Something BYU won't even do...

[_Ray A]

Tell me this Charity and Ray, psychology is a real established science, right? (Charity is one, that's why I picked it) Is there a discipline within psychology that you'd consider very scholarly, yet that no institution on the planet offers a formal course offering in relation to? No possibility of a masters or phd? I find it incredible that not even the Lord's university offers formal coursework in Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham studies. Why wouldn't they? Every other professional institution on the planet has an established way to archive and pass down the knowledge to the next generation. Is BYU scared that if it ever granted a phd for evidences of the historical reality of the Book of Abraham or Book of Mormon that it would be really, really laughed at? Who knows. "The Maxwell Institute is, then, a hobby horse and vanity press and its contributions are mere apologetics, not scholarship.

When I was at university one thing I learned (if nothing else) is that "opinion" was often more important than facts. Everyone, without exception, has some bias. The professors in the more "exact" sciences always considered psychology a "pseudo-science". I have an LDS friend doing a degree in psychology, and even she says it's a "dodgy subject" with lots of open ends. I, however, am not familiar with psychology, nor the related subjects which are more "reality based", if you like. My studies were in history (mainly Australian and European, including Nazism), and also philosophy as a minor, which is as controversial as psychology.

I'm afraid I don't know much about BYU courses, but from Runtu's post it seems they offer courses in things like narrative and literary style, with the historical focus being more on Old and New Testaments. The Book of Mormon itself does not claim to focus mainly on history, and Nephi states this in the beginning, so I don't see how there can be in-depth courses on Book of Mormon history. Even Books like Mark D. Thomas' Digging in Cumorah: Reclaiming Book of Mormon Narratives don't go into history, but narrative, obviously, because it's short on history, which is also why FARMS has a battle on its hands. Internal evidences can only point to possible history, they cannot establish it.

Let me begin by pointing out that Ray is open to a lot of fringe ideas, UFOs, OBE's

I'm not the only one into "fringe ideas":

Scott C. Dunn discusses the historical significance of "automatic writing" and raises questions about the manner in which one set of such writings might be more or less acceptable than another.

http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/apocrypha.htm

I have quite strong reasons for taking UFOs and NDEs seriously (OBEs are a subset of NDE studies), and so did Dr. Susan Blackmore, who is a now retired skeptic. http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/

The theory of memes is no less controversial than NDE studies, and less grounded, and less popular, than UFO studies. Blackmore took "fringe ideas" quite seriously, and her Ph. D is in, guess what?:

PhD in Parapsychology, University of Surrey, 1980
Thesis entitled "Extrasensory Perception as a Cognitive Process"

[_moksha]

Could BYU be hesitant to offer such a degree due to an urge toward having graduates who are more well adapted to functioning in the outside world?

[_Dakotah]

"psychology is a real established science, right?"

Psychology (and psyciatry) is shamanism with textbooks.

It is not a science. The Scientific Method can't be practiced. You can't add 2grams A to 4 grams B to 6 grams C and get D... and then repeat the experiment a number of times to see if it comes out the same.

It is guesswork at $60+ per hour.

[_charity]

"psychology is a real established science, right?"

Psychology (and psyciatry) is shamanism with textbooks.

It is not a science. The Scientific Method can't be practiced. You can't add 2grams A to 4 grams B to 6 grams C and get D... and then repeat the experiment a number of times to see if it comes out the same.

It is guesswork at $60+ per hour.

There are experiments which can be replicated. Which have produced some great stuff.

There are criticisms of psychology as a science. I have made some myself. But this kind of claim against psychology isn't taken seriously. For one thing, it makes a flat out false statement about replication. And second, it confuses the practice of clinical psychology which charges for treatment with the practice of experimental psychology.

[_charity]

Could BYU be hesitant to offer such a degree due to an urge toward having graduates who are more well adapted to functioning in the outside world?

