Calm Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 And what is wrong with not being held slave to the desires of faithful donors? Heaven forbid you actually use the money donated for the purpose those donating expect it to be...
Bill Hamblin Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 Heaven forbid you actually use the money donated for the purpose those donating expect it to be...We know how well that works. Donors should have no say over what a university does with their money, right?
Cobalt-70 Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) However, you implied that a faithful Mormon who happens to defend his beliefs should not be given the chair. That's your position, right? No. It depends on the nature of the "defense." If a defense could survive peer review outside of BYU and the Church Education System, then no problem. In any event, defending one's religious beliefs is not really the focus of general academia. Because your audience is not Mormon, the focus is more on explaining, comparing, and contextualizing Mormon beliefs, rather than defending them. I think that is probably one of the reasons why BYU has changed its MI focus. Edited October 12, 2012 by Cobalt-70
Calm Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) We know how well that works. Donors should have no say over what a university does with their money, right?Got to admit it is one of my pet peeves after watching how it works with many universities over the years, the ones putting effort into establishing relationships and desirable programs that attract donors who want to help fund those goals being ignored when their donations are funneled toward the pet projects of the administrators or insisted to be equally shared out with depts. who don't put as much effort into fundraising. There should be aid for less flashy depts. who have less natural appeal, but it should always be made clear to a donor what is happening to his money so they can make an informed choice including if they simply choose to trust the university to use their money where the admin thinks it is most important.Edit: autocorrect strikes again... Edited October 13, 2012 by calmoriah
nealr Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 No. It depends on the nature of the "defense." If a defense could survive peer review outside of BYU and the Church Education System, then no problem. In any event, defending one's religious beliefs is not really the focus of general academia. Because your audience is not Mormon, the focus is more on explaining, comparing, and contextualizing Mormon beliefs, rather than defending them. I think that is probably one of the reasons why BYU has changed its MI focus.What you seem to be implicating is that people who defend their beliefs cannot also explain, compare, and contextualize their beliefs, and to know the appropriate time and place for the doing of one versus the other. You also seem to be implying that someone like, say, Dan Peterson or Bill Hamblin, wouldn't be qualified for fill such a position, despite the fact that they have appropriate PhDs and a publication record in non-LDS projects, and have also been reading and writing on Mormon topics for decades. And all this simply because they feel a responsibility to take the knowledge and skills they have and use it to respond to those who would criticize their faith.And I didn't even mention the implications that peer-review at BYU is somehow inherently defective.
USU78 Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 And I didn't even mention the implications that peer-review at BYU is somehow inherently defective.Should I? Must restrain. Naw . . .
Bill Hamblin Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 No. It depends on the nature of the "defense." If a defense could survive peer review outside of BYU and the Church Education System, then no problem. In any event, defending one's religious beliefs is not really the focus of general academia. Because your audience is not Mormon, the focus is more on explaining, comparing, and contextualizing Mormon beliefs, rather than defending them. I think that is probably one of the reasons why BYU has changed its MI focus.What preposterous ad hominem nonsense.First of all, it seems crystal clear to me that a believer in a religion can better explain and contextualize his religion than a non-believer. I would much rather hear about Hinduism from a Hindu than an atheist. Second, explaining one's religion isdefending one's religion. Third, do you have any evidence that my articles cannot stand peer review outside BYU? Any at all? (Have you ever had a peer review article published anywhere? I asked before. Silence.) My most recent article will be published in a forthcoming volume The Other Temple to be published by the Irish Society for the Study of the Ancient Near East. Seems to have passed peer review somehow. 2
The Grimace Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 My most recent article will be published in a forthcoming volume The Other Temple to be published by the Irish Society for the Study of the Ancient Near East. Seems to have passed peer review somehow.I don't think the Irish are any good at explaining the Ancient Near East.
Batgirlsmom Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 I don't see a problem with a Latter-day Saint holding such a chair at a university. The issue of using a religious studies chair primarily to defend a religious belief system is an interesting one. Are religious scholars respected if they purely engage in apologetics? Are these religious studies departments seen as places of research that may or may not conclude with a defense of a particular religion?
volgadon Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 I don't think the Irish are any good at explaining the Ancient Near East.
volgadon Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 I don't think the Irish are any good at explaining the Ancient Near East.All kidding aside, Trinity College is one of the seven ancient universities. A few years ago I considered applying there, but life intervened with other plans.
