USU78 Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 "I hope a non-Jew is chosen for the next chair of Jewish studies. I really hope they don't succumb to the pressure of Jewish donors."Doesn't seem so hip when you talk that way about Jews, does it?But Jews lie about their beliefs and cover up the truth about their history!
CA Steve Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 Is it possible that Bushman might be considered?
Emerson Posted October 12, 2012 Author Posted October 12, 2012 Is it possible that Bushman might be considered?No. He's well-past retirement age, and is finally enjoying his well-earned respite from teaching and administration duties while working on a few final book projects.Plus, it'd be more than a tad odd to hold a chair named in your honor. 1
nealr Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) Is it possible that Bushman might be considered?Well, that might be kind of awkward. I know I would feel a little odd holding a position that was named after me! Edited October 12, 2012 by nealr
nealr Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) Accidental repost. sorry. Edited October 12, 2012 by nealr
The Grimace Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) "I hope a non-Jew is chosen for the next chair of Jewish studies. I really hope they don't succumb to the pressure of Jewish donors."Doesn't seem so hip when you talk that way about Jews, does it?I don't talk that way about Jews. Not sure why you'd think I would. Perhaps you feel that way, but I don't. Edited October 12, 2012 by The Grimace
Calm Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 I don't talk that way about Jews. That was his point.
The Grimace Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 But Jews lie about their beliefs and cover up the truth about their history!Um, why the sudden hate for our Jewish neighbours?
The Grimace Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 That was his point.What's wrong with wanting a non-Mormon scholar holding a Mormon Studies Chair? Surely it would bring a different perspective to the field, wouldn't it? And what is wrong with not being held slave to the desires of faithful donors? Surely that would allow for a more balanced view of Mormon studies, wouldn't it?Dr. Hamblin implies that I have some other type of motivation...perhaps I was trying to appear "hip", as he calls it. Or maybe I'm motivated by a hatred of Mormons. Maybe it's lesson for Bill - ask, don't assume.
Bernard Gui Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 Well, your degree would be in Religious Studies, and your options would be similar to having graduated from any other top-tier graduate program in religious studies. Many go into academia, but that's not the only option.Could you be more specific?
Emerson Posted October 12, 2012 Author Posted October 12, 2012 Could you be more specific?Specific on which points? On the degree process? Or job options? On the former, someone doesn't graduate with a degree in "Mormon studies"; rather, they have a degree in Religious Studies but just so happened to participate in a program that broadened their background in Mormonism.On the latter question, most graduates will go on to teach at a university level, most likely as a professor of religious studies somewhere. (Virginia has a very high placement rate for their graduates.) They may also go work for various research institutions that promote the study of, say, history or religion. In Mormon circles, there are places like the Maxwell Institute and the Church History Department in SLC; elsewhere, there are institutes on religion and democracy (at UC-Santa Barbara), religion and public life (at Yale), or religion and politics (at Princeton), just to name a few of the most notable and respected examples. Graduates with a religious studies PhD could also work in libraries, archives, or historical societies. They could become editors with journals, magazines, or publishing companies. They could work at think tanks in DC. There are many options that they could take, actually. 1
TAO Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 Um, why the sudden hate for our Jewish neighbours?It was humor, I think.
The Grimace Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 It was humor, I think.I don't think there is anything funny about accusing Jewish people of lying about their past and their beliefs.
USU78 Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 It was humor, I think.More like bitter irony. The implications of the poster's post had been that Mormons are incapable of being fairminded . . . I was riffing on the irony pointed out above that nobody would make such an accusation were the chair a chair in Jewish studies. The implications are, further, that Mormons may tend to lie about their doctrine and cover up their history, making them unfit as academes on the subject of their own religion, history, and culture.Such a thing is outrageous, just as it is outrageous to say Jews would tend to lie about their doctrine and cover up their history.I for one am roundly sick of being called a liar and obfuscater because of my membership in a faith/etho-religious group.
