Scholarship Versus Apologetics-Blog post by David Bokovoy

[_Fence Sitter]

From MDD

For those interested, here is my latest contribution to the Mormon Studies site "Worlds Without End." These are simply my own feelings on the matter.

I tried very hard not to come across as critical of Greg Smith, or apologetics. Whether right or wrong, this entry is a sincere effort on my part to try and promote greater understanding and communication. For the record, I am in no way critical of apologetic organizations such as FAIR, etc. and I recognize that some people like my friend Dan Peterson (whom I hold in very high esteem) can successfully move back and forth between these two spheres...

"If it Quacks Like a Duck?": Apologetics Versus Scholarship

[_Fence Sitter]

Some responses.

David:

An interesting blog entry that I will reflect upon, and possibly respond to.

I don't think, though, that Greg Smith is in any way trying to suppress Quinn or Dehlin. I've never seen anything from him suggesting that he wants people to avoid them because they don't match his "world view." From my conversations with him, he seems to be saying "Let's have all the facts." When he believes that people are lying, and lying egregiously, he's loathe to trust them. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me, once the premise (that they are lying, or, at least, being disingenuous) is granted.

I simply don't, and can't, see a neat division between scholarship and apologetics. They seem to me to blend into one another, or, to put it another way, to overlap to a considerable (though not total) extent. (I wrote a little column on the topic not too long ago that you've perhaps seen: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8655 ... story.html .)

There is scholarship, I suppose, that isn't apologetic in any sense. There certainly is apologetics that isn't scholarly. But there's a very considerable common ground. The minute an economist defends his view of the causes of the Great Depression, or a historian attempts to rebut criticisms of her understanding of the intellectual antecedents of the Constitution, or a paleontologist sets out to justify the notion of "punctuated equilibrium," that is, in every meaningful sense, a kind of apologetics. And yet, for all that, it's unquestionably legitimate scholarship, as well.

David, you've got to examine the vast literature in both Mormonism and beyond about issues of objectivity. Your view is very simplistic.

But, my real question is this: Is it possible for two equally honest, intelligent and informed observers to view the same data about the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, and come to honest disagreements about meaning and significance? If so, isn't it possible that people you call "apologists" are actually honest, intelligent and informed scholars who just happen to come to a different conclusion about certain issues? Isn't the use of the term apologist, in fact, an ad hominem accusation against those with whom you disagree?

John Dehlin, for example, rejects the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Why isn't he an apologist for his position when he makes arguments for it?

You believe in the documentary hypothesis. Why are you a scholar instead of an apologist for the documentary hypothesis? Why is someone who rejects the documentary hypothesis an apologist, while one who accepts it is a scholar?

Why is person A, who defends position X an apologist, while person B, who defends position Y a scholar? How does one know a priori which position is apologetic and which is scholarship?

You really need to think these issues through more.

Despite the fact that I believe in the DH, I am not an apologist for the DH. I am very much a critic. The DH is simply the best way to make sense of the evidence, however, if another way is presented that makes better sense of the data, I will abandon the DH as a working model. This approach constitutes scholarship as I understand it. As such, apologetics may rely upon scholarship, but the second a person assumes a position that cannot be critiqued that person cannot engage in scholarship (at least the way I understand this term).

[_Fence Sitter]

If you want to see a difference between scholarship and apologetics all you have to do is look at the hiring decisions and department title of the Religion department at BYU.

[_Phaedrus Ut]

It's like comparing Clarence Darrow and Johnnie Cochran. Some will compare them and say "see they're both lawyers" other may choose to recognize they practice their profession differently.

Phaedrus

// a lot of apologetics remind me of the Chewbacca defense.

[_Yahoo Bot]

If you want to see a difference between scholarship and apologetics all you have to do is look at the hiring decisions and department title of the Religion department at BYU.

The Religion Department's mission at BYU is not to provide academic work to support the Bible or the Book of Mormon, but to teach the semester courses to BYU students and, to a much lesser degree, train CES teachers. Naturally, the profs there are going to chafe under that mission and will want to be more traditional publishing scholars and do so.

But, when I was there the department didn't offer B.S. or graduate degrees in Theology or Religious Studies, and I think that is still the case. So there is not supposed to be traditional scholarship of the type Bokovoy was hired to teach at the U.

[_Kishkumen]

I enjoyed David Bokovoy's blog post very much. He made an excellent case for his views. My sense of Peterson's position is that he gets a lot of mileage out of the slippage between religious advocacy and secular scholarship that has long been an issue in the field of Religious Studies. So many professors in Religion departments at traditionally religious schools mix together their advocacy and apologetics into their work. They do so in ways often less hamhanded than the classic-FARMS crew, but it is still there.

David Bokovoy's views represent the future of the academic study of religion. There remains a place for a celebration and defense of religious traditions, but an academic journal is arguably not the place for it. This is a matter, however, for the profession as a whole to decide, not simply a question of Daniel Peterson's opinion.

[_Fence Sitter]

But, when I was there the department didn't offer B.S. or graduate degrees in Theology or Religious Studies, and I think that is still the case. So there is not supposed to be traditional scholarship of the type Bokovoy was hired to teach at the U.

Why doesn't BYU have a Religious Studies department?

[_Yahoo Bot]

But, when I was there the department didn't offer B.S. or graduate degrees in Theology or Religious Studies, and I think that is still the case. So there is not supposed to be traditional scholarship of the type Bokovoy was hired to teach at the U.

Why doesn't BYU have a Religious Studies department?

I've heard reasons stated for it, and I have had relatives in the presidential administration, but I can't speak with authority because I was in my teens or early 20s when I heard it all.

That said:

From the days of Joseph Smith, the Church did not believe in systematic theology. Joseph Smith taught a form of universal priesthood where all, including women, would be priests, kings and prophets. Thus, it would run contrary to his teachings to teach systematic theology and award degrees in the field.

In the 1980s, or so, and over the protests of some BYU profs over the aspect of academic freedom, and under Pres. Holland, the Religion Department was reoriented in its focus to provide broad spiritual support to all departments at BYU.

What the new MI proposes to do -- a journal of Mormon Studies (similar to Claremont's or Utah State's programs) really is contrary to this long-held view of avoiding specializing in religious studies. I think the reason this is going on is that traditional academics feel a need to publish and climb the academic ladder in a traditional sense. But the Religion Department does not (at least the last I looked) offer degrees. Those CES employees who want to get advance degrees to pad their resume in the CES climb go elsewhere to get their degrees.

But, there certainly have been exceptions to what I have said, with BYU Studies moving to a Mormon Studies peer-reviewed journal since Jack Welch's editorial ascension.

[_Fence Sitter]

I've heard reasons stated for it, and I have had relatives in the presidential administration, but I can't speak with authority because I was in my teens or early 20s when I heard it all.



From the days of Joseph Smith, the Church did not believe in systematic theology. Joseph Smith taught a form of universal priesthood where all, including women, would be priests, kings and prophets. Thus, it would run contrary to his teachings to teach systematic theology and award degrees in the field.

So the Book of Mormon and the rest of the LDS scriptures are not systematic theology?

[_Yahoo Bot]

So the Book of Mormon and the rest of the LDS scriptures are not systematic theology?

Certainly not. No major religious group thinks the scriptures are systemized theology.