Yale and the FARMS Money Trail: A Case Study

[_Trevor]

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

Don't patronize me. It's a cheap stunt.

The conference was entitled "God, Humanity, and Revelation: Perspectives from Mormon Philosophy and History." Mike Quinn is as (or more) qualified to speak to this topic as any of you. He was not left off of the list because the docket was filled by the more qualified. From what I can gather, and you can correct me, if I am wrong, he was disinvited because Noel Reynolds, acting on behalf of the BYU/FARMS crew threatened to pull out because the BYU/FARMS crowd feared Quinn had an agenda your associates might not like. That a man who has been trained in the period in question and written volumes on the subject of Mormon history was disinvited, while a lawyer who writes on theology and his spare time and a historian of medieval neoplatonism were just fine is more than a little odd. It was a bad decision, and that it subsequently cast a small shadow on the proceedings is only just desserts.

[_Trevor]

Let's see, why don't we, how Daniel's implication that Quinn, the historian, was somehow less than appropriate to speak on the "central" theme of the conference, as he frames it (philosophical theology). Here is a sample of the papers presented, and the names of their authors:

Richard L. Bushman, "Joseph Smith's Visions"

James E. Faulconer, "Why a Mormon Won't Drink Coffee but Might Drink Coke: The Atheological Character of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

Philip Barlow, "The Bible as Key to Mormonism's Genetic Code"

Terryl Givens, "The Book of Mormon and the Future(s) of Mormonism"

Kathleen Flake, "Joseph Smith's Narrative Theology"

Panel Discussion: Plural Marriage and the Mormon Family, Panelists: Lawrence Foster, Lowell "Ben" Bennion, Kathryn Daynes, Martha Bradley

Truman G. Madsen, "The Eternal Nature of Persons"

Robert L. Millet, "The Redemption of Fallen Humanity: A Book of Mormon Perspective"

While the rest of the talks seem to me to be very obviously, squarely grounded in issues of philosophical theology, I can't help but think that there is plenty of wiggle room in this program that Quinn could have easily fit in, and this wiggle room, if I am correct, would call into question Daniel's insistence that the conference was overwhelmingly about philosophical theology. Obviously, there was room for a discussion on Plural Marriage and the Mormon family, a whole panel even. Might not Quinn and his work suit such a conference? I can only imagine the objections were based on fears that he might have an agenda, not that he would not have fit Daniel's narrow and somewhat misleading characterization of what this conference was about.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Mike Quinn . . . was not left off of the list because the docket was filled by the more qualified. From what I can gather, and you can correct me, if I am wrong, he was disinvited because Noel Reynolds, acting on behalf of the BYU/FARMS crew threatened to pull out because the BYU/FARMS crowd feared Quinn had an agenda your associates might not like.

As I've already said, Mike Quinn was not included on the program because his participation on the program was deemed essential by nobody and potentially negative by some. His social-historical approach did not seem a "must-include," and some thought that the price of including him was too high. It was a matter of cost-benefit analysis.

If you want to spin that into a sinister and intellectually contemptible thing, your spin will say at least as much about you as about the Yale conference.

That a man who has been trained in the period in question

What "period in question"???

Do you imagine, somehow, that Jim Faulconer's reflections on Mormon "atheology" focus on, say, 1863? Or that Truman Madsen's discussion of "human persons" pertains most specifically to 1842? Or that my paper on Mormonism and social Trinitarianism was an amateur historian's approach to events in Carbon County, Utah, in 1915?

and written volumes on the subject of Mormon history

As I've pointed out, neither Tom Alexander nor Jim Allen nor Davis Bitton nor Dean Jessee nor Richard Bennett nor most of the other Mormon historians who have "written volumes on the subject of Mormon history" participated on the conference program. None of them even attended, so far as I recall.

These are distinct fields.

Incidentally, I spent this morning at the opening sessions of the international conference on pre-Socratic philosophy being held this week at BYU. I saw a number of members of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology there, and several who were at Yale, but, apart from myself, I saw not a single member of the Mormon History Association.

while a lawyer who writes on theology and his spare time

I don't need to "patronize" you, Trevor. These continual attempts to minimize the seminal achievement of Blake Ostler in Mormon philosophical theology simply leave those who make them looking ignorant and absurd.