The Grimace Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 More like bitter irony. The implications of the poster's post had been that Mormons are incapable of being fairminded . . . I was riffing on the irony pointed out above that nobody would make such an accusation were the chair a chair in Jewish studies. The implications are, further, that Mormons may tend to lie about their doctrine and cover up their history, making them unfit as academes on the subject of their own religion, history, and culture.Such a thing is outrageous, just as it is outrageous to say Jews would tend to lie about their doctrine and cover up their history.I for one am roundly sick of being called a liar and obfuscater because of my membership in a faith/etho-religious group.I didn't call anyone a liar or obfuscater. I simply said it would be nice to have a non-Mormon as the chair because it may offer a different perspective on Mormon studies and I hoped that such a chair (actually LDS or non-LDS) would not succumb to the pressures of LDS donors to focus or not focus on certain aspects of the field. You really ought to re-read how frothed you have gotten, all based on assumptions.
USU78 Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 I didn't call anyone a liar or obfuscater. I simply said it would be nice to have a non-Mormon as the chair because it may offer a different perspective on Mormon studies and I hoped that such a chair (actually LDS or non-LDS) would not succumb to the pressures of LDS donors to focus or not focus on certain aspects of the field.You really ought to re-read how frothed you have gotten, all based on assumptions.Perhaps I have become too much of a hammer, but since there have been so many, many nails on this site and its predecessors over the years . . ..I'm pleased, needless to say, that you've moderated what you initially posted in this thread on the subject of who ought to sit in that there chair.
Cobalt-70 Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 More like bitter irony. The implications of the poster's post had been that Mormons are incapable of being fairminded . . . I was riffing on the irony pointed out above that nobody would make such an accusation were the chair a chair in Jewish studies. The implications are, further, that Mormons may tend to lie about their doctrine and cover up their history, making them unfit as academes on the subject of their own religion, history, and culture.Such a thing is outrageous, just as it is outrageous to say Jews would tend to lie about their doctrine and cover up their history.I for one am roundly sick of being called a liar and obfuscater because of my membership in a faith/etho-religious group.The problem is the generalizations. Yes, some apologetic Mormon scholars do much of their work outside the academic mainstream, and would probably not be a good fit for a Mormon studies position outside of BYU. But the existence of LDS scholars with broad acceptance, like Bushman, Givens, and many others, belies the notion that you can make any sort of generalization about Mormon scholars. Likewise, I'm sure there are Jewish scholars that would not be a good fit for a prestigious Jewish studies chair at a public university because they operate within the academic fringes, or have extreme political views, etc.For practical and probably legal reasons, UVa cannot base its decision on the religion of the scholar. The decision ought to be based purely on merit. If she happens to be a Mormon, then great--that's one more prestigious position for a Mormon scholar. If not, then that's great too. There very well could be advantages in promoting diversity of views and backgrounds within the field of Mormon studies, and in incentivizing non-Mormon scholars to study the religion.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 What's wrong with wanting a non-Mormon scholar holding a Mormon Studies Chair? Surely it would bring a different perspective to the field, wouldn't it? And what is wrong with not being held slave to the desires of faithful donors? Surely that would allow for a more balanced view of Mormon studies, wouldn't it?Dr. Hamblin implies that I have some other type of motivation...perhaps I was trying to appear "hip", as he calls it. Or maybe I'm motivated by a hatred of Mormons. Maybe it's lesson for Bill - ask, don't assume.I think it is stupid to hope that a chair in Jewish studies should not be filled by a Jew.I think it is equally stupid to hope that a chair in Mormon studies should not be filled by a Mormon. 1
USU78 Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 The problem is the generalizations. Yes, some apologetic Mormon scholars do much of their work outside the academic mainstream, and would probably not be a good fit for a Mormon studies position outside of BYU. But the existence of LDS scholars with broad acceptance, like Bushman, Givens, and many others, belies the notion that you can make any sort of generalization about Mormon scholars. Likewise, I'm sure there are Jewish scholars that would not be a good fit for a prestigious Jewish studies chair at a public university because they operate within the academic fringes, or have extreme political views, etc.For practical and probably legal reasons, UVa cannot base its decision on the religion of the scholar. The decision ought to be based purely on merit. If she happens to be a Mormon, then great--that's one more prestigious position for a Mormon scholar. If not, then that's great too. There very well could be advantages in promoting diversity of views and backgrounds within the field of Mormon studies, and in incentivizing non-Mormon scholars to study the religion.The decision is easy if the choice is clear. When two equally meritorious candidates present, one Mormon, one not, what then?
