Despite the foregoing criticisms, my sympathies often lie with Ehrman. The rigidity of the fundamentalism in which I grew up far exceeded anything he has described concerning his own experience. His inveighing against homogenizing the distinctive messages of biblical authors for the sake of historical harmony strikes in me a resonant chord. And at an early stage of my doctoral research on Matthew's use of the Old Testament, what increasingly seemed to count as misquotations—the usual suspects: reversing Micah's description of Bethlehem as small into a strong denial of that description (2:5–6), quoting Hosea's reference to Israel's exodus from Egypt as though it predicted the Messiah's stay in Egypt and exit from there (2:15), and so on—led me at one point to say aloud in the privacy of my study, "God, it's not looking good for you and your book." So why didn't I arrive at Ehrman's "dead end"? I have no explanation except to say that "by the grace of God" (the phrase Ehrman judges a textual corruption in Hebrews 2:8–9) I was spared a hardening of the categories through which Scripture is perceived. Or since they were already hard—unreasonably hard—I should rather say that the Spirit of God softened my categories so as to give them an elasticity that accommodates the human features of Scripture without excluding its ultimately divine origin. I pray that Ehrman and all others like him may enjoy such a softening.
NT textual criticism is just pointing out the facts. How we deal with those facts is important. Some cling to false traditions about the Bible and others throw it out altogether. Gundry believes the human alterations to the Biblical text could be divinely inspired. Personally, given the nature of the alterations, I wouldn't think so in most cases. I think the books of the NT were divinely inspired when originally written and in spite of human alterations over the centuries continues to serve the purpose of testifying that Jesus is who he said he is, our Savior and Redeemer.
That is not what that passage is saying. Gundry was pointing out that since PEOPLE were involved as well as God, the whole extant documents are still inspired.
AFA citing ehrman as a favorable source, you may well pay heed to Gundry's summary
Earlier, I mentioned Ehrman's purpose "in part" to introduce lay readers to New Testament textual criticism. He makes quite clear his further and ultimate purpose to dysangelize them— in other words, to proclaim New Testament textual criticism as bad news to all who believe the Bible to be God's word.
And that includes mormons.
Interpret...
You forgot to source that.