Aristotle Smith wrote:Kishkumen wrote:Yeah, I was really thinking of the internet. And, I should qualify this by saying that I have seen really cool stuff online by CaliforniaKid, Mike Reed, and George Miller. Don Bradley's posts as a critic were sometimes amazing. So there is good stuff. It is more the "let's talk about ourselves as Mormons/ex-Mormons/Open Mormons" stuff that is wearing on me lately. It is probably just a phase, though. While I could point to a few people whose writing does tend to irk me, Nate Oman being high on the list (and yet I have read things by Mr. Oman that I really enjoyed), but also, oddly enough, Kaimipono Wenger, I can tolerate it all well enough I guess. The people I find myself most sympathetic with in terms of my reading taste are the older generation. I find myself really irritated by Boomer Mormon intellectuals (American) and their intellectual offspring.
I should also say that I miss Ray A's blogging on Mormonism.
I share your boredom/frustration with most online Mormon "intellectual" ventures. I think this is just a small part of the general failure of Mormon studies.
The problem is that most areas that would constitute Mormon studies are simply off limits. Take Mormon scripture. What is Mormon Studies supposed to do with the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham? Believing scholars won't touch them with a ten foot pole, other than performing some lightweight literary analysis (chiasmus anyone?) mixed in with a heavy dash of po-mo. Non-believers also can't touch them because there's nothing there for objective analysis, except for stuff that offends believers who make up the majority of the field. And, modern academic sensibilities generally assume that scholarship that offends is bigotry, which no one wants to be associated with. The end result is that the central core of Mormon studies is neglected and will probably always be so.
Or take Mormon theology. Believers are skittish about doing theology because for the most part that is the purview of the GAs. But beyond that, there seems to be a movement amongst all Mormon intellectuals (conservative FARMS types and liberal bloggernacle types) to empty Mormonism of any beliefs because that makes Mormonism either easier to defend or more respectable in an academy that is largely agnostic. Again, this puts non-believers in an awkward position. Again, the end result is that the ideas which have animated Mormonism are largely off limits.
All that is left is history and boundary definition. Research into Mormonism thus becomes 1) studying a small religious movement of the second great awakening, 2) studying a small religious movement involved in the settlement of the American west or 3) studying a small component of the religiously pluralistic 20th/21st century America. While all of those may be worthwhile endeavors, they have limited scope and limited appeal. Mormon studies becomes navel gazing done by Mormons for other interested Mormons.
So, AS, most areas of Mormon studies are simply off limits for 'believing scholars' (whoa, is that a term pregnant with possibilities), who do not want to scholarly touch stinky turds like the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.
Non-believer scholars (a phrase as redundant as the other one was ironic) are afraid that believers will be offended by the approach/results of objective analysis, and the non-believer scholars being branded bigots because believers took offense. Political correctness in academia hampering the effort, for fear of being branded a bigot.
Mormon theology is a problem because for believers it is the domain of the Brethren, who have learned the hard way to keep their mouths shut and in a 10 year stretch, the most momentous thing they say is how many earrings per ear ought to be worn. Indeed, there is effort afoot to empty the vessel of Mormon theology to the extent that earlier Brethren had filled it. It being so much easier to defend a vapid cup than what might be in the cup.
"Again, the end result is that the ideas which have animated Mormonism are largely off limits. ... Mormon studies becomes navel gazing done by Mormons for other interested Mormons."
AS, I think that history is the back door into Mormon Studies, including analyses of its truth claims and theology.
But as much as anything that struck me about your post was that its Mormon sensibilities and reluctances at the heart of each of the limitations you noted:
1-'Believing scholars' (he-he) don't want to wade into the Book of Mormon or BoAbr waters that are, for them, infested with Great White sharks.
2-Mormons taking offense keeps non-believing scholars from undertaking objective analysis and publishing the results.
3-The kitty has had the tongues of the Brethren, god's oracles on earth, for fear of saying stupid things like their predecessors did.
4-The Mormon apologists are denuding the landscape of Mormon theology to the extent established by earlier Brethren, primarily those before 1990.
Their tactics, respectively, are:
1-Stay away from those sticky issues for which there is not a good answer.
2-Trumpet loadly and broadly how 'offended' Mormons are whenever a legitimate scholar examines Mormonism and finds it wanting, to effect a chilling against future scholarly efforts focused on Mormonism.
3-Keep the Brethrens' mouth shut, just repeat the unfalsifiable platitudes and mantras at GCs and when visiting SCs, to keep from enlarging the Mormon target.
4-Respectfully assail what the early Brethren established, to empty the theological vessel and reduce the size and profile of the target for critics.