Yale and the FARMS Money Trail: A Case Study

[_Trevor]

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.

Excellent point, Rollo. DCP is being quite slippery about this.

[_Trevor]

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.

A cost-benefit analysis that would not have been undertaken had your associates not initiated it based on their dubious fears about Quinn. Don't try to pass it off as a process that occurred primarily because he was a bad fit. That doesn't work, and you know it.

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.

I made no such implication. Don't confuse me with Scratch and Gadiantion. I said it was a poor decision and it was. The decision, and your representation of it, are what speaks volumes about you and your friends.

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

Well, hell, Daniel, he's a lot closer than your training in Medieval Islam, or does that escape you?

Or that my paper on Mormonism and social Trinitarianism was an amateur historian's approach to events in Carbon County, Utah, in 1915?

It very well may have been, but I wasn't there. Anyone who was told that a scholar of philosophy in Medieval Islam was presenting on this topic might at least reasonably suspect so, and would very likely be correct.

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.

Immaterial.

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.

And do, pray tell, show me where Mormon history was ever even alluded to in the title of the conference. Tell me about the member of the Mormon History Association who was invited and then disinvited because you and your friends got their panties in a bunch.

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.

Daniel, you spend most of your time here minimizing things. Don't pretend like you have a leg to stand on here. You minimize the possible fit of Quinn at the conference as a way to minimize the silly reaction your friends had to the possibility of his presenting.

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

Maybe you should take your own advice, like when you commented, in print, about Greek and Latin historiography in the FARMS Review.

I'll finish my response to you later.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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

More than vague. It was a pretty good conference, actually. Superb speakers. I'm a great fan of Marilyn Adams, Nicholas Wolterstorff, and Stephen Davis, for example. And I was there.

Excellent point, Rollo. DCP is being quite slippery about this.

How?

I've been saying forever, it seems, that Mike Quinn's participation in the conference worried some at what is now the Maxwell Institute, that they were worried because of his problematic relationship with the Church, that they objected strongly to his participation, that the Institute was a co-sponsor of the conference and thus had leverage, and etc. I've not only never denied this, I've freely stated it. Many, many times.

A cost-benefit analysis that would not have been undertaken had your associates not initiated it based on their dubious fears about Quinn. Don't try to pass it off as a process that occurred primarily because he was a bad fit. That doesn't work, and you know it.

And I've never said otherwise.

Some of you seem to be combating not me, but a bogeyman of your own devising.

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

Well, hell, Daniel, he's a lot closer than your training in Medieval Islam, or does that escape you?

I'm afraid that that escapes me.

It isn't obvious to me that a background in the social history of a nineteenth- and early twentieth-century religious movement qualifies one to comment on its theology exponentially more than a background in philosophical theology does. (I have training in medieval Islam, it's true, but also in classics and philosophy.)

Is a historian of modern German society necessarily more quallifed to comment on the theology of Paul Tillich and Karl Barth than, say, a biblical scholar or a historian of religions or a philosopher?

Daniel, you spend most of your time here minimizing things.

Minimal things should be minimized.

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

Maybe you should take your own advice, like when you commented, in print, about Greek and Latin historiography in the FARMS Review.

???

Are you referring to the article on "exemplar historiography" that David Honey and I wrote for BYU Studies? Have you read it? If you have specific criticisms of it, I hope you'll share them.

Incidentally, I have a degree in classics.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The "tentative" program for the Yale conference appears on line at

http://www.yale.edu/mormon_conference/program.htm

Incidentally, here are some links for some of the other Yale presenters and respondents, beyond David Paulsen (Ph.D., philosophy, University of Michigan), Blake Ostler, Stephen Davis (Ph.D., philosophy, Claremont Graduate University), Richard Sherlock (Ph.D., philosophy, Harvard University), Truman Madsen (Ph.D,, philosophy, Harvard University), and Jim Faulconer (Ph.D, philosophy, Penn State). You'll see that specialiazation in nineteenth century Mormon history or even nineteenth century Mormonism generally was not a requirement for participation on the program. Other backgrounds were highly valued:

David Kelsey, a specialist on Paul Tillich and theological education:

http://www.yale.edu/divinity/faculty/Fac.DKelsey.shtml

Christopher Beeley, a patrologist:

http://www.yale.edu/divinity/faculty/Fac.CBeeley.shtml

Nicholas Wolterstorff, a philosophical theologian:

http://www.yale.edu/philos/people/wolte ... holas.html

Marilyn Adams, a specialist on medieval philosophical theology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_McCord_Adams

Brian Birch:

http://www.uvsc.edu/profpages/view.cfm?user=birchbri

Dennis Potter:

http://research.uvsc.edu/potter/CV.html

Also:

Jennifer Lane Assistant Professor, Religion, Brigham Young University--Hawaii;
M.A., Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Brigham Young University;
Ph.D., Religion, Claremont Graduate University.
Research interests include late medieval passion piety and pilgrimage, biblical and early Christian notions of covenant and redemption, and soteriology generally. Recent presentations include, "Divinity and Agency: An Approach to Latter-day Saint Christology," at Yale Divinity School (2003), and "Come, Follow Me": The Imitation of Christ in the Later Middle Ages" at the 2004 Sperry Symposium

[_Daniel Peterson]

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?

