http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/591 ... n-studies/
Hamblin wrote:mapman wrote: Exciting news! I wonder if Bill Hamblin thinks that there is such a thing as Mormon studies yet.
Not yet. A couple of chairs of Mormon Studies do not a movement make.
And note I'm talking about Mormon RELIGIOUS studies. Sounds like this will be a history slot.
Hamblin wrote:But one professor does not a Mormon Studies program make. That's all I've been saying.
But that's fine. We'll see what happens.
Hmm. Now, you would think that an announcemnt of this magnitude (it's not as if the U. of Virginia is a "junk" school, after all...) would be cause for celebration. So why would Hamblin be responding with such dourness and cynicism, you might ask? The answer becomes rather clear in short order, thanks to a wish expressed by "The Grimace":
I hope a non-Mormon scholar is chosen, and I really hope the chair doesn't succumb to the pressure of LDS donors.
This, rather predictably, sends Hamblin straight through the roof, and has him trotting out one of his favorite, offensive canards:
Bill Hamblin wrote:"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?
"Hip"? What does that have to do with what The Grimace said? In any case, perhaps it is true that The Grimace's wishful thinking was poorly expressed. Later, he elaborates:
The Grimace wrote: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.
Well, okay: this seems reasonable. Right? Not to Dr. Hamblin:
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.
Why? What's wrong with merely wanting the best scholar to fill the position? The poster called "cobalt-70," whom the Mopologists hate, seems to feel the same way:
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.
Once again, though, Hamblin disagrees:
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.
Huh? What on earth is Hamblin talking about here? Cobalt-70 made what seems like a perfectly reasonable point--i.e., that the best scholar should take the position. But it's clear at this point why Hamblin is erupting with rage: he objects to the notion that Mopologetics will likely never gain traction in the larger academy: he resents the idea that "Mormon Studies" might find respectability among a wide array of scholars. Just watch him as he continues to explode with indignation in subsquent posts:
Hamblin wrote:cobalt 70 wrote: 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?
Where did cobalt "imply" such a thing? S/he said that s/he didn't think that "fringe"-y pseudoscholars should fill the chair, but how does that translate to a "faithful Mormon who happens to defend his beliefs"? The answer is: it translates if you are Bill Hamblin. In his mind, Hamblin has apparently always thought that the FARMS smear pieces constituted plain and simple "defense of his beliefs," rather than the fringe attack pieces that they actually are (a fact that has now been exacerbated in the wake of the Mopologists' dismissal from the Maxwell Institute).
Cobalt-70 once again seems sensitive to this:
Bill Hamblin wrote:cobalt wrote: 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.
(And I should note that the vast majority of chairs in Jewish studies are filled by Jews.)
This deserves to be unpacked, but I have to pause to include The Grimace's priceless response:
The Grimace wrote:I don't think the Irish are any good at explaining the Ancient Near East.
Lol!
In any case, Hamblin seems positively apoplectic at this point--so much so that he simply isn't thinking clearly. First, the answer is: "I would rather hear about Hinduism from someone who knows it really well, and who can explain it in an articulate way." The fact of the speaker actually being a Hindu only matters insofar as it increases the likelihood of him/her being more deeply familiar with the topic. But we could ask Hamblin: who would be the better person to ask about Mormonism--Randy Bott, or Margaret Barker?
Secondly: I have to disagree that "explaining" and "defending" are the same thing.
Finally, the evidence that Hamblin's Mopologetic articles haven't survived peer review outside Mopologetic circles is the fact that he hasn't ever published any Mopologetic articles in any journals outside Mopologetic circles. QED, Prof. H.
The thread continues in much the same vein:
Hamblin wrote:cobalt 70 wrote: 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?
Actually, it's Hamblin who is technically guilty of argumentum ad hominem here, with his silly calls for credentials.
Regardless, I find it unfortunate that Hamblin seems unable to celebrate this exciting development. While I can understand his anger over this being a Mormon Studies--rather than Mopologetics--chair, you'd still think that he'd be able to summon up the maturity and decency to set aside his bitterness and gall for 2 seconds in order to praise the formation of this new Bushman Chair.