualify. A Mormon scholar in the Bushman or Givens mold would be extremely well qualified. But a Mormon apologetic scholar in the old FARMS mold probably would have difficulties, because they are working only part time in mainstream academic work, and spending the rest on fringe pursuits. Scholars in some institutions can do that, but for somebody in a prestigious position like this one, fringe research would be a distraction, and runs the risk of undermining the credibility of the more mainstream work.

[bdouglas]

B. Hamblin does make an interesting point about how nobody would ever think of appointing to a chair of Jewish studies a non-Jew. It would be ridiculous. But news organizations routinely ask someone like, say, Jon Krakauer for expert analysis of "Mormon issues"; or they will even ask Matt Stone et al, the authors of the "Book Of Mormon Musical", what they think of Mitt Romney and what is their opinion of Mormonism: in fact, ask anybody but an active believing Mormon to define Mormonism. Would any non-Jew even consider writing a musical about Jews that made fun of Jews and of a Jewish sacred work? But it's okay to do this if it's about the Mormons.

No, I would prefer to see appointed to the chair a believing practicing Mormon.

[Pahoran]

Well, we can conclude that you pick and choose what to quote. For instance, I clarified my statement in a number of posts.

Yes, I note your attempts to explain away what you wrote.

But you still wrote what you wrote, and then boasted that you don't talk about Jews the way you talk about Mormons.

And we can conclude that you choose to make this a statement about Mormons when in reality I was talking about a position at a university.

And how a Mormon shouldn't be chosen for it.

But you don't talk "that way" about Jews. What way? The way you talk about Mormons.

Stating that I hope a non-Mormon chair is chosen because I feel a non-Mormon chair could bring a fresh or different perspective to the position does not make me anti-Mormon.

Stating that I hope a non-Mormon chair is chosen because I hate Mormons does make me an anti-Mormon.

Since I did the former, and not the latter, you are left with nothing.

How you rationalise your bigotry is neither here nor there. Absolutely everyone who thinks a Mormon should not be chosen for any job you care to name can rationalise their bigotry. It takes a special amount of chutzpah to deny that it's anti-Mormon to assume that a Mormon would be less qualified to work in the field of Mormon studies.

And your rationalisation is astonishingly lame. The notion that there's anything "fresh or different" about the prevailing attitudes of the dominant culture towards small religious minority groups is risible.

Thanks for the laugh.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Never said that a Mormon scholar would be less likely to qualify. A Mormon scholar in the Bushman or Givens mold would be extremely well qualified. But a Mormon apologetic scholar in the old FARMS mold probably would have difficulties, because they are working only part time in mainstream academic work, and spending the rest on fringe pursuits.

Call for references, please.

Regards,

Pahoran

[The Grimace]

And how a Mormon shouldn't be chosen for it.

CFR. Where did I say that a Mormon should not be chosen for the job?

But you don't talk "that way" about Jews. What way? The way you talk about Mormons.

So how do I talk about Mormons, Pahoran? The way you've phrased your statement, it sounds as though you have a lot of experience with the way I talk about Mormons. So, CFR. Spill it. Show me exactly how I talk about Mormons. Can't wait.

How you rationalise your bigotry is neither here nor there. Absolutely everyone who thinks a Mormon should not be chosen for any job you care to name can rationalise their bigotry. It takes a special amount of chutzpah to deny that it's anti-Mormon to assume that a Mormon would be less qualified to work in the field of Mormon studies.

CFR. Where did I say a Mormon is less qualified to work in the field of Mormon studies? You sure do read a lot into a few simple words, huh? Talk about chutzpah.

And your rationalisation is astonishingly lame. The notion that there's anything "fresh or different" about the prevailing attitudes of the dominant culture towards small religious minority groups is risible.

Not sure what you mean here. Do you think I said, "I hope an anti-Mormon scholar is chosen to fill the position"? Or, "I hope a non-LDS, non-religious-non-history-major-academic is chosen"? Or, "I hope a non-LDS joe-anybody is chosen to fill the position"?

The way you read betrays the way you write.

Thanks for the laugh.

Likewise.

