Some years back for a course I was taking in psychiatry we were assigned to regularly visit a local mental hospital. The first and second floors were “day programs” and the third floor was the locked unit, for those not safe enough to be let out. I will never forget the intensity of the cigarette smoke: I’ve since learned that many schizophrenics self-medicate with nicotine. Also unforgettable was the look in the eyes of the many people wandering the bare rooms of the third floor. But for this post, I’d like to talk about what a psychiatrist had on a chalkboard in a side room for a group therapy session. It was a quote from Kierkegaard:
The Danger of the [Bracket]
The [bracket] has been the focus of some rather heated debates in the study of religion in recent years, and poses a particular challenge for Latter-day Saints. This debate was typified in a Harvard Divinity Bulletin exchange between Stephen Prothero of Boston University and Robert Orsi (et al.) who was then at Harvard, but has now moved to Northwestern. Prothero criticized Orsi for his methodological choice to “bracket” the truth claims of the religions he studied. He explains, “I have come to believe that the endless bracketing that I have always taken as my charge is viable only as long as our work exists in the splendid isolation of the Ivory Tower. In the rough and tumble of the real world, it is not possible, and likely not desirable.” He described the process of Religious Studies scholars who did not say what they really thought was a “good or a bad thing” as a “cat-and-mouse game.” Continue reading “The Danger of the [Bracket]”
A Religious Studies Major at BYU Pt. I
Okay, I know it will probably never happen, but… Continue reading “A Religious Studies Major at BYU Pt. I”
Experience or Doctrine?
One of the recent debates in LDS intellectual circles has been whether or not Mormonism is about orthodoxy or orthopraxy. As far as I can remember, this debated heated up after Jim Faulconer’s 2002 Yale conference presentation on this topic. This debate has more or less died down, largely because people realized that it was a false dichotomy between the two options, and everyone recognized that it was a little bit of both. Today’s LDS Newsroom, however, seems to intervene in this debate with the following announcement:
SALT LAKE CITY | 6 Jun 2008 | The religious experience of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is based on a spiritual witness from God that inspires both heart and mind, creating an interpersonal relationship directly with the divine. It does not require one to pass a rigorous theological test. Nor does it demand the extreme self-denial and seclusion of asceticism. Rather, this unique individual experience unfolds in the natural course of everyday living. Thus, the beliefs of Latter-day Saints are not rooted in concepts and principles, detached from the realities of life. They are grounded in a much deeper level of experience that motivates individuals to action.
The Terrible 90’s for Mormon Scholarship
I suspect that sometime in the next few decades, historians will look back on the 1990’s as the worst period for Mormon studies. In fact, they may even say that it was so bad that it destroyed an entire generation of young Mormon scholars. This decade may have even set Mormon studies back a few decades from its entry into mainstream academic circles, erasing the progress made in the 1970’s and early 1980’s. I think that there were several factors, but our biggest enemy was definitely ourselves.
Continue reading “The Terrible 90’s for Mormon Scholarship”
A Special Day at FPR (Updated)
Today we mark two important milestones at FPR. First, May 9th, 2008 is the third anniversary of our creation. Second, this composition is the 500th post. In light of this, we thought it proper to do something a bit special to mark the occasion.
Our founder, the illustrious John C., has posed a question and invited the rest of us to respond in 150 words or less. His response leads the roll; we follow in no specific order.
You may note that our number is not quite complete. We find ourselves unable to pry certain members out of various odd corners of the remote past in a timely fashion. This is a hazard of the occupation. We will, however, update this entry as their comments become available.
THE QUESTION: How has your decision to pursue academic research in religion or ancient history affected your faith?
