David B. Speaks

[_CaliforniaKid]

I tend to agree with David.

The problem lies not so much in the greatness of the scholars who have been dismissed, as in the inadequacy of those who remain. BYU doesn't teach Mormon Studies. The administration is determined to keep it that way, as has been made this very clear in many internal meetings and communications. The reasons for this are not entirely clear, but I think partly it's an attempt to avoid the kind of professionally-trained clergy you find in other denominations.

In any case, the result is that there are very few scholars at BYU who are capable of doing Mormon Studies of the sort Bradford envisions. I don't know how much you all know about the BYU Religion Department, but it has a reputation for being a bit like CES. Not much help there.

If Bradford had kept the journal's apologetic focus but handed it off to someone responsible like Skousen or Seely who could get the authors to moderate their tone, then the journal could have continued to tap the energies of people like Peterson, Hamblin and Midgley as long as they were willing to play by the rules. By totally changing the journal to a religious studies mode of discourse, Bradford has not only created a redundant competitor to BYU Studies, but has also perhaps initiated a project that BYU doesn't have the expertise to sustain.

[_CaliforniaKid]

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.

Roger Finke and Rodney Stark found that one of the single surest causes of denominational decline is a ministry with collegiate theological training. Other kinds of training don't have the same effect. Ministers with BAs in business or politics are actually healthy for religious institutions. But university degrees in theology or religion make bad ministers. Why? Well, partly because people trained in religion and theology are much more likely than average to lose their faith as a result of their education. And it's hard for an agnostic or theologically liberal pastor to sustain the interest of his congregation. Finke and Stark call this a "loss of product content".

[_Bob Loblaw]

If Bradford had kept the journal's apologetic focus but handed it off to someone responsible like Skousen or Seely who could get the authors to moderate their tone, then the journal could have continued to tap the energies of people like Peterson, Hamblin and Midgley as long as they were willing to play by the rules. By totally changing the journal to a religious studies mode of discourse, Bradford has not only created a redundant competitor to BYU Studies, but has also perhaps initiated a project that BYU doesn't have the expertise to sustain.

The problem is less that apologetic arguments kind of suck (which they do) but more with the nasty tone and personal attacks. That seems to be what BYU wants to get away from, but they seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[_Chap]

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.

Roger Finke and Rodney Stark found that one of the single surest causes of denominational decline is a ministry with collegiate theological training. Other kinds of training don't have the same effect. Ministers with BAs in business or politics are actually healthy for religious institutions. But university degrees in theology or religion make bad ministers. Why? Well, partly because people trained in religion and theology are much more likely than average to lose their faith as a result of their education. And it's hard for an agnostic or theologically liberal pastor to sustain the interest of his congregation. Finke and Stark call this a "loss of product content".

Do you think that applies to all denominations? I have a hard time making it work for, say, Roman Catholics, who have had a formally trained ministry for quite a while. For reasons that I can't yet set out, I think it might work better for Protestants.

Has it, on the whole, been priests who have been subversive of Roman Catholic belief over the last hundred and fifty years?

I wonder if Finke and Starke controlled for the effect of non-vocational higher education in general, as opposed to specifically theological higher education?

[_MrStakhanovite]

In any case, the result is that there are very few scholars at BYU who are capable of doing Mormon Studies of the sort Bradford envisions. I don't know how much you all know about the BYU Religion Department, but it has a reputation for being a bit like CES. Not much help there.

Sorry Chris, but the facts disagree with you, as per the website:

Brigham Young University is owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Religion classes are offered to provide an education that is both intellectually stimulating and spiritually uplifting.

Should have guessed such a thing from a career anti-mormon.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Has it, on the whole, been priests who have been subversive of Roman Catholic belief over the last hundred and fifty years?

Hell yes, Jesuits put out stuff in biblical studies that make secular projects look like faith promotion. The Catholic Church has a huge huge gap between what the lay people believe and the theological elite who train priests and publish in journals.

[_MCB]

Hell yes, Jesuits put out stuff in biblical studies that make secular projects look like faith promotion. The Catholic Church has a huge huge gap between what the lay people believe and the theological elite who train priests and publish in journals.

Just go over to CAF and watch for a while. Those who are less knowledgeable sometimes have some strange superstitions and scrupulosities.

http://forums.catholic.com/index.php

[_Chap]

Has it, on the whole, been priests who have been subversive of Roman Catholic belief over the last hundred and fifty years?

Hell yes, Jesuits put out stuff in biblical studies that make secular projects look like faith promotion. The Catholic Church has a huge huge gap between what the lay people believe and the theological elite who train priests and publish in journals.

I deliberately set my question in broad historical terms. I shouldn't be surprised, however, if the intellectual elite of the 21st century Roman Catholic church was as you describe in some countries.

[Guest]

The problem is less that apologetic arguments kind of suck (which they do) but more with the nasty tone and personal attacks. That seems to be what BYU wants to get away from, but they seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Good point, Bob. I agree that the problem is the nasty tone and personal attacks.

[_Kishkumen]

If Bradford had kept the journal's apologetic focus but handed it off to someone responsible like Skousen or Seely who could get the authors to moderate their tone, then the journal could have continued to tap the energies of people like Peterson, Hamblin and Midgley as long as they were willing to play by the rules. By totally changing the journal to a religious studies mode of discourse, Bradford has not only created a redundant competitor to BYU Studies, but has also perhaps initiated a project that BYU doesn't have the expertise to sustain.

You make an excellent point there, CK.

It is too bad that your career of anti-Mormonism, and your proven hatred of all things Mormon, invalidates every last word you utter or write on the topic. Too bad.