D. Michael Quinn

[nrajeff]

How so?

Not technically, I guess. But your counterexample seemed to be a "variation" of the "you guys do it too" scenario.

[Bill the Cat]

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 it isn't the first time you've brought up Ehrman when challenged, is it? And it more than likely won't be the last, IMO

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.

Exactly right. He left on his own accord

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.

•In spite of his hard hitting history, excommunication and sexuality (as a gay man), Michael remains a literal believer in the divinity of the LDS church.
http://mormonstories.org/register-no...ust-12th-2011/

The result seems similar to the Ehrman situation: Scholar who "learned too much" and is now on the outside.

Not hardly.

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."

And I have taken the context to mean that we still CAN criticize others as long as we are prepared to take the same criticism. I am.

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.

But one is an opponent (Ehrman) while the other still believes in the divinity of their team (Quinn)

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.

I still say it's apples/oranges.

[Cow Poke]

I don't think so.

As late as Aug 2011, Quinn was still professing faith and belief in the Mormon Church, though excommunicated. But that's according to John Dehlin, so...

As for Ehrman --- I have seen several statements where he claims no longer to be a believer in Christ, but nothing I would call authoritative.

[Cow Poke]

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.

Jeff, this is an example where you should use actual quotes. I don't believe I said that. I think the most extreme I got was asking if there would be a "knee-jerk" reaction, which is hardly "going ape crap". And I mentioned nothing about ammo --- you're being a bit dramatic here.

In my quest to be a kinder gentler CP, it would really help if you would either leave me out of discussions, or quote me accurately.

Thanks

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.

Your Church excommunicated him -- from what I can tell, he still believes in the truth of the Mormon Church, though he has some serious concerns regarding your Church's history.

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.

I'm just not convinced, though, that if I bring up a Quinn statement, based on his solid research and FACTS, and his work is heavily footnoted and documented, that it should be discounted because "you guys have Ehrman". If Quinn did the research and found deficiencies in the historicity of the Church, it doesn't seem they should be ignored because Quinn was excommunicated, or because Ehrman is Ehrman.

[Raphael]

For the record, Ehrman is now an agnostic.

He wasn't kicked out of the Church. He became an agnostic because he couldn't reconcile his ideas of God with the Problem of Evil and Suffering. This was a number of years ago (atleast 15 years now).

He states this is his book Jesus Interrupted.

[nrajeff]

For the record, Ehrman is now an agnostic.

He wasn't kicked out of the Church. He became an agnostic because he couldn't reconcile his ideas of God with the Problem of Evil and Suffering. This was a number of years ago (atleast 15 years now).

He states this is his book Jesus Interrupted.

Thanks for the additional info. I think, though, that before Ehrman went totally agnostic, the step onto the "slippery slope" towards becoming non-Christian was when he discovered, while doing research, that what Evangelicalism had been teaching him was incorrect. Or so he once said, IIRC.

I do concede one of BTC's arguments that the comparison may be apples/oranges in one respect: If Ehrman completely rejects all the teachings of Evangelicalism, but Quinn still strongly believes some of the teachings of LDSism, then one witness is liable to be more of a hostile witness than the other.

But that raises another issue: If you believe Quinn's scholarship is reliable when he discovers a skeleton in LDSism's closet, what do you when his scholarship also discovers pro-LDS facts of history? Pick and choose? Mix and match? Accept all the parts that are useful to anti-LDSism, and also accept all the parts that shoot anti-LDSism down in flames?

It's a dilemma similar to when each side appeals to the ECFs for ammo to use in defending certain of their doctrines.

[Cow Poke]

I do concede one of BTC's arguments that the comparison may be apples/oranges in one respect: If Ehrman completely rejects all the teachings of Evangelicalism, but Quinn still strongly believes some of the teachings of LDSism, then one witness is liable to be more of a hostile witness than the other.

And I think this is complicated by the fact that Quinn is openly gay, and this, obviously, is a major issue with the Mormon Church.

But that raises another issue: If you believe Quinn's scholarship is reliable when he discovers a skeleton in LDSism's closet, what do you when his scholarship also discovers pro-LDS facts of history? Pick and choose? Mix and match? Accept all the parts that are useful to anti-LDSism, and also accept all the parts that shoot anti-LDSism down in flames?

