Yale and the FARMS Money Trail: A Case Study

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Not as qualified as Quinn.

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

As are yours when it comes to Mormon theology, the topic of the Yale conference. In contrast, see Quinn's "Early Mormonism."

He certainly has published more than you have ...

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

He certainly applied early Smith family/Mormon history to explain LDS theology in "Early Mormonism."

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.

You keep attacking his qualifications, but this is bogus in light of your and Ostler's participation at the conference, from which Quinn was removed from the program. Just admit it -- Reynolds and other FARMSboys (yourself included) blackballed Quinn because of his excommunicated status.

[_Yoda]

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.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

When this topic first came up a couple of years ago, here was DCP's explanation:

I was a participant in both the Yale Conference itself and, to an extent, in its planning. There was no "vendetta" against Michael Quinn. But there was a genuine and justified concern that Mike Quinn might use the platform of the Yale Conference to mount yet another direct or indirect attack on the institutional Church. And, since BYU and FARMS were co-sponsoring and helping to fund the event at Yale, we thought that we should have some say about whether or not the conference should be used for such attacks. (emphasis mine).

DCP made no mention of Reynolds. At that time he expressed no disagreement with BYU's threatened action. Sorry, but his current "I was one of the good guys" smokescreen doesn't carry much weight.

[_Daniel Peterson]

As are yours when it comes to Mormon theology, the topic of the Yale conference.

That's not actually true.

Anyway, it's essentially irrelevant. 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.

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.

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.

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/15 ... Descending

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/15 ... Descending

http://www.amazon.com/Exploring-Mormon- ... 122&sr=1-1

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?

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.

[_Daniel Peterson]

DCP made no mention of Reynolds. At that time he expressed no disagreement with BYU's threatened action.

I don't strongly disagree with Noel's position. And I didn't then.

But it wasn't precisely mine.

Sorry, but his current "I was one of the good guys" smokescreen doesn't carry much weight.

In the deepest recesses of Scratchworld, the default assumption seems always to be that I'm lying. (That dogma is apparently at the very heart of poor antishock8's worldview, for example, while the other articles of his faith, if any exist, are far less clear.) In that light, it isn't really clear what their purpose is in trying to talk with me.

[Guest]

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.

Well, "we" did, as Rollo has pointed out.

I was a participant in both the Yale Conference itself and, to an extent, in its planning. There was no "vendetta" against Michael Quinn. But there was a genuine and justified concern that Mike Quinn might use the platform of the Yale Conference to mount yet another direct or indirect attack on the institutional Church. And, since BYU and FARMS were co-sponsoring and helping to fund the event at Yale, we thought that we should have some say about whether or not the conference should be used for such attacks.

DIRECT QUOTATION: "I would not, personally, have objected to Quinn's inclusion on the program"--DCP

vs.

LOGICAL INFERENCE: "We" did object to Quinn's inclusion on the program--DCP

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?

You have thrown in the subjunctive: So, even if you personally objected (which your "we" statement strongly suggests) at the time, it might still be true that, were your objections ignored or overcome, you might not have objected a second time.

Did you, Daniel Peterson, object to Mike Quinn's being on the program, personally, at the time? If yes, did you voice this objection to anyone at all?

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? Was it just Reynolds?

What group of "we" at FARMS objected?

[_guy sajer]

As are yours when it comes to Mormon theology, the topic of the Yale conference.

That's not actually true.

Anyway, it's essentially irrelevant. 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.

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.

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.

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/15 ... Descending

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/15 ... Descending

http://www.amazon.com/Exploring-Mormon- ... 122&sr=1-1

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?

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.

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?

Further question, what, if any, specific 'hostile' attacks on the institutional Church that Quinn might have made are so bereft of scholarly legitimacy that they are not appropriate for a 'scholarly' forum on Mormonism?

It appears to me that you want your cake and to eat it too, as it were, in that you (not you personally but 'you' in general) want the appearance of scholarly legitimacy but at the same time want to shield yourselves from legitimate scholarly critique of institutional Mormonism (as if there weren't a whole, heaping lot of issues just crying out for honest scholarly treatment in that regard).

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

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 didn't care much, one way or the other. Still don't.

[_cksalmon]

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?

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.

[_cksalmon]

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:

Oh, it did. I've just learned the need to parse apologetic grammar.