Cutting Edge Research?

[Guest]

I suspect that translated it really means "quick retorts to 'criticism' with enough compound/complex sentences and name-dropping to appear learned and thus flatter/satisfy an unscholarly audience."

Good scholarly research is good scholarly research and is useful to both secular and believing audiences. I have every hope that what is now emerging as Mormon Studies will be just that.

Because of the poor state of American education, though, many people are not equipped with a basic historical understanding, nor a very strong set of reading skills, nor much education in conceptual thought (philosophy, critical theory, etc). I can understand why some may fear that the best of Mormon Studies may be inaccessible to the average member. But instead of pandering to that problem, a scholarly Mormon publication could do the church a real service by taking on the very serious task of education, indeed fulfilling the educational mandate that has been present throughout all of Mormon history. It would be a very different kind of publication than what currently exists and a challenging project to bring off. But it would be a very valuable one.

Well said, Blixa. I have noticed that there are a lot of muddy-headed English majors among the lower-tier apologists. They are the type who probably parroted their grad-student instructor's interpretations of Poe to get an 'A' on the exam. If they read something they didn't think of first (not difficult), and/or that appeals to their preconceived ideas, they call it "cutting-edge research."

[_lostindc]

Using the larger academic sense of the word, I think "cutting edge research" is incorrect. But with the caveats Aristotle implied, I guess that is what it means.

I suspect that translated it really means "quick retorts to 'criticism' with enough compound/complex sentences and name-dropping to appear learned and thus flatter/satisfy an unscholarly audience."

Good scholarly research is good scholarly research and is useful to both secular and believing audiences. I have every hope that what is now emerging as Mormon Studies will be just that.

Because of the poor state of American education, though, many people are not equipped with a basic historical understanding, nor a very strong set of reading skills, nor much education in conceptual thought (philosophy, critical theory, etc). I can understand why some may fear that the best of Mormon Studies may be inaccessible to the average member. But instead of pandering to that problem, a scholarly Mormon publication could do the church a real service by taking on the very serious task of education, indeed fulfilling the educational mandate that has been present throughout all of Mormon history. It would be a very different kind of publication than what currently exists and a challenging project to bring off. But it would be a very valuable one.

Blixa, well said and eloquent as always.

[_Wilma Fingerdoo]

For those with DULL MINDS cutting edge is about as sharp as a butter knife.

[_Darth J]

I suspect that translated it really means "quick retorts to 'criticism' with enough compound/complex sentences and name-dropping to appear learned and thus flatter/satisfy an unscholarly audience."

Good scholarly research is good scholarly research and is useful to both secular and believing audiences. I have every hope that what is now emerging as Mormon Studies will be just that.

Because of the poor state of American education, though, many people are not equipped with a basic historical understanding, nor a very strong set of reading skills, nor much education in conceptual thought (philosophy, critical theory, etc). I can understand why some may fear that the best of Mormon Studies may be inaccessible to the average member. But instead of pandering to that problem, a scholarly Mormon publication could do the church a real service by taking on the very serious task of education, indeed fulfilling the educational mandate that has been present throughout all of Mormon history. It would be a very different kind of publication than what currently exists and a challenging project to bring off. But it would be a very valuable one.

Well said, Blixa. I have noticed that there are a lot of muddy-headed English majors among the lower-tier apologists. They are the type who probably parroted their grad-student instructor's interpretations of Poe to get an 'A' on the exam. If they read something they didn't think of first (not difficult), and/or that appeals to their preconceived ideas, they call it "cutting-edge research."

Ten points for Slytherin! (because of the Snape avatar)

Although I think Blixa is overly optimistic about what the reboot of the Maxwell Institute is going to look like.

[Guest]

-

[Anonymous]

Although I think Blixa is overly optimistic about what the reboot of the Maxwell Institute is going to look like.

Oh, I don't expect what the new MI publishes to look at all like the kind of publication I suggested. That would be a kind of journal that I don't think even exists in the secular academy, sadly.

I don't even expect that it will necessarily be part of what I referred to as the emerging school of Mormon Studies. I would be surprised, though, if the new editors didn't attempt to show an awareness of new Mormon Studies work, or even publish some of the scholars I associate with it.

(edited to add: When I said, "I have every hope that what is now emerging as Mormon Studies will be just that," I meant the broader scholarly "movement," not MI's publication. I forgot it had "Mormon studies" in its title, thus the confusion.)

[_MrStakhanovite]

But good scholarship necessarily requires a community, and that community has to be dedicated to ideals like diversity of thought and the principle of charity. If FARMS ever produced anything that resembles scholarship, it was by pure accident, and not by deliberate and careful intent.

What the new the Mormon Studies has to deal with is that they can’t produce a journal for Mormons by Mormons and then try to go about masquerading it as scholarship. Faith promotion and fellowship is great stuff, but it belongs in a church setting and not in a community where just about every assumption and piece of evidence is put under the microscope. Can that happen while being a mere appendage on the church machine? I doubt it, but I wish Bradford the best.

Having your ideological allies review your work makes a mockery of the terms “peer review” and “scholarship” and it essentially makes correlation a model example of peer review. FARMS did that in spades and was proud of that fact, which is why it was so polemical in tone and light on any decent content.

The fact that the entire mess of FARMS is thought of as cutting edge to an apologist is a stark reality check on just how much those little mouth breathers that dominate MD&D are mental midgets.

I, for one, love it. DCP, Hamblin, Midge, the “Scottie-Dawg” pack of Lloyd n Gordon, Crocket, Pahoran, and the rest of the crew seriously suck and presenting anything as a clear and cogent thesis. It’s like every time one of those guys steps up on the mound, they throw a nice slow ball right down the strike zone to get pounded. They do the critic’s jobs for them.

Case in point of making this easy, look how Dan and his crew are going out? Instead of gracefully taking the hit and moving on the greener pastures, it is one giant ego trip and meltdown worthy of a kid not getting the toy they wanted. The accusations that “anti-mormons” and “critics” have somehow gotten control of a church run organization is incredibly stupid.

[_Kishkumen]

I think it is fine to call such things learned discussion. I would not, however, call them "cutting-edge research."

[_DarkHelmet]

[_Doctor Scratch]

I can't express how crushingly depressing it is that so many of the lower-tier Mopologists and fanboys view this stuff as "cutting edge research." Yes: Blixa et al. all make excellent points. It's sad that curious and inquisitive LDS haven't really had anywhere else to go, and it's sad that what they got was Midgley/DCP-led Mopologetics.

What's frightening and disquieting, though, is that you've now got a group of a couple of hundred people who think that attacking others, engaging in smear tactics, and penning hit pieces is actual research. They really, honestly think this is legitimate stuff: not only that it's okay from an ethical standpoint (which it clearly isn't), but that it represents "real" scholarship.