Yale and the FARMS Money Trail: A Case Study

[_Mister Scratch]

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 is a distinctly different way of putting it than I have seen from you. You tend to use harsher, more condemnatory language when you are on MAD.

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.

So you think that critics' characterization of you as a "mopologetic hack" is "the stuff of academic debate"? Somehow I doubt it.

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.

Obviously they were not "heavy-weight" enough to merit a threat of funds withdrawal. The inclusion of these people does not alter the fundamental fact that you guys were out to "purchase" academic credibility.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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

Your words and actions suggest otherwise.

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.

So enlighten us with more "data."

And no, it's not worth going over this again with him.

Your typical ploy.

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.

It's more absurd to claim that Quinn was not qualified to speak at the Yale conference.

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.)

That's due to you apologia, not Islamic expertise. Do you honestly believe you were more qualified than Quinn to speak at the Yale conference?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I was only peripherally involved in FARMS's side of the preparations for the Yale Conference.

When this topic was discussed some time ago, you said you were involved, particularly in BYU's threat to pull out if Quinn were allowed to speak.

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.

In other words, BYU's threat had nothing to do with Quinn's academic qualifications, as we all suspected.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I was only peripherally involved in FARMS's side of the preparations for the Yale Conference.

When this topic was discussed some time ago, you said you were involved, particularly in BYU's threat to pull out if Quinn were allowed to speak.

Your dichotomy is too black and white.

I was involved. I was not centrally involved.

In other words, BYU's threat had nothing to do with Quinn's academic qualifications, as we all suspected.

Again, too stark a dichotomy.

The overall thrust of the conference was plainly theology, not history as such. (It is no coincidence that the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology was organized in a meeting immediately following the closing conference session.) I thought the panel on Mormon polygamy was an outlier; Mike Quinn's social-historical/prosopographical focus wasn't a particularly good fit, either. James Allen, Davis Bitton, Thomas Alexander, and other very prominent Mormon historians also didn't speak, and didn't attend. By contrast, Jim Faulconer, Truman Madsen, David Paulsen, Richard Sherlock, Ben Huff, and other professional Mormon philosophers who seldom if ever attend conferences devoted to Mormon history attended and participated in the Yale conference.

Had Quinn's work been central to the small but rising field of Mormon theology, and specifically of Mormon philosophical theology -- as Blake Ostler's work has demonstrably been -- it would have been unthinkable not to include him as a principal presenter. As things actually stood and stand, though, it was thinkable, and at least one of the primary organizations planning and funding the conference definitely thought it. However, if I recall correctly, Mike Quinn was a respondent to one of the papers; he was not altogether excluded.

[_Trevor]

(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.)

Which of these men, other than Ostler, live in the 20th-21st century? Which of them engaged in academics as they are generally defined today? Which of them, other than Ostler, was invited to speak on Mormon Theology at the Yale conference?

The point that I was making was not that it was absurd that Ostler should speak at such a conference. It is that he should be preferred to Quinn, and mostly on the grounds that some suspected Quinn had a nefarious agenda against the LDS Church. The reasonable implication to draw from this is that suspected attitude toward the LDS Church was at least as important, if not more important, than quality of work or academic standing in the decision concerning participants. Frankly, it is unusual that a man who is not a PhD in theology, but a lawyer, should speak at an academic conference on the issue of theology. If he were a PhD trained theologian and a lawyer, it would be one thing, but...

To this day I have yet to read anything by Quinn that I thought could be construed as anti-Mormon. I am hard pressed to think of anything he has written that was an attack on the LDS Church. It seems to me that what people did not like about Quinn, aside from academic quibbling, is the fact that a believer was willing, in the pursuit of his academic profession, to say things about the history of Mormonism that did not jibe with current doctrine and practice. How this so incensed people in your network of associates that he should be barred from speaking at a conference is what is truly absurd, topping anything that Scratch has ever written, in fact.

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.