If you're clueless about what's going on in a field, it's wisest to withhold public comment on it.

a historian of medieval neoplatonism

A specialist in the history of philosophical theology, who focuses mostly on ancient and medieval Neoplatonism but who has published a fair amount on Mormon topics and who regularly teaches for the BYU Philosophy Department, has taught an Honors seminar on Plato and Augustine, etc.

By the way, we founded the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology precisely because, to that point, no adequate venue had existed for furthering that particular kind of academic pursuit. Our intention is to nurture the field.

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?

An unfortunate choice to illustrate your point. A seriously flawed book. More relevant than most of Mike Quinn's materials, though. Mostly, he does prosopography -- a valuable enterprise, but far more social-historical than theological.

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?

Well, actually, yes. I'm not particularly inclined to view this as a competition, but, if you insist, yes.

My focus, like that of the Yale conference itself, is philosophical theology. If you were actually familiar with my work -- something perhaps not necessary in Scratchworld, but directly relevant to judging my work in the real world -- you would recognize that it deals heavily not only with Islamic figures like al-Kirmani, Ibn Sina [Avicenna], al-Ghazali, and Ibn Rushd [Averroës], but with Plato and Aristotle and, most especially, with such classical Greek Neoplatonic figures as Plotinus, Proclus, and Iamblichus (whose relevance to formative Trinitarianism is obvious to anybody familiar with the subject), as well as with the Christians Pseudo-Dionysius, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria.

Richard L. Bushman, "Joseph Smith's Visions"

A useful prolegomenon to the conference, and -- I was there -- theologically reflective rather than merely historical.

James E. Faulconer, "Why a Mormon Won't Drink Coffee but Might Drink Coke: The Atheological Character of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

Professor Faulconer's paper was manifestly an essay in philosophical theology. If the experts here on this august board don't understand that, it's neither my fault nor Professor Faulconer's.

Philip Barlow, "The Bible as Key to Mormonism's Genetic Code"

Terryl Givens, "The Book of Mormon and the Future(s) of Mormonism"

Plainly theological. Philip Barlow's Harvard doctorate (a Th.D) is in theology. Terryl Givens is more philosopher than historian; his degrees are in comparative literature.

Kathleen Flake, "Joseph Smith's Narrative Theology"

Narrative theology is an important subdiscipline in contemporary theological studies. If that point is lost on those here, the fault is neither mine nor Professor Flake's.

Panel Discussion: Plural Marriage and the Mormon Family, Panelists: Lawrence Foster, Lowell "Ben" Bennion, Kathryn Daynes, Martha Bradley

As I've said, I view this as an outlier.

Truman G. Madsen, "The Eternal Nature of Persons"

Plainly an essay in philosophical theology.

Professor Madsen taught in the BYU Philosophy Department for many years. His Harvard dissertation was on the systematic theology of Paul Tillich, with whom he studied. (Look Tillich up, and see what his focus was.)

Robert L. Millet, "The Redemption of Fallen Humanity: A Book of Mormon Perspective"

Manifestly an essay in dogmatic theology. I've known Bob Millet for many years, and have team taught with him. His interest in history is, for a Mormon, remarkably small. His Ph.D. is in religious studies, not history.

The experts here are entirely free to grouse and gripe and to sprout conspiracy theories about the composition of the Yale conference. Perhaps, someday, they'll sponsor their own. But to suggest that Mike Quinn had some sort of right to be on the program is simply ridiculous. It's absurd to suggest that, because Mike Quinn does a type of Mormon studies, he belongs on the programs of any and all conferences concerning Mormonism, whether they concern the sociology of Mormonism or Mormon musicology or Mormon literature or Mormon theology.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Mike Quinn . . . was not left off of the list because the docket was filled by the more qualified. From what I can gather, and you can correct me, if I am wrong, he was disinvited because Noel Reynolds, acting on behalf of the BYU/FARMS crew threatened to pull out because the BYU/FARMS crowd feared Quinn had an agenda your associates might not like.

