Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Enigmatic Mirror

Home
Latter-day Saint
Jenkins Rejoinder 4: Game Over

Jenkins Rejoinder 4: Game Over

Last updated on: June 22, 2015 at 3:12 pm by William Hamblin

Jenkins Rejoinder 4: Game Over 2015-06-22T15:12:00-07:00 William Hamblin

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

COMMENTS FROM JENKINS:

This is a belated response to Dr. Hamblin’s opening column in his series of posts.

He says that “Jenkins is woefully uninformed regarding ancient Book of Mormon studies…. [nothing] provides the slightest evidence that he understands ancient Book of Mormon studies, and is therefore qualified to engage the issue,” I respond that there is no such thing as “ancient Book of Mormon studies,” at least in terms of a vaguely credible field of academic study, any more than say, “Elvis Survival Studies.” In order to substantiate my opinion, I will need to call on an expert witness, namely William Hamblin himself.

I will address Dr. Hamblin:

You have said repeatedly that Ancient Book of Mormon Studies is an important field demanding study and attention. Obviously, such a topic would not be explored in a secular university, such as Penn State, but oddly, I do not see where and how this study is pursued in Brigham Young University, the Mormon flagship school.

As I have noted in recent comments, it certainly is not pursued in your terrific Anthropology department, which includes Archaeology (John Sorenson is listed as Emeritus there, but he is now in his 90s). And that absence is all the more marked given the strong representation of Mesoamericanists in that unit:

https://anthropology.byu.edu/P…

The strong BYU History department has several people studying Mormon history but all, I believe, in the post-1830 period. So in which academic department is Ancient Book of Mormon Studies taught and studied at BYU? Where can an interested person take courses or pursue an advanced degree – or even an undergraduate minor? Where can they take a course? As I noted, the Maxwell Institute does not appear to be an academic teaching department – am I wrong about that?

Nor is it just a matter than a specific field called “Ancient Book of Mormon Studies” is not listed under that title, but I see no coursework in related areas. (The Religion department website makes it impossible for me to draw conclusions about the work done there.)

But if Ancient Book of Mormon Studies is not cultivated in mainstream academic units at BYU, what does that say about the university’s attitude to that field? If they took it seriously, presumably they would hire people in it and set up graduate programs. But they don’t. Is that because of BYU’s notorious anti-Mormon prejudice, I wonder? Or do they regard “scriptural archaeology” as a non-academic matter that is a matter of personal faith rather than of authentic scholarship? Something for a Religion unit, at most, and clearly not for History or Archaeology?

You know BYU well, so here is a serious question. How would your History department, say, react if someone volunteered to teach a course on Ancient Book of Mormon Studies? Has no one attempted such a thing in recent years? Have you? You don’t list it among your impressively diverse areas of expertise in teaching and research.

https://history.byu.edu/Pages/…

In contrast, a mainstream Christian school like Baylor teaches many, many courses on all aspects and eras of Jewish or Christian history, scripture and archaeology, founded on the analysis of the Old and New Testaments. Oddly, in the context, so does a strictly secular school like Penn State, where such issues are repeatedly touched on in the study of mainstream history and archaeology. As a subject for secular scholarship, the Bible (Old and New Testaments) is viewed not just a legitimate mainstream topic, it is essential for anyone trying to understand the ancient world.

Why does BYU not treat the historical claims of the Book of Mormon similarly?

Or to take another criterion, academic departments place different values on different kinds of publication, with the most respect being accorded to high-prestige and high visibility outlets, and that is where they want their faculty publishing. In History, for instance, that means internationally valued journals like AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW, or in archaeology, that would mean something like AMERICAN ANTIQUITY. The more you publish in high profile journals, the greater the rewards for the individual professor, and the higher the prestige for the academic unit.

So how seriously do BYU departments take what I would call “Book of Mormon apologist” journals and books, like the recently defunct FARMS REVIEW? In fact, they give them nothing like the respect that they would to “real” mainstream secular journals in History or Archaeology, to the point that they actively discourage their professors from publishing there. Or that, at least, is what I read in your own powerful comments on this very ENIGMATIC MIRROR blog from 2013:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/e…

Specifically, you mention that BYU administrators look poorly on a faculty member publishing with such outlets, and that this has been “the consistent policy of both my department and college for a quarter of a century.” As you say yourself, “publishing with FARMS and now INTERPRETER is considered unscholarly by BYU.” From the administrative perspective, you remark, “publications count as scholarly only if published outside the BYU bubble.” If I am misquoting you, or quoting out of context, do please set me right.

When I have myself criticized certain journals like the INTERPRETER as not scholarly, apologist commenters have rebuked on the grounds that these are actually refereed journals, and therefore demanding respect. But if BYU itself treats these outlets as unworthy and non-respectable, why should a non-Mormon writer such as myself act any differently? Maybe the apologists should take their complaints up with BYU, not me.

So here is my bottom line. If Ancient Book of Mormon Studies is not cultivated at BYU – indeed, seemingly, it is despised – where does it exist as an academic subject? And if not at BYU, why should anyone else care about it?

In the words of a modern day authority commenting on scholarly argument: You got to know when to hold them, and know when to fold them. Book of Mormon apologists really, seriously, need just to fold. If there ever was an argument about Book of Mormon historicity, it is long settled.

Game over.

Ancient Studies

Book of Mormon

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Mormon Studies

Philip Jenkins

Previous Post

June 22, 2015

Jenkins rejoinder 3: Evidence

Next Post

June 22, 2015 Jenkins Response 6: Rules of Engagement

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Ancient Studies Atheism Bible bibliography Book of Abraham Book of Mormon Book of Moses Christianity Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Deseret News Column Doctrine and Covenants Documentary Hypothesis Genesis Haram al-Sharif Historicity History Islam Israelite Religion Judaism LDS Mormon Studies Mormonism Mormons Movies Noah Penteteuch Photography Religion Temple Temple Mount Temples Third Temple Movements Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 February 2014 October 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How many children did Job lose in the disasters at the beginning of the book?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Ten Five Twelve Seven