Yale and the FARMS Money Trail: A Case Study

[_Daniel Peterson]

Whatever the time line, the facts are that (1) some folks, involved in conference planning, definitely wanted Mike Quinn to participate (obvious inference) and that other people, at BYU and FARMS, balked (per DCP). Thus, Mike Quinn didn't present precisely because folks at BYU and FARMS threw their weight around--not because he was deemed unqualified to participate by those who obviously wished him, well, to participate.

So, what is crystal clear thus far:

Q: Why didn't Mike Quinn participate in the conference?
A: Because people at BYU and FARMS didn't want him to do so.

Q: In what did their ability to demand Quinn's exclusion inhere?
A: Financial support.

Q: Why did people at BYU and FARMS demand Quinn's exclusion?
A: Because they were afraid Quinn might say something negative about the Church.

I believe that this is somehow supposed to contradict what I've been saying?

Does it also (rather redundantly) prove me a liar and a villain?

Please advise.

[_cksalmon]

Whatever the time line, the facts are that (1) some folks, involved in conference planning, definitely wanted Mike Quinn to participate (obvious inference) and that other people, at BYU and FARMS, balked (per DCP). Thus, Mike Quinn didn't present precisely because folks at BYU and FARMS threw their weight around--not because he was deemed unqualified to participate by those who obviously wished him, well, to participate.

So, what is crystal clear thus far:

Q: Why didn't Mike Quinn participate in the conference?
A: Because people at BYU and FARMS didn't want him to do so.

Q: In what did their ability to demand Quinn's exclusion inhere?
A: Financial support.

Q: Why did people at BYU and FARMS demand Quinn's exclusion?
A: Because they were afraid Quinn might say something negative about the Church.

I believe that this is somehow supposed to contradict what I've been saying?

You believe wrongly.

...

Please advise.

Actually, it's meant merely to highlight the facts as stated by you.

Given your tacit agreement with my summary, I'm content to let others make what they will of the matter.

[_antishock8]

Whatever the time line, the facts are that (1) some folks, involved in conference planning, definitely wanted Mike Quinn to participate (obvious inference) and that other people, at BYU and FARMS, balked (per DCP). Thus, Mike Quinn didn't present precisely because folks at BYU and FARMS threw their weight around--not because he was deemed unqualified to participate by those who obviously wished him, well, to participate.

So, what is crystal clear thus far:

Q: Why didn't Mike Quinn participate in the conference?
A: Because people at BYU and FARMS didn't want him to do so.

Q: In what did their ability to demand Quinn's exclusion inhere?
A: Financial support.

Q: Why did people at BYU and FARMS demand Quinn's exclusion?
A: Because they were afraid Quinn might say something negative about the Church.

I believe that this is somehow supposed to contradict what I've been saying?

You believe wrongly.

...

Please advise.

Actually, it's meant merely to highlight the facts as stated by you.

Given your tacit agreement with my summary, I'm content to let others make what they will of the matter.

Game. Set. Match.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Game. Set. Match.

Poor antishock8 can write nonsense too!

[_Daniel Peterson]

You believe wrongly.

To be candid, I was tentatively hoping that you had managed to pick up what has transparently eluded Dr. Rollo Tomasi.

Actually, it's meant merely to highlight the facts as stated by you.

I appreciate it. I've repeated them so often and yet with such dismal results that I was beginning to despair that anybody here would ever understand them.

Given your tacit agreement with my summary, I'm content to let others make what they will of the matter.

Some will probably conclude that they prove me a liar and a villain. LOL.

[_antishock8]

Game. Set. Match.

Poor antishock8 can write nonsense too!

No no, my esteemed Mr. Peterson. I'm making what I will of the matter. When all your boo hooing, sophistry, finger pointing is concisely summarized it adds up to about three sentences. In other words:

1) People at BYU and FARMS didn't want him to present.

2) Financial support was the key to get him excluded.

3) Because they were afraid Quinn might say something negative about the Church.

Thank you, CK. You just bested Stay Puft like a zen master. Well played, good Sir. Well played.

[_Daniel Peterson]

1) People at BYU and FARMS didn't want him to present.

2) Financial support was the key to get him excluded.

3) Because they were afraid Quinn might say something negative about the Church.

Poor child. That's precisely what I've been saying. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

You should probably go back outside to play.

[_guy sajer]

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.

Dan, please point out to me where I made even the slightest inference about relative academic superiority. I've bowed out of this debate, and you will note that I don't comment on it anymore. As far as I'm concerned, the debate is over. Although you have not published widely in scholarly journals, I accept that what you do is a legitimate and worthwhile academic pursuit.

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.

This is probably true. Has it dawned on you that if you did not respond that the attacks would diminish (though not go away--I accept that some persons are rather obsessed with you)? Besides, you don't seem to care what we think, and we're not your audience, so why is it so important to you to respond to every attack, therefore?

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.[/quote]

Thanks for the example. I don't know enough to comment on the legitimacy of this argument. Perhaps you are correct. I imagine, however, that you all must have had some idea of what Quinn might have said, otherwise why the evident fear of giving him a platform?

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.[/quote]

Ok, that's fine. So if that's the case, why would Quinn (sticking to the topic) have ventured out into critiques of the institutional Church?

Wouldn't it have been sufficient to merely make it plain to him that he stay on topic, as opposed to outright blackballing him?

[_cksalmon]

Game. Set. Match.

Poor antishock8 can write nonsense too!

No no, my esteemed Mr. Peterson. I'm making what I will of the matter. When all your boo hooing, sophistry, finger pointing is concisely summarized it adds up to about three sentences. In other words:

1) People at BYU and FARMS didn't want him to present.

2) Financial support was the key to get him excluded.

3) Because they were afraid Quinn might say something negative about the Church.

Thank you, CK. You just bested Stay Puft like a zen master. Well played, good Sir. Well played.

I'm certainly no zen master. I was just waiting for Dr. Peterson neatly to string all the pearls on the necklace in an unequivocal fashion.

The "academic" Yale conference was, at least in part, overseen by protectionist, apologetics concerns emanating from BYU/FARMS who threatened to withdraw financial support if they didn't get their way with regard to Mike Quinn.

It bears some vague resemblance to an academic conference, I'm sure.

[_beastie]

It strikes me how similar these "apologists" arguments are like arguments about LDS truth claims in general. In the end, believers are forced to admit the accuracy of the basic assertions critics are making, but work on putting a different "spin" on it. For example: yeah, Joseph Smith married other mens' wives, but.... and in these conversations: yeah, the church does indirectly fund apologetics but....