Applicants Needed - Must Read!

[_grayskull]

Check out this thread here at Times and Seasons:

http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3668

Claremont is looking for a chair for their religious studies department. I think someone from this neck of the woods should apply. If Dr. Shades, Rollo, Beasti, or Bishop Lee decide to send in their application, I'd be more than happy to write one of the three letters of recommendation needed to be considered. If this came two years earlier, I would apply myself.

---

Anyway, the thread is worth reading at Times. Blake Ostler, who publishes Mormon philosophical pieces (and a real good guy by the way) raises a profound issue. He asks why they only consider scholars who have a background in American Religious Studies. Why not scripture studies, or theology? (he knows the answer)

The poster, Mellisa, who is a graduate student and apparently familiar with how things work responds profoundly:

1) There are almost no qualified tenured scholars with doctoral degrees in fields other than American Religious History. There are younger scholars (mostly still students) with degrees in Religious Studies programs, but we aren’t applying for these senior positions.

2) The reason why almost all of the senior scholars in “Mormon Studies” (a ghettoizing category I find problematic, incidentally) are historians is because “Mormonism” has been understood in the academy as properly part of “American Religious History” and gets studied as part of an American Religion track. Those who wanted to study Mormonism, therefore, pursued doctoral studies in American Religion programs. Those few of us who are doing very different kinds of work on Mormonism (ethics, philosophy, women’s studies, anthropology, etc. ) are taking a risk—an exciting, path-breaking kind of risk, but a risk nonetheless in suggesting that the academy rethink its categorization of Mormonism.

M.

In all its ironic glory, contrary to what we've been told by at least one outspoken apologist who attended this institution for a number of years, Mormonism is not being recognized as an equal voice among peers, but a queer NRM that has gained a significant following such that it falls on the map of "American Religious Studies." The subtext is loud and clear. You live in our society so we need to understand you. Perhaps we might even like you. But don't feel free to drink from our fountains. Other than as a sociological artifact, we don't care about your "contributions" to theology, philosophy, antiquities, or Bible studies. The scholars at FARMS live double lives. On the one hand, they may contribute to their fields of choice in antiquities and related fields, but as soon as that research gets mixed up with the Book of Mormon, the academy shuts its ears and the circulation of scholarship is among apologists and lay members only. The narrow consideration requirements for the chair position within what is considered about the most Mormon friendly institution around draws this out in even more clarity.

To put it another way, the academy is interested in Mormon religious ideas the same way that a psychiatrist is interested in the religious beliefs of his mental patient. They are relevent in a bracketed sense, as they shed light on diagnosis. But the Mormon ideas themselves aren't on the shelves within the academic marketplace.

[_Dr. Shades]

To put it another way, the academy is interested in Mormon religious ideas the same way that a psychiatrist is interested in the religious beliefs of his mental patient.

Wow, what a mouthful!

Time to update my signature line. . .

[_rcrocket]

To put it another way, the academy is interested in Mormon religious ideas the same way that a psychiatrist is interested in the religious beliefs of his mental patient. They are relevent in a bracketed sense, as they shed light on diagnosis. But the Mormon ideas themselves aren't on the shelves within the academic marketplace.

True. I thought the announcement odd.

I note that I applied for consideration for a doctoral program at nearby FTS; I can't recall which program I sought -- Christian History, history of theology or something like that. I was discouraged (not turned down, but that was where it was headed) simply because I was Mormon, even though admission was open to all faiths. Seems they wouldn't accept the recommendation of a Mormon bishop.

P

[_Rollo Tomasi]

In all its ironic glory, contrary to what we've been told by at least one outspoken apologist who attended this institution for a number of years, Mormonism is not being recognized as an equal voice among peers, but a queer NRM that has gained a significant following such that it falls on the map of "American Religious Studies." The subtext is loud and clear. You live in our society so we need to understand you. Perhaps we might even like you. But don't feel free to drink from our fountains. Other than as a sociological artifact, we don't care about your "contributions" to theology, philosophy, antiquities, or Bible studies. The scholars at FARMS live double lives. On the one hand, they may contribute to their fields of choice in antiquities and related fields, but as soon as that research gets mixed up with the Book of Mormon, the academy shuts its ears and the circulation of scholarship is among apologists and lay members only. The narrow consideration requirements for the chair position within what is considered about the most Mormon friendly institution around draws this out in even more clarity.

To put it another way, the academy is interested in Mormon religious ideas the same way that a psychiatrist is interested in the religious beliefs of his mental patient. They are relevent in a bracketed sense, as they shed light on diagnosis. But the Mormon ideas themselves aren't on the shelves within the academic marketplace.

What an odd approach the search committee has taken, particularly since the Howard W. Hunter family (I believe) is the primary benefactor for this chair.

