D. Michael Quinn

[nrajeff]

Because it deflects attention from his side.

Because it exposes the double standard being used by glass-house-dwelling stone-throwers whose reasoning shoots their own credibility down in flames.

[Sparko]

Because it exposes the double standard being used by glass-house-dwelling stone-throwers whose reasoning shoots their own credibility down in flames.

describing yourself again?

[Bill the Cat]

Because it exposes the double standard being used by glass-house-dwelling stone-throwers whose reasoning shoots their own credibility down in flames.

If you say so. It still deflects attention, and you do it frequently instead of answering questions. It is the fallacy of tu quoque and it allows you to not answer the argument.

[nrajeff]

describing yourself again?

Only if my name is Sparko. For the uninitiated folks out there, the way the "Quinn vs. Ehrman" game is usually played, is pretty much as follows:

1. The anti-LDS person learns about Quinn, and sees gold in them hills to mine. So he seizes upon some Quinn quotes and then says "Look, even one of your own former members, who is now a respected scholar, says bad stuff about your beliefs" and basically holds him up as a poster boy for the "Who in their right mind would believe LDS doctrine" campaign.

2. The pro-LDS person cites Ehrman, to show that anti-LDS Evangelicals are digging two graves, since everything that Quinn can be exploited for in attacking LDSism, Ehrman can be similarly be used to attack Evangelicalism. So if the antis dismiss Ehrman, they are using a double standard. What is bad for the goose has to be bad for the gander.

3. At that point, the anti-LDS person's response can be one of several things:
a. Say "You're deflecting attention from the problems with your beliefs."
b. Say "But Ehrman has shown through his more recent statements that he never really was a "real" Evangelical Christian."
c. Hurl an ad hom as a substitute for anything of substance.

[nrajeff]

If you say so. It still deflects attention, and you do it frequently instead of answering questions. It is the fallacy of tu quoque and it allows you to not answer the argument.

Oh, I can still answer the argument--I can just adapt whatever excuses Evangelicals come up with to explain how Ehrman and HIS scholarship are off-limits as a pawn in the game.

If you really want to use the heretics/apostates from the opposing team as ammo against that team's doctrines, you should first make sure your team doesn't have any analogous heretics/apostates. Otherwise, it makes you look hypocritical.

Even Jesus knew that, as you can see in Matthew 7.

[Cow Poke]

Oh, I can still answer the argument--

Jeff, as far as you know...
Is Ehrman still a Christian?
Is Quinn still a Mormon?

[Bill the Cat]

Oh, I can still answer the argument--I can just adapt whatever excuses Evangelicals come up with to explain how Ehrman and HIS scholarship are off-limits as a pawn in the game.

Ehrman is not off limits. No one claimed he was. But, you never answer the initial claim, and shift the burden to the other side with your tu quoque. You never address the initial claim.

If you really want to use the heretics/apostates from the opposing team as ammo against that team's doctrines, you should first make sure your team doesn't have any analogous heretics/apostates. Otherwise, it makes you look hypocritical.

Rubbish! They can be addressed too. The problem is where you shift the burden instead of answering the claim.

Even Jesus knew that, as you can see in Matthew 7.

Jesus never said "don't use any judgement because you may have someone to judge in your own house". He said to make sure that you were able to judge both equally. We judge both Quinn and Ehrman equally, and have on several occasions.

[Bill the Cat]

Correcting this for the not-so-dramatic effect:

For the uninitiated folks out there, the way the "Quinn vs. Ehrman" game is usually played, is pretty much as follows:

1. The anti-LDS person learns about Quinn, and sees gold in them hills to mine. So he seizes upon some Quinn quotes and then says "Look, even one of your own former members, who is now a respected scholar, says bad stuff about your beliefs" and basically holds him up as a poster boy for the "Who in their right mind would believe LDS doctrine" campaign.

1. The non-LDS person finds quotes from Quinn that support other quotes from other former members and past leaders, and posts the quotes and holds that the quotes are consistent with each other

2. The pro-LDS person cites Ehrman, to show that anti-LDS Evangelicals are digging two graves, since everything that Quinn can be exploited for in attacking LDSism, Ehrman can be similarly be used to attack Evangelicalism. So if the antis dismiss Ehrman, they are using a double standard. What is bad for the goose has to be bad for the gander.

2. The LDS member cites Ehrman in hopes of deflecting the unaddressed quote from Quinn et al, even though Ehrman is not the subject of the thread

3. At that point, the anti-LDS person's response can be one of several things:
a. Say "You're deflecting attention from the problems with your beliefs."
b. Say "But Ehrman has shown through his more recent statements that he never really was a "real" Evangelical Christian."
c. Hurl an ad hom as a substitute for anything of substance.