You seriously list this, and your election to the presidency of the society, as qualifications to speak on Mormon theology at the Yale conference? As though this made you more qualified than Mike Quinn to speak there? Are you more qualified than Mike simply because no one has any question about your ability to toe the line? That would be my guess.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The point that I was making was not that it was absurd that Ostler should speak at such a conference. It is that he should be preferred to Quinn

The plain focus of the conference was, overwhelmingly, theology, and even philosophical theology. Blake Ostler has a spectacular record of publishing on Mormon philosophical theology. Mike Quinn has none.

You seriously list this, and your election to the presidency of the society, as qualifications to speak on Mormon theology at the Yale conference? As though this made you more qualified than Mike Quinn to speak there? Are you more qualified than Mike simply because no one has any question about your ability to toe the line? That would be my guess.

The plain focus of the conference was, overwhelmingly, theology, and even philosophical theology. I write and teach on philosophical theology. Mike Quinn doesn't.

Come on. You're intelligent enough to grasp this simple point.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I was only peripherally involved in FARMS's side of the preparations for the Yale Conference.

When this topic was discussed some time ago, you said you were involved, particularly in BYU's threat to pull out if Quinn were allowed to speak.

Your dichotomy is too black and white.

I was involved. I was not centrally involved.

And you rely on semantics.

The overall thrust of the conference was plainly theology, not history as such.

Pray tell, why then put "History" in the title of the conference?

I thought the panel on Mormon polygamy was an outlier; Mike Quinn's social-historical/prosopographical focus wasn't a particularly good fit, either.

BS. It's clear from your and Reynold's comments that the beef with Quinn was that he might say something critical of the Church. That's the part that was not a "good fit."

Had Quinn's work been central to the small but rising field of Mormon theology, and specifically of Mormon philosophical theology -- as Blake Ostler's work has demonstrably been -- it would have been unthinkable not to include him as a principal presenter.

Baloney. Your beef was with Quinn "the apostate," not the historian. BYU's dramatic threat to pull out of the conference had nothing to do with whether Quinn was the perfect presenter.

However, if I recall correctly, Mike Quinn was a respondent to one of the papers; he was not altogether excluded.

According to the WSJ article, a compromise was reached to allow Quinn to introduce another presenter (not to present or respond).

[_Daniel Peterson]

And you rely on semantics.

Yes, I do. I rely on the meaning of words.

I don't apologize for that. Semantics is not a term of abuse or ridicule in my field.

Pray tell, why then put "History" in the title of the conference?

Look at the substance of the conference program. Obviously, Mormonism's theology can't be separated altogether from the historical events in which the faithful believe it was disclosed. But the plain focus of the conference was on theology. That's why people like Marilyn Adams and Nicholas Wolterstorff and Stephen Davis, rather than folks from the Yale Department of History, were the typical non-LDS respondents. Look them up. See what their professional focus is.

However, if I recall correctly, Mike Quinn was a respondent to one of the papers; he was not altogether excluded.

According to the WSJ article, a compromise was reached to allow Quinn to introduce another presenter (not to present or respond).

As I say, I seem to recall him responding. But I may be wrong. I remember that he was there.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The plain focus of the conference was, overwhelmingly, theology, and even philosophical theology. Blake Ostler has a spectacular record of publishing on Mormon philosophical theology. Mike Quinn has none.

More bull. How could anyone deny that Quinn's "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View" did not use early Smith family and Mormon history to explain particular LDS theology we have today?

I write and teach on philosophical theology. Mike Quinn doesn't.

Your focus is Islam; Quinn's focus is Mormonism. Again, I ask, do you honestly believe you were more qualified than Quinn to speak at the Yale conference?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Look at the substance of the conference program. Obviously, Mormonism's theology can't be separated altogether from the historical events in which the faithful believe it was disclosed. But the plain focus of the conference was on theology.

However, particularly with Mormonism, LDS theology is explained by its history (see Quinn's "Early Mormonism" book).

As I say, I seem to recall him responding. But I may be wrong. I remember that he was there.

He was there, but only to introduce a speaker (thanks to BYU's juvenile threat to pull out of the Yale conference).