Yale and the FARMS Money Trail: A Case Study

[_Mister Scratch]

I am saddened to hear this from Dr. Peterson about Quinn, but it doesn't surprise me. I suspect Peterson's rejection is personal and fueled by the fact that Quinn ripped his friend (Bill Hamblin) a new hole in his in his updated Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. I certainly don't agree with everything that Quinn has published, but his book is genius none the less--as appraised by more open-minded scholars like Bushman.

That's a very interesting theory. I wonder how much of this was further fueled by gossip on the "skinny-l" listserve.

[_Daniel Peterson]

(1) I have absolutely no personal grudge against Mike Quinn. None whatsoever.

(2) Kenneth West is no "Mopologist." I have literally no idea whether he's even a believing Latter-day Saint or not.

(3) As is his wont, Scratch has spun and misread and mind-read and distorted his limited data about the Yale Conference into something useful for advancing his hostile agenda but, otherwise, virtually unrecognizable to anybody who was actually involved in it.

(4) And no, it's not worth going over this again with him. His obsessive spinning and misreading and mind-reading and distortion make attempting to reason with him an exercise in futility.

(5) It seems absurd to me to suggest that Blake Ostler is unqualified to speak at a conference on Mormon theology simply because he's a practicing lawyer. (Off the top of my head: Spinoza was a lens grinder, Nietzsche was a classical philologist, Maimonides and Avicenna and William James were physicians, and Whitehead was a mathematician.) Blake has published extensively on Mormon theology in such journals as Sunstone, BYU Studies, Dialogue, FARMS Review, Religious Studies, Element: The Journal of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology, and the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, along with chapters in such volumes as Discourses in Mormon Theology: Philosophical & Theological Possibilities (ed. James M. McLaughlan and Lloyd Ericson), Revelation, Reason, and Faith: Essays in Honor of Truman G. Madsen (ed. Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and Stephen D. Ricks), Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine (ed. Gary James Bergera) -- to say nothing of the three substantial volumes he has published to date under the series title of Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God (2001), The Problems of Theism and the Love of God (2006), and Of God and Gods (2008).

(6) As far as my own admittedly modest theological credentials go, I will simply mention that I routinely teach courses on Islamic philosophical theology and on The Guide of the Perplexed of Moses Maimonides, that my doctoral dissertation (entitled Cosmology and the Ten Separated Intellects in the Rahat al-‘Aql of Hamid al-Din al-Kirmani) focused on certain theological issues raised by Greek and Islamic Neoplatonism and won an award from the Middle East Studies Association, and that the members of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (not all active LDS nor even LDS at all) thought me sufficiently qualified to vote me president-elect at the SMPT's most recent annual meeting. (Apparently, they should first have consulted with the experts here.) I also have an article forthcoming on Mormonism and the Trinity in Element: The Journal of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology that, I'm comfortable, demonstrates beyond reasonable quibble that I'm capable of writing on contemporary theological matters utterly unrelated to Islam.

(7) Scratch is now free to exploint (6) above in order to illustrate my egocentric boastfulness.

[_beastie]

(1) I have absolutely no personal grudge against Mike Quinn. None whatsoever.

No personal grudge needs to exist for you and your fellow apologists to have ensured that Quinn would not be invited to speak at the conference.

In 2003, when he was a visiting professor at Yale University, BYU threatened to withdraw funding for a conference it was co-sponsoring with Yale on Mormonism if Mr. Quinn was allowed to speak there, according to the conference's organizer, Kenneth West. Noel Reynolds, a longtime BYU administrator and now a Mormon mission president in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., says the university was concerned that "the conference not be used to promote personalities or personal complaints about the church." Yale officials insisted on the participation of Mr. Quinn, who ultimately resolved the dispute by agreeing to introduce the keynote speaker rather than give a scholarly paper.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/Mormon/mormon296.html

[_Daniel Peterson]

Mike Reed suggested a personal grudge:

I am saddened to hear this from Dr. Peterson about Quinn, but it doesn't surprise me. I suspect Peterson's rejection is personal and fueled by the fact that Quinn ripped his friend (Bill Hamblin) a new hole in his in his updated Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. I certainly don't agree with everything that Quinn has published, but his book is genius none the less--as appraised by more open-minded scholars like Bushman.

There is no personal grudge.

I also think, though, that (despite his brilliance) Quinn is overrated as a historian, and that, specifically, his Early Mormonism and the Magic World View is seriously flawed. (I disagree with Mr. Reed that Dr. Quinn has disposed of his critics, and, although I haven't, to the best of my recollection, talked with Richard Bushman about the book, I know that several other prominent Mormon historians -- like Richard, past presidents of the Mormon History Association -- share my opinion of it.)

