Course on Mormonism at Harvard
 

You'd think we haven't been around for nearly 200 years.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...il_to_a_friend

If it really is true that colleges are scrambling to offer such curricula, then maybe Mike Quinn will finally find a job.

My understanding is that up until now the only places he could teach were church schools (obvious why he can't) or public/private institutions whose Mormon studies have been endowed by LDS, effectively black balling him.

Whether you agree with the guy or not, he is a pioneer in the field and it shouldn't be the case that he can't find work assume there is interest. Maybe this will help him.

P.S. The lady teaching the class at Harvard is LDS. I know the family.

I don't know much about him, so help me understand -- why would those be the only places he could teach?

He is a gay excommunicated Mormon who has written things that have made apologists mad. That's why he is persona non grata among some Mormons.

What's that supposed to mean?

If you mean why couldn't he teach at a church school, see the answers above. If you mean why would he be limited to those schools, because is a scholar whose area of expertise is LDS history and there just aren't very many places that have that job description.

That's what I meant, thanks.

You are better than that zoot.

I have a friend getting her doctorate at Claremont (in California), and she told me a few months ago they had just received a large endowment for a Mormon studies program there. http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1825.asp

I really do hope you're 12. Otherwise, I'm afraid that you might be retarded. I was asking because your meaning was ambiguous. It almost sounded like you thought Mormonism wasn't new enough to be worthy of study. I assumed I must have misunderstood, as that's a ludicrous argument. Now, I remember your intellectual ability and realize I shouldn't have responded at all.

Are you ever going to get back to me about that "slow, hanging curve"? I was so looking forward to watching you dribble one half way to the mound.

Every time I see this title in the front page, I think I read "Curse on Mormonism at Harvard".

I agree it's unclear. I'd tend to think the opposite of what malapert seemed to say (in woot's explanation) - after 200 years there's finally enough to start studying it seriously.

We are beginning to become relevant, just beginning. However, it is not a broad base of study. How relevant is it to study the Baptists?

Our history is interesting though.

It's interesting that one of the more prominent Mormon researchers works at Baylor (Baptist).

Can you imagine a prominent historian of Baptists being employed by BYU? I can't. (And we don't even have to go to the place where we admit to ourselves that true scholarship is about priority #99 at BYU).

Stark moved from Washington State to Baylor, didn't he. Isn't he a sociologist?

Stark's an idiot if he really believes what he wrote in The Victory of Reason.

One of the worst books ever written.

PS - Sociologists should stick to sociology. I know too many who think they're historians (no offense, woot).

But I recall a few years ago that there was quite a scandal when the mullahs at Baylor discovered that there was a mormon in their midst.

Your clairvoyance is astounding. How did you know my age? Or, has my mom been on this site disclosing private things to you? Did she also tell you about my genetic research project? If she did, I hope she swore you to secrecy. Pinky squared zoot.

When you juxtapose "scrambling" and a faith which has been around 178 yrs, don't you see just a mite of irony? Sorry for my puerile assumptions and the concomitant confusion caused thereby.

As for your ad hominem attack zoot, I understand that when you let your emotions control, your intellect and reason suffers. Controlling those emotions will come as the maturation process unfolds. What do I know, I'm only 12.

I now see that your position is quite logical, indeed. I'd love to hear your opinions on why schools have classes on Islam.

He had taught at BYU, had books published by Deseret Book, until he declared his sexual position.

Although he claims it was Packer who gave him the ax - not his sexuality.

He almost got the job at U of U after Dean May died in '03, but his candidacy proved pretty divisive. Big LDS donors made threats (don't know specifics) and one prof. called the newspaper. In the end, I think they justified not hiring him because all of his publications were with LDS presses or Signature - not scholarly presses. Fair enough, I guess, but a dumb move IMO.

It's still a damn shame that he's not teaching somewhere. Love him or hate him, the guy is a brilliant scholar.

I find him to be a thorough researcher but haven't seen anything to denote him as a brilliant scholar. He presents interesting evidence, but on some of his pet projects he lets his imagination get the better of him.

I'm not sure which projects you mean, but I understand people have different interests and tastes. I love Quinn, though, but I haven't read everything he's done.

Quinn pioneered the "New Mormon History" which, in my mind, is a very innovative movement, the effects of which have dramatically altered the landscape of LDS teachings and discourse by both member and non-member.

I think Magic World View forever changed scholarship on Joseph Smith and The two-volume Mormon Hierarchy is very erudite, although you have to mine a little for the really good nuggets. I especially like "Extensions of Power."

His essay "On Being a Mormon Historian" is especially dear to me for obvious reasons.

Same Sex Dynamics was a little boring for me, I'll admit.

I thought he jumped the gun on Same Sex Dynamics. Just because people don't go overboard opposing something doesn't mean they authorize it.

I just saw this title yesterday in the wikipedia blurb someone posted. I found the premise interesting. Did you find it convincing in any way? Also, was he "out" at the time he wrote it?

His basic premise is that early leaders didn't renounce homosexuality when they encountered it and therefore countenanced. Weak sauce.

From what I've read on the subject, it wasn't until late 20th century that the statistical prevalence of the activity was even understood. One of the well-researched works I read showed that prior to 20th Century, a typical citizen didn't even create a separate category of "sexuality" per se.

I've been laughing at this double entendre all day.

Soon, I'll declare mine.

Even a blind dog finds a bone, as it were.