David B. Speaks

[_Fence Sitter]

We had a thread here once on why BYU has no degree offering in LDS theology. The reasoning given by DCP and others to explain why this would be undesirable was sketchy to say the least.

If I recall correctly, I was one of the people who defended this. The reason BYU has no degree offering in LDS theology is because, in part, where would a person with a degree in LDS theology find work? Other Christians can get degrees in theology because there's a whole network of seminaries, parachurch organizations, and ministries where they can put those degrees to work, plus they can always get an M. Div afterwards and find work as a pastor. Mormons only have FAIR (which has very few paid positions), and a smattering of jobs at the BYUs. Maybe also a position or two at Claremont and Southern Virginia University. There are some other organizations, but I'm not sure they have any full-time positions.

There are other issues at play, but I gotta run.

How about teaching religion at BYU, Ricks, BYU Hawaii or throughout the Church educational system? I realize that is not a lot of job opportunities but how many degrees would be granted from such a department? I also expect there would people seeking such degrees, especially an undergrad degree, that would be going into other fields or doing post grad work in related fields. I would expect there would be a lot of LDS students interested in such a degree just because of what it is and not what job opportunities it could bring.

[_Chap]

We had a thread here once on why BYU has no degree offering in LDS theology. The reasoning given by DCP and others to explain why this would be undesirable was sketchy to say the least.

If I recall correctly, I was one of the people who defended this. The reason BYU has no degree offering in LDS theology is because, in part, where would a person with a degree in LDS theology find work? Other Christians can get degrees in theology because there's a whole network of seminaries, parachurch organizations, and ministries where they can put those degrees to work, plus they can always get an M. Div afterwards and find work as a pastor. Mormons only have FAIR (which has very few paid positions), and a smattering of jobs at the BYUs. Maybe also a position or two at Claremont and Southern Virginia University. There are some other organizations, but I'm not sure they have any full-time positions.

There are other issues at play, but I gotta run.

A degree in Theology from a good university is no more useless in getting a job not related to one's major than a degree in history, English literature, classical civilization or philosophy. Theology faculties go out of their way to explain this.

See here for instance:

http://www.theology.ox.ac.uk/prospectiv ... duate.html

(Click on the link "What on earth can you do with a degree in theology")

Of the eighty or so undergraduates who leave each year with first degrees in Theology or Philosophy and Theology, about six eventually enter the church (women as well as men) and a similar number train as teachers or work in higher education...

...this leaves nearly seventy other Theology or Philosophy and Theology first degree graduates taking up different careers.
Here are a few examples...

See also here:

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/admissions-a ... -questions

What can I do with an MDiv or MTS degree?

Our graduates go on to a wide variety of professions and vocations, including ordained and lay ministry; chaplaincy; higher education teaching and research; public and private secondary education; community development, advocacy, and human services; management and consulting, especially nonprofit; public policy, law, conflict resolution, and mediation; arts, publishing, communications, and media.

Why should BYU be any different?

There certainly are some fairly obvious reasons why the CoJCoLDS might not relish the idea of a BYU degree program in LDS Theology.

The career prospects of the graduates of such a program are probably not the major factor here.

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Friends,

Despite my sincere love for you all, I don't want to get too distracted from other projects by responding on message boards. I hope that won't offend anyone. I just tend to get a little OCD on everything in which I engage.

However, I would like to clarify a couple issues:

1. I don't believe that scholars with ancillary degrees are incapable of making important contributions to scriptural texts. As a case in point, I would simply refer to Northwest Semitic scholar Mark Smith who has made major contributions to the field of biblical studies. The fact that someone like my friend, William Hamblin, for example has a PhD in History and has made important contributions to Near Eastern studies such as Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 does not mean that he lacks the qualification to contribute to the academic discussion of Mormon scripture. Bill is very, very intelligent, and over the years, I have gained wonderful insights by reading his work in Bible, etc.

In fact, having a ancillary speciality like Bill does can actually brings new insights into biblical analysis, etc. Moreover, I don't even believe that only scholars with degrees can make important contributions to the academic field of scriptural studies. One of the best articles on Cain's sacrifice, in my opinion, was written by biblical scholar Gary Herion, who was given his initial insight into the pericope by an observation made by one of his undergraduate students.

Great read:

Gary A. Herion, "Why God Rejected Cain's Offering: The Obvious Answer," in Fortunate the Eyes that See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Seventieth Birthday (ed. Astrid Beck; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 54.