I was only peripherally involved in FARMS's side of the preparations for the Yale Conference. You'll have to contact Professor Noel Reynolds if you want something approaching the full, authoritative story. I doubt, though, that Noel would be interested in discussing it with you. My impression is simply that Noel saw Quinn as having an agenda adversarial to the institutional Church, and didn't want FARMS money to go down that path.

There was no concern, though, about critical responses as such. The respondent to my paper -- Stephen T. Davis, the Russell K. Pitzer Professor of Philosophy at Claremont McKenna College -- was certainly hard-hitting and critical, but that is actually, within reason, what a presenter hopes for. Few things are more frustrating than seeking useful feedback for a paper still in process and getting only the useless nodding of heads; Steve Davis and I rode to the airport together following the conference in New Haven, and we're still very much on friendly terms. I've been on panels with him since then, and spent the better part of a weekend with him (and a few others) just two or three months ago.

[_Mister Scratch]

(1) I have absolutely no personal grudge against Mike Quinn. None whatsoever.

Well, what kind of "grudge" was it, then? A Mopologetic grudge? A financial grudge? A professional grudge? What?

(2) Kenneth West is no "Mopologist." I have literally no idea whether he's even a believing Latter-day Saint or not.

I'm sure that somebody on the planning committee was well aware of whether or not he was practicing LDS. Perhaps the "fundraiser" looked into the status of his TR beforehand? Anyways, that's all kind of beside the point. The real point seems to be that he was essentially a "puppet" for the LDS planning committee---a nice neat little segue into the hallowed environs of Yale.

(3) As is his wont, Scratch has spun and misread and mind-read and distorted his limited data about the Yale Conference into something useful for advancing his hostile agenda but, otherwise, virtually unrecognizable to anybody who was actually involved in it.

I didn't have to "distort" anything. It is obvious that the folks at ISPART sought to buy academic credibility. It's a pity you guys tripped over your own feet with all your back-slapping and sugar-coated compliments.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm sure that somebody on the planning committee was well aware of whether or not he was practicing LDS.

Possibly. I wasn't, though, and I never heard the topic mentioned.

Perhaps the "fundraiser" looked into the status of his TR beforehand?

I'm not sure how our clandestine, mysterious "fundraiser" could have done that. Anyway, I think he was busy cooking the books for Enron and delivering nuclear secrets to Iran at about that time.

The real point seems to be that he was essentially a "puppet" for the LDS planning committee

I never got that impression. But then, of course, I bow to your superior insider knowledge.

[_Mister Scratch]

Mike Reed suggested a personal grudge:

I am saddened to hear this from Dr. Peterson about Quinn, but it doesn't surprise me. I suspect Peterson's rejection is personal and fueled by the fact that Quinn ripped his friend (Bill Hamblin) a new hole in his in his updated Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. I certainly don't agree with everything that Quinn has published, but his book is genius none the less--as appraised by more open-minded scholars like Bushman.

There is no personal grudge.

Then why would you freely tell people that Quinn "cannot be trusted"? That seems awfully personal, and aimed at Quinn's character.

I also think, though, that (despite his brilliance) Quinn is overrated as a historian, and that, specifically, his Early Mormonism and the Magic World View is seriously flawed.

This also seems problematic. When Rollo Tomasi and myself asked you to elaborate on this, you dodged and insisted that we read trash such as Bill Hamblin's absurdly long-winded and polemical, "That Old Black Magic", in which he boasts of smearing Quinn in front of BYU students, and calls Quinn (and I'm not joking) a "bad historian" (!!!). Obviously, you would have reviewed and edited this attack piece before it went to print.

(I disagree with Mr. Reed that Dr. Quinn has disposed of his critics, and, although I haven't, to the best of my recollection, talked with Richard Bushman about the book, I know that several other prominent Mormon historians -- like Richard, past presidents of the Mormon History Association -- share my opinion of it.)

Ah, right. A second-hand account from a respectable LDS academic. Please feel free to cite an actual, in-print statement from Bushman supporting this.

My impression is simply that Noel saw Quinn as having an agenda adversarial to the institutional Church, and didn't want FARMS money to go down that path.

Well then, it has to be seen as "personal," doesn't it? If you and your Mopologetic pals see the defense of the Church as a "personal" matter, then it follows that any supposed "adversary" of the Church will likewise be viewed in a "personal" manner, no?

There was no concern, though, about critical responses as such.

I bet not! All BYU had to do was threaten to pull the plug on funding. Thus, you guys were able to pick and choose who the critics were.

[_EAllusion]

(5) It seems absurd to me to suggest that Blake Ostler is unqualified to speak at a conference on Mormon theology simply because he's a practicing lawyer. (Off the top of my head: Spinoza was a lens grinder, Nietzsche was a classical philologist, Maimonides and Avicenna and William James were physicians, and Whitehead was a mathematician.)

