About a year ago we put up a post discussing the search for a professor of Ancient Scripture in BYU’s School of Religious Education. This year they are again looking for a professor of Ancient Scripture. This search, however, is somewhat different than the previous one. I’d like to point out some of the differences between the two and raise an issue about the LDS notion of ‘education’. [Read more...]

I’m being serious here, and trying not to be cynical. We hear so much about “Correlation” in the ‘nacle, but I honestly have no idea who these people are, how they’re chosen, and how the group functions. My hunch is that most of us are in the same boat. Perhaps my/our ignorance works well from our perspective because it’s easier to be critical of an organization/committee that is impersonal, and has an ambiguous relationship within the structure of authority of the Church. Perhaps this ignorance also works well from the perspective of the Committee because they can do what they do in a “granite tower” of sorts without having to deal with the larger body of saints.

In all seriousness though, does anyone have any insight into this committee? Who is on it? How does one come to be a part of it? What is the structure of the committee? How do they decide what material is fit and what material is unfit for the Church? 

Perhaps there have been posts on this in the past that would be helpful?

The impetus for this post came from a conversation that started here. Since the blog administrator won’t publish my response, I wanted to raise the issue in a more general setting. (Personal attacks on the author of that post will not be tolerated in this thread. Anything that encroaches on an ad hominem–or is overtly condescending– will be deleted.)

As religious people we are interested in religious things. This interest, for the most part, extends beyond our own tradition and into larger issues of world wide religiosity. Comparing our tradition with other traditions is a natural part of this interest and interaction. The larger issue underlying this post is how to do “responsible” comparison. As a way of getting into that conversation I want to offer a critique of the kind of comparative studies we (meaning members at large and not necessarily those doing academic work, although the latter sometimes do it as well) all too often engage in. [Read more...]

I’m sure we’re all very familiar with the advice that Pres. Hinkley’s father gave to him shortly after Pres. Hinkley arrived in England on his mission and was feeling a little down and out: “Forget yourself and get to work!”. 

The notion of “forgetting” is rarely used in a positive sense in LDS discourse (and probably in Christian or even Western discourse in general). Indeed we are admonished to “remember” certain things such as the covenants we made when we were baptized, and to pay particular attention to versus of scripture that doubly exhort us to “remember, remember….” (for instance Helaman 5:9, and this from Spencer W. Kimball, quoted in the SS Manual: “When you look in the dictionary for the most important word, do you know what it is? It could be ‘remember.’ Because all of [us] have made covenants … our greatest need is to remember. That is why everyone goes to sacrament meeting every Sabbath day—to take the sacrament and listen to the priests pray that [we] ‘… may always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given [us].’ … ‘Remember’ is the word” (Circles of Exaltation [address to religious educators, Brigham Young University, 28 June 1968], 8)). [Read more...]

A little while ago TT wrote about a debate in the field of Religious Studies concerning the role of personal judgment in scholarship. “Bracketing” one’s judgment, meant withholding a pronouncement of “superstitious”, “backward”, or even “good or bad” on the people or objects one studies. The scholar’s role in this regard is to provide an accurate and sympathetic account of religious attitudes and actions. S/he attempts to see the world from the place of an other, and understand them in their own terms. This is sometimes described as a methodological “agnosticism”, that at least leaves the door open for the real possibility of religious experience by not ruling it out from the get-go. Thus for LDS scholars, there is a strong benefit to this position in that it provides an opportunity to study and produce scholarship about religious claims without having to “come out of the closet” so to speak in regards to their personal beliefs which may not be widely shared (or accepted). Some form of bracketing in this general sense is the dominant position in the field. [Read more...]

In our two previous posts we discussed the curriculum as well as what to cover in the theory and introductory courses for our new major. In this post I’d like to raise the issue of how the “areas of emphasis” should be structured and who/where we could draw from in creating classes from these areas. 

Areas of emphasis (or areas of study–AoS) are organized differently depending on the organizing committee’s perception of “religious studies” as well as the school’s strengths. Below are three options of organization, although often times more than one is adopted to meet the diverse opinions of what constitutes religious studies, as well as the fact that they often overlap (how can one do sociology of religion for instance without focusing on an area or tradition?):

• By Area:

            Religion in America, Europe, Africa, etc.

            A strength of this approach is that it allows one to do more inter-disciplinary and inter-traditional work. A weakness is that if strictly interpreted one could end up knowing very little about any particular tradition outside of one geographical location. It’s also possible to end up ill-trained in many disciplines, but proficient in none.

• By Tradition:

            Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc., and at BYU, I would imagine, Mormonism.

            A strength of this approach is that it allows one’s work to extend beyond a geographic location. Islam, as we know, is a major religion of SE Asia for instance. A weakness is that in some cases the category of a religious ‘tradition’ is a construction of Western attempts to assert a universality of ‘religion’ (see for instance Oddie’s Imagined Hinduism). Working according to ‘traditions’ therefore could play into this bias.

• By Discipline:

            History, Philosophy, Sociology, Anthropology, etc. 

            A strength of this approach is that it gives the student a firm grounding in a particular discipline. A weakness is that these approaches sometimes lack the depth into a particular tradition. A philosopher of religion, for instance, might not be well informed about the history of Christianity.

So, here are the questions:

Given BYU’s current scenario, how should the “areas of emphasis” be structured? What kinds of areas of emphasis could be offered?

Which faculty members should be drawn from in teaching classes in these areas? Related to this question are the more sensitive issues of: Should current classes in Religious Education count? Will faculty from RE be allowed to teach classes in RS? On what basis will this be determined?

In responding to these latter questions, let’s try to keep comments from becoming too personal.