DCP Admits to "LDS Academic Embarrassment"

[_Mister Scratch]

Or when none of the Upper 15 had a doctorate in Mormon Studies, I wonder if they would be awarded "honorary" PhDs in Mormon Studies, which would then make the degree meaningless. There is no educational requirement now to be called to be an Apostle, and this proposed Doctorate program would really cause some major angst. Where would the members look for leadership? The 15? Or the PhDs in Mormon Studies?

Yes, all of this makes great sense.

The real kicker would be if non-members were awarded doctorates in Mormon Studies, which is a possibility, if Claremont goes ahead with their own Mormon Studies department. Has that been funded?

You know, the more I think about it, the more likely it seems that the Church will put the kibbosh on this program. I mean, you have just laid out a number of reasons how such a program could undermine the Brethren and Church authority. I bet that this gets squashed out. Additionally, we have got Charity, who is vehemently, albeit implicitly, arguing against a Mormon Studies Ph.D.

The church won't be able to control who gets a degree from Claremont, like they can control who gets one from BYU.

Yet another reason why they will squelch this nascent program.

On another note, that doesn't explain why BYU doesn't have a doctorate program in Biblical Studies.

Probably because the Church has always favored the Book of Mormon over the Bible. The Bible, in my opinion, has always been seen as a "secondary" text. The Book of Mormon is what makes us unique, after all. So, for BYU to have a Biblical Studies program with none for the Book of Mormon would be tantamount to "caving in" to the outside world.

If they want to play with the Big Boys, and get the respect they think they deserve, then they have to offer the same programs. It is surely strange that a Christian church owned university doesn't have a doctoral program in Biblical Studies. Very strange.

I agree, and am in favor of a Mormon Studies doctorate. At last, we would have acknowledgment that the Brethren no longer fear the "so-called intellectuals."

[_Ray A]

Yeah, sure, Ray. No doubt you felt his gossipmongering was "tactful" and "diplomatic" as well. Or the posting of Infymus's private, albeit very angry, exchange with him on SHIELDS. In fact, at least a couple of apparently private exchanges between DCP and ex-mos can be viewed at SHIELDS... Hmm, Ray... You're not a hypocrite, are you?

Whoops! It seems I have just torpedoed your entire argument. If you are going to fault me for the DCP emails thing, then you are going to have to fault The Good Professor twice over. So, let's see if you have any integrity or not....

Yes, I have to admit that on that point, you got me. I had forgotten about that. I was looking at my own case, not Infymus'. If Infymus had written this on a forum, or publicly, I think he should have been fair game.

That said, I'll drop the point about you posting private emails. I can concede you're right about this particular episode.

[_Ray A]

However, Scratch, let me add a qualifier to my post above. We all know who "Infymus" is, we know his real name. We know his background, his experiences, and his feelings about Mormonism.

Your turn...

[_charity]

Wait a sec... Now you are claiming that LDS scholars won't present their arguments to the outside world because of prejudice? Prejudice against what, pray tell? Moreover, I'm not sure how this squares with DCP & et. al.'s claim that secular scholars are totally oblivious to LDS theories and arguments.

You are too funny. Wait a sec yourself. I said they wouldn't be HIRED. You really do have a talent for misreading or mistating. Please stay with what I say if you want to comment on it. Don't make something up. [/quote]

Hey! Whose thread is this again?

Sorry. I didn't realize that if you started a thread then you could misrepresent other posters. Is that the rule here?

"Scholarly" is a function of methodology.[/quote]

Yep. And part of that "methodology" involves presenting one's theories and research to a diverse array of peers. Since all of FARMS work is handled "in house," this aspect of scholarship never happens.

Peers. So who are the peers of someone who wants to presenet a paper on the Book of Mormon? You certainly wouldn't suggest that people who have never seriously studied the Book of Mormon would be peers, would you? Or is there some new defintion of "peer."[/quote]

It does matter who sees it if he'd like his theory to be legitimized. If he is too embarrassed to show it to the light of day, then by all means, he can file it away in his desk, or he can submit it to FARMS Review.

Embarrassed. Yeah, right. I ask you again. Who are his peers?

[_harmony]

Peers. So who are the peers of someone who wants to presenet a paper on the Book of Mormon? You certainly wouldn't suggest that people who have never seriously studied the Book of Mormon would be peers, would you? Or is there some new defintion of "peer."

Peers would be anyone who has a PhD in Religious Studies. Mormon Studies would be a subset of that, just like Biblical Studies is.