As I've already said, Mike Quinn was not included on the program because his participation on the program was deemed essential by nobody and potentially negative by some. His social-historical approach did not seem a "must-include," and some thought that the price of including him was too high. It was a matter of cost-benefit analysis.

Here's the irony: Quinn was already ON the program, which led to BYU's pitching a fit and threatening to tube the conference.

As I've pointed out, neither Tom Alexander nor Jim Allen nor Davis Bitton nor Dean Jessee nor Richard Bennett nor most of the other Mormon historians who have "written volumes on the subject of Mormon history" participated on the conference program. None of them even attended, so far as I recall.

But none of these gentlemen was scheduled to speak in the first place ... Quinn was. Quite a difference.

Incidentally, I spent this morning at the opening sessions of the international conference on pre-Socratic philosophy being held this week at BYU. I saw a number of members of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology there, and several who were at Yale, but, apart from myself, I saw not a single member of the Mormon History Association.

Perhaps this is because the title of that conference did not include the word "History," as the Yale conference did.

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?

An unfortunate choice to illustrate your point. A seriously flawed book. More relevant than most of Mike Quinn's materials, though. Mostly, he does prosopography -- a valuable enterprise, but far more social-historical than theological.

Now you're just digging the hole deeper.

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?

Well, actually, yes. I'm not particularly inclined to view this as a competition, but, if you insist, yes.

Ah, the hubris continues ... as does your hole-digging.

My focus, like that of the Yale conference itself, is philosophical theology.

Islam, not Mormonism (the topic of the conference).

The experts here are entirely free to grouse and gripe and to sprout conspiracy theories about the composition of the Yale conference. Perhaps, someday, they'll sponsor their own. But to suggest that Mike Quinn had some sort of right to be on the program is simply ridiculous.

Quinn was already ON the program -- BYU tried to get him kicked off.

It's absurd to suggest that, because Mike Quinn does a type of Mormon studies, he belongs on the programs of any and all conferences concerning Mormonism, whether they concern the sociology of Mormonism or Mormon musicology or Mormon literature or Mormon theology.

Let me repeat: Quinn was already ON the program, and BYU did its best to remove him (instead of removing you or Ostler -- hmm, wonder why?).

[_Chap]

If you were actually familiar with my work -- something perhaps not necessary in Scratchworld, but directly relevant to judging my work in the real world --

... but rather difficult in the real world at the moment, unless DCP has finally posted his publications somewhere, as do so many other academics in the real world.

Of course he has said more than once that he will do that when he is good and ready, and not just because wicked anti-Mormons demand it of him (or words roughly to that effect). Meanwhile, though, it is odd to hear him lamenting that his interlocutors are not familiar with his corpus of specialist scholarship.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So Quinn was thought of when preliminary plans were being made for the conference, but was not included on the final program. I don't see how this changes the fundamental issue, one way or the other.

it is odd to hear him lamenting that his interlocutors are not familiar with his corpus of specialist scholarship.

Actually, I couldn't care less whether the influential authorities on this board are familiar with my specialist scholarship or not.

I simply find it amusing that some here comment upon it -- and quite authoritatively, too! -- when they plainly haven't read it.

Ah, the hubris continues ... as does your hole-digging.

Mormon Discussions expert: "You're not qualified."

Evil Peterson: "Yes I am."

Mormon Discussions expert: "What an arrogant pig!"

My focus, like that of the Yale conference itself, is philosophical theology.

Islam, not Mormonism (the topic of the conference).

Sigh. Apart from Blake Ostler, there are very few who have published extensively on Mormon philosophical theology. Mike Quinn is certainly not one of them.

The situation is beginning to change. As I've noted, it was precisely to further activity in this field that a group of us came together to found the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology there in New Haven, immediately following the Yale conference. SMPT publishes a journal, Element, and a volume of conference proceedings just appeared.

http://www.smpt.org/

http://www.amazon.com/Discourses-Mormon ... 477&sr=1-1

BYU did its best to remove him (instead of removing you or Ostler -- hmm, wonder why?).

You don't have to "wonder." I've told you.