THE RESPONSES:
JOHN C.:
My academic experience has taught me the value of having a flexible faith. For me, this means quickly paring down what is important to me in my faith to the bare minimum and then allowing the remainder of my beliefs to ebb and flow with the tide of evidence, experience, and inspiration. The academy encourages one to question everything in an attempt to see what survives. That is well and good, but there are some things that I have determined are going to survive no matter what answers or non-answers critical examination gives me. These are, primarily, my experiences with my God and they are, I believe, untouchable by rational inquiry. Rationality strikes me as a particularly temporal goal and endeavor and the pursuit thereof is best at enlightening human motivation and natural causes. It is very, very useful for learning how best to navigate, explain, and influence the world around you. It establishes good limits on what can and cannot make for proofs and arguments acceptable outside of your self. What it is best at is, I think, showing the limits of what we can legitimately claim to know. In rationality, all information is tentative, which is a very good thing. It just isn’t the basis of my faith. For all that, without the rational, I wouldn’t have the language, the reason, or the rationale to understand my own faith or others in even the imperfect manner I do today. I am as human as anyone else and we all examine ourselves rationally. The academy has given me the means to examine, articulate, experiment on, stretch, flex, and strengthen my own faith. For that, I am forever in its debt.
Krister Stendahl has died
The news has already started to make the rounds. Esteemed New Testament professor and former Dean of Harvard Divinity School has passed away this morning after a long bout with cancer. This post cannot possibly substitute for an official obituary, so I shall not attempt the task. I would just like a note a few highlights on his relationship with Mormons.
Stendahl had been a pioneer on interfaith dialogue and had been a long-time defender of the Mormons. Having established relationships with LDS students at Harvard, he became engaged in LDS scholarship. He wrote an article on “The Sermon on the Mount and Third Nephi in the Book of Mormon,” in Meanings , ed. K. Stendahl (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984): 99-113 (also in Madsen, Reflections on Mormonism). He is also the author of the article on “Baptisms for the Dead” in the Encyclopedia on Mormonism. Stendahl appears in the LDS film about temples called Between Heaven and Earth. He also became publically involved in defending the LDS temple construction in his native Sweden.
We have lost a great friend today.
[This was posted earlier today before the information was officially made public. Email sometimes moves faster than official news. I apologize for any inconvenience.]
More Resources!
A few more useful things for Bible and ANE study have appeared up recently, and are worthy of notice. Continue reading “More Resources!”
Armaund Mauss Interview
No, not here. Over here. Good stuff, go read it. (T&S had a similar interview in 2004, part one, part two.)
“For Mormons, living in a certain way is more important than believing in a certain way. We can infer much more about what or who a person is from what he does than from what he believes (or claims to believe) ”
“Speaking differently to different audiences does not necessarily imply contradiction. We do it all the time. When we talk among our friends about what goes on in our families, we are not likely to provide the same details or explanations as if we were talking within the intimacy of the family circle.”
“It seems that for mainline Catholics and Protestants, all extra-biblical ideas are forgivable as long as they embrace a Trinitarian deity, but Mormons can’t be permitted their extra-biblical ideas and still be part of the Christian ‘family.'”
“Sociologists who have studied NRMs and their critics have long since realized that apostates are among the least reliable sources of information and understanding about a religion, since they always write in an exposé mode to vindicate their own change of feelings.”
Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction
In March Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction will be published as a part of Oxford’s A Very Short Introduction series. For those unfamiliar with the series, Oxford has put out over 300 titles written by “experts” in particular fields (the volume on Kant by Roger Scruton from the University of London, for instance is a fantastically accessible introduction). They are brief (around 100 pages 4×6 inches), and meant for the non-specialist.
Richard Bushman is the author of the volume on Mormonism. While it certainly won’t find the same use as the introductions by Shipps , Eliason , or Davies , one cannot but wonder what attention it will draw and where it will have its impact. I think the market for it is more akin to the Dummies series in which Riess has done the piece on Mormonism, which means it might not find its way into college classrooms, but may make it into the hands of those looking to know more about Mormonism than simply reading what they can find online (although Oxford’s introduction series tends to be written by some of the larger figures in the field).
What are your thoughts about Bushman’s Introduction? Which introductions have you been recommending? And would you consider recommending Bushman’s introduction instead, given its genre and the situations you find yourself recommending books on Mormonism.