Johnny.S

@Lysdexia A few thoughts:
1) It really depends on what your subfield is since RS covers an incredibly broad range of fields. For people doing language heavy work (e.g. NT/HB, ANE, or ancient Mediterranean stuff) two summers of language coursework probably won't cut it. Many people in top programs in those fields have years and years of language work, which usually requires two masters degrees.
2) You can't judge the present by what current professors have, how easy it was for them to get into programs and get jobs, etc. It's just astronomically more competitive now than it was when many professors were applying to grad school and going on the job market. 
3) For some subfields in RS, interdisciplinarity is really exciting for PhD admission. E.g. if you're looking to do philosophy of religion/ethics/theology in an RS program, being able to draw on "cultural studies" broadly speaking (whose theoretical texts are often conversant with literature, history, anthro, philosophy, etc.) is highly attractive. That's becoming a much more common source of theoretical material in RS, so it's not necessary to have an MA in comp lit, for example, but it would certainly demonstrate you know what you're talking about if you're proposing a project that includes something about literature and/or literary theory.
4) A caveat to the above point: Interdisciplinary training is intriguing to RS adcoms because they'd like to think that there's something cutting edge about those students that will add interesting dimensions to their department. Sometimes that's definitely the case, but the job market does not reflect this interdisciplinarity. People who write tight, focused dissertations that make a very strong argument about a very particular thing get hired in response to job postings that are far more often than not written looking for a very particular kind of expertise. Some are so narrow as to be utterly ridiculous. Interdisciplinarity is a good thing, I think, to have in one's back pocket, once a job of some kind is secured because you have more knowledge to draw on for creating courses and making them interesting to undergrads. But for getting a job in the first place, it can be a hindrance. 
5) I have colleagues in my cohort who came in without any masters degree at all. They did just fine in the program and we'll all likely be finishing our dissertations around the same time next spring. Some people are just smarter than others and require less training. Some people know what their interests are from nearly the beginning of their BA and can develop those to maturity without the aid of an MA. I don't have any problem admitting that, for me, I felt I needed two MAs to really get a handle on my interests and fill knowledge gaps that I didn't fill when I was an undergrad. I was in a pop punk band trying to get famous for the majority of my undergrad with the plan of being a high school English teacher if "rock star" didn't work out. I didn't give a shit about school until my senior year when a couple English professors I had each took time to show me that there was something special about my writing ability. Then I started to care school. But I didn't know anything about grad school, PhD programs, etc. I didn't know I wanted to do a PhD until halfway through my first MA. And even then, I realized it probably wasn't going to be in English, my original discipline. Because I have about four times more graduate coursework than my cohort colleagues, I have much more material to draw on for generating courses. And I suppose in some ways my previous MAs have helped to indirectly shape the direction of my dissertation and the way I think about my source material. But at the end of the day, they are just as capable as I am to actually complete the dissertation and finish the program, because our dissertations are so narrowly focused that all of that extra course knowledge could never find its way in directly to my dissertation. Everything else my extra grad work adds are "intangibles" (my particular writing style, my creativity in conference proposals or course design, etc.)
All of that to say: two MAs is by no means necessary, particularly if one's interests are theology, philosophy of religion, ethics, American religious history, etc.--subfields that don't require substantial language training. 

We should distinguish the usefulness of comments from administrators and those of professors (the latter making the decisions for doctoral admissions--not the admins). The comments above are understandable: for it's rather easy to contact e.g. HDS and talk to an admin about what they recommend (and it's rather difficult to discuss these issues with professors). But the opinions of admins on one's academic trajectory are honestly not worth much. It is simply a fact that many doctoral students at the top schools (at least in this country) have two, sometimes three M* before starting their PhD (I am such a one/fool). The notion that there is little point in doing an MDiv after after an MTS has some support, but only from the admin perspective: an MDiv and MTS are awarded on the basis of filling certain requirements and since both degrees have overlapping requirements, the notion of "taking the same class" over again seems an utter waste of time (and esp. money). But from an academic point of view, this is simply wrong. You will not, I trust, be retaking e.g. "Introduction to X"; the point of the second degree is to explore further those interests already cultivated at the first school. 
On the other hand, many MDivs, at least at the 'top US schools', will require you to (re)take the "Introduction to X". Each school is different, however; so only apply if said program allows you to take advanced classes. There are other considerations you should have in mind such as the ability to take classes in other departments (e.g. philosophy). Again, each school has a different policy. The academic freedom available at MDiv/MTS programs in Boston (many courses available through the BTI) comes to mind. Duke Divinity is unlikely the right program for you (you would be much better served in the MA in Religious Studies, which allows you to take any classes you want, even outside of Religious Studies and is generally better funded). Speaking of funding, this is the only real reason why I would chose an MDiv over, say (as others recommend) an MA in Philosophy or Religious Studies. The latter almost always allow the freedom to explore interests in greater depth--depth that is simply not possible in many (all??) MDiv programs. The 'problem' with the MDiv is it's serving two masters: the 'church' and the academy. This makes sense given the professional goals of most divinity students. If your interests overlap between 'church' and academy (which it sounds like they might), then, sure, an MDiv might make sense. But outside of funding, I see no reason to pursue an MDiv over another terminal degree. In sum my advice is apply widely (MDiv, MTS [yes some PhD students have two], MA in Philosophy, RS, History, etc.) and see what funding is offered. The last step should weigh the academic freedom afforded at each program. 
cheers