2. I don't believe Dan's firing signifies either the end of Mormon studies, or the termination of Dan's contributions. I just believe that both of these things will now move forward away from BYU (Dan will of course continue to teach Islamic studies at the Y).

As many of you know, I very much consider Daniel Peterson to be a friend. I am grateful for his contributions to Mormon studies. Perhaps this post on my Facebook wall to my friend Loyd Ericson can offer some clarity:

"Loyd, it would appear that we can agree on the fact that these contributions [to the MI] will in the future come from outside of BYU. Trust me, as a Church institution, nothing will ever be published by BYU that might be considered challenging to the faith. Under this restraint, it will be interesting to see just how long younger LDS scholars outside of BYU, seeking to distinguish themselves as critical thinkers, retain an interest in contributing to Maxwell Institute publications. I may be a pessimist, but I'm very much speaking as a voice of experience in these matters. Moreover, in the end, I maintain that it was wrong to oust these men from the very institution that they themselves created."

Best,

--DB

[_Kishkumen]

Hello, Enuma-

I hope you don't mind me responding to your points, although you don't wish to spend much time here.

1. I don't believe that scholars with ancillary degrees are incapable of making important contributions to scriptural texts. As a case in point, I would simply refer to Northwest Semitic scholar Mark Smith who has made major contributions to the field of biblical studies. The fact that someone like my friend, William Hamblin, for example has a PhD in History and has made important contributions to Near Eastern studies such as Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 does not mean that he lacks the qualification to contribute to the academic discussion of Mormon scripture. Bill is very, very intelligent, and over the years, I have gained wonderful insights by reading his work in Bible, etc.

Yes, no doubt. Non-specialists have made important contributions, and they will continue to do so. I have never contested this, and I have also argued in favor of it. Unfortunately, it has always been the case that in the polemic exchanges on these boards and in apologetic and "critical" publications, people switch between praising amateurs and deriding them as needed. It is OK for Brother X to be an amateur supporting the faith, but also OK to make fun of former Brother Y for teaching public school or working in a grocery store. And vice versa.

But I am not talking about the general fitness of amateurs to make contributions to scholarship. I am talking about a journal operating from Brigham Young University that bears the name Mormon Studies Review. If such a journal is run by people who don't do Mormon Studies, and they spend much of their effort on polemics, then the name will not really be useful for the world outside of Mormonism, but rather misleading. Do you see the problem?

Let's start a journal called the Classical Studies Review, with a staff and contributors who do not have formal training in Classics, and who spend a great deal of time praising or deriding people like Victor Davis Hanson for their political writings. I don't think that works, especially at an accredited, degree-granting institution of higher learning that offers graduate training in various fields. Rather, it would be a laughing stock.

2. I don't believe Dan's firing signifies either the end of Mormon studies, or the termination of Dan's contributions. I just believe that both of these things will now move forward away from BYU (Dan will of course continue to teach Islamic studies at the Y).

Neither do I. Hopefully it will be a shot in the arm to actual Mormon Studies conducted along the lines of Jewish Studies. Since, as I argue above, it is misleading to call what Daniel was doing Mormon Studies, if only because his way of doing it was far too narrow and partisan.

Moreover, in the end, I maintain that it was wrong to oust these men from the very institution that they themselves created."

In a sense, I agree with you. But the writing has been on the wall for some time. They should have seen it coming based on two developments: incorporation into BYU; and the dissolution of the Board. Once the founders had no real say in the future direction of the Maxwell Institute, they should have calculated in advance that their time had come to an end and started planning to execute their agenda elsewhere.

Personally, I am thrilled that polemics, particularly against fellow members of the LDS Church, have been booted off campus. I do agree that there is a vacuum created by the end of classic-FARMS, but hopefully this end will bring about a new beginning. I would prefer to see the different endeavors separated from each other. To clarify, it would be nice to see enriching work on antiquity separated out from apologetics and polemics. It would also be nice to see Mormon Studies as the study of a 19th-century (and forward) religious phenomenon separated out from all of the foregoing. It could only improve things. Most of all, I would like to see apologetics and polemics in their own corner, doing their own thing. For those who love that stuff, they should have a place to do it and imbibe it. But it should not cloud other forms of discourse.

