D. Michael Quinn: Premier LDS Apologist?

[Guest]

-

[Guest]

-

[_jon]

It's been a long time but I don't think that D. Michael Quinn attended his own excommunication hearing so I don't think he did witness it.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

He got the letter fully explaining why he was being excommunicated though, right?

[_Buffalo]

D. Michael Quinn: Premier LDS Apologist?

So what Buffalo is suggesting is that the most truth telling believer is the best apologist.

Don't know that we teach this, but do you suppose we could?

Well, it SHOULD be the case. Unfortunately the current paradigm rewards apologists who tell the best whoppers. But what's more faith promoting? Lying for the Lord and then destroying testimonies when people find out about it, or telling uncomfortable truths but setting an example for the saints by believing anyway?

[_Yahoo Bot]

Among Mormon apologists I'm sure no one (except maybe Quinn himself) considers him to be an apologist. He is a darling of Mormon critics though.

He was a darling of BYU once too Will, most of his articles are still used in fact. His research and facts are undeniable, he just got on the wrong side of too many people. It's funny how fickle the acknowledgment of Mormon apologists can be, one minute you are the next new thing, then before you know it you are dropped like a hot potato because your actions or words don't fall in line. They appear to be a tough crowd to please.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

Nobody knows the Church's reason; Quinn never released (as far as I know) the church's letter. It was commonly said at BYU when I was there that it was over his research.

However, by the time of his excommunication, he had already outed himself in public -- remaining with his wife and children at the same time -- so it might be (but there is not proof one way or the other) that that may have had something to do with it. I was an eyewitness to his self-outing; it came years before his excommunication

[_Jason Bourne]

The church doesn't release records from excommunications. So this is all we have.

Which means you have nothing.

If you think eye witness testimony is nothing then do you likewise dismiss JSs testimony of his own visions or that of the three witnesses?