Yale and the FARMS Money Trail: A Case Study

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The point of the Yale conference (and of the establishment of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology immediately following its closing session) was to do something new. A bunch of people with the relevant training and interests came together for the conference and for the society.

Since Quinn was initially on the program, he was among those who "came together," but then was nixed by BYU.

Mike Quinn, incidentally, is entirely free to join SMPT. As far as I'm aware, though, he hasn't. There's nothing wrong in that; social history and prosopography are entirely respectable fields. But they're not philosophical theology. He appears to have no interest in that subject.

Quinn was also "free" to participate in the conference, at least initially, and was invited to do so, but then dumped when BYU threatened to drop out.

You keep attacking his qualifications, but this is bogus in light of your and Ostler's participation at the conference

So long as you persist in thinking that Blake Ostler -- arguably the most significant writer of Mormon philosophical theology in the history of the Church -- was at best marginally qualified for inclusion in the program of a conference devoted to Mormon theology, it's impossible to take you seriously.

Even if Ostler rightfully stayed on the program, what the hell were you doing on it instead of Quinn? Continuing to attack Quinn's qualifications (particularly since the conference included the word "History" in its title) makes it impossible to take you serioiusly.

Just admit it -- Reynolds and other FARMSboys (yourself included) blackballed Quinn because of his excommunicated status.

As I've repeatedly said, there were objections to Quinn because of his excommunicated status and because of a fear that he would use the Yale pulpit (partially funded by an entity at BYU) to advance an agenda hostile toward the institutional Church. Apart from your negative and sometimes insulting language and your evidently ardent desire to hold me personally responsible, just where is it exactly, in your view, that we disagree about this? What is it that you want me to "admit" that I haven't already freely said?

Our disagreement surrounds your constant refrain that Quinn lacked the qualifications to participate in the conference. This is patently absurd, particularly when compared to other presenters. BYU's beef (and extraordinarily embarrassing threat to pull out) was with the excommunicated Quinn, not his qualifications.

As I've also said, I would not, personally, have objected to Quinn's inclusion on the program, but I also don't think his omission was a serious problem.

Correction: "his removal," NOT "his omission."

[_Daniel Peterson]

Just for clarification's sake, is it, then, the general policy of BYU to only participate in and/or support 'scholarly' forums on Mormonism in which presenters are committed to presenting Mormonism in an entirely positive light?

Plainly not, as anybody familiar with the non-LDS respondents at the Yale conference and/or with the actual unfolding of the conference itself does not need to be told.

DCP's earlier statement, indeed, related that Quinn's participation was balked at specifically because there was fear he would mount an attack on the Institutional Church.

Now, for our added consideration: And he wasn't really qualified to participate, at any rate.

Which consideration was primary at the time, I wonder.

The former, as I've said.

As I've said, Quinn didn't seem to be essential (whereas Ostler, for example, did), and some thought that his participation carried considerable downside risk. It was a matter of cost/benefit analysis. Minimal benefit, substantial possible cost. Nothing much lost if he wasn't on the program.

As I've said.

The capacity for wonder is a fabulous thing, but there seems little point in continuing to wonder about questions to which the answers have been given many times already.

As I've said.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

How can you be a part of the "we" group who objected to Mike Quinn's inclusion, and yet, at the same time, be among those who didn't personally object?

Easily. And I'm pretty confident that, if your judgment were not clouded by the dogmatic certainty that I'm a scoundrel, the solution would have suggested itself to you:

Noel Reynolds was, at the time, the executive director of the Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts. I was a member of the Executive Director's Council that, collectively and under his overall leadership, superintended various aspects of the Institute's work. The "we" refers to the Institute. However, plans for the Yale conference were almost entirely Noel's concern.

Did you, Daniel Peterson, object to Mike Quinn's being on the program, personally, at the time?

No.

This is odd. You personally were planning to present at the conference, so I presume you put some effort into the presentation. You were also involved, to some extent, in the planning of the conference. So when Reynolds made the audacious threat to pull BYU completely out of the conference, you didn't speak with him at all about the Quinn situation, or give him your opinion?

If you didn't object personally at the time, who in the "we" group did? Folks from BYU and FARMS, obviously. But, specifically, which persons?