[BCSpace]

Let's make a split chair requirement. Have a believing Mormon lecture for half and a raving anti Mormon or neutral Atheist takes the other half. Who goes first could be settled by coin toss each day.

[Bernard Gui]

One benefit of more Mormon studies programs would be the creation of a cadre of peers to review each others' papers.

This should silence the critics.

[Cobalt-70]

B. Hamblin does make an interesting point about how nobody would ever think of appointing to a chair of Jewish studies a non-Jew. It would be ridiculous.

This is not because being a Jew automatically makes you more qualified to teach and do research on Jewish studies. It is because Jewish institutions do a good job at educating Jews about Jewish history and other Jewish studies issues, and getting them to ask questions and think critically about their religion. Also, hardly anybody other than Jews actually learns Hebrew.

By contrast, Mormons coming up through the system get very little information about Mormon studies issues. They will get a very sanitized and superficial version of Mormon history, but they are not trained to think critically about the religion. Thus, a return Mormon missionary might in many cases have no more knowledge about Mormon studies issues, and probably less, than a person might obtain after a couple hours of reading Wikipedia articles.

It is therefore quite easy for a non-Mormon to do a little studying about Mormon studies issues, and get up to speed on par with life-long Mormons. It has happened many times. For example, the recent biography of Brigham Young, which has supplanted Leonard Arrington's work as the premier biography of Young, was written by a non-Mormon.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[The Grimace]

One benefit of more Mormon studies programs would be the creation of a cadre of peers to review each others' papers.

This should silence the critics.

Absolutely.

[bdouglas]

This is not because being a Jew automatically makes you more qualified to teach and do research on Jewish studies. It is because Jewish institutions do a good job at educating Jews about Jewish history and other Jewish studies issues, and getting them to ask questions and think critically about their religion.

By contrast, Mormons coming up through the system get very little information about Mormon studies issues. They will get a very sanitized and superficial version of Mormon history, but they are not trained to think critically about the religion. Thus, a return Mormon missionary might in many cases have no more knowledge about Mormon studies issues, and probably less, than a person might obtain after a couple hours of reading Wikipedia articles.

It is therefore quite easy for a non-Mormon to do a little studying about Mormon studies issues, and get up to speed on par with life-long Mormons. It has happened many times. For example, the recent biography of Brigham Young, which has supplanted Leonard Arrington's work as the premier biography of Young, was written by a non-Mormon.

I'm not convinced the average Jew knows anymore about Jewish history than the average Mormon knows about Mormon history. And even if what you say was true in the past it isn't true anymore. There are lots of candidates who could fill the position who also happen to be believing Mormons.

[volgadon]

This is not because being a Jew automatically makes you more qualified to teach and do research on Jewish studies. It is because Jewish institutions do a good job at educating Jews about Jewish history and other Jewish studies issues, and getting them to ask questions and think critically about their religion.

By contrast, Mormons coming up through the system get very little information about Mormon studies issues. They will get a very sanitized and superficial version of Mormon history, but they are not trained to think critically about the religion. Thus, a return Mormon missionary might in many cases have no more knowledge about Mormon studies issues, and probably less, than a person might obtain after a couple hours of reading Wikipedia articles.

It is therefore quite easy for a non-Mormon to do a little studying about Mormon studies issues, and get up to speed on par with life-long Mormons. It has happened many times. For example, the recent biography of Brigham Young, which has supplanted Leonard Arrington's work as the premier biography of Young, was written by a non-Mormon.

What do we do with the Jewish education systems and so on that don't do a good job at educating Jews about Jewish history and other Jewish studies issues, and don't get them to ask questions and think critically about their religion?

What do we do with the Jews coming up through the system get very little information about Jewish studies issues, that get a very sanitized and superficial version of Jewish history, but are not trained to think critically about the religion?

Trust me, there are a good deal of those. I would say they are probably the norm rather than the exeception. There has even been many public displays of anger over the appearance of a relatively innocuous biography of the Vilna Gaon written by an Orthodox Jew.

Also, what do we do with the fact that originally, Jewish studies were very apologetic in scope and purpose?

