A Farewell to Daniel Bashing

[_Daniel Peterson]

Just out of curiosity--- What percentage of Richard Bushman's publications are devoted to Mormonism?

i would have to look to be sure, but I'm guessing something on the order of 20-30%.

That's bogus, Dan.

No it's not, Scratch.

Medieval Islamic studies as a focus was a bit out there, but not too far. There are far more schools interested in teaching Islamic studies than in teaching Mormon studies.

And, of course, I was and am qualified to teach Arabic language and literature from basic to advanced levels. Which is, as a matter of fact, how I earn my living. I only rarely get to do purely medieval things.

Well, thanks for proving my point.

It doesn't prove your point at all.

I work in Arabic language and literature and in Islamic studies. I've published quite a bit in those areas, and given many papers at national and international academic meetings.

The field of Arabic and Islamic studies has far and away more teaching positions than Mormon studies does.

You consider all of these people "historians"?

Richard Bushman certainly is. Would anybody seriously dispute that? And Grant Hardy, who holds a Ph.D. in history, is the former chair of the Department of History at the University of North Carolina at Asheville, so I'm not quite sure who would object to calling him a historian, either.

You might quibble at Terryl Givens, I suppose, because his degree is in comparative literature and he's held a professorship of comparative literature. But it seems pretty clear to me that he's established himself as, first and foremost, a superb intellectual historian. (Leonard Arrington, who is generally recognized as the founder of "the new Mormon history" and the foremost Mormon historian of the twentieth century, was trained as an economist and, for most of his career, served as a professor of economics.)

the TBM status of these people will, generally speaking, render their work problematic in the eyes of the "mainstream". That's why, e.g., Jon Krakauer cited Quinn, rather than Bushman, Hardy, or Givens. It's why Larry McMurtry gave Bushman's RSR a lukewarm review.

Speaking of what you curiously called "the world of historians," neither Jon Krakauer nor Larry McMurtrey [!] is a historian. Odd choices to illustrate your claim.

In another sense, Jack Welch has been prodigiously prolific, and is active virtually everywhere.

Really? I know that he's published something like 500 articles for FARMS. But that poses (to put it mildly) a rather significant problem.

Not a directly relevant one, though. And he's published well beyond FARMS, too.

Is Hansen conservative and/or against homosexuality and/or same-sex marriage?

I haven't the foggiest idea.

You're moving the goalposts, though. You implicitly identified him as a "Mopologist." But he's simply not. You're wrong.

[_kairos]

Just a word from an observer of many things Mormon. i talked with mike quinn at a d.c. sunstone symposium years ago back. he was defintely a 'depressed man' as he put it himself. without a job and little liklihood of one, he seemed in another world, not really interested in what used to be his passion- Mormon history. he said that few outside the "sunstone' crowd had reached out to him in any affirming way. it was like he was a leper he said. well, being homosexual,and excommunicated Mormon who still believed the "church was true" he had to be an enigma. i have no idea how his journey in life has continued but i will go out on a limb and say there have been few cards, letters and emails to him, outside the sunstoners or dialogue crowd, wishing him well.
i would say this reflects my perception of the hypocrisy that exists in the LDS church, from wards to stakes to GA's to BYU intellectuals all of whom "look down on the so-called fallen ones or apostates or even the non-temple married couples etc" with that internal glee that rings out "we got the truth, we are the chosen ones, we are worthy-AND YOU ARE NOT" but 'we love you and want you to come back and enjoy all the blessings after you have repented and become like us again".
and as george carlin so eloquently put it "It's all bulls*&t and do let anyone tell you its not.

and isn't ira fulton the land developer /home builder whom the LDS church attempted to bail out by buying his undeveloped land for like 3-5 times its worth ( i remember 70 million paid for the land in what one broker in phoenix said was an "unbelievable" price given the nose dive land prices were taking in the 2007-8-9 time frame in phoenix. and brother fulton /company was held in contempt for hiding $$$ in the family trust as the bankruptcy case continued.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Just out of curiosity--- What percentage of Richard Bushman's publications are devoted to Mormonism?

i would have to look to be sure, but I'm guessing something on the order of 20-30%.

I didn't look at his CV, but his Wiki entry puts his Mormon publications as closer to 80-90% of his output.

It doesn't prove your point at all.

I work in Arabic language and literature and in Islamic studies. I've published quite a bit in those areas, and given many papers at national and international academic meetings.