I've named Noel Reynolds. There may have been one other. I won't name him. There's no reason to drag any more victims through this board's mud.

I've heard that Bob Millet was involved. Any truth to that?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

As I've said, Quinn didn't seem to be essential (whereas Ostler, for example, did), and some thought that his participation carried considerable downside risk. It was a matter of cost/benefit analysis. Minimal benefit, substantial possible cost. Nothing much lost if he wasn't on the program.

That might seem reasonable if Quinn had not been invited to present, but he was on the program and only removed after BYU's antics.

[_Mister Scratch]

Just admit it -- Reynolds and other FARMSboys (yourself included) blackballed Quinn because of his excommunicated status.

Wait a minute, Rollo. Dr. Peterson just stated two posts up that he did not have a problem with Quinn participating, that he was not directly involved with the planning of the conference, and that if asked, he would not have vetoed Quinn's participation.

He stated that Reynolds was, indeed, very outspoken about Quinn not being on the program, and also freely admitted the problems involved regarding BYU, and the whole funding issue.

I don't think you have any basis to call Dr. Peterson a liar for stating that he would not, and did not blackball Quinn.

Liz, you have to remember the history here. DCP has been more and more careful in his remarks concerning Quinn ever since he got pinned with the "gossipmongering" accusation two years ago. You also have to remember that DCP oversaw FARMS articles in which Quinn is called (I kid you not) a "bad historian" (!!!) The Good Professor has continuously labeled Quinn's historical work "flawed", "tendentious," "untrustworthy", and "embarrassing." He has also used Quinn's sexual orientation as a means to batter the man's character in the eyes of TBMs---i.e., DCP brings up Quinn's homosexuality with absolutely zero context in order to paint him as a "sinner", and to imply that that was the reason behind his excommunication.

So, I guess we should take him at his word when he says he would not have "blackballed" Quinn. But take it with a grain of salt.

What I am wondering is this: DCP has suggested that Reynolds and another "unnamed" player were opposed to Quinn, and that they were opposed due to some kind of "shaky" standing that ISPART had within the university. This suggests to me that someone higher up was putting pressure on Reynolds and the "unnamed player." Who might this "higher-up" have been? One of the General Authorities? BKP?

[_guy sajer]

Just for clarification's sake, is it, then, the general policy of BYU to only participate in and/or support 'scholarly' forums on Mormonism in which presenters are committed to presenting Mormonism in an entirely positive light?

Plainly not, as anybody familiar with the non-LDS respondents at the Yale conference and/or with the actual unfolding of the conference itself does not need to be told.

DCP's earlier statement, indeed, related that Quinn's participation was balked at specifically because there was fear he would mount an attack on the Institutional Church.

Now, for our added consideration: And he wasn't really qualified to participate, at any rate.

Which consideration was primary at the time, I wonder.

The former, as I've said.

As I've said, Quinn didn't seem to be essential (whereas Ostler, for example, did), and some thought that his participation carried considerable downside risk. It was a matter of cost/benefit analysis. Minimal benefit, substantial possible cost. Nothing much lost if he wasn't on the program.

As I've said.

The capacity for wonder is a fabulous thing, but there seems little point in continuing to wonder about questions to which the answer have been given many times already.

As I've said.

Don't assume Dan that I or anyone else has the time to wade through the entire thread in careful detail to pick up precisely everything you've said and when. (Not all of us have your evident surplus of free time to spend disputing on internet discussion boards.) I wouldn't have asked if I already knew the answer, so you can please drop the "as I said" affectation.

But you still haven't answered my other question, what, precisely, might Quinn have said in critique of institutional Mormonism that lacked a legitimate scholarly basis?

Since the participants were, apparently, free to critique institutional Mormonism at this event, I'm curious what some of the specific critiques were and why these were so much more palatable to event organizers than what Quinn might have said?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Since Quinn was initially on the program, he was among those who "came together," but then was nixed by BYU.

Do you have a copy of a Yale program on which Mike Quinn's name appeared?

Even if Ostler rightfully stayed on the program, what the hell were you doing on it instead of Quinn? Continuing to attack Quinn's qualifications (particularly since the conference included the word "History" in its title) makes it impossible to take you serioiusly.