3. At this point, the non-LDS person either:
a. Addresses the Ehrman issue, allowing the pro-LDS member to derail the thread and shift the blame to the non-LDS person
b. Claims the pro-LDS member is shifting the burden of proof, leading the por-LDS member to boast like a peacock that "you can't answer the Ehrman claim", continuing to derail the thread
c. Uses an ad hominem because they are sick of the pro-LDS person's continued derailment of threads

See a pattern??

[nrajeff]

Jeff, as far as you know...
Is Ehrman still a Christian?

Hard for me to say with any degree of authoritativeness, but I think it's safe to say he's no longer an Evangelical.

Is Quinn still a Mormon?

I don't think so.

[nrajeff]

Ehrman is not off limits. No one claimed he was. But, you never answer the initial claim, and shift the burden to the other side with your tu quoque. You never address the initial claim.

What was the initial claim? I haven't been keeping up with the play-by-play.

Rubbish! They can be addressed too. The problem is where you shift the burden instead of answering the claim.

Sometimes doing one takes care of both. Like when Jesus, when asked a "gotcha" question by the Pharisees, answered it by shifting the burden back to them.

Jesus never said "don't use any judgement because you may have someone to judge in your own house". He said to make sure that you were able to judge both equally.

I thought He was saying "BEFORE you try to pick at the mote in someone else's eye, make sure you don't have something bigger in your own eye."

We judge both Quinn and Ehrman equally, and have on several occasions.

So should we do a "Quinn vs. Ehrman quote competition," where each side tries to find the quote that most damages the faith of the other side? Would that really be productive?

[Sparko]

I thought Dr. Quinn was a medicine woman?

[nrajeff]

Correcting this for the not-so-dramatic effect:

1. The non-LDS person finds quotes from Quinn that support other quotes from other former members and past leaders, and posts the quotes and holds that the quotes are consistent with each other

2. The LDS member cites Ehrman in hopes of deflecting the unaddressed quote from Quinn et al, even though Ehrman is not the subject of the thread

3. At this point, the non-LDS person either:
a. Addresses the Ehrman issue, allowing the pro-LDS member to derail the thread and shift the blame to the non-LDS person
b. Claims the pro-LDS member is shifting the burden of proof, leading the por-LDS member to boast like a peacock that "you can't answer the Ehrman claim", continuing to derail the thread
c. Uses an ad hominem because they are sick of the pro-LDS person's continued derailment of threads

See a pattern??

But haven't you just committed a tu quoque there?

[Bill the Cat]

What was the initial claim? I haven't been keeping up with the play-by-play.

You brought up Ehrman in post#4.

Sometimes doing one takes care of both. Like when Jesus, when asked a "gotcha" question by the Pharisees, answered it by shifting the burden back to them.

But in the case of Ehrman, it doesn't. He's no longer "ours" by his own admission. Your group kicked Quinn out.

I thought He was saying "BEFORE you try to pick at the mote in someone else's eye, make sure you don't have something bigger in your own eye."

That was referring to personal sin, not member relations.

So should we do a "Quinn vs. Ehrman quote competition," where each side tries to find the quote that most damages the faith of the other side? Would that really be productive?

No. It would only serve to further derail this thread, and as I said above, the comparison is apples and oranges, and is only brought up to deflect attention from the initial claims

[Bill the Cat]

But haven't you just committed a tu quoque there?

How so?

[nrajeff]

You brought up Ehrman in post#4.

Yes, thanks, and in what context did I bring him up? It was in answer to CP's question about whether the LDS would likely "go ape crap" if he started citing Quinn as ammo against LDS doctrines. My answer was no, the reaction would probably not be as "dramatic" as the reaction sometimes is from Evangelicals when EHRMAN is cited as ammo against Evangelicalism. I thought it was a pretty informative answer.

But in the case of Ehrman, it doesn't. He's no longer "ours" by his own admission.

He says that as a result of what he learned from his research in Bible Studies, he no longer subscribes to Evangelicalism, and maybe Christianity in general.

Your group kicked Quinn out.

It seems academic to argue the question of whether we kicked him out, or he grew so distant from us that he was already separated from us by the time we made it official.
The result seems similar to the Ehrman situation: Scholar who "learned too much" and is now on the outside.

That was referring to personal sin, not member relations.

I have taken the scope of the mote/beam sermon to include any time we are tempted to criticize someone. Or, as C.S. Lewis might put it, when we find that our "religious conversation dwells chiefly, or even frequently, on the faults of other people's religions."

...as I said above, the comparison is apples and oranges

Comparing Ehrman with Quinn still seems like a valid, apples/apples comparison to me.
Both used to be members in good standing on their respective "teams."
Both are now outsiders/pariahs or whatever you want to call them.
Both have findings from their research that can be used as ammo against the other team.

And as far as this thread goes, bringing up Ehrman can't have "derail(ed) this thread" and be "only brought up to deflect attention from the initial claims" if no initial claims have materialized yet. I brought up Ehrman pre-emptively, before any Quinn ammo had been forthcoming. And only in answer to a hypothetical question from CP.