The field of Arabic and Islamic studies has far and away more teaching positions than Mormon studies does.

That may be true, but are Quinn's works limited only to "Mormon Studies"? That, at heart, is what I object to about what you're doing on this thread. You're trying, on at least one level, to claim that Quinn is un-hireable due to his "Mormon publications." Well, these publications overlap into the fields of biography, gender studies, 19th and 20th Century American history, history of religion, history of folklore, etc.

You've said that he doesn't deserve to be hired due to his focus on Mormonism, and I think that's complete baloney.

the TBM status of these people will, generally speaking, render their work problematic in the eyes of the "mainstream". That's why, e.g., Jon Krakauer cited Quinn, rather than Bushman, Hardy, or Givens. It's why Larry McMurtry gave Bushman's RSR a lukewarm review.

Speaking of what you curiously called "the world of historians," neither Jon Krakauer nor Larry McMurtrey [sic[ [!] is a historian. Odd choices to illustrate your claim.

Try to follow along, would you, Dan? I said earlier that Quinn appears to be the pre-eminent Mormon historian. You countered by claiming that he has "competition" from Bushman, Givens, and Hardy. You also tossed in some stuff about Quinn's work not being sufficiently "mainstream". So I ask: How is the work of the men you mentioned more "mainstream" than Quinn's? I would argue that, per the Krakauer and McMurtry examples I cited, that Quinn's history is more "mainstream" than any of the guys you mentioned.

Frankly, I'm surprised that you didn't mention Givens's appearance on History Detectives. Lol.

Is Hansen conservative and/or against homosexuality and/or same-sex marriage?

I haven't the foggiest idea.

You're moving the goalposts, though. You implicitly identified him as a "Mopologist." But he's simply not. You're wrong.

You've said in the past that the articles in the Review are almost 100% commissioned, yes?

[_why me]

I have been calling for a stop to personal attacks against Dan for years on this board. To no avail. In fact, I recently brought it up on the Shades thread about board culture.

It is good to see that there is a change in the air here. I think that all personal attacks need to stop so that we can create a good board.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I didn't look at his CV, but his Wiki entry puts his Mormon publications as closer to 80-90% of his output.

That doesn't seem right to me.

There is, for example, The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, Cities (Vintage, 1993), as well as The Great Awakening: Documents on the Revival of Religion, 1740-1745 (University of North Carolina, 1989); Society, Freedom, and Conscience: The Coming of the Revolution in Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York (W. W. Norton and Company, 1977); King and People in Provincial Massachusetts (University of North Carolina Press, 1992); From Puritan to Yankee: Character and the Social Order in Connecticut, 1690-1765 (Harvard University Press, 1967), for which he won the Bancroft Prize; and etc.

This is quite unlike Mike Quinn's publication record.

He's currently working, by the way, on a history of American agriculture. No particular Mormon connection.

are Quinn's works limited only to "Mormon Studies"?

Yes. Almost entirely, so far as I'm aware.

You've said that he doesn't deserve to be hired due to his focus on Mormonism, and I think that's complete baloney.

I've said nothing whatsoever about whether he "deserves to be hired." And I'm not thinking solely of Mike Quinn here. I'm simply being realistic in giving my sense of what the hiring situation is in American academia.

I actually wish that there were more openings for "Mormon studies" nationally and internationally. But there aren't. And that's just the way it is.

Why are you so emotional about this?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Why are you so emotional about this?

Hello Dr. Peterson,

If I may, I believe Dr. Scratch is emotional about this because Dr. Quinn was fired and blackballed by a cabal of colleagues, administrators, and Bretheren who didn't like what he published. Additionally, using Dr. Quinn's sexuality as a mechanism to hurt his reputation or facilitate his excommunication was poor form.

Did you personally pull the trigger? Of course not. That's absurd. Were you part of a community that, at one time thought highly of him until he published an honest account of Mormon history, turned on him professionally? Absolutely. And if you don't agree with that, ask yourself this: Would you whole heartedly endorse and embrace Dr. Quinn being re-hired by BYU as a Professor of Mormon Studies?

From what I can observe Dr. Scrtach is perplexed why you do and say the things you do, which if you're honest with yourself, is a long record of attacking (in a relatively sophisticated manner) those people and their publications with whom you disagree. It's very strange behavior coming from a Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, but it is what it is...

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful reply.

