Regional AAR Call for Papers

PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION
AAR/SBL/ASOR

Regional Meeting
Seattle University
Seattle, Washington
May 3-5, 2013

SPECIAL TOPICS: MORMON STUDIES
Description of the goals and rationale
This special topic of Mormon Studies promotes the exploration of a wide range of topics relating to Mormonism. This section seeks to provide scholarly inquiry into Mormon history, culture, belief and practice, theology, scripture, and the role of Mormonism in contemporary politics. This section encourages the study of Mormonism from multiple disciplines and methodologies. This section will better equip those in the academy to teach on the subject of Mormonism and actively promotes opportunities for interfaith dialogue.

Co-Chairs
Kirk Caudle (Marylhurst University; mixlom@msn.com)
Susanna Morrill (Lewis & Clark College; smorrill@lclark.edu)

Call for Papers
Papers are welcome in any area of Mormon Studies. We encourage papers from multiple disciplinary and methodological perspectives and especially invite proposals on the following themes:
1) Papers that consider the history and culture of Mormonism, especially those that discuss the social and religious impact of women and minorities.
2) Papers on the development of Mormon beliefs and practices, scripture, ethics, and theology.
3) Papers related to interfaith dialogue between Mormonism and other Christian (and non-Christian) faith traditions.
4) Papers related to Mormonism and contemporary politics.
5) Papers that consider the place of Mormon Studies within the academic study of religion.

Paper Proposals will be submitted through Oxford Abstracts (OA) again this year as AAR continues to upgrade their system. You may need to copy and paste this link into your browser:

https://aareligionpnw.conference-services.net/authorlogin.asp?conferenceID=3409&language=en-uk

A link to the OA site is also posted on the PNW Region’s webpage (http://pnw-aarsbl.org/).

OA will be open for submissions October 1, 2012 and close on January 21, 2013. Acceptance letters will be sent by February 1, 2013.

Apologetics in the Academy

In line with Daniel Peterson’s recent comments, I see significant points of congruence between apologetics and religious studies. I also see no reason why the same institution cannot pursue both endeavors—particularly a private religious institution such as BYU. I do think, however, that much of the apologetics advocated by Peterson is better off done at another venue (congratulations to those involved with the new Interpreter project). At the same time, a more appropriate kind of apologetics can (and should) remain at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute.

In this post I’d like to articulate a significant overlap between religious studies and apologetics. This overlap creates a shared space where apologetic efforts can be seen as appropriate or inappropriate for academic institutions such as NAMI. Continue reading “Apologetics in the Academy”

Why I Laud the Maxwell Institute’s Direction

I have nothing against Daniel Peterson, and I’m not a fan of John Dehlin. I’m not interested in the so-called “hit piece” that the Mormon Studies Review was supposed to publish, nor do I really care about who leaked what Maxwell Institute emails (for a chronology of sorts, see here). However, I am quite embarrassed by this whole event, and these feelings of embarrassment bring to the fore long-standing feelings of embarrassment that I’ve had about FARMS and its association with BYU. Continue reading “Why I Laud the Maxwell Institute’s Direction”

Dear BYU Religious Education (Part 2)

Dear BYU Religious Education,

It’s now been over a year since our last correspondence. I’ve had some time to formulate my thoughts a little more constructively. I’d like to speak to you about the hiring process, and how you might adjust it to the mutual benefit of the candidates and yourself. I realize that some of these may be more applicable to one of your departments rather than both; but I hope this provides you some insight from the other side of the table. I also realize that some of these points are parts of on-going discussions within RE, so a lack of clarity on your part is not always intentional. It very well may be reflective of yet unfinished discussions.

Now, on to the recommendations, numbered for the sake of organization: Continue reading “Dear BYU Religious Education (Part 2)”

The Trouble with BYU’s Religious Education (Part II)

The previous post discussed two methodological problems with Religious Education that fostered the circumstances leading to Randy Bott’s troubling statements. In this post I will discuss what I see as the likely short-term response within RE. In the next post I will discuss my desired long-term response.

In the short-term, the Randy Bott situation will push RE professors toward what I’ll call an “orthodox professionalism.”  Continue reading “The Trouble with BYU’s Religious Education (Part II)”

The Trouble with BYU’s Religious Education (Part I)

This post isn’t meant to discuss the specifics of Randy Bott’s circumstances. Instead, I’d like to write about how the Bott situation signals two long-standing methodological problems for Religious Education as a whole. I believe this contributes to an ongoing discussion within Religious Education, but since I’m not privy to that discussion, I’d like to raise the issues here. Continue reading “The Trouble with BYU’s Religious Education (Part I)”

Tips on Applying to Tenure Track Positions in Religious Studies, Part I: Important Resources

We’re expanding the Tips on Applying series to move beyond applying to graduate programs in religious studies. The next series of posts will focus on applying to tenure track positions in religious studies (or related) departments. To start I’d like to point out some useful resources:

Continue reading “Tips on Applying to Tenure Track Positions in Religious Studies, Part I: Important Resources”