Cobalt-70 Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 What preposterous ad hominem nonsense.First of all, it seems crystal clear to me that a believer in a religion can better explain and contextualize his religion than a non-believer. I would much rather hear about Hinduism from a Hindu than an atheist. Second, explaining one's religion isdefending one's religion.Dude, you're taking this way too personally. Why is this all about you now? Are you bucking for this position?As far as Mormon studies articles by believers always being superior to Mormon studies articles by non-believers, that's absurd. Both insiders and outsiders can make very valuable contributions to the field of Mormon studies, and we need a mixture of both. Believers might have a better insider perspective, but there are also limitations. If they are orthodox members of the faith, their answers are constrained, from the beginning, by that orthodoxy. They can still make very valuable contributions, and those contributions are needed in the field. However, we also need the outsider perspective. An outsider is better able to see the forest for the trees. They are able to write freely without worrying about disciplinary councils. Their conclusion is not pre-constrained by any notion of orthodoxy.
Cobalt-70 Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 What you seem to be implicating is that people who defend their beliefs cannot also explain, compare, and contextualize their beliefs, and to know the appropriate time and place for the doing of one versus the other. You also seem to be implying that someone like, say, Dan Peterson or Bill Hamblin, wouldn't be qualified for fill such a position, despite the fact that they have appropriate PhDs and a publication record in non-LDS projects, and have also been reading and writing on Mormon topics for decades. And all this simply because they feel a responsibility to take the knowledge and skills they have and use it to respond to those who would criticize their faith.Certainly, someone can be a part-time mainstream scholar, and a part-time apologist. I have nothing against that per se. But such a person probably would not be a good candidate for a position such as the one we are discussing. I'm sure they would probably want someone who does mainstream peer-reviewed work full time.
TAO Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) Certainly, someone can be a part-time mainstream scholar, and a part-time apologist. I have nothing against that per se. But such a person probably would not be a good candidate for a position such as the one we are discussing. I'm sure they would probably want someone who does mainstream peer-reviewed work full time.I think the point nearl is this; what makes apologetics a disqualifying aspect for the chair? If you are going to disqualify apologists, you are going to have to disqualify critics under the same reasoning (both have an agenda). Edited October 13, 2012 by TAO 3
Bill Hamblin Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 Certainly, someone can be a part-time mainstream scholar, and a part-time apologist. I have nothing against that per se. But such a person probably would not be a good candidate for a position such as the one we are discussing. I'm sure they would probably want someone who does mainstream peer-reviewed work full time.There is no reason to think that apologetic studies are not peer reviewed. They are. You are fantasizing.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 Dude, you're taking this way too personally. Why is this all about you now? Are you bucking for this position?As far as Mormon studies articles by believers always being superior to Mormon studies articles by non-believers, that's absurd. Both insiders and outsiders can make very valuable contributions to the field of Mormon studies, and we need a mixture of both. Believers might have a better insider perspective, but there are also limitations. If they are orthodox members of the faith, their answers are constrained, from the beginning, by that orthodoxy. They can still make very valuable contributions, and those contributions are needed in the field. However, we also need the outsider perspective. An outsider is better able to see the forest for the trees. They are able to write freely without worrying about disciplinary councils. Their conclusion is not pre-constrained by any notion of orthodoxy.It has nothing to do with me. The point is simply that apologists are authentic scholars who publish authentic scholarship. I am not saying outsiders can't do good scholarship Mormonism. I am saying that if you want to know what Mormons believe, you should ask a Mormon, not a non-Mormon. Likewise if you want to know what a Jew, Muslim or atheist believe, you should ask them. Not an outsider. This seems transparently obvious. If I want to know what you believe, should I ask you? Or should I ask someone else?
