Any LDS Professors Here?

[Elphaba]

Interesting. I got 1088. Would you mind providing the exact link?

In this post I have already explained to jlf Notre Dame's bookstore actually has 1000+ titles, which is the first of many proofs that his information is innacurate. volgadon and I also proved that his claim that it carries no current LDS authors is blatantly wrong, as it carries many. We also debunked additional claims, but I won't bother to go into them here. If you want, you can read it at the link.

I can't figure out if jlf is being purposely obtuse, if he has problems with comprehension (that is not an insult, I mean it in a clinical sense), if he just didn't bother to read the evidence, or if he's actually outright lying. But here he is in this thread making the same claims that have already been soundly proven false in the link above, as if we're not going to notice.

I noticed.

Elphaba

[slamjet]

I can't figure out if jlf is being purposely obtuse, if he has problems with comprehension (that is not an insult, I mean it in a clinical sense), if he just didn't bother to read the evidence, or if he's actually outright lying. But here he is in this thread making the same claims that have already been soundly proven false in the link above, as if we're not going to notice.

Victim Complex.

[Dravin]

In this post I have already explained to jlf Notre Dame's bookstore actually has 1000+ titles, which is the first of many proofs that his information is innacurate. volgadon and I also proved that his claim that it carries no current LDS authors is blatantly wrong, as it carries many. We also debunked additional claims, but I won't bother to go into them here. If you want, you can read it at the link.

I can't figure out if jlf is being purposely obtuse, if he has problems with comprehension (that is not an insult, I mean it in a clinical sense), if he just didn't bother to read the evidence, or if he's actually outright lying. But here he is in this thread making the same claims that have already been soundly proven false in the link above, as if we're not going to notice.

I noticed.

Elphaba

Based on his longer comment in this thread I think he's under the impression that since his posts aren't scholarly works that actual data isn't important. I think what he fails to realize that if you make claims and they are proven inaccurate and instead of admitting you made a mistake you simply pretend like a debunking never happened that people aren't going to go along with the game of pretend. They're either, depending on their attitude, going to hound you until you cry uncle or write you off as a unreliable and not to be taken seriously as a poster.

[Elphaba]

I'm curious how he's controlling for a potential disparity in 'wild' book populations to draw from. It's possible that (made up numbers for illustration alert) 20% of all significant positive LDS themed books (or books by famous LDS authors) are included in the Book Store but only 5% of LDS themed con books (or LDS themed books by non-LDS authors) available.

* I'm not entirely sure what his argument is. If it is, X LDS authors versus Y non-LDS authors on LDS themes means bias, or X favorable works versus Y unfavorable works on LDS themes means bias. I'm kinda curious how he's establishing either of those. While some LDS authors are famous and thus easily recognizable, not all LDS authors are famous. So he's potentially discounting LDS authored works because he isn't familiar with the religion of the author. If the second case you run into the issue of judging a book by the title. Which while some may seem obvious, he may be misclassifying a work with a provocative title that may actually be pro or neutral as opposed to the assumed con. There may also be some of the reverse going on.

It's very simple. He sees 400 books - 4 pro-Mormon books = 396 anti-Mormon books. Therefore, Notre Dame has an anti-Mormon bias.

Obviously, it is much more complicated, and he's wrong, for the reasons you outline. But that's not how he sees it, and he continues to ignore the following:

1) Many of the titles are duplicates. For example, if you go to the first page of the website most of the books are The Book of Mormon.

2) Most of the anti-Mormon books included in its catalog are clearly for historical purposes, in that they are very old reproductions or the old book itself.

3) Despite his claims that there are none, there are, in fact, numerous titles by current LDS authors, including Richard Turley, Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, William Hamblin, and so on. There is even a book by President Hinckley, hardly something an anti-Mormon bookstore would offer.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Based on his longer comment in this thread I think he's under the impression that since his posts aren't scholarly works that actual data isn't important. I think what he fails to realize that if you make claims and they are proven inaccurate and instead of admitting you made a mistake you simply pretend like a debunking never happened that people aren't going to go along with the game of pretend. They're either, depending on their attitude, going to hound you until you cry uncle or write you off as a unreliable and not to be taken seriously as a poster.

Exactly.

Elph

[jlf9999]

Interesting. I got 1088. Would you mind providing the exact link?

http://www.bkstr.com/CategoryDisplay/10001-9604-10900-1?demoKey=d. As of this post it is down. 1900 mst.