V/R
Dr. Cameron

[_Kishkumen]

and isn't ira fulton the land developer /home builder whom the LDS church attempted to bail out by buying his undeveloped land for like 3-5 times its worth ( i remember 70 million paid for the land in what one broker in phoenix said was an "unbelievable" price given the nose dive land prices were taking in the 2007-8-9 time frame in phoenix. and brother fulton /company was held in contempt for hiding $$$ in the family trust as the bankruptcy case continued.

I recall discussing those rumors, but I don't know much of anything about it. All I know is that what he said about Mike Quinn was very unkind. I don't begrudge him the right to spend his money as he sees fit, or to influence the hiring of the position he funded, but his comments reflected poorly on him. It is unfortunate that this may very well end up being the statement that he is best known for.

[_Kishkumen]

It's very strange behavior coming from a Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, but it is what it is...

You know, we are all well aware that Dr. Peterson is a self-professed apologist and general defender of his faith as well as an academic. His apologetic activities are not at all inconsistent with his self-presentation. Is it that you think that apologetics are beneath academics? I don't get it.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

It's very strange behavior coming from a Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, but it is what it is...

You know, we are all well aware that Dr. Peterson is a self-professed apologist and general defender of his faith as well as an academic. His apologetic activities are not at all inconsistent with his self-presentation. Is it that you think that apologetics are beneath academics? I don't get it.

Hello Mr. K,

That's not it at all. It's the fact that he's a paid Mormon apologist, writing and conducting apologia on the Mormon church's dime, but at the same time he claims it's a hobby (or whatever) and that he's really a full-time Professor of Middle Eastern Studies.

So, I don't think Mormon apologia is beneath academics. In fact, apologia is a legitimate academic field. I believe at some point Dr. Peterson's CV finally came to light, and the majority of it consisted of Mormon apologia. So, clearly it's an academic venture funded by the Mormon church. It should be taken very seriously. Regardless, I find it odd that a Professor of MES is engaged in Mormon apologia to the degree he is.

V/R
Dr. Cameron

[_Kishkumen]

Hey, Doc Cam-

So, here's the thing: I know that Dr. Peterson says he is not paid by the LDS Church to do apologetics, and that many people here, including and perhaps especially me, have argued that he is paid to do it. I am still not sure that I don't see things differently from Dr. Peterson, but I would chalk that up to a difference of opinion. As I have said before, I don't think there is anything wrong with the Church paying someone to do apologetics. I don't know that I have been consistent in that sentiment, but I know I have expressed that view before, and I am now expressing it again.

In any case, Dr. Peterson accomplishes a lot. A whole lot. More than I probably ever will. I admire his seemingly endless supply of energy and his dedication. He has done a great deal of work in his academic field of expertise. Might he have done more if he had focused his efforts solely on Islamic Studies? Sure, he might have. But that is his business. It was his choice to pursue his passion for Mormonism and its defense in addition to his academic work. The implication that seems to run under a lot of these comments about Dr. Peterson's academic career is that he is some kind of fraud, and that his Islamic Studies position is merely a cover for what he really does.

I find those implications to be complete nonsense and wholly without merit. Dr. Peterson does a lot of work in his field. The projects he has focused on may not put him among the most famous in his field, but so what? He at least does enough work in Islamic Studies to claim with full honesty and integrity that he earns his pay as a professor in Islamic Studies, which is what his employer hired him to do. If they also want to facilitate his avocation of LDS apologetics by supporting NAMI, then that is another thing.

Regardless, I find it odd that a Professor of MES is engaged in Mormon apologia to the degree he is.

After we have spent so much time musing over why Mike Quinn does not have a job, I have no problem understanding why it is that this is the case. Dr. Peterson loves Mormonism. He also loves the ancient and medieval worlds. For quite a while a lot of us have felt that these are in many ways compatible fields of study, largely thanks to Dr. Nibley. In spite of my lack of belief and activity, I would continue to argue that in a sense this is correct.

Dr. Peterson and I would not see eye to eye on it, but I have no trouble understanding why it is that he pursues both passions so vigorously. I got into Ancient History because of my Mormonism. Not in spite of it. I continue to think about both things together, not apart--this in spite of the fact that I do not believe that the Book of Abraham, the Book of Mormon, and other Restoration scripture are chronologically ancient. I do think, however, that Mormonism represents in some respects a continuation of ancient thought and an ancient way of perceiving the world. This is what enlivened Nibley's work (imho).