[_harmony]

In all its ironic glory, contrary to what we've been told by at least one outspoken apologist who attended this institution for a number of years, Mormonism is not being recognized as an equal voice among peers, but a queer NRM that has gained a significant following such that it falls on the map of "American Religious Studies." The subtext is loud and clear. You live in our society so we need to understand you. Perhaps we might even like you. But don't feel free to drink from our fountains. Other than as a sociological artifact, we don't care about your "contributions" to theology, philosophy, antiquities, or Bible studies. The scholars at FARMS live double lives. On the one hand, they may contribute to their fields of choice in antiquities and related fields, but as soon as that research gets mixed up with the Book of Mormon, the academy shuts its ears and the circulation of scholarship is among apologists and lay members only. The narrow consideration requirements for the chair position within what is considered about the most Mormon friendly institution around draws this out in even more clarity.

To put it another way, the academy is interested in Mormon religious ideas the same way that a psychiatrist is interested in the religious beliefs of his mental patient. They are relevent in a bracketed sense, as they shed light on diagnosis. But the Mormon ideas themselves aren't on the shelves within the academic marketplace.

What an odd approach the search committee has taken, particularly since the Howard W. Hunter family (I believe) is the primary benefactor for this chair.

Perhaps what their apparent ignoring of the family's faith means is they value their integrity of their institution more than they value the money the family is contributing. In other words, their integrity can't be bought.

[_capt jack]

Of course, Juliann has now added her two cents to the discussion (comment #28):

CGU has been very consistent in what they want and what direction they are going from the beginning. They named several scholars and had a conference to introduce them a couple of years ago. There has been some discussion about where to put Mormon Studies and it was left undecided because it was felt that it could fit just about anywhere. It is new it is not conspiratorial. What was made very clear is that it was no longer acceptable to know Mormonism and nothing else. The value in Mormon Studies is what it can add to other areas of study where it has been ignored. Mormons/Mormonism has been treated as if they existed in a vacuum. Flake gave the traditional historical treatment as the US being a donut with Utah the hole. In other words, there was a concern that it *not* be ghettoized. They also counsel students to graduate in another area with Mormon Studies as a secondary interest until there is a job market. Whatever qualifications Quinn may have, he was under consideration for a position in the history of religion years ago (his flier was posted with other candidates). He didn’t get the position then so I see no reason why they would consider him now, in fact,one could possibly find that insulting (and ghettoizing) when he wasn’t their pick for another area. I took one of the Mormon Studies classes last year. In talking to the non-LDS students, the problem is not the program it is the perception that Mormons are in complete control. But CGU isn’t doing anything differently in their other programs and I doubt anyone is whispering that the Jews are in control. No one has explained how SLC (or Jerusalem, Mecca or whatever) will be in control once that money is handed over to CGU. One of the concerns I heard from an LDS scholar about funding these programs is that Mormons will not have control and they could eventually end up with an anti-Mormon in the chair. The point of CGU is to serve the community and to access the community of believers which has traditionally been a neglected source. It would make little sense to pick someone who is not acceptable to the community when there are very capable scholars who come with something other than “Mormon” attached to their name. It is ironic that a department so liberal that it collides with radical is the group that seems quite comfortable in doing that. But perhaps what some are forgetting is that more Mormons live in CA than Utah. As an aside, I got a call from an Alum committee yesterday looking for financial support. The *first* thing they mentioned about new developments in the Dept. of Religion was the new Mormon Studies program. The next event on the docket is in April. It is going to be a one day interactive seminar on religious texts, Book of Mormon included with the Koran, Hindu texts, etc.

[_harmony]

Of course, Juliann has now added her two cents to the discussion (comment #28):

CGU has been very consistent in what they want and what direction they are going from the beginning. They named several scholars and had a conference to introduce them a couple of years ago.

Is she referring to the Yale conference? (Or maybe it was Princeton?) The one where DCP threw a hissy fit so they wouldn't allow Mike Quinn to speak, but did allow a non-professional (Ostler?) to present?

There has been some discussion about where to put Mormon Studies and it was left undecided because it was felt that it could fit just about anywhere.

It doesn't sound like it's undecided now. It's going into American Religious Studies. Sounds like Juliann's no longer in the loop, if she ever was.

It is new it is not conspiratorial. What was made very clear is that it was no longer acceptable to know Mormonism and nothing else.

And who, outside of Mormon scholars, knows Mormonism and nothing else? So is she saying it's no longer acceptable (to whom?) for Mormon scholars to know their own religion, but nothing else?

The value in Mormon Studies is what it can add to other areas of study where it has been ignored.

Such as... American Religious Studies?

Mormons/Mormonism has been treated as if they existed in a vacuum. Flake gave the traditional historical treatment as the US being a donut with Utah the hole.

That's what running away to Utah does. In many ways, Mormons are still running away to Utah.

In other words, there was a concern that it *not* be ghettoized. They also counsel students to graduate in another area with Mormon Studies as a secondary interest until there is a job market.

Just ask Quinn how robust the job market is for someone who knows Mormon history, that the Mormons don't like.