[Elphaba]

http://www.bkstr.com/CategoryDisplay/10001-9604-10900-1?demoKey=d. As of this post it is down. 1900 mst.

When I type "Mormon" into the advanced search it still gives 1088 hits.

Are you doing something differently?

Elphaba

[Suzie]

http://www.bkstr.com/CategoryDisplay/10001-9604-10900-1?demoKey=d. As of this post it is down. 1900 mst.

I used the advanced search on the left:

http://www.bkstr.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/NavigationSearch?storeId=10900&langId=-1&catalogId=10001&categoryId=

1088 hits.

[slamjet]

I'm not getting it, 1088, 1900?

[Guest mormonmusic]

Yes, I'm a professor at a private university, although I'm only a doctoral candidate at this point. In America, they call you professor even in you have a Master's degree, which took some getting used to!

However, surprisingly, I have published on the strength of my my Master's degree, and also separate publishing as a research assistant to an LDS professor of Business.

Have I been discriminated against? No, I haven't. In fact, it was the fact that I was LDS that got me hooked up with the professor of Business that had me do research with him, and put my name on our publications. So, I think my religion actually helped me!!!!

Further, my mentor never described his religion as a source of discrimination. He's published a lot of material over the years, so I don't see his religion as an issue.

For my other publishing work, religion wasn't an issue. However, I'm careful not to share my religion with people. I describe myself as a Christian (which is true) and I avoid any reference to my religions affiliation beyond that in the work place. However, I'm pretty open about my religious affiliation at Church :):)

[Elphaba]

I'm not getting it, 1088, 1900?

I think he meant it was 19:00 mountain standard time. But I have no idea how he's getting anything other than 1088 hits.

Elph

[jlf9999]

Yes, I'm a professor at a private university, although I'm only a doctoral candidate at this point. In America, they call you professor even in you have a Master's degree, which took some getting used to!

However, surprisingly, I have published on the strength of my my Master's degree, and also separate publishing as a research assistant to an LDS professor of Business.

Have I been discriminated against? No, I haven't. In fact, it was the fact that I was LDS that got me hooked up with the professor of Business that had me do research with him, and put my name on our publications. So, I think my religion actually helped me!!!!

Further, my mentor never described his religion as a source of discrimination. He's published a lot of material over the years, so I don't see his religion as an issue.

For my other publishing work, religion wasn't an issue. However, I'm careful not to share my religion with people. I describe myself as a Christian (which is true) and I avoid any reference to my religions affiliation beyond that in the work place. However, I'm pretty open about my religious affiliation at Church :):)

Thanks for the response. Just to clarify, the topic I was discussing is Mormon writers, writing about Mormons. I appreciate your input. Thanks again.

[jlf9999]

I think he meant it was 19:00 mountain standard time. But I have no idea how he's getting anything other than 1088 hits.

Elph

If the search term was Mormons or Mormonism makes little difference or whether the number is 419 or 1088. That is beside the point. It is the number of authoritative titles by recognized LDS scholars (writers) versus the number of non-LDS writers writing about the same topic. When I ask about how the subject is treated I mean do the non-LDS writers present a respectful, honest product or is their work just another a trash-talking hit piece? A non-LDS scholar can present a respectful well-thought out and researched view of our theology, for example, without gratuitous maligning. I suggest Jan Shipps is an example of how that is done. It seems to me that, in the ND case, the paucity of recognized LDS writers writing about Mormons versus the much larger number of Non-LDS writers writing about the same topic reflects a bias.

[Dravin]

If the search term was Mormons or Mormonism makes little difference or whether the number is 419 or 1088. That is beside the point.

No, it is entirely on point as your argument is about relative numbers of various works found in their catalog, overlooking half the titles in their catalog is rather significant. Also that fact that nobody can reproduce the list is suspect. Rightly or wrongly it makes you look like you are just pulling stuff out of your backside because you think it sounds good and makes you sound as reliable as the guy insisting that Mormons have horns.

It is the number of authoritative titles by recognized LDS scholars (writers) versus the number of non-LDS writers writing about the same topic.

And you get to decide who is and isn't authoritative and what qualifies as a recognized LDS scholar? You overlooked several titles that were pointed out to you. Which either leaves you with a concept of recognized LDS scholars/writers that nobody but you agrees with, or it's an outgrowth of the fact that you are working off a list of books that nobody can reproduce.

