Scholarly discourse within Conservative Judaism has long been marked by passionate methodological debates and intellectual tensions, as revealed through correspondence in the journal Conservative Judaism. Analysis of letters to the editor illuminates three pivotal scholarly disputes that shaped the movement's development: the contentious reception of Jacob Neusner's approach to Mishnaic studies, the theological battle over women's ordination, and disagreements about appropriate scholarly obituary writing. The correspondence exposes notable contradictions, particularly in Shaye Cohen's criticism of Neusner's non-sociological approach to rabbinic literature—especially given Louis Finkelstein's own shift away from sociological analysis. Beyond methodology, these exchanges reflect deep divisions regarding women's ritual participation and ordination, with traditionalists arguing their perspectives deserve greater representation in scholarly discourse. The letters also reveal a fundamental tension between personal and intellectual approaches to scholarly remembrance, exemplified in the heated debate over David Halivni's treatment of Saul Lieberman's legacy. These findings suggest Conservative Judaism continues to struggle with balancing rigorous scholarship and diverse theological viewpoints, highlighting the crucial need for both respectful academic dialogue and thorough intellectual assessment.