I don't think it is a coincidence that your list is comprised of individuals who either predated or were right on the border of the period in which the modern University doctoral system was developed, formalized, and became the standard means to demonstrate expertise and set groundrules for interacting with other experts in a field of scholarship. Indeed, Whitehead appears to be the only arguable one on this point. Of course, it would be foolish to suggest that no one outside of this system can offer valuable contributions or even be an expert themselves, but it is unusual and one would not expect academic conferences to contain very many people lacking professional credentials in the field they are presenting themselves as an expert on. That said, theology isn't known for its rigor in comparison to other philosophical disciplines, and Mormon theology in particular does not have a rich academic tradition that would allow for a large pool of people to select from. So selecting a Blake Ostler wouldn't be surprising in a bind. What would be surprising is what you are supposed to be responding to: The idea that Ostler is sufficiently qualified and desirable for conference on perspectives on Mormon philosophy and history but Quinn is not.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Then why would you freely tell people that Quinn "cannot be trusted"? That seems awfully personal, and aimed at Quinn's character.

I say that his historical writing cannot be relied upon.

That's a wholly distinct question from whether or not he's a trustworthy person in his daily life. On that, I have no opinion. I don't know him that well.

When Rollo Tomasi and myself asked you to elaborate on this, you dodged [sic] and insisted that we read trash [sic] such as Bill Hamblin's absurdly long-winded and polemical, "That Old Black Magic", in which he boasts [sic] of smearing [sic] Quinn in front of BYU students, and calls Quinn (and I'm not joking) a "bad historian" (!!!). Obviously, you would have reviewed and edited this attack piece before it went to print.

I agree with Professor Hamblin's judgment.

Faulting a historian's work is not the same thing as calling him a bad person. The former is the stuff of academic debate. The latter is not.

(I disagree with Mr. Reed that Dr. Quinn has disposed of his critics, and, although I haven't, to the best of my recollection, talked with Richard Bushman about the book, I know that several other prominent Mormon historians -- like Richard, past presidents of the Mormon History Association -- share my opinion of it.)

Ah, right. A second-hand account from a respectable LDS academic. Please feel free to cite an actual, in-print statement from Bushman supporting this.

???

I just said that I've never talked with Richard about Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. I don't know what he thinks about it these days, nor do I know, off hand, what he ever thought about it.

My impression is simply that Noel saw Quinn as having an agenda adversarial to the institutional Church, and didn't want FARMS money to go down that path.

Well then, it has to be seen as "personal," doesn't it?

No. It doesn't. You seem unable to separate disagreement from personal hostility, but normal people don't.

I have several anti-Mormon and ex-Mormon friends whom I like very much and who (I think) like me.

There was no concern, though, about critical responses as such.

I bet not! All BYU had to do was threaten to pull the plug on funding. Thus, you guys were able to pick and choose who the critics were.

Anybody actually familiar with their work will find quite a bit of humor in your implicit suggestion that people like Nicholas Wolterstorff, Ann Taves, Marilyn Adams, Laurie Maffly-Kipp, and Stephen Davis were cherry-picked lightweights and Mormon-flattering pushovers.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't think it is a coincidence that your list is comprised of individuals who either predated or were right on the border of the period in which the modern University doctoral system was developed, formalized, and became the standard means to demonstrate expertise and set groundrules for interacting with other experts in a field of scholarship. Indeed, Whitehead appears to be the only arguable one on this point.

I don't think it's coincidence, either. The professionalization of academe is almost complete, and the days of the clergyman-naturalist, etc., are almost completely gone. Country parsons like the Rev. Thomas Malthus and the Rev. Thomas Bayes (of "Bayes' theorem" fame) are virtually unthinkable in the current climate.

But "almost" and "virtually" aren't iron-clad, and Blake Ostler's extensive record of publications on Mormon theology and philosophy of religion plainly required that he be included in a conference on Mormon theology.

Of course, it would be foolish to suggest that no one outside of this system can offer valuable contributions or even be an expert themselves, but it is unusual and one would not expect academic conferences to contain very many people lacking professional credentials in the field they are presenting themselves as an expert on.

Off hand, I think of my old acquantaince Gordon Tullock, whose law degree from the University of Chicago doesn't seem to qualify him for his status as one of the fathers of public choice theory, law and economics, and economics and biology, Yet there he is.

Or one might mention Michael Polanyi, whose formal training was in physical chemistry but who also wrote on economics and, most notably, on the philosophy of science. Or Thomas Kuhn, who received a doctorate in physics but who is far and away best known for his work on the history and philosophy of science.

The idea that Ostler is sufficiently qualified and desirable for conference on perspectives on Mormon philosophy and history but Quinn is not.

Blake Ostler's extensive publication record is directly relevant to this question. Simply brushing it aside as irrelevant is an exercise in obfuscation.


See, for example, the esteem in which Utah State professor of philosophy Richard Sherlock (Ph.D., Harvard University) holds Blake's work:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... 8&number=1