smac97 Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Wow. Dr. Sorensen really takes Dr. Coe to the proverbial woodshed with this open letter:http://www.fairlds.org/authors/sorenson-john/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coeThe letter was sent in response to Dr. Coe's appearance on John Dehlin's "Mormon Stories" podcast in August 2011.It's a doozy, folks. Read it all and post your comments here.BTW, if this letter has been discussed before, please let me know and I will delete this thread.Thanks,-Smac
DBMormon Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 listened to the podcast of this, this morning... what a coincidence!!!Many LDS are in stage 3 of fowlers stages of faith, but what most critics miss is that they are too. We all need to grasp there is enough reason if one considers all the evidence to stay faithful in the church and there is enough to find the church a fraud and leave if one wants. I just wish more would take the time and fight for belief.Sorenson simply showed this is not a shut door case as many critics and non-believers want to paint it 2
rameumptom Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Jeff Lindsay just sent out a blog post that one of the links goes to a site that has been hacked, and has malware tied to it. So, be careful going to the links:Personally, I'm saddened that Dehlin would interview Michael Coe regarding the BoM. First, Coe has not kept up with the science over the years, as Sorenson shows in his letter. Second, Coe is an expert on Maya research, but not on the Book of Mormon. I doubt he's read anything written by Brant Gardner or Diane Wirth on this, and possibly not from John Sorenson, either. Third, what did Dehlin think Coe was going to say in regards to the issue of archaeology and the BoM? That he's going to encourage people to actually research it before they make a decision?I think it would have been a good interview had he stayed in Coe's area of expertise, and not drifted heavily into BoM territory, where it was going to get no respect nor consideration. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) Wow. Dr. Sorensen really takes Dr. Coe to the proverbial woodshed with this open letter:http://www.fairlds.o...-dr-michael-coeThe letter was sent in response to Dr. Coe's appearance on John Dehlin's "Mormon Stories" podcast in August 2011.It's a doozy, folks. Read it all and post your comments here.BTW, if this letter has been discussed before, please let me know and I will delete this thread.Thanks,-SmacA poster here who has the screen name of "Cursor" and who is the son/daughter of Dr. Sorenson already provided a link to a PDF copy of the open letter on this thread a few weeks ago. Considerable discussion ensued thereafter.______________________Scott Lloyd, proud consumer of Chick-fil-A food since the attempted boycott/intimidation/suppression of July 2012. Edited July 30, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
cursor Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 C'est moi! I'm the fourth of eight sons, BTW.Michael Coe and John Sorenson consider each other friends. The also each have a great deal of mutual respect as scholars.I just posted in another thread about the fact that my father will be discussing his new Mormon's Codex live on the radio at 4PM MST today. Listen it. I wouldn't be at all surprise if the Coe interview pops up.
cursor Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) I just asked my dad about the potential for call-in questions during his radio interview today. He tells me that anyone can call the KTTV guest line, 801-253-7963, about 4:04 PM Mountain Time, after ads & news plays and submit significant questions. [ Less than an hour to go! ] Edited July 30, 2012 by cursor 1
Verum Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) Personally, I'm saddened that Dehlin would interview Michael Coe regarding the BoM. First, Coe has not kept up with the science over the years, as Sorenson shows in his letter. I think it was great to have Coe come in and give an outside perspective. My only disappointment with the interview was that John Dehlin could have been more prepared by asking better questions in the interview. His questions I thought were very much at the surface. He should have asked for some specific responses to a lot of the material available on FARMS concerning BOM archeology.I think it would have been a good interview had he stayed in Coe's area of expertise, and not drifted heavily into BoM territory, where it was going to get no respect nor consideration.Where exactly is BOM territory? Edited July 30, 2012 by Verum
Verum Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 I just asked my dad about the potential for call-in questions during his radio interview today. He tells me that anyone can call the KTTV guest line, 801-253-7963, about 4:04 PM Mountain Time, after ads & news plays and submit significant questions. [ Less than an hour to go! ]Cursor, perhaps you have already mentioned this in another thread, but is your dad interested in doing a follow-up to the Michael Coe interview on Mormon Stories? I think this would be great. If so, have you reached out to John Dehlin?
Verum Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 A poster here who has the screen name of "Cursor" and who is the son/daughter of Dr. Sorenson already provided a link to a PDF copy of the open letter on this thread a few weeks ago. Considerable discussion ensued thereafter.Did Coe respond to this, and if so, has that been shared?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Cursor, perhaps you have already mentioned this in another thread, but is your dad interested in doing a follow-up to the Michael Coe interview on Mormon Stories? I think this would be great. If so, have you reached out to John Dehlin?Cursor said on the other thread that he had broached the subject with his dad, who respectfully declined.
cursor Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 John Dehlin contacted me directly, requesting that I invite my father to do a podcast on Mormon Stories in contrast to the Michael Coe episode. Dad asked that I respectfully decline for him. At John Dehlin's request, I extended an invitation to the folks at FAIR to offer their apologetic services towards a Mormon Stories podcast, but no one elected to pick up that ball and run with it. I subsequently invited John Dehlin to contact FAIR directly.
cursor Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Did Coe respond to this, and if so, has that been shared?I will ask.
cursor Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Did Coe respond to this, and if so, has that been shared?Actually, you could personally ask him yourself ... right NOW. He's being interviewed on the radio. See this post (and the one just prior).