[Cobalt-70]

I'm not convinced the average Jew knows anymore about Jewish history than the average Mormon knows about Mormon history. And even if what you say was true in the past it isn't true anymore. There are lots of candidates who could fill the position who also happen to be believing Mormons.

If you are a Jew who wants to study Jewish studies, you can go to any of several good Jewish institutions of programs and get very good training in the field in which you learn to think critically about Jewish issues. Plus, you will probably learn Hebrew long before going to college. Plus, Jews have a tradition of asking hard questions and debating Jewish issues, which Mormons do not have.

That's not the case with Mormon studies. You can't get Mormon studies training at BYU or other LDS institutions, unless you make up your own program and train yourself. Nowadays, Mormons can go to non-LDS institutions like Clairmont, but I think most Mormons are wary of these programs. So as it stands now, Mormons have little advantage over non-Mormons as a result of their institutions.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[bdouglas]

If you are a Jew who wants to study Jewish studies, you can go to any of several good Jewish institutions of programs and get very good training in the field in which you learn to think critically about the field. Plus, you will probably learn Hebrew long before going to college. Plus, Jews have a tradition of asking hard questions and debating Jewish issues.

That's not the case with Mormon studies. You can't get Mormon studies training at BYU or other LDS institutions, unless you make up your own program and train yourself. Nowadays, Mormons can go to non-LDS institutions like Clairmont, but I think most Mormons are wary of these programs. So as it stands now, Mormons have little advantage over non-Mormons as a result of their institutions.

Yes...yes...I think you make some very valid points here. But I think the following is also true:

To the average academic, the whole idea of a "believing Mormon" occupying an academic chair for Mormon Studies at a secular institution is absurd on its very face, a non-starter from the git-go: gold plates delivered by an angel, God intervening in the affairs of men in the quite literal ways in which Mormon history is replete with. No qualified scholar, not to mention self-respecting intelligent human being could believe in such nonsense. And so the need to appoint a non-LDS, or at least a non-believing "enlightened" former LDS.

[Emerson]

Many thanks for engaging , DCP. I mostly agree with what you say, though I'll respond to a few points (which I number with [brackets] for convenience).

Some quick observations, in no particular order...

[1] Claremont is in Los Angeles Country, not Orange County.

...

[2] Historical studies of and within Mormonism are far more advanced and developed than most other fields. So it's likely that this chair will take a historical approach (as USU's Arrington Professorship and CGU's Hunter Chair have tended to do).

[3] Perhaps for accidental historical reasons (e.g., the pivotal influence of Leonard Arrington, whose formal training was actually in economics rather than in history as such), Mormon historiography has focused heavily on economic and institutional history, as well as on biography, but not so much on doctrinal, theological, or, often, even expressly religious matters.

...

[4] Emerson, just out of curiosity, what kind of Mormon studies program do you think Professor Hamblin is seeking? I don't know, myself.

[1] Thanks for the appreciated correction, though I was mostly insisting that the LDS funding and donors came from Orange County, which has a large number of wealthy and extremely generous members. I had heard from several on the Claremont committee that this is where most of the funding for the chair came from, but as I was not privy to those discussions and donations first hand I'd be happy to stand corrected.

[2] Fully agreed and, as a historian, I'm of course happy that one of my colleagues will likely get the positions. Though I do hope (and expect) it to be a historian with an interdisciplinary background, which I think is a hallmark of the recent developments in the still-developing field. People like Flake, Givens, Hardy, and Maffly-Kipp jump to mind as "historians" who represent a more multifaceted approach to their studies. I also look forward to the day when a Mormon Studies chair can be filled by a philosopher, literary theory critic, anthropologist, etc.

[3] I have been thrilled to see moves within the field to address those neglected aspects of past neglect. There have been several works in theology, religious, and lived religion that have been superb in appropriating larger methodological trends and dealing with Mormon religiosity in ways unthought of before. I'm thinking of Givens, Sam Brown, Matt Bowman, Steve Taysom, Spencer Fluhman, and a number of others who are at the forefront of this move. Exciting times, indeed.

