Mormon Studies at MHA and Beyond: A New Definitional Bibliography

By June 5, 2017

Occasionally it becomes prudent for scholars within a field to assess the state of that field and to define its pasts and futures. The Mormon History Association annual meeting provided such an opportunity for Mormon Studies. The panel, “Permanent Settlement or Pending Migration: Exploring the Frontier of Mormon Studies,” featured presentations from Gerrit van Dyk, Trevan C. Hatch, and J.B. Haws.

Each presentation assessed the field in a different way. Van Dyk and Hatch both conducted interviews with prominent professors and asked about definitions, methodology, publishing venues, and the nature and audience of scholarship. Both emphasized the issues of insularity, the roles of “academic”/apologetic/popular scholarship, and ties to institutions and journals of publication. One insight that van Dyk noted was that Mormon Studies has grown in graduate programs before undergraduate programs, in contrast to Catholic Studies and Jewish Studies programs. Hatch offered Jewish Studies as both an example and cautionary tale for Mormon Studies in its strict academic scholarship. Haws’ presentation highlighted the change in institutional attention and broader acceptance of Mormon Studies since the early 1990s. The panel, as a whole, was a pretty fair introduction to Mormon Studies as a field.

The respondents offered some course correction. JI’s own Andrea RM talked about her experience as a scholar of Mormon Women’s Studies and the intersectional difficulties of trying to reach both an outside scholarly community (Women’s Historians), inside scholarly community (Mormon Studies scholars), institutional leadership, and popular audience. Her raw response gave some flesh to the bones that van Dyk, Hatch, and Haws strove to capture through her emphasis on the experience of being a scholar within Mormon Studies. Patrick Mason also offered a few insights. As a chair of Mormon Studies, Mason posited that the field’s scholarship has more venues for publication now than ever before. Presses and journals seem to be interested in Mormon topics to the point that Mormon-specific journals have had difficulty finding enough quality essays. Additionally, Mormon Studies is, in fact, respected within other fields of study, albeit maybe not well enough known to make scholars within other fields know the ins and outs of Mormon Studies. Questions to the panel highlighted the role of the institutional church, which became noticeable within the field due to its involvement in research projects, resource allocation, and its production of jobs.

These were just the conversations that I could remember as an attendee at the panel. If you were there, and if I totally missed something, let me know.

As much as the panel assessed the respectability and accessibility of Mormon Studies, it did little to address the field’s content. Maybe this is my own peeve, but I wish the panel would have addressed some avenues for new scholarship or productive opportunities for interdisciplinary crossover.

The panel, however, was not the only recent effort to assess the field of Mormon Studies. Heather Stone, a PhD candidate in Communication at the University of Utah, has put together a Mormon Studies bibliography here in coordination with the Maxwell Institute and with BYU. Hers is the first comprehensive work to try and capture definitional pieces within and about the field, and the bibliography is rather inclusive. The bibliography is live in that you can suggest pieces that should be included. I highly suggest checking it out: it’s a remarkable and unparalleled resource and should prove to be central for the future of Mormon Studies. Also check out her description of the bibliography on the Maxwell Institute?s page.

While the above panel highlighted Mormon Studies as it functions as an academic field, the bibliography might better define the content, topics of study, and methodology of Mormon Studies a little more. We’re happy to have both avenues of discussion, hopefully they can both contribute to the next moment of Mormon Studies self-assessment!

Article filed under Miscellaneous


  1. Jeff: Thank you for this write-up summary of the session. I think you capture my own thoughts better than I felt that I had articulated them. Also, thank you for the link to Heather’s bibliography. It is so well-done and useful.

    Comment by Andrea R-M — June 9, 2017 @ 2:17 pm

  2. Thanks, Andrea… Although you were more coherent than you’re letting on. Yours was an important response and, I think, helped the panel remember that Mormon Studies is run by real people whose voices are not equally heard and whose experiences are vital for the field’s future. So thank you!

    And Heather is awesome!

    Comment by Jeff T — June 11, 2017 @ 12:04 pm

  3. I agree with Jeff, Andrea. I thought your comments were cogent and helpful and added an excellent dimension to an already great panel. And thanks to both of you about the bibliography. A shout-out to Paul Reeve, Blair Hodges, and Spencer Fluhman for the vision behind the whole thing.

    MHA this year was great–though more exhausting than previous years! Maybe I’m just getting old?

    Comment by Heather — June 11, 2017 @ 2:43 pm


Recent Comments

Ben S on CFP at BYU Studies:: “Some clarifying comments here.”

Smb on Reassessing the Classics: Armand: “Armand is a wise and lovely man who deserves these kind words. I absolutely agree that his books were key entries in the scholar’s library…”

J Stuart on Reassessing the Classics: Armand: “Armand, your response made me unexpectedly emotional. Your work has shaped me as a scholar in many important ways, but your legendary willingness to engage…”

Ardis E. Parshall on Reassessing the Classics: Armand: “I've enjoyed these three discussions -- crowned by this response by Armand Mauss himself. It is so representative of his ability and willingness to interact…”

Blair Hodges on Reassessing the Classics: Armand: “Thank you for your lasting contributions to Mormon Studies, Armand.”

Mirror on Reassessing the Classics: Armand: “These have been interesting posts about a major work in Mormon Studies. If I may boil down my understanding of Mauss' thesis to a…”