CA Steve Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) As a Mormon I consider Dr Peterson a great source for what Muslims believe since he & I share a common background. Edited October 14, 2012 by CA Steve
sethpayne Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 Could you be more specific?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.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 14, 2012 Posted October 14, 2012 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.Sounds like a book title, Bill: The Impudence and Stupidity of Hope. However, I know of several highly qualified non-Mormons capable of bringing considerable expertise and elan to the study of Mormon tradition & history. People like Sarah Barringer-Gordon and Jan Shipps come to mind, although Prof. Shipps would be unlikely to accept such a position this late in life. One should first of all ask whether such a person is qualified by temperament and scholarship for such a position.Moreover, just as Amy-Jill Levine is busy teaching Christians (including seminarians) at Vanderbilt Univ. about Christianity from a Jewish viewpoint, so also there are Mormon scholars who are able to master, teach, and operate well within other faith traditions. An ecumenical cross-fertilization is probably something to be desired. We've had enough of the "solipsistic self-referential monologue with ourselves"* inside Mormonism. We need to be in dialogue with other points of view.* F. Noor in O. Safid, ed., Progressive Muslims (2003), 325. 1
Cobalt-70 Posted October 14, 2012 Posted October 14, 2012 (edited) There is no reason to think that apologetic studies are not peer reviewed. They are. You are fantasizing.Sure they are, by other apologists. There are peer reviewed journals for cold fusion, UFOlogy, and parapsychology, too. By saying that, I don't mean to compare these fields to Mormon apologetic research, but the point is that there is a difference between general peer review, and limited peer review among an insular group of scholars working on the fringe. Edited October 14, 2012 by Cobalt-70
Cobalt-70 Posted October 14, 2012 Posted October 14, 2012 It has nothing to do with me. The point is simply that apologists are authentic scholars who publish authentic scholarship.I am not saying outsiders can't do good scholarship Mormonism. I am saying that if you want to know what Mormons believe, you should ask a Mormon, not a non-Mormon. Likewise if you want to know what a Jew, Muslim or atheist believe, you should ask them. Not an outsider. This seems transparently obvious. If I want to know what you believe, should I ask you? Or should I ask someone else?So is that what you think Mormon Studies is all about? Telling people what Mormons believe?
The Grimace Posted October 14, 2012 Posted October 14, 2012 It has nothing to do with me. The point is simply that apologists are authentic scholars who publish authentic scholarship.I am not saying outsiders can't do good scholarship Mormonism. I am saying that if you want to know what Mormons believe, you should ask a Mormon, not a non-Mormon. Likewise if you want to know what a Jew, Muslim or atheist believe, you should ask them. Not an outsider. This seems transparently obvious. If I want to know what you believe, should I ask you? Or should I ask someone else?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.
TAO Posted October 14, 2012 Posted October 14, 2012 Sure they are, by other apologists.I think you probably shouldn't make such a big generalization.There are peer reviewed journals for cold fusion, UFOlogy, and parapsychology, too. By saying that, I don't mean to compare these fields to Mormon apologetic research, but the point is that there is a difference between general peer review, and limited peer review among an insular group of scholars working on the fringe.Again, though I haven't actually researched the subject, I'm pretty sure there are Mormon apologetics papers that get peer reviewed by people who aren't Mormon apologists (anybody who wants to provide some examples would be appreciated). Why isn't there more? Well, I would suggest it's because most people aren't interested in re-evaluating the assumptions that have been made for many years - especially when it supports a religion they disagree with.I also have a second question. What makes a peer-reviewed paper better than a non-peer-reviewed one, consdier both can undergo scrutiny once released to the public. Yes, I know the one will be error checked. But honestly, even peer-reviewed books can get ripped up by other scholars after peer review. To me, there isn't much of a difference between a peer-reviewed book, and a non-peer-reviewed one. It's just that the one has gone through an extra-error-checking process. What makes having other acadameia review it (which they will undoubtedly do once it's released to the public aftewards anyways) such an excellent advantage to a books reliablity? Cannot a book be reliable without peer review?
Bill Hamblin Posted October 14, 2012 Posted October 14, 2012 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.And exactly how will asking a non-Mormon what Mormons believe solve this problem?
Bill Hamblin Posted October 14, 2012 Posted October 14, 2012 Sure they are, by other apologists. There are peer reviewed journals for cold fusion, UFOlogy, and parapsychology, too. By saying that, I don't mean to compare these fields to Mormon apologetic research, but the point is that there is a difference between general peer review, and limited peer review among an insular group of scholars working on the fringe.The bold face text is simply a lie, and it is sheer ad hominem. LDS scholars publish in a wide range of academic journals, with academic presses, and give papers in academic conferences throughout the world. Your claim is objectively false.I've asked you several times why you feel qualified to make such judgments. Your Ph.D.? The University you work at? Your peer reviewed publications in the field? If, in fact, peer review is the gold standard for academics (and really isn't; it's a minimum standard) then your failure to qualify as a "peer" in the field means your views on this matter are irrelevant. Don't you find it highly ironic that a non-peer (you) is telling a peer (me), that my work simply doesn't measure up?
Recommended Posts