That you think me unqualified with regard to Mormon philosophical theology is a pain that I shall have to learn to bear for the rest of my life. Knowing that people actually in the field apparently think otherwise, though, will help to console me:

http://www.smpt.org/organization.html

Our disagreement surrounds your constant refrain that Quinn lacked the qualifications to participate in the conference. This is patently absurd

It's also something that I haven't actually said.

I've said that Blake Ostler's credentials demanded that he be included in a conference predominantly focused on Mormon (philosophical) theology. I've said that Mike Quinn's did not.

BYU's beef . . . was with the excommunicated Quinn, not his qualifications.

Which is precisely what I've said. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, and then repeated.

His lack of compelling, directly relevant qualifications simply reduced the cost of omitting him to an easily manageable level.

As I've said. Many times. And then repeated.

[_Mister Scratch]

Just for clarification's sake, is it, then, the general policy of BYU to only participate in and/or support 'scholarly' forums on Mormonism in which presenters are committed to presenting Mormonism in an entirely positive light?

Plainly not, as anybody familiar with the non-LDS respondents at the Yale conference and/or with the actual unfolding of the conference itself does not need to be told.

The accounts I'm familiar with starkly contrast with what you're saying. Many non-BYU folks, including believing LDS, felt that the conference was a bit too much of a "dog-and-pony show" so that apologetic-minded people could pat each other on the back and tell one another how great they all are. I think the summaries given by Trevor and others are correct: The conference was an attempt to buy academic credibility for FARMS. What I don't quite get is why BYU would freak out at the thought of one of Mormonism's pre-eminent scholars being allowed to participate.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Since Quinn was initially on the program, he was among those who "came together," but then was nixed by BYU.

Do you have a copy of a Yale program on which Mike Quinn's name appeared?

No. Do you deny that Quinn was initially scheduled to present at the conference?

Even if Ostler rightfully stayed on the program, what the hell were you doing on it instead of Quinn? Continuing to attack Quinn's qualifications (particularly since the conference included the word "History" in its title) makes it impossible to take you serioiusly.

That you think me unqualified with regard to Mormon philosophical theology is a pain that I shall have to learn to bear for the rest of my life.

You have conceded your expertise is Islam, not Mormonism. Your own words unqualify you.

I've said that Blake Ostler's credentials demanded that he be included in a conference predominantly focused on Mormon (philosophical) theology. I've said that Mike Quinn's did not.

Did your Islamic credentials "demand" that you be included in the conference? Did Quinn's Mormon history credentials "demand" that he be removed from the program?

BYU's beef . . . was with the excommunicated Quinn, not his qualifications.

Which is precisely what I've said. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, and then repeated.

... to be followed by your absurd claim that Quinn was not qualified.

His lack of compelling, directly relevant qualifications simply reduced the cost of omitting him to an easily manageable level.

Again, he was removed, NOT omitted.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Don't assume Dan that I or anyone else has the time to wade through the entire thread in careful detail to pick up precisely everything you've said and when. (Not all of us have your evident surplus of free time to spend disputing on internet discussion boards.)

Insult duly noted.

I freely grant your academic superiority to me.

Still, my academic output seems to be okay with my superiors at BYU -- I spoke with my department chair about it just this morning, as a matter of fact -- and seems to be drawing favorable notice from institutions in Europe and the Near East (e-mails just this morning, including galley proofs from Oxford University Press), so I appear to be muddling along.

Maybe if you were under constant personal attack here, you'd be tempted to spend more time here in order to respond.

But you still haven't answered my other question, what, precisely, might Quinn have said in critique of institutional Mormonism that lacked a legitimate scholarly basis?

I have no idea what Quinn would have spoken on at Yale. But if you want a manifest example of one of his critiques that, in my view and that of others, lacks any and all basis in historical fact, I would point to his claim that the early Church, in the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, smiled favorably on homoerotic relationships, a tolerant view on which the modern homophobic Church has turned its back.

Since the participants were, apparently, free to critique institutional Mormonism at this event, I'm curious what some of the specific critiques were and why these were so much more palatable to event organizers than what Quinn might have said?

The conference wasn't about the institutional Church. It was about (philosophical) theology. That's been my point, to a large extent.