A hearty echo of @sacklunch. Folks mentioning having multiple M*s are right, to an extent, about the "normalcy" of such things. But the order here does matter. There's a difference between having, saying, a couple of MAR/MTSs and or having an MDiv followed by an MAR/MTS. But the order MTS followed by MDiv is somewhat confusing as a choice, unless it is because of ordination requirements (with which schools differ on their comfort). The common shorthand here on gradcafe of just saying "master's degree," with no distinction between the actual pedagogical differences of MDivs vs. MAR/MTS vs. STM/ThM is deceptive. Because, as @sacklunch pointed out in less explicit terms, the MDiv is a generalist degree while the MAR/MTS (except in cases like Duke or Yale's comprehensive MAR) is specialized. The movement from generalist to specialized (MDiv --> MAR/MTS or STM/ThM) or specialized followed by more specialized (MAR/MTS --> MAR/MTS or STM/ThM) makes sense on a trajectory towards the PhD, which is highly specialized. The movement from specialized to generalist (MAR/MTS --> MDiv) does not make as much sense, and will raise questions. If you are applying to a more top-tier school to balance out what you perceive to be a less rigorous conservative seminary*, then you should apply to the MAR/MTS. 
 
* Note that this is a common assumption that isn't well-founded. There are a number of PhD students at Yale, Duke, Princeton, Chicago, and other top-tier schools whose M* come from "conservative" institutions. Having a degree from a conservative institution does not disqualify you from admissions from a top-tier program. 

I endorse @marXian's comments a thousand times over and then some! Do the readings you need and then some, setup a schedule where you read X-number of journal articles a week (prepare for comprehensive exams throughout the 2-3 years rather than cramming it all), get access (or subscription) to the top journals in your field and read the articles and especially book reviews in them. Take the journey that you're embarking on seriously.
That said, find time to do something not related to your studies! Take up homebrewing and share your production with colleagues, take up running or cycling, read a Stephen King novel (even if it's only a dozen pages a night before bed!), spend time volunteering or being an activist for a cause that moves you, etc. Do something not directly related to your studies.

Very much agreed on all the above. Before any piling on of extra things to do, do this. I make it a habit to take one entire day off a week, except in the direst of straits. Go to a museum, watch a movie, wander around a park, sleep, work on a puzzle, anything. Sabbath was commanded for a reason, and it's a commendable practice.
Academically, make sure to explore outside of your area of study, even if your program doesn't require it. I don't just mean occasionally looking at something closely related but by someone in a slightly different field. I mean totally different. Take a whole class that has (apparently) little to do with what you think you want to do. The deeper you get into a PhD, the greater the pressure to nano-specialize in your field. While this can be good for rigor, I can see my colleagues increasingly incapable of thinking or talking (even casually, socially) outside of their narrow scope. This runs in the face of humanities/liberal arts scholarship, and can actually really make your scholarship suffer by closing yourself off. Coursework is likely the freest you'll be for years to come in being able to do your own exploration, and by the time you're at the dissertation, it could be too late. 
A final word: work on your writing. The state of academic writing is truly terrible. Prose can be impenetrable. Conference papers bore to tears. Read really great writers, starting with fiction writers especially. And write regularly yourself. Do creative writing exercises. Keep a writing journal. Not for academic writing, but for experiments in writing. I promise, despite the weirdness, it does wonders. And if you're able to communicate your thoughts more beautifully, persuasively, artfully, all the better for your scholarship.

Number 1 best practice: Find time for yourself.
Seriously, it cannot be overstated. All of us could theoretically read and write 24 hours a day, 7 days a week if our bodies allowed it. First year PhD students often feel like they're not doing enough, not reading enough, not attending enough talks and lectures, not in enough reading groups, not writing enough, not presenting enough, not publishing enough (though this last one is a fair concern for all PhD students if we're talking peer reviewed journal articles.) I'm not saying don't try to publish one book review a term. If you feel that's manageable for you given all other requirements of your program, then go for it.** Most people have no problem figuring out how to fill their days with academic work. It's not hard for us because it's the only thing that we can see ourselves doing professionally, so we're just drawn to doing it. Yes, it's good to practice languages regularly, to read regularly, etc. All of that is definitely important--but I think those are the things that come naturally to us (more or less.)
What doesn't come naturally to some of us is finding time to just go see a movie. Get a beer with colleagues and don't talk about your work. Explore your new city. Take a day and just binge watch something on Netflix. 
It's easy for us to feel guilty about doing these things, but we shouldn't. Honestly, they're healthy, and they'll help you be more productive when you need to be because you're able to take regular breaks without feeling crushed by stress and guilt. Cultivating that early on is really helpful once you no longer have the structure of a course schedule to help manage your time.
**Quick note on book reviews: They're great practice for the process of publishing something because they're easy to do relative to publishing a peer reviewed article in a major journal. They give you a small window into the editing process, etc. However, they're not going to help you get a job. Even if you had more than two or three reviews published, you wouldn't load up your CV with book reviews. All that to say, once you get a couple under your belt, you might consider taking a break from them to focus on exams, prospectus, etc.