[_Mister Scratch]

However, Scratch, let me add a qualifier to my post above. We all know who "Infymus" is, we know his real name. We know his background, his experiences, and his feelings about Mormonism.

How do you know his name? Did he announce it somewhere? Or was it leaked by Stan Barker & et. al.?

Your turn...

Are you kidding? I have amassed over two thousand posts on this messageboard. Are you really telling me that you cannot puzzle out my "feelings about Mormonism"?

[_Mister Scratch]

Yeah, sure, Ray. No doubt you felt his gossipmongering was "tactful" and "diplomatic" as well. Or the posting of Infymus's private, albeit very angry, exchange with him on SHIELDS. In fact, at least a couple of apparently private exchanges between DCP and ex-mos can be viewed at SHIELDS... Hmm, Ray... You're not a hypocrite, are you?

Whoops! It seems I have just torpedoed your entire argument. If you are going to fault me for the DCP emails thing, then you are going to have to fault The Good Professor twice over. So, let's see if you have any integrity or not....

Yes, I have to admit that on that point, you got me. I had forgotten about that. I was looking at my own case, not Infymus'. If Infymus had written this on a forum, or publicly, I think he should have been fair game.

That said, I'll drop the point about you posting private emails. I can concede you're right about this particular episode.

This is bull. What you should really do is condemn DCP for all of his evils. You have inequitable standards, my friend.

[_charity]

Peers. So who are the peers of someone who wants to presenet a paper on the Book of Mormon? You certainly wouldn't suggest that people who have never seriously studied the Book of Mormon would be peers, would you? Or is there some new defintion of "peer."

Peers would be anyone who has a PhD in Religious Studies. Mormon Studies would be a subset of that, just like Biblical Studies is.

Not for the Book of Mormon as the subject. Or are you hiding that long list of non-member scholars who have made serious decades long study of the Book of Mormon.

[_Mister Scratch]

"Scholarly" is a function of methodology.

Yep. And part of that "methodology" involves presenting one's theories and research to a diverse array of peers. Since all of FARMS work is handled "in house," this aspect of scholarship never happens.

Peers. So who are the peers of someone who wants to presenet a paper on the Book of Mormon? You certainly wouldn't suggest that people who have never seriously studied the Book of Mormon would be peers, would you? Or is there some new defintion of "peer."

You say "studied the Book of Mormon," but what does that mean, really? Is this some lone, singular academic discipline all unto itself? No---as you yourself have indicated, it is not, since no one would hire somebody trained in "Mormon Studies." So, what does it mean, to have "studied the Book of Mormon"? What disciplines would be applicable? History, certainly. Maybe linguistics, or literary studies. Comparative literature. Political science. Engineering, archaeology...

You just don't seem to get how academics works, Charity. If I am a political science scholar, with expertise in 17th Century French politics, I would nonetheless expect to encounter scholarship on other aspects of political science. The Book of Mormon covers so much ground, from an academic standpoint, that "peers" would be all kinds of people in a whole host of disciplines. The damning fact is that LDS scholars have failed to present their theories to any of them. Unless I'm mistaken, of course. I am still waiting for the evidence.

It does matter who sees it if he'd like his theory to be legitimized. If he is too embarrassed to show it to the light of day, then by all means, he can file it away in his desk, or he can submit it to FARMS Review.

Embarrassed. Yeah, right. I ask you again. Who are his peers?

The "peers" in this case would be folks who have expertise in the academic discipline under consideration. Remember: you have already established for us that "Mormon Studies" does not constitute a legitimate academic discipline, since Harvard and Yale wouldn't hire anyone with a Ph.D. in that field.

[_Mister Scratch]

Peers. So who are the peers of someone who wants to presenet a paper on the Book of Mormon? You certainly wouldn't suggest that people who have never seriously studied the Book of Mormon would be peers, would you? Or is there some new defintion of "peer."

Peers would be anyone who has a PhD in Religious Studies. Mormon Studies would be a subset of that, just like Biblical Studies is.

Not for the Book of Mormon as the subject. Or are you hiding that long list of non-member scholars who have made serious decades long study of the Book of Mormon.

Where is the list of member scholars? NOBODY HAS A PH.D. IN Mormon STUDIES!

How can we determine if someone has "made serious decades long study of the Book of Mormon", Charity? There are no standards! There is no way to determine if anyone has conducted "serious study" of the Book of Mormon, since no credentials exist. There is no "Ph.D. in Mormon Studies." Thus, there are no officially sanctioned experts. It is a field consisting entirely of amateurs. Right?