Talk:Mormon studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

éminences grises[edit]

The use of éminences grises in the section heading for modern influential scholars seems to be less than WP:NPOV. Additionally that term has strong negative connotations/associations (such as with Cardinal Richelieu) and is not the best description of these individual's position/role in Mormon studies. -- (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Foundational Beliefs" and Debunking...[edit]

As the article stands it seems to me there are two things missing.

From time to time one sees references to "foundational beliefs" of, e.g. Scientologists, Mormons and other groups. The notion seems to be that it doesn't really matter whether these stories are true, it's OK for a religion to operate on an accepted set of beliefs because they "set the stage," so to speak, for what follows.

This seems to me a perfectly sensible way of looking at the many and varied folklores there are around, not all of which, obviously, can be true.

The other set of questions seems to me to surround the question of the debunking of Mormonism, particularly by a variety of aggressive Evangelical Christians who, it would seem to me, perhaps ought to think about glass houses from time to time.

Whatever. The fact remains that the Mormon Book of Abraham is quite clearly a work of fiction (as is, e.g., the Abrahamic religions' Book of Genesis), which doesn't bother me at all, but ought to have its place in the array of subjects for apologetics.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

List of scholars[edit]

I'm having trouble understanding the criteria for listing in the lists of selected scholars. I've thought of other people that probably should be added (Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, Linda King Newell, Richard E. Bennett, Richard P. Howard, Donald Q. Cannon, William D. Russell, etc.), but I'm concerned about making the list too long, thereby becoming unusable and dominating the article. Why not list all contributors to Mormon studies, including authors on Mormonism, LDS religion professors, and bloggers? Surely they would all add up to hundreds (perhaps thousands). Maybe if through defining the criteria I can understand who belongs and why some are in the selection and some are not.

This seems like the current criteria:

  1. Living go into "current scholars" and dead go into "past scholars"
  2. Scholars, which seems to include:
    • Academics (employed at universities and institutions)
    • Independent researchers
    • Popular commentators (Helen Andelin, Orson Scott Card, Richard Dutcher, John Dehlin, Robert Kirby, Jon Krakauer, journalists).
      • I like some of their works, but are they scholars?
  3. Notable (WP article exists)
    • What about those who are "redirects", without their own article (like Robert S. Clark, Russell Arben Fox, Bradley H. Kramer, Steven L. Peck, Julie Marie Smith, Kaimipono D. Wenger)?
      • I like some of these writers, but should we wait for them to have articles to establish notability?
  4. Contributors to Mormon Studies
    • Large body of work in Mormon issues
      • Books
      • Journals
      • Blogs (should this be weighted less?)
    • Notable figures with isolated Mormon works (Jon Krakauer, William Robert Wright, Brady Udall, Daniel Walker Howe, Robert V. Remini).
      • With limited ventures in MS, do they qualify as MS scholars? Maybe if their isolated work is significant enough?

This is where I'm starting from. I think I'd like to trim this down a bit (see my italicized notes above) and then add a few other heavy weights. If these lists get too long it may need to be spawned into its own list-article. And I'm also not sure how to judge the "of preeminence" list, but I'll leave that for another discussion. ——Rich jj (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. Yeah, we need to come up with an improved rubric to replace that of "preeminent." One that might itself give criterion for its membership? (Say: current or past chairs or otherwise being almost universally recognized as particularly influential/prolific/whatnot.)
  2. Categories for living scholars are currently fairly random and haphazard. Perhaps a single list would be better--and that a shorter one.. yes, paring out such as non-wpbio'ed members and the like?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)