I couldn't find this thread and posted on another one. But Moksha, you are no doubt correct. When a person spends $100,000 on a ph . d., he wants to be employable. We are a lay church. We don't hire bishops. Seminarians fully expect to take their degrees in hand and take paid ministerial positions. CES employees don't need ph.d.'s in specificalized fields. And even they don't make the big bucks.

I expect BYU will start offering ph.d.'s in Book of Mormon studies when Yale and Harvard put out the hiring notices for ph. d.'s in the field.

[_harmony]

Could BYU be hesitant to offer such a degree due to an urge toward having graduates who are more well adapted to functioning in the outside world?

I couldn't find this thread and posted on another one. But Moksha, you are no doubt correct. When a person spends $100,000 on a ph . d., he wants to be employable. We are a lay church. We don't hire bishops. Seminarians fully expect to take their degrees in hand and take paid ministerial positions. CES employees don't need ph.d.'s in specificalized fields. And even they don't make the big bucks.

I expect BYU will start offering ph.d.'s in Book of Mormon studies when Yale and Harvard put out the hiring notices for ph. d.'s in the field.

It seems to me that PhD's in Philosophy are professors at universities. Which is what I'd expect a person with a PhD in Mormon Studies to do.

[_harmony]

It is guesswork at $60+ per hour.

Well, when it works, it's a bargain at any price. Just ask someone in therapy who is being helped.

[_Mister Scratch]

Could BYU be hesitant to offer such a degree due to an urge toward having graduates who are more well adapted to functioning in the outside world?

I couldn't find this thread and posted on another one. But Moksha, you are no doubt correct. When a person spends $100,000 on a ph . d., he wants to be employable. We are a lay church. We don't hire bishops. Seminarians fully expect to take their degrees in hand and take paid ministerial positions. CES employees don't need ph.d.'s in specificalized fields. And even they don't make the big bucks.

I expect BYU will start offering ph.d.'s in Book of Mormon studies when Yale and Harvard put out the hiring notices for ph. d.'s in the field.

What I find so striking about your line of argument is its essentially mercenary quality. You are basically saying that the only good reason for studying the Book of Mormon in an academic capacity is for money. That study of the Book of Mormon might be elucidating, or enlightening, or, more generally, worthwhile, seems to be beside the point for you. I guess this is quite revealing as to why the Mopologists haven't tried to float this stuff in the larger world: there's no money in it.

[_charity]

What I find so striking about your line of argument is its essentially mercenary quality. You are basically saying that the only good reason for studying the Book of Mormon in an academic capacity is for money. That study of the Book of Mormon might be elucidating, or enlightening, or, more generally, worthwhile, seems to be beside the point for you. I guess this is quite revealing as to why the Mopologists haven't tried to float this stuff in the larger world: there's no money in it.

I didn't say "studying the Book of Mormon." I said getting a ph. d. in Book of Mormon studies. I can take a bunch of classes in Book of Mormon, for the standard $160 per credit hour for members. But investing in a ph.d. program is something else.

I find it hard to see how you could make that mistake.

[_Mister Scratch]

What I find so striking about your line of argument is its essentially mercenary quality. You are basically saying that the only good reason for studying the Book of Mormon in an academic capacity is for money. That study of the Book of Mormon might be elucidating, or enlightening, or, more generally, worthwhile, seems to be beside the point for you. I guess this is quite revealing as to why the Mopologists haven't tried to float this stuff in the larger world: there's no money in it.

I didn't say "studying the Book of Mormon." I said getting a ph. d. in Book of Mormon studies. I can take a bunch of classes in Book of Mormon, for the standard $160 per credit hour for members. But investing in a ph.d. program is something else.

I find it hard to see how you could make that mistake.

No, Charity. You said that Ph.D.s in Mormon Studies would become viable once "Yale and Harvard put out the hiring notices for ph. d.'s in the field." What does this mean? It means that pursuing a Ph.D. in Mormon Studies is only worthwhile if it nets you a job: hence, mercenary.