Comments on: Guest Post: Jeanne Halgren Kilde on Sacred Space at BYU

By: Edje Jeter

Edje Jeter — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:18:57 +0000

With all the emic and etic flying around, I keep having to stop myself from writing emetic. Stan: "And if so, does this point to a limitation of the etic discourse, or simply to the difference between the two approaches?" Yes. If the approaches really are different then, by definition, there is a limitation---something one approach can do that the other one cannot. Different approaches might arrive at the same result, but the experience of getting there is not.

By: Jared T

Jared T — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:30:02 +0000

Thank you, Dr. Kilde, for posting your perspective here and reminding us that the issues at stake are not unique to Mormonism and that it is always fruitful to learn how other traditions and disciplines approach these issues.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 03:31:26 +0000

Thanks for contributing your thoughts here, Dr. Kilde. They are, as you suggest, very relevant for Mormon scholars in understanding the larger debates on the same topic within the academy, and are expressed in a way that helps make sense of some things that have been swirling around in my mind that last few weeks.

I also want to thank you for your participation and presentation at the symposium itself. Mormon sacred space is still and understudied subject, and your paper pointed to a number of potentially-fruitful subjects of inquiry for better understanding the topic (and the Mormon experience more generally).

By: Rick Grunder

Rick Grunder — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 06:25:00 +0000

Thank you for your splendid insights, Dr. Kilde -

Considering the emic/etic dichotomy of stances, and Richard Bushman’s invitation to exteriorize Mormon sacred space, I caught myself philosophizing in the garden the other day! The area behind the garage had been the embarrassment of my property for eight years. Previous owners had thrown debris there, and a shift in land contour had turned a once-drained area into a bog, further degenerated by little mosquito breeding pond measuring perhaps five feet across. A hopeless tangle of weeds and hanging branches finished the mess, until I hated even to go back there to discard pruned branches and dead plants.

Then, last year, I found the money and energy to have the ground re-contoured. Tons of crushed gravel replaced the mud, after which I spent weeks landscaping the surrounding banks, complete with a border of fine grass. It requires a ridiculous amount of time and arthritis to maintain, but I can scarcely tear myself away from that wonderfully secluded place, summer or winter. Perhaps most surprising of all, a distinct sense of nature-sacredness has accrued to this “Secret Garden,” in my mind. And the most “sacred” point of all, where all the psychological energy seems to focus in relation to the various plantings, rock work, and other arrangements? It is the precise spot where the rancid little pond gurgled only ten months ago. The very worst, malodorous, disreputable point on my three acres has now become my sacred space.

I hope there is a moral to this anecdote, be it ever so humble. We create sacred space. We can turn our darkest parts into our most shining and powerful aspects if we will face them, improve them, and give them our love or attention. Most wonderful of all, for me, is that I have been able to draw strength from this place and carry it out to the “world” on many occasions: pausing there before heading out on a difficult trip, or retreating there before giving in to thoughts of fatigue or discouragement. Emic, or etic, it surely works for me, though it has come as quite a surprise.

By: Dane

Dane — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:51:57 +0000

I initially misread your post title. I thought you were talking about the sacred spaces found at BYU. When I was a student there, I found/created quite a few. For whatever else might be said about BYU, its many nooks and crannies provide many good opportunities to invoke apartness.

By: stan

stan — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:22:29 +0000

The emic-etic dichotomy you describe was particularly evident during the evening panel at the conference.
Professor Bushman opened the panel with a rather insider perspective of his experiences with Mormon sacred space, followed by a rather emic question: something along the lines of, Is the construction of sacred space useful–is it a good thing–or should we rather try to diffuse the sacred–make every segment of life sacred? Professor Maffly-Kipp commented on how, being a Religious Studies professor at a state university, she felt sort of thrown by this question (in not quite those words, of course). In other words, Professor Bushman had thrown off the methodologically imposed brackets we are typically used to functioning within, or beside, or whatever. Which leads to my question: was this a breach of the sort of ethic Orsi describes, making it uncomfortable (or impossible) for etic discourse? (The comments did seem to be dominated by the emic sector.) And if so, does this point to a limitation of the etic discourse, or simply to the difference between the two approaches?

By: smallaxe

smallaxe — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:14:12 +0000

Stephen Prothero has also weighed in on Orsi’s position. Here’s our brief discussion of it in relation to Latter-day Saint scholars:
http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2008/06/the-danger-of-the-bracket/

http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2008/08/compartmentalizing-the-bracket-and-the-problem-of-creep/

By: matt b.

matt b. — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:11:42 +0000

Thanks, Dr Kilde – these are valuable thoughts. It strikes me that the way you position emic and etic here, in conversation, each informing and enriching, might seem somewhat counterintuitive to veterans of the Mormon history wars particularly surrounding the career of Joseph Smith, whose participants have flung words like “devotional” and “naturalistic” at each other as epithets meant to devalue their respective arguments. One solution that some have pursued is simply to avoid working on the ‘extrahistorical’ events you refer to, but that is in some ways a surrender. The notion that our understanding of the past might best benefit from an ongoing conversation rather than slaying the other side’s dragon is hard-won.

This is why I think Orsi’s work is remarkably applicable to Mormons; they’ve been wrestling with the issues of ‘abundant history’ for a long time.