BYU Dictating Speakers at the May 2026 Interpreter Foundation Conference

[Tom]

I see that BYU’s Women Conference requires potential presenters to hold a current temple recommend and to agree to verification of their temple recommend status by the Ecclesiastical Clearance Office (ECO). I expect that the same is true for BYU Education Week presenters.

It seems, however, that the Interpreter Foundation did not inform potential conference presenters that they must pass ECO clearance. (Deane, at least, says he wasn’t aware of any “clearance” requirement.) I anticipate that the Interpreter Foundation’s president—who has been vocally enthusiastic about Clark Gilbert’s work to reform BYU in the past several years (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, and here)—will issue a correction or clarification on his blog shortly.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Brother Deane,

I’m sure the fine people at Cassius would be more than happy to have you here. Please feel free to post your work; it’ll be received and read with high interest and intellectual vigor.

Regards,

Dr. Cam

[Equality]

“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.

Scientology maybe?

[Tom]

I see that BYU’s Women Conference requires potential presenters to hold a current temple recommend and to agree to verification of their temple recommend status by the Ecclesiastical Clearance Office (ECO). I expect that the same is true for BYU Education Week presenters.

It seems, however, that the Interpreter Foundation did not inform potential conference presenters that they must pass ECO clearance. (Deane, at least, says he wasn’t aware of any “clearance” requirement.) I anticipate that the Interpreter Foundation’s president—who has been vocally enthusiastic about Clark Gilbert’s work to reform BYU in the past several years (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, and here)—will issue a correction or clarification on his blog shortly.

Inexplicably, the Afore has failed to acknowledge the curelom in the MARB, or the cumom in the SWKT, or the elephant in the JSB. Today he writes:

I would like to remind you yet again of the two-day gathering that will take place about a month from now on the Provo campus of Brigham Young University, devoted to the Book of Mormon and sponsored by the Interpreter Foundation[.]

….

The program for the conference is now up, as is a list of the presenters. It should be a very rich offering, and I hope that you will be able to attend, whether in whole or in part.

Remarkably, he says nothing about Mr. Deane and the Orwellian Ecclesiastical Clearance Office’s part in “clearing” the listed conference speakers.

[Tom]

Mr. Deane has commented on the conference program:

Looks like a strong conference, especially after the program was carefully “refined.”

For those interested in what didn’t make the cut, my paper (based on chapter two of my book) offered a Confucian reading of the tragic necessity of warfare within Jacob and the small plates.

Before it was removed, I reviewed the other papers in my session and I was confident my work contributed meaningfully to the discussion.

Apparently clarity and new understanding aren’t the only criteria at work.

Enjoy the conference.

I’m mystified. Didn’t the Latter-day Saint First Presidency state in 1978 that “[t]he great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God's light” (emphasis added)? Are the members of BYU’s Ecclesiastical Clearance Office completely unaware of that statement? A Confucian reading of the Book of Mormon is well within the bounds of Latter-day Saint orthodoxy in 2026. Is the Interpreter Foundation’s president going to stand up against BYU’s oppressive behavior and right this wrong?

[I Have Questions]

Mr. Deane has commented on the conference program:

Looks like a strong conference, especially after the program was carefully “refined.”

For those interested in what didn’t make the cut, my paper (based on chapter two of my book) offered a Confucian reading of the tragic necessity of warfare within Jacob and the small plates.

Before it was removed, I reviewed the other papers in my session and I was confident my work contributed meaningfully to the discussion.

Apparently clarity and new understanding aren’t the only criteria at work.

Enjoy the conference.

I’m mystified. Didn’t the Latter-day Saint First Presidency state in 1978 that “[t]he great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God's light” (emphasis added)? Are the members of BYU’s Ecclesiastical Clearance Office completely unaware of that statement? A Confucian reading of the Book of Mormon is well within the bounds of Latter-day Saint orthodoxy in 2026. Is the Interpreter Foundation’s president going to stand up against BYU’s oppressive behavior and right this wrong?

Well, given that Interpreter is “sponsoring” the conference I’d suggest he needs to keep his mouth shut in fear of losing the title spot to, say, Scripture Central. He’s buying credibility and will kowtow to any and all demands made by BYU. BYU holds all the cards. He knows it, they know it. What’s he going to do, take the conference elsewhere? No, Peterson will throw people like Deane under the bus in order to ingratiate himself with the post-Bradford BYU hierarchy. Brother Deane was expendable.

[malkie]

I see that BYU’s Women Conference requires potential presenters to hold a current temple recommend and to agree to verification of their temple recommend status by the Ecclesiastical Clearance Office (ECO). I expect that the same is true for BYU Education Week presenters.

It seems, however, that the Interpreter Foundation did not inform potential conference presenters that they must pass ECO clearance. (Deane, at least, says he wasn’t aware of any “clearance” requirement.) I anticipate that the Interpreter Foundation’s president—who has been vocally enthusiastic about Clark Gilbert’s work to reform BYU in the past several years (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, and here)—will issue a correction or clarification on his blog shortly.

Inexplicably, the Afore has failed to acknowledge the curelom in the MARB, or the cumom in the SWKT, or the elephant in the JSB. Today he writes:

I would like to remind you yet again of the two-day gathering that will take place about a month from now on the Provo campus of Brigham Young University, devoted to the Book of Mormon and sponsored by the Interpreter Foundation[.]

….

The program for the conference is now up, as is a list of the presenters. It should be a very rich offering, and I hope that you will be able to attend, whether in whole or in part.

Remarkably, he says nothing about Mr. Deane and the Orwellian Ecclesiastical Clearance Office’s part in “clearing” the listed conference speakers.

"... yet again ..." sounds like impatience, or perhaps even exasperation. Is he talking to the same people he's been exhorting to take their families to see the BY movie

[Philo Sofee]

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.

I like him as well, which just increases his chances of boding poorly within the church, even though I am a virtual nobody. It's the church's loss..... no surprise really.

[Tom]

Mr. Deane writes:

You take out the attacks on Daniel Peterson, and most of the comments over there [Discuss Mormonism] are fairly positive and supportive.

That’s more than I can say for my faithful Mormon scholars and friends, who have mostly ignored me. Daniel Peterson came by to contradict me and then offered no comment when I told him what happened.

I didn’t receive messages about how unfairly I was treated or see protests on my behalf—not even a peep. In fact, I regularly see them dismiss and mock concerns about the new clearing committee as just desserts for ~those~ evil liberal, unfaithful, or polygamy scholars.

I made the comment about Soviet Russia because up until now I’ve been free to pursue my interests without interference from the church (well, BYU-I was rather awful to work for). So this incident is revealing. It’s almost psychotic how much Gilbert has done to push people away from the church, only to make his first talk as an apostle about coming back.

I, for one, believe Mr. Deane is being treated very unfairly. He’s contributed five pieces to Interpreter, and I understand that he reviewed two papers in preparation for the conference and provided substantive feedback. For unknown reasons, though, he’s been bounced from the conference. (He’s noted that he was not given any notice that his participation was subject to clearance through BYU’s Ecclesiastical Clearance Office.) Inexplicably, it appears that Daniel Peterson, president of the Interpreter Foundation, hasn’t given Mr. Deane the courtesy of an explanation. At the very least, Mr. Deane should be thanked for his peer-review work and for submitting a proposal for the conference.

I’ve shared this development with several Latter-day Saint friends of mine who follow and support Latter-day Saint scholarship and apologetics. This could end up being a black mark on the Interpreter Foundation unless its president acts.