Congrats to everyone who has gotten in to YDS and HDS!

Heard from ND this afternoon, and it was a reject. But, I'm very pleased with my options so far, and, adding to that, Chicago awarded me a FLAS Fellowship today!
 
Congratulations to everyone who got in at HDS too!

I've just received the award letter from HDS.  I've got the full-tuition grant! Exciting! 
Good luck to everyone still waiting!

Thanks for the info @misterrager, @suhba7, @xypathos, and @theophany ! 
 
I think we'll hear on March 15th(tomorrow). It seems like they're sticklers in terms of releasing decisions (although it may not be 11:59 AM). Plus, considering Harvard is on Spring Break this week and that snowstorm has been well forecast far in advance, it is possible that they've already finished all the necessary step except for a (formal) notification of (pre-processed) decision on 15th. 

This is absolutely not a good thing. 
Yes, you need teaching experience to land a job. Yes, you need to be good at teaching. And yes, some SLACs value teaching very highly. But the "look at all this great teaching experience" is how a lot of programs convince their graduate students that they're not being screwed. On the job market, teaching is a check box - the applicant needs to show that they can do it, and that people seem to like them doing it. But being an occasional TA is enough to demonstrate competence. The expectation is usually that the applicant has enough training to learn the rest on the job. 
If you're putting even a fraction of the necessary work to be IOR on a course every semester, your research agenda is suffering for it. That doesn't mean you can't still turn out good work, but the competition is relative, not absolute. A student at Harvard, for example, doesn't have nearly such a demand on their time to distract them from their dissertation, and so they have the time not only to craft a better dissertation, but to go on research trips, and to present and network at conferences. If you think that even the most pedagogically-minded SLAC would value a couple courses as IOR over this, you simply do not have any sort of a grasp on the realities of the job market.
These are the criteria that make a good program, in no particular order:
Well-regarded professors to sit on your committee who are close enough to your interests to be able to provide competent guidance.  A livable stipend, granted for at least 5 years, including health care. Bonus points if there are easy mechanisms to acquire 6-7yr funding. Reliable, regular, and easily identified internal avenues for research, conference, and travel funding. I can wrangle ~$3k a year from internal grants, which means I get at least one conference per year and two weeks in Europe (for archival work) in the summer.  Manageable teaching load. Preferably TA ships, but opportunities to be IOR as you're finishing up are good. My university has a program through which you are made a VAP in your final semester (if you finish your diss the semester before). Good programs will also give you fellowship years (for me, years 1 and 4) to concentrate on your research.  Solid placement rate. Though really, this follows from all the other points. It's not that the top schools have the brightest students, it's that they have the resources to provide the structure with the best guarantee of success. The list of schools that fit this criteria is very short. Depending on field, it can be as few as 3 and as many as 20, many of which are obvious (Ivies), but not necessarily so.
If you do not get into one of them, it is very much my advice that you should not go for your PhD elsewhere.

Congrats!! 

 

I appreciate your note @rheya19 and @ibn daoud . - I am that nerd MA student, what a sad fate is mine,  ha
 
 
Wonderful! I hope to see you at Duke, even I’m crossing my fingers on your UC admission and financial-aids. And I have also received an official funding letter from the Dept. (Duke). Shoot me a PM  if you want to chat more about this (I'm also wondering about yours too  )

So was in a similar situation. I got an MDiv from a seminary in Boston and decided to apply to 12 schools last year. I got rejected from all of them except for Trinity Evangelical Divinity School but didn't get any funding. This year, I applied to 12 schools and got into Princeton Religion Dept and Florida State, interviewed with Stanford and Vanderbilt, and Baylor.
Over the course of one year, I did a one-year supplementary  degree at Boston University and took classes at Harvard. I diversified my recommendations (one from BU prof, one from Harvard, and one from my seminary). In order to get good recommendations and a strong GPA, I had to stand out in all of my classes and made sure that I met with professors (so be intentional/proactive) to build rapport and pick their brains. I also asked them for input on what research is relevant and wrote about it for my class papers because I suspect that I didn't get any interviews last year because my research topic was too broad/vague.
If you want more details, PM me. But in short, don't give up and take full advantage of the resources available to you. Talk to professors and ask for their assistance on making your application strong. And name recognition/knowing the experts in your field goes a long way. Hope this helps!