Bill Hamblin Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 The problem is the generalizations. Yes, some apologetic Mormon scholars do much of their work outside the academic mainstream, and would probably not be a good fit for a Mormon studies position outside of BYU. But the existence of LDS scholars with broad acceptance, like Bushman, Givens, and many others, belies the notion that you can make any sort of generalization about Mormon scholars. Likewise, I'm sure there are Jewish scholars that would not be a good fit for a prestigious Jewish studies chair at a public university because they operate within the academic fringes, or have extreme political views, etc.For practical and probably legal reasons, UVa cannot base its decision on the religion of the scholar. The decision ought to be based purely on merit. If she happens to be a Mormon, then great--that's one more prestigious position for a Mormon scholar. If not, then that's great too. There very well could be advantages in promoting diversity of views and backgrounds within the field of Mormon studies, and in incentivizing non-Mormon scholars to study the religion.Anti-Mormons are far more marginalized that LDS scholars; by lightyears. Most neither have a degree in relevant fields, not a university position, nor peer-reviewed publications, etc.Where did you get your Ph.D? In what field? What university do you work at? What peer-reviewed publications on LDS topics have you published? Your claims are not only pure ad hominem, but pure bull-pucky as well.
Cobalt-70 Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) Anti-Mormons are far more marginalized that LDS scholars; by lightyears. Most neither have a degree in relevant fields, not a university position, nor peer-reviewed publications, etc.Where did you get your Ph.D? In what field? What university do you work at? What peer-reviewed publications on LDS topics have you published? Your claims are not only pure ad hominem, but pure bull-pucky as well.I agree. The vast majority of anti-Mormon writers are just zealous evangelicals. They aren't scholars, and their work is quite often not of academic quality. I never said otherwise. Why the hostility? Has anybody proposed that someone should hire an anti-Mormon for this chair? Do you really believe that all non-Mormon scholars in the field of Mormon studies are anti-Mormon? Edited October 12, 2012 by Cobalt-70
Damien the Leper Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 My votes for a non-Mormon chair holder in 30 years would be Christopher Smith, Michael Reed and Bridget Jack Jeffries. My LDS votes would probably go to Seth Payne and Joseph Trevor Antley.
Bernard Gui Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 Specific on which points? On the degree process? Or job options? On the former, someone doesn't graduate with a degree in "Mormon studies"; rather, they have a degree in Religious Studies but just so happened to participate in a program that broadened their background in Mormonism.On the latter question, most graduates will go on to teach at a university level, most likely as a professor of religious studies somewhere. (Virginia has a very high placement rate for their graduates.) They may also go work for various research institutions that promote the study of, say, history or religion. In Mormon circles, there are places like the Maxwell Institute and the Church History Department in SLC; elsewhere, there are institutes on religion and democracy (at UC-Santa Barbara), religion and public life (at Yale), or religion and politics (at Princeton), just to name a few of the most notable and respected examples. Graduates with a religious studies PhD could also work in libraries, archives, or historical societies. They could become editors with journals, magazines, or publishing companies. They could work at think tanks in DC. There are many options that they could take, actually.Thank you. It was not a frivolous question on my part.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 I agree. The vast majority of anti-Mormon writers are just zealous evangelicals. They aren't scholars, and their work is quite often not of academic quality. I never said otherwise. Why the hostility? Has anybody proposed that someone should hire an anti-Mormon for this chair? Do you really believe that all non-Mormon scholars in the field of Mormon studies are anti-Mormon?No. Not at all.However, you implied that a faithful Mormon who happens to defend his beliefs should not be given the chair. That's your position, right? By analogy, should an Orthodox Jews who actually defends the Jewish tradition be automatically excluded from a chair in Jewish studies, right?(And I should note that the vast majority of chairs in Jewish studies are filled by Jews.) 1
TAO Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 I don't think there is anything funny about accusing Jewish people of lying about their past and their beliefs.He was being ironic. People often accuse us about lying about our past beliefs, thus, he was making fun of the detail that it can be said the Jews do the same thing, but don't recieve the same flak for it.The point was just to show that people have overlying biases; each and every one of us do.
Recommended Posts