BYU Dictating Speakers at the May 2026 Interpreter Foundation Conference

[Tom]

I’ve read reports that an individual scheduled to present a paper at the Interpreter Foundation’s upcoming conference on the small plates of Nephi was essentially “disapproved” or “not cleared” by BYU’s Orwellian “Ecclesiastical Clearance Office” (ECO). Regardless of whether the ECO disapproved of the individual or the paper, the individual will apparently not be participating in the conference, which is being held on BYU’s campus in late May.

The Interpreter Foundation could, of course, decline to allow the ECO to dictate its activities by moving the conference to a non-BYU space. (The Interpreter Foundation website claims that the Foundation is “faithfully supportive of the Church of Jesus Christ, but is not owned, controlled by, or officially affiliated with the Church.”) But I do not expect the Interpreter Foundation to take that action.

Does the ECO run the names of scheduled campus speakers through an electronic database operated by the Strengthening Church Members Committee to check for any non-faith-promoting online posts, photos, tweets, podcasts, emails, letters to the editor, symposium presentations, articles, and books? And does the ECO contact the bishop or branch president of planned speakers to ensure that they are worthy of a temple recommend or hold a recommend? More importantly, did the Interpreter Foundation inform presenters that their participation would be subject to ECO clearance?

[Doctor Scratch]

This is incredible news, Tom. Can you share the name of the person who was "disapproved"?

And I agree with you that Interpreter will most likely capitulate to the demands. I think that the leadership these days is trending more towards senescence than rebelliousness. Furthermore, I imagine that this conference is pretty low on the list of priorities. The big focus these days is Bowdlerizing Brigham and all the perks that go along with the production of the films. Now, if the Church or BYU attempted to meddle with *that* then I think we'd see some kind of big, combative blow-up. But in this case, yes: I think they will roll over and allow BYU to "control" their conference.

[Tom]

Doctor, yes, I think it’s fine to share the name. The individual has responded on Facebook to my post. (I don’t know how he found my post so quickly; I didn’t send a link to him.)

Morgan Deane wrote:

Hey look, I'm kind of famous.

To answer their questions, the process is a black box. I don't know what failed to get me clearance. Perhaps my lack of temple recommend, or tumultuous exit from my adjunct position at BYU-Idaho, maybe some online writings somewhere or poor recommendation from my Bishop. I don't know, which is part of the problem.

Most importantly, no I was not informed I'd have to be "cleared" by BYU. I've been presenting for 15 years and it never occurred to me that I needed clearance.

LIke most academics, I feel its kind of creepy to think about some committee of hatchet men and bucreaucrats deciding if I'm allowed to share ideas. This isn't Soviet Russia.

If they told me about it, I never thought I'd fail to gain that clearance.

Most people don't listen to academics to begin with. (In my expeirence, the relationship of most members to academics is like the Chinese story of someone who only likes the appearance of dragons. https://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2019/02/ ... agons.html )

My research for the past 20 years has supported the Book of Mormon. Like BH Roberts said, I believe the Book of Mormon should be submitted to every test. My research often compares it to ideas from military and Chinese history.

If I was invited to a conference I always assumed it was because my ideas were worth hearing. And needless to say, they were "safe" to hear.

I never thought in a million years I'd get denied a chance to share my support and love for the Book of Mormon, in the form of an academic paper, by the flagship university of the church.

Note that Deane has written five pieces for Interpreter. It’s remarkable that he’s being treated this way.

ETA: a related blog post of his can be read here.

[Tom]

I agree with you that Interpreter will most likely capitulate to the demands. I think that the leadership these days is trending more towards senescence than rebelliousness. Furthermore, I imagine that this conference is pretty low on the list of priorities. The big focus these days is Bowdlerizing Brigham and all the perks that go along with the production of the films. Now, if the Church or BYU attempted to meddle with *that* then I think we'd see some kind of big, combative blow-up. But in this case, yes: I think they will roll over and allow BYU to "control" their conference.