I, personally, wasn't particularly afraid. If you really want to know, you should probably contact Professor Reynolds.

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

I would have been fine with that.

[_degaston]

..... I've been saying forever, it seems, that Mike Quinn's participation in the conference worried some at what is now the Maxwell Institute, that they were worried because of his problematic relationship with the Church, that they objected strongly to his participation .....

What problematic relationship? The fact that he was excommunicated from the church? Or something else? My point is that in the court of global academic opinion that this smells bad for the Maxwell Institute's reputation as an academic organization. The only reputable defense for objecting to Quinn would've been on some sort of academic grounds. Considering Quinn's credentials it's a hard case to make in defending the actions of Reynolds and the now-called-Maxwell-Institute. They successfully kept Quinn from presenting any paper/lecture at this forum. But at what cost? Plenty more scrutiny in their involvement in organizing/sponsoring any future symposiums of this nature at non-LDS-controlled academic institutions. Money can buy a lot of credibility in almost any circle. But in academic circles it's a lot harder to do.

[_Daniel Peterson]

What problematic relationship? The fact that he was excommunicated from the church? Or something else?

All I meant was that it was problematic from the point of view of certain people. Your mileage may vary, but their's didn't.

My point is that in the court of global academic opinion that this smells bad for the Maxwell Institute's reputation as an academic organization.

For good or for ill, there is no "court of global academic opinion."

And the storms and "watershed event" pseudo-scandals that agitate Scratchworld aren't even a blip on the radar screen of international or American scholarship.

The only reputable defense for objecting to Quinn would've been on some sort of academic grounds

In the ideal world of pure scholarship and disembodied reason, that might be true.

In the actual real world, though, scholars are omitted from academic programs all the time for non-academic reasons good and bad, personal and political.

Considering Quinn's credentials it's a hard case to make in defending the actions of Reynolds and the now-called-Maxwell-Institute.

I don't think it's all that hard. He would have been okay at the symposium. His particular background and specialty didn't, however, make him indispensable.

They successfully kept Quinn from presenting any paper/lecture at this forum. But at what cost?

Little if any, so far as I can see.

This board is pretty small potatos. I haven't heard any talk of the topic anywhere else. The symposium was half a decade ago.

Plenty more scrutiny in their involvement in organizing/sponsoring any future symposiums of this nature at non-LDS-controlled academic institutions.

I haven't heard of anything along those lines.

At the invitation of the Library of Congress, we organized a conference regarding one of my translation projects there at the LoC, roughly a month and a half after the Yale conference. There doesn't seem to have been any problem at all:

http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2003/03-083.html

And, since then, conferences on Joseph Smith have been held at the LoC, as well as at the National University of Taiwan, in Australia, etc., with no problem. And Yale helped to host another Mormon studies conference in February 2007, a conference was held at Princeton on "Mormonism and American Politics" in November 2007, and etc.

[Guest]

Incidentally, I have a degree in classics.

I know all too well what the value of a BA in Classics is when it comes to the finer points of historiography. Evidently you overestimated it.

[_Trevor]

You'll see that specialiazation in nineteenth century Mormon history or even nineteenth century Mormonism generally was not a requirement for participation on the program.

So what? This amounts to a red herring. Obviously Quinn was invited because someone thought he had a valuable contribution to make. His contributions were at least as on point as, if not more than, a panel on plural marriage, and his expertise is at least as valuable as Bushman's or Givens'. My argument was that there was certainly sufficient argument for his inclusion, and it wasn't until your associates made a fuss that any question about his appropriateness was raised. This question would not have been based on his expertise, since he had as credible expertise as others there. It was based largely on prejudice--the same prejudice which marked Quinn out for negative ecclesiastical attention in the first place. It is not that Quinn was wrong about most of what he wrote; it was that he illuminated a Mormon past that many did not know about and that did not jibe with the PR version of Mormonism.

In this Yale conference situation, it is actually Quinn who looks good for being gracious enough to step aside, while BYU/FARMS comes out looking bad for digging in its heels over his participation. Will it make a big dent in their/your reputation? I'm not saying that, but I think it is just one more evidence of BYU/FARMS intolerance, one that is very much in accord with the Church paranoia that got him into trouble in the first place.

[_Trevor]

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.

It's OK, Daniel. Keep practicing, and maybe one day you can stick to the point and avoid pointless byways, like the one about Quinn not really fitting the conference program. I believe you can do it.