[4] I was mostly responding to Professor Hamblin's statement that one chair does not make a program. I'll willingly admit that I could have been reading too much into that statement, and if so I sincerely apologize. I was mostly pushing back on what I thought was the idea that a "Mormon Studies Program" required a number of professors and a very large self-sustaining cadre of scholars. I hear that type of vision from several people--both who strongly endorse Mormon studies as well as those who are skeptical of it--so I likely had too much of a trigger response. I just wanted to emphasize that I don't want to see Mormon studies programs becoming so large that they only speak to each other; rather, I like the forced necessity that comes from being small because it forces you to always engage with people outside the field and anxious to address broader issues. UVA actually has a larger hope for what they do with their program that Claremont currently does--I'm not at liberty to say what, though--but I sincerely hope it, or any MS program, ever gets so big that it just becomes the parochial, circular debates that have dominated the field in the past. MS is always best when categorized as a subfield, and the programs should reflect that.

Sorry for the long and rambling response. Hope everyone had a great sabbath!

[Emerson]

Yes...yes...I think you make some very valid points here. But I think the following is also true:

To the average academic, the whole idea of a "believing Mormon" occupying an academic chair for Mormon Studies at a secular institution is absurd on its very face, a non-starter from the git-go: gold plates delivered by an angel, God intervening in the affairs of men in the quite literal ways in which Mormon history is replete with. No qualified scholar, not to mention self-respecting intelligent human being could believe in such nonsense. And so the need to appoint a non-LDS, or at least a non-believing "enlightened" former LDS.

You'll be pleased to learn that the average academic believes nothing of the sort. Sure, there might have been a time when that is the case, and there are certainly a small (if loud) number who still believes that, but the vast majority of the academy does not hold such atrocious views.

[Pahoran]

CFR. Where did I say that a Mormon should not be chosen for the job?

Here:

I hope a non-Mormon scholar is chosen, and I really hope the chair doesn't succumb to the pressure of LDS donors.

If a non-Mormon scholar is chosen to fill the one and only chair, it follows that a Mormon scholar will not be. This isn't rocket science, Grimace.

So how do I talk about Mormons, Pahoran? The way you've phrased your statement, it sounds as though you have a lot of experience with the way I talk about Mormons. So, CFR. Spill it. Show me exactly how I talk about Mormons. Can't wait.

Certainly. You say things like:

I hope a non-Mormon scholar is chosen, and I really hope the chair doesn't succumb to the pressure of LDS donors.

And when Bill Hamblin demonstrated your bigotry by simply replacing "Mormon" and "LDS" with "Jewish," you started frantically trying to backpedal.

CFR. Where did I say a Mormon is less qualified to work in the field of Mormon studies? You sure do read a lot into a few simple words, huh? Talk about chutzpah.

Oh, are you now saying you hoped a non-Mormon would be chosen over a better-qualified Mormon? Okay; I believe you.

Not sure what you mean here. Do you think I said, "I hope an anti-Mormon scholar is chosen to fill the position"? Or, "I hope a non-LDS, non-religious-non-history-major-academic is chosen"? Or, "I hope a non-LDS joe-anybody is chosen to fill the position"?

No. You just said you wanted a non-Mormon for a Mormon Studies position.

The way you read betrays the way you write.

The way you write betrays the way you think.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited October 15, 2012 by Pahoran

[Stargazer]

Stating that I hope a non-Mormon chair is chosen because I feel a non-Mormon chair could bring a fresh or different perspective to the position does not make me anti-Mormon.

Grimace, you are making absolutely no sense whatsoever. How on earth could a non-Mormon chair to a position that deals with Mormonism bring a "fresh" or "different" perspective when it's a new chair and has never been held by anyone? If this position had been held by a Mormon from the moment it was created, well then I could see someone saying that after twenty or thirty years it was time for a fresh perspective by getting a non-Mormon in there. What you've just said is one of the most bewildering statements I have seen on this board, and I've seen a few.

[blackstrap]

I'm looking to get a new chair for my study. I wonder what type I should buy. Should I get a wrought iron,straight backed chair with little padding, or perhaps a bean-bag chair that will reform to any shape introduced to it? How about a nice lazy-boy that will give me comfort no matter what I happen to be studying? One thing for sure,I will not be getting anything from IKEA because , well, they are just too.... Swedish.