Incidentally, I didn't care much, one way or the other. I would have been fine with his being on the program, and I was fine with his not being on the program. His inclusion wasn't essential; his non-inclusion wasn't lethal.

[_Yoda]

Incidentally, I didn't care much, one way or the other. I would have been fine with his being on the program, and I was fine with his not being on the program. His inclusion wasn't essential; his non-inclusion wasn't lethal.

It's obvious to me, anyway, that you would be fine personally with Quinn participating in the conference.

What about Rollo's claims regarding Quinn being part of the program, and BYU threatening to pull out? Is there any truth to this? I don't know how much of the planning you were privy to, or if you can even answer this question. I'm just curious.

If those at BYU who were planning the program had come to you, would you personally have blackballed Quinn? (Based on what you have said so far, my guess is that your answer would be "No", but I just thought I would get it on record. LOL)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

So Quinn was thought of when preliminary plans were being made for the conference, but was not included on the final program. I don't see how this changes the fundamental issue, one way or the other.

Because unlike the other folks you mentioned, Quinn was on the program to speak, and didn't make it on the final program only due to BYU's threat to pull out if he was allowed to present. Not inviting someone is one thing, but actually moving to get them kicked off the program is quite another.

Ah, the hubris continues ... as does your hole-digging.

Mormon Discussions expert: "You're not qualified."

Evil Peterson: "Yes I am."

Not as qualified as Quinn.

My focus, like that of the Yale conference itself, is philosophical theology.

Islam, not Mormonism (the topic of the conference).

Sigh. Apart from Blake Ostler, there are very few who have published extensively on Mormon philosophical theology. Mike Quinn is certainly not one of them.

He certainly has published more than you have ... but, yet, you stayed on the program, and he was kicked off. Hmm, wonder why ...?

Incidentally, I didn't care much, one way or the other. I would have been fine with his being on the program, and I was fine with his not being on the program. His inclusion wasn't essential; his non-inclusion wasn't lethal.

He was on the program, he was included on the program -- then BYU comes along and threatens to pull out of the entire conference if Quinn stays on the program. Did you support this threatened action by BYU?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, I didn't care much, one way or the other. I would have been fine with his being on the program, and I was fine with his not being on the program. His inclusion wasn't essential; his non-inclusion wasn't lethal.

It's obvious to me, anyway, that you would be fine personally with Quinn participating in the conference.

That's correct.

What about Rollo's claims regarding Quinn being part of the program, and BYU threatening to pull out? Is there any truth to this? I don't know how much of the planning you were privy to, or if you can even answer this question. I'm just curious.

I don't recall that it got that far, although I could be wrong.

As I remember, there were preliminary discussions, and Quinn's name was among those suggested as participants. FARMS (or, more correctly, what was then called the Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts [ISPART], but is now the Maxwell Institute) was a co-sponsor of the planned event. ISPART's then director, Noel Reynolds, didn't want Mike Quinn on the program, and said so, strongly. A major concern of his, as I recall, was the idea of a BYU entity helping to fund a platform for somebody who is, whatever one may think of him and his scholarship, an excommunicated apostate. There was not only the principle to consider, but ISPART's own perhaps not entirely secure base withiin the University.

If those at BYU who were planning the program had come to you, would you personally have blackballed Quinn?

No, I would not have.

That said, though, I didn't (and don't) feel particularly strongly about whether he should have been on the program at Yale.

I might mention, in this context, the fact that I solicited for the FARMS Review, some years ago, a strong critique of Mormonism written by the evangelical scholars Paul Owen and Carl Mosser. I faced considerable opposition and criticism for doing so, but I prevailed:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... 1&number=2

I'm quite comfortable with solid academic criticism.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Not as qualified as Quinn.

We disagree on this point.

He's more qualified than I am on Mormon history, but his qualifications in philosophical theology appear to be nonexistent.

He certainly has published more than you have ...

He has published nothing whatsoever on philosophical theology. Not a single piece.

but, yet, you stayed on the program, and he was kicked off. Hmm, wonder why ...?

Why are you still "wondering"? I've explained why, and you don't seem to disagree with my explanation.