I’m reminded of the Afore’s comments nearly 30 years ago, after BYU and FARMS joined up: “FARMS has often had a polemical edge and we are curious to see how or whether that will be accommodated. … The minute I write something offensive, we'll see if I get a call.'' See Ecclesiastes 1:9.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I was starting to fear the Afore had been placed on permanent Honor Code probation, either for lying and failing to deliver those two 2014 books he promised or because BYU finally got around to auditing his social media.

[Gadianton]

wft...is this the "unto bloodshed" guy who writes the stuff about God-inspired pre-emptive strikes? I'd think he would be as protected as they come, as this basic worldview is the core of everything Mormon that there is.

LIke most academics, I feel its kind of creepy to think about some committee of hatchet men and bucreaucrats deciding if I'm allowed to share ideas. This isn't Soviet Russia.

Dude, you realize at a certain point every FSB agent says something like, "I cannot believe the office would do this to me, since when did we become capitalists?"

[Tom]

I was starting to fear the Afore had been placed on permanent Honor Code probation, either for lying and failing to deliver those two 2014 books he promised or because BYU finally got around to auditing his social media.

Not to fear. The ECO has cleared the Afore to give the conference welcome* and to deliver a 50-minute keynote address titled “A Reflection on the Doctrine that Joy is the Purpose of Life.” I hope that he will settle the debate regarding the authenticity of the purported Joseph Smith letter to Nancy Rigdon (“Happiness is the object and design of our existence, and will be the end thereof if we pursue the path that leads to it”) during his address.

*Note: unreliable sources tell me that the ECO has cleared three specific conference welcomes: “ALOHA!” in the Afore’s fluent Hawaiian, “ACHTUNG!” in the Afore’s perfect German, or “BLOOD ATONEMENT!” in Brother Brigham’s inerrant Pitman shorthand.

[I Have Questions]

Given the Afore’s large appetite, I find it amusing that this year's conference is titled “The Small Plates…of Nephi”

[Kishkumen]

“This isn’t Soviet Russia,” has to be the funniest line in the whole thread. I can’t think of an American church that has more in common with Soviet Russia’s aesthetics and views on intellectual freedom.

[Kishkumen]

I like this Morgan Deane guy, which bodes poorly for his future in the LDS Church:

That experience made a recent categorization Gilbert reportedly used at BYU feel less theoretical and more dogmatic than free. As summarized by the Salt Lake Tribune, when assessing professors at BYU he described a group just short of “secular foes,” worse than the “faithful core” and “supportive center,” called “secular first” — individuals who put “truth” from any source on equal footing with the LDS gospel.

That category is astonishing because Brigham Young explicitly taught that we should seek truth from any source, even from the “infidel”:

“Mormonism,” so-called, embraces every principle pertaining to life and salvation, for time and eternity. No matter who has it. If the infidel has got truth it belongs to ‘Mormonism.’ The truth and sound doctrine possessed by the sectarian world, and they have a great deal, all belong to this Church.

The Church’s own statement, Treasuring All Truth, affirms that Mohammed, Confucius, the Reformers, Socrates, Plato, and others received a portion of God’s light. If that is our doctrine, then placing truth from any source on “equal footing” with the gospel is confidence in the restoration, not secularism.

As I studied for my PhD in Chinese history, I’ve come to appreciate Confucianism deeply and have found real wisdom there. In researching my recent book on just war thought and the Book of Mormon, I was struck by how much more developed the broader Christian tradition’s discourse on war and peace has been.

My book was a small attempt to strengthen LDS discourse on war and peace using both of those traditions. In fact, it’s my study of the Book of Mormon, delighting in its complexities and engagements it has with critical questions, that has kept me in the Church. This pursuit of understanding is not an attack on the church or a danger for faithful members, but my attempt to magnify my God given talents and let my light shine (Matthew 25:14-30; 5:16).

Leaders who block or discourage my academic study risk stifling the very faith they claim to protect. If serious engagement with non-LDS thinkers places someone one step below a “secular foe,” that signals a disturbing shift into orthodoxy policing.