He seems (and I'm new to him) to carefully document and footnote, no? So there's no need to just take his word on things -- you can look at the same documents he looked at, since he's studying the Mormon Church, no?

[nrajeff]

And I think this is complicated by the fact that Quinn is openly gay, and this, obviously, is a major issue with the Mormon Church.

That played little or no factor in my decisions regarding what to accept and what to be skeptical of regarding the professionalism or lack thereof in his research.
So I don't know where you are coming from with the "gay" thing. Whether accusations against the church come from gays or straights makes little difference to me. All I care about is whether the attacks are legitimate or not on their own merits.

He seems (and I'm new to him) to carefully document and footnote, no?

So did Nibley, yet some people still claim to have found problems with some of his scholarship.

So there's no need to just take his word on things -- you can look at the same documents he looked at, since he's studying the Mormon Church, no?

That's how the people who shot a few holes in some of his conclusions were able to shoot those holes--they looked at the documents he based some conclusions on, and they came up a little weak.

[Cow Poke]

That played little or no factor in my decisions regarding what to accept and what to be skeptical of regarding the professionalism or lack thereof in his research.

Didn't say it did, Jeff -- I was just reading some of the comments regarding the excommunication. Then I saw he was one of six -- "the September Six", as reported by the Salt Lake Tribune, who were excommunicated or disfellowshipped.

[nrajeff]

Jeff, this is an example where you should use actual quotes. I don't believe I said that.

I was obviously quoting BTC's choice phrase there. Apparently it wasn't obvious enough though, if some readers weren't following that thread where he said it.

I think the most extreme I got was asking if there would be a "knee-jerk" reaction, which is hardly "going ape crap".

You are correct.

And I mentioned nothing about ammo --- you're being a bit dramatic here.

That's what I sometimes call evidence or arguments that one side mines for with the intent of using it against the other side. It's a great metaphor, in my humble opinion.

In my quest to be a kinder gentler CP, it would really help if you would either leave me out of discussions, or quote me accurately.

Well, it might be hard to leave you out of discussions that you started, so when I actually DO quote you, I will try to remember to do so accurately. Until then, you might want to lower your "misquoting CP" radar to normal levels so you don't get false alarms.

I'm just not convinced, though, that if I bring up a Quinn statement, based on his solid research and FACTS, and his work is heavily footnoted and documented, that it should be discounted because "you guys have Ehrman".

I agree that it shouldn't necessarily be discounted merely because you have skeletons in your own closet. See--that is me being kinder and gentler, too!

If Quinn did the research and found deficiencies in the historicity of the Church, it doesn't seem they should be ignored because Quinn was excommunicated

or because he says he's gay

or because Ehrman is Ehrman.

Seems fair.

[Cow Poke]

I was obviously quoting BTC's choice phrase there. Apparently it wasn't obvious enough though, if some readers weren't following that thread where he said it.

I'd just appreciate it if you'd use the quote function, that's all.

You are correct.

It happens occasionally.

That's what I sometimes call evidence or arguments that one side mines for with the intent of using it against the other side. It's a great metaphor, in my humble opinion.

Sure, but the implication was that I said it. I didn't.

Well, it might be hard to leave you out of discussions that you started, so when I actually DO quote you, I will try to remember to do so accurately.

Thanks - the quote function isn't that difficult to use, and provides readers with the ability to hyperlink to the source to see the context, etc. But you know that.

[Bill the Cat]

I do concede one of BTC's arguments that the comparison may be apples/oranges in one respect: If Ehrman completely rejects all the teachings of Evangelicalism, but Quinn still strongly believes some of the teachings of LDSism, then one witness is liable to be more of a hostile witness than the other.

Thank you for that admission.

But that raises another issue: If you believe Quinn's scholarship is reliable when he discovers a skeleton in LDSism's closet, what do you when his scholarship also discovers pro-LDS facts of history? Pick and choose? Mix and match? Accept all the parts that are useful to anti-LDSism, and also accept all the parts that shoot anti-LDSism down in flames?

Compare with other historians and see if there is a concensus, or at least a majority.