[an error occurred while processing this directive]

D. Michael Quinn's
“Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s Distorted View of Mormonism: A Response to Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?”

This is the famous response to the Tanners' book. Quinn emphasizes the fact that if the Tanners used the same basis for criticizing Christianity and the Bible as they do the Mormons, they would find that their own religion is as “bad” as they claim Mormonism is.

This response is a bit outdated as the Tanners have published subsequent versions of their book since he wrote this in the 70s. In addition, Quinn is writing as a very active Mormon at the time who was teaching at BYU. If he were to write a response now (as the excommunicated Mormon he has become), I think his response would be less biased and more meaningful.

Quinn appears from this response to take the Bible quite literally (at least back then). I wonder if he still does? I also wonder if he has read any of the historical approaches to the Bible, and if so, why doesn't he believe them? He seems to think that "John", "Mark", etc. were the actual writers of the "gospels". That seems a bit strange coming from a historian. This may be explained by the fact that the Tanners believe that it was a joint effort of many of the Church's top scholars and historians, not of one single individual. [an error occurred while processing this directive]