[_Phaedrus Ut]

I think David is stating the obvious. There aren't really any top notch Biblical scholars in BYU’s Religious Education departments. They are excellent at church teaching history and scripture with a institute and seminary type world view. I know there are excellent LDS scholars like David or someone like Dan McClellan that have a strong academic background and from what I have observed would be a worthy addition to any institution. However, I can't see a place for the type of scholarship they'd produce inside mainstream BYU. It would just make too many of the old guard uncomfortable.*

When I read that BYU passed over David for a full time position I thought first that they were idiots and second that in the long run he's going to be happier somewhere else. I can see a whole lot of correlation type of oversight coming to the MI.


Phaedrus


* I could be wrong and maybe we'll see cutting edge scholarship like that of Tübingen or Marburg.

[_Chap]

...
When I read that BYU passed over David for a full time position I thought first that they were idiots

I suspect you were right.

and second that in the long run he's going to be happier somewhere else. ....

I suspect you were right.

[_Bob Loblaw]

When I read that BYU passed over David for a full time position I thought first that they were idiots and second that in the long run he's going to be happier somewhere else. I can see a whole lot of correlation type of oversight coming to the MI.

Agreed on all three points. BYU seems to be afraid of real scholars dealing with religious issues. That David is too unorthodox for them is not surprising, but it does show their stupidity. He would be more of an asset to them than they will ever know.

I have no doubt that David will find a place where he is happier. BYU is the loser in this case.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Chap is essentially correct in his assessment, a degree in theology is no different than getting a degree in any other field in the humanities, but I can see why Dan’s reasoning would really resonate with people in Mormon culture, with it’s concern for industry reflecting the blessings one gets in life.

I think what prohibits a theology degree is that it essentially trains someone to be a strong, independent thinker, who only sees God or Jesus Christ as his or hers authority, and gives them the tools to be persuasive in making their cases. It’s essentially training people to splinter off and create their own denominations.

Can you imagine if you got one of those charismatic fundamentalists and gave him the tools he needed to seriously justify his position and give it an academic sheen? Releasing someone like that into Utah is putting a shark into a guppie tank.

The church’s organizational structure simply cannot allow for people trained in theology to proliferate within the flock. That is why you have business and education oriented people running the religion department, they excel at things like “The boss wants X, Y, and Z, so let’s sit down and find out the most cost effective way to implement it”.

[_Cicero]

Doesn't my post above make a relevant suggestion? This is not about the MI at all, surely, but is directed elsewhere?

Basic principle of studying a text: if it seems at first reading to make no sense, you may not be approaching it from the right direction. Surely that applies to anything written by someone as smart as David Bokovoy?

Chap and Ari,

Thank you for your thoughts on this subject. I am trying to understand David's ideas, but I am with Ms. Jack on this. It seems David is suggesting you cannot have Mormon Studies without Peterson. or at least his ideology.

Maybe it has to do with some research I have been doing on Wesley Walters ground breaking article "New Light on Mormon Origins."

Leonard Arrington early as September 22, 1954 wrote a letter to Lyman Tyler (librarian at BYU), suggesting that BYU needed to fund a monograph series that would focus on “church doctrine and history.” A great deal of letters going back and forth between the 1st Prez. and people like Tyler, Arrington, Truman Madsen, etc. culminated in Madsen being appointed in 1966 as Director of the newly founded Institute of Mormon Studies. Then an entire new round of letters between all parties started discussing what the projects would be. Walters paper changed everything, money flowed in and books, article and then Arrington being appointed Church historian happened.

It was actually a good plan, and if Packer had not destroyed it, it might have worked. My point in all this: it can be done better, it should be done better and it was done better.

Amen to that, but don't put the whole blame on Packer. Peterson and Benson played a big role in it too, and Hinckley and others did nothing to stop it. Truly a tragedy in my opinion and right now the church is reaping what they sowed way back then.

[_Chap]

...

I think what prohibits a theology degree is that it essentially trains someone to be a strong, independent thinker, who only sees God or Jesus Christ as his or hers authority, and gives them the tools to be persuasive in making their cases. It’s essentially training people to splinter off and create their own denominations.

Ummm ... I don't deny that you may have experience from a faculty of theology near you that gives you reason to think that. But I would be a bit surprised if that is what generally happens to theology graduates.

The [LDS] church’s organizational structure simply cannot allow for people trained in theology to proliferate within the flock. That is why you have business and education oriented people running the religion department, they excel at things like “The boss wants X, Y, and Z, so let’s sit down and find out the most cost effective way to implement it”.

I do agree. I suspect that one of the big attractions of a ministry innocent of theological training for the CoJCoLDS is that it poses no threat whatsoever to the prestige and expertise of the businessmen who dominate the salaried levels of the church hierarchy (and I use that word advisedly).