Bob Oliverio Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Was this letter sent directly to Mr Coe asking for a response or merely posted at FAIR? It strikes me that if Mr Sorenson was serious about engaging and seeking a response he would have sent it directly to Mr Coe.Problem with "open" letters posted on isolated web sites is that the intended audience (if it really was in fact Mr Coe) may never see it.Another challenge is that experts like Mr Coe didn't get to be experts by not knowing what to respond to and what to ignore. They have a knack for filtering out noise. Putting this open letter in a respected archaeological website or other medium (assuming Mr Clark has the professional respect and credentials to get such letter or topic published there) would have been a more professional way to meet his audience or make his point.
cursor Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Aside from the very recent (today) FAIR release of the Open Letter, Sorenson & Coe remain professionally (privately) in touch.
mfbukowski Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 John Dehlin contacted me directly, requesting that I invite my father to do a podcast on Mormon Stories in contrast to the Michael Coe episode. Dad asked that I respectfully decline for him. At John Dehlin's request, I extended an invitation to the folks at FAIR to offer their apologetic services towards a Mormon Stories podcast, but no one elected to pick up that ball and run with it. I subsequently invited John Dehlin to contact FAIR directly.The perfect reply from your dad. Dehlin deserves no more publicity for his "nincompoopery", to use my very favorite word coined by Bill Hamblin. 4
mfbukowski Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 C'est moi! I'm the fourth of eight sons, BTW.Michael Coe and John Sorenson consider each other friends. The also each have a great deal of mutual respect as scholars.I just posted in another thread about the fact that my father will be discussing his new Mormon's Codex live on the radio at 4PM MST today. Listen it. I wouldn't be at all surprise if the Coe interview pops up.It must be very strange to live in Utah and have this kind of stuff on the radio.If he were in LA he would have to do it all in rap.
cursor Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Actually, "nincompoopery" can be found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nincompoopery
mfbukowski Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Actually, "nincompoopery" can be found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. http://www.merriam-w...y/nincompooperyYAY!Now I can steal it and use it without giving Hamblin credit!
Bob Oliverio Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Aside from the very recent (today) FAIR release of the Open Letter, Sorenson & Coe remain professionally (privately) in touch.So do you know if your father sent the letter directly to Mr Coe? If not - why wouldn't he? Was his intended audience really Mr Coe or the readers of FAIR? Seems logical he would have sent such letter to Mr Coe if he "really" wanted a response from him - right?
Verum Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 The perfect reply from your dad. Dehlin deserves no more publicity for his "nincompoopery", to use my very favorite word coined by Bill Hamblin.Seriously? Yes, because that's exactly his intent...publicity? C'mon...If we can't have a forum with people from all sides of these issues can't discuss openly then one side always dominate the conversation. Is there a better forum out there for this? Sunstone/Dialogue come close to doing this but its much more academic/scholarly in its approach for the average person. I haven't seen one.
cursor Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) So do you know if your father sent the letter directly to Mr Coe? If not - why wouldn't he? Was his intended audience really Mr Coe or the readers of FAIR? Seems logical he would have sent such letter to Mr Coe if he "really" wanted a response from him - right? Four sequential questions that clearly indicate that you presume that there has been no communication between them. While I hardly consider that to be a reasonable approach, I'll see what I can find out. Edited July 30, 2012 by cursor
Bob Oliverio Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Four sequential questions that clearly indicate that you presume that there has been no communication between them. While I hardly consider that to be a reasonable approach, I'll see what I can find out.And likewise, if they truly do remain friends, it would seem a bit suspicious if his letter was not sent directly to Mr Coe. Why "only" post it on an obscure LDS website as opposed to a professional archaeological medium where they both may have more exposure or familiarity with? Just curious what the real intent of the letter may be.
cursor Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 I strongly suspect that neither Michael D. Coe (83 years old) nor John L. Sorenson (88 years old) are actively engaged with ANY online professional archaeological medium. (In the case of the latter, I know for a fact that such is the case.)
cursor Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Just curious what the real intent of the letter may be.The real intent of the letter is to very strongly indicate that the interview was pretty much a joke--frankly, on both ends. Dr. Coe was completely unprepared to intelligently discuss the contents of the Book of Mormon as it might relate to ancient Mesoamerican life. John Dehlin's series of questions were simply silly.They certainly didn't help the interviewee look professional.As my father promises at the tail of his open letter: Finally, I have a large book in the editing process, Mormon’s Codex, {Provo: BYU Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, and Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, forthcoming) that deals with these matters in much greater depth. (Its 97-page list of references includes 21 of your own writings.) When it is in print, I will be happy to send you a copy. It features 420 correspondences between the text of the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican cultural patterns and archaeological sequences. On that basis, I maintain there is no alternative to understanding that the Book of Mormon text (“Mormon’s Codex”) could only have originated from the hands of a native Mesoamerican writer, and that as a result scholars like you will do well to study it as seriously as the Popol Vuh.
Recommended Posts