When I ask about how the subject is treated I mean do the non-LDS writers present a respectful, honest product or is their work just another a trash-talking hit piece?

And your methodology from determining the contents of a neutrally or provocatively titled book is?

All in all it's really telling that when methodology errors are pointed out to you that you don't address them but rather just respond with, "That's not important." And why isn't it important? I suspect it is because it damages your position.

Edited April 24, 2011 by Dravin

[Dravin]

Thanks for the response. Just to clarify, the topic I was discussing is Mormon writers, writing about Mormons. I appreciate your input. Thanks again.

Sorry Mormonmusic, you aren't a true Scotsman... er scholar. Your anecdote does not agree with his preconception and as such will be disregarded. Thank you for playing and try again when you can provide him something that reinforces his position.

[pam]

Hasn't this been debated long enough? Sheesh.

[Dravin]

Hasn't this been debated long enough? Sheesh.

I suppose we could turn the discussion into a Word of Wisdom debate instead?

Edited April 24, 2011 by Dravin

[pam]

I suppose we could turn the discussion into a Word of Wisdom debate instead?

Don't make me smack you.

[Dravin]

Don't make me smack you.

No vandalism, I'm another woman's property now.

[Suzie]

I suppose we could turn the discussion into a Word of Wisdom debate instead?

Phew! For a minute I thought it would turn to another "breast" topic.

[Wingnut]

I suppose we could turn the discussion into a Word of Wisdom debate instead?

Phew! For a minute I thought it would turn to another "breast" topic.

Why not same-sex marriage? That would be a breath of fresh air around here...

[prisonchaplain]

Okay...I have a point that may actually be germaine to the OP...when writing religious history, it is probably normal that academics consider the work of "in-house historians" with a bit of caution. The late Gary McGee was a historian for the Assemblies of God. His work was very solid, and I considered him an unofficial mentor, when I studied at our seminary. Yet, he would have been very open about the reality that he was an Assemblies of God scholar writing about the Assemblies of God. As such, he would be seen as an "in-house historian," and his writings would be treated with the suspicion that he would put the most church-friendly interpretation on events. I still remember reading "Fire from Heaven," written by a non-pentecostal, as one of our book review projects. He was disappointed with all of us for not approaching the work objectively. Each of us had perceived the book as rather negative, when, by objective standards, the author was more admiring than not.

This was a great lesson on perspective--coming from an "in-house academic."

[dahlia]

The way the writers of these books treat the subject tells us how the administration views the subject. That is, they will devote shelf space to works they believe are important, honest, fair, accurate and comport to their thinking on the matter.

You may not realize it, but many, if not most, bookstores are run by large companies and have little to do with an individual school or its administration. Ergo, the bookstore's collection is not a reflection of the school administration, but, as I see it, of the company's world view and market research on what sells to college kids. For example, when I went to a large university in famous cloudy town in the Pacific Northwest, the liberal books were all given a lot of display space. You really had to hunt down a conservative book.

Maybe I'm spoiled by having access to major university libraries, but I choose those for my reading material. The library collection managers often get almost every book that is published, liberal or conservative, Mormon or anti. The databases of e-books are similarly wide ranging in appeal. I also buy a lot from Amazon. The last place I go for books is the university bookstore.

[Bluejay]

Hi, JLF.

I engaged a few folks here in a discussion about whether LDS writers and scholars are discriminated against in the academic world because of their religion. I think I made my point convincingly, however I would like to hear from some legitimate scholars. That is, people who write and publish as a part of their job as an academic. Have you been discriminated against because you are LDS or do you know of another scholar who has been? If so, are you willing to tell us about it? Your place of employment is not important.

I'm not a professor: I'm a graduate student. I have published work in the biological sciences and have given a dozen presentations at professional meetings around the country and in Europe.

I missed the discussion you alluded to, and am not clear on what the point was that you think you made convincingly. Do you argue that Mormons are discriminated against, or that they are not? Can you (or somebody) provide me a link to the discussion so I can get the background?

My personal experience is that nobody seems to care that I'm Mormon, but I'm still only a relative novice in the community, so time will tell, I suppose. Being a Mormon hasn't offended anybody yet.

[Dravin]

Can you (or somebody) provide me a link to the discussion so I can get the background?

http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/38671-who-next-uber-intellectual-lds-writer.html