Whatever qualifications Quinn may have, he was under consideration for a position in the history of religion years ago (his flier was posted with other candidates). He didn’t get the position then so I see no reason why they would consider him now, in fact,one could possibly find that insulting (and ghettoizing) when he wasn’t their pick for another area.

Well, that's not surprising, since the few Mormons they knew threw a fit about him.

I took one of the Mormon Studies classes last year. In talking to the non-LDS students, the problem is not the program it is the perception that Mormons are in complete control.

You know, I find it very disheartening when a grad student can't even write a legible paragraph. Punctuation, girl! Ever heard of it?

So the non-LDS think the LDS are in complete control of the program, and the LDS are unhappy because they don't have complete control of the program?

That drip you hear is irony.

But CGU isn’t doing anything differently in their other programs and I doubt anyone is whispering that the Jews are in control. No one has explained how SLC (or Jerusalem, Mecca or whatever) will be in control once that money is handed over to CGU. One of the concerns I heard from an LDS scholar about funding these programs is that Mormons will not have control and they could eventually end up with an anti-Mormon in the chair.

see above.

The point of CGU is to serve the community and to access the community of believers which has traditionally been a neglected source.

A neglected source of what? Did CGU finally pick up on the fact that the LDS church controls one whale of a lot of money?

It would make little sense to pick someone who is not acceptable to the community when there are very capable scholars who come with something other than “Mormon” attached to their name.

Yeah... Quinn, for one. Who else? And isn't the "Mormon" label what the LDS scholar in the above paragraph is demanding be attached to the chair?

It is ironic that a department so liberal that it collides with radical is the group that seems quite comfortable in doing that. But perhaps what some are forgetting is that more Mormons live in CA than Utah.

Supposedly people come from all over the globe to study at Claremont, not just from CA. Is Juliann showing her ethnocentric attitude?

As an aside, I got a call from an Alum committee yesterday looking for financial support.

It's called a telemarketing call, and alums get them all the time. It's not like it was a personal call to her, and her alone.

The *first* thing they mentioned about new developments in the Dept. of Religion was the new Mormon Studies program.

Do they think she isn't on a list of Mormons to call? Good Lord, but she is naïve... and arrogant.

The next event on the docket is in April. It is going to be a one day interactive seminar on religious texts, Book of Mormon included with the Koran, Hindu texts, etc.

[/quote]

Wouldn't maklelan say this will undermine church authority?

[Guest]

Two authentic graduate and post-graduate students have made comments on Juliann's opinion.

First, from Melissa, who is finishing a PhD:

Juliann,

“What was made very clear is that it was no longer acceptable to know Mormonism and nothing else.”

I’m not sure what this means exactly. The Claremont position is the first of its kind. Without any previous position with which to compare the current one, this statement is nonsensical. It has never been “acceptable to know Mormonism and nothing else” in the academy. To get a position anywhere requires a Ph.D. and there has never been a Ph.D. program in “Mormon Studies” as such—no one did their coursework or exams in “Mormon Studies”— which means that senior scholars who happen to have research interests in Mormon Studies have necessarily been trained (and are qualified to teach) much more broadly. The only group for which your comment might have some relevance is the CES crowd. But scholars who were trained in Religion/Religious Studies departments wouldn’t have made it past the first semester if all they wanted to do was “Mormon Studies.”

Comment by Melissa — 1/13/2007 @ 2:45 pm

Next "Costanza", who I know for a fact recently received his PhD:

Melissa is right. Just because someone writes a dissertation on a Mormon topic does not make them any more an exlcusive “Mormonist” than someone who writes on Shakers or Catholics or Baptists limits them to those specific topics. Which is why it is fair to argue that there really is no such thing as “Mormon Studies” yet.

Comment by Costanza — 1/13/2007 @ 3:08 pm

[_harmony]

Quoting Blake (who I assume is Blake Ostler, but I've been wrong before, so don't take that to the bank):

I would also like to see serious consideration given to Mike Quinn. He has the moxey and brains and he brings the diversity to the position that is very appealing. If he hasn’t applied, then they ought to seek him out. He has the added plus that he doesn’t give up a tenured position to take an at-will job with no tenure. If the sponsors of the position have trouble with his controversial issues, then they aren’t interested in scholarship but PR — and I’m not naïve to believe that such considerations don’t play a large role. However, they are secondary considerations.

Comment by Blake — 1/12/2007 @ 1:18 pm

Wow. I am absolutely floored. He's advocating for Quinn! And he makes a very astute, if not a little snide, comment about the sponsors of the position (which would be the Hunter family) being more interested in PR than in scholarship.

Not a tenured position? Why would anyone leave a tenured position to take an at-will position, where they are vulnerable to being fired on a moment's notice, for such a controversial subject as Mormon Studies? It looks like Kathleen Flake is a front-runner, but why would she leave a tenured position at Vanderbilt to take an at-will, renewable after 3 years (maybe) position at Claremont? Methinks the funders are not going to find a senior scholar willing to fall on their sword and take it. They may have to go with someone from the second tier.