Bob Oliverio Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 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:So it sounds like your fathers response was to members of the Church and not really directed to Mr Coe personally. I gather then the letter was never really sent to Mr Coe for his personal response, but merely just for the readers of FAIR.Also, do you (or your father) know if the publication re Mormon Codex has generated any interest from the secular scholarly field in archaeology or history? Do you see this publication as perhaps the first to finally get the academic field interested in finally taking the history claims of the BOM in a serious manner?
cursor Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 So it sounds like your fathers response was to members of the Church and not really directed to Mr Coe personally. I gather then the letter was never really sent to Mr Coe for his personal response, but merely just for the readers of FAIR.Gee Bob ... what did I say earlier regarding this?I'll see what I can find out.Next ...Also, do you (or your father) know if the publication re Mormon Codex has generated any interest from the secular scholarly field in archaeology or history? Do you see this publication as perhaps the first to finally get the academic field interested in finally taking the history claims of the BOM in a serious manner?As has be previously (and clearly) noted, the volume will not be in print until early next year. That said, he suggestsMy forthcoming book, Mormon’s Codex (in prolonged editing at Maxwell Institute; I hope it will appear in print shortly after the first of the year), will be my ultimate contribution to presenting and establishing truth in relation to the scripture. It will establish that nearly 400 “correspondences” are found between Mormon’s volume and the scholarly literature on Mesoamerica (based on a 133-page bibliography). The book will be bulky, of course (hence the lengthy editorial process). It will represent (almost) all the truth I have been able to establish in my scholarly effort. I believe it will establish beyond reasonable question to both Latter-day Saints and non-LDS scholars as well that Joseph Smith had in his possession, and translated, a Mesoamerican codex written by Mormon in the late fourth century AD. I do not directly comment much on alternative “theories” of how the text of the scripture came to be; I simply, straightforwardly lay out what the text tells me: Joseph had a codex written on metal plates. There is no other explanation for the “Mesoamericanisms” found in the scripture.That should be pretty clear, eh?
mfbukowski Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 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.I meant that Sorensen, in my opinion, should not go on Dehlin's show or dignify that heap program by appearing on it.I have no clue how you inferred the rest from what I said. 1
mfbukowski Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 John Dehlin's series of questions were simply silly.They certainly didn't help the interviewee look professional.So this is new?
Tacenda Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) Actually, you could personally ask him yourself ... right NOW. He's being interviewed on the radio. See this post (and the one just prior).I caught about half of the radio interview. Dr. Sorenson did a great job! Curser you're lucky to have your father be in such great shape! I liked one of the callers questions when he asked what your father ate to stay so sharp. He answered that he ate normal food and tried to keep his brain active, not exact words but that's what I remember. I like that he thinks the Hill Cumorah is still in Northern America, and doesn't like to discuss it being elsewhere. I totally agree. Sorry for the folks out there that think otherwise. I also like how he said he doesn't like it when people pull any idea out of thin air and purport it. Great interview! Edited July 30, 2012 by Tacenda
cursor Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Thanks for your words, Tacenda. My dad is relieved to have "the radio nonsense finished." As a scholar, he has always been more in favor of the more controlled written medium where he can more carefully say what he feels needs to be expressed. By the way, he is certain that the hill Cumorah is in Vera Cruz (the hill Vigia), not in NY State.
Tacenda Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Thanks for your words, Tacenda. My dad is relieved to have "the radio nonsense finished." As a scholar, he has always been more in favor of the more controlled written medium where he can more carefully say what he feels needs to be expressed. By the way, he is certain that the hill Cumorah is in Vera Cruz (the hill Vigia), not in NY State.Oh, wow I misunderstood that one, thanks for clarifying it. I worried I got that wrong, I'm terrible with geography. Now everyone knows how I feel about the two Hill Cumorah idea, poo. I haven't really done much studying on the matter, other than I read a book written by Thomas Ferguson quite a few years ago (not faith promoting, as you well know). I guess now that I'm familiar with your father, I could read what he and others have to say about it.
mfbukowski Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 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.I love it."Hey dad...."
Calm Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 CurserOh oh, this is one name one needs to be careful not to typo.....
cursor Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I'm always biting my tongue, calmoriah. In fact, it is so frequent that it never heals!
cursor Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I love it."Hey dad...."He's always just a speed-dial away. It IS a privilege that I very greatly appreciate.
Tacenda Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) Oh oh, this is one name one needs to be careful not to typo..... Oh, how I embarrass myself, first it's geography, then it's my spelling. Sorry Cursor, thanks Cal! Edited July 31, 2012 by Tacenda
Bob Oliverio Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I guess I just wonder. Is it typical and professional for communication that is supposedly addressed to a fellow respected peer and scholar usually done publicly on a Mormon message board?? Is that a sign of respect for a well known respected peer or just a way to get yourself noticed?
Calm Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 The letter was to have been published in the Mormon Studies Review. When that was cancelled, Dr. Sorenson (and his son) were kind enough to allow it to be published elsewhere.
Bob Oliverio Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 The letter was to have been published in the Mormon Studies Review. When that was cancelled, Dr. Sorenson (and his son) were kind enough to allow it to be published elsewhere.Exactly.That's why I asked Cursor about the original intent. It just seems the letter was never really intended to be professional dialogue between two professional peers. Rather, it appears now, it was only intended to be an apologetic public response.Addressing it to Michael Coe only seems to be for dramatic purposes. Not exactly a professional nor respected way to communicate with a fellow peer scholar.
Calm Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Exactly.That's why I asked Cursor about the original intent. It just seems the letter was never really intended to be professional dialogue between two professional peers. Rather, it appears now, it was only intended to be an apologetic public response.Addressing it to Michael Coe only seems to be for dramatic purposes. Not exactly a professional nor respected way to communicate with a fellow peer scholar.Can't you wait just a few more hours before jumping to conclusions and condemning without foundation? 1
Bob Oliverio Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Can't you wait just a few more hours before jumping to conclusions and condemning without foundation?Do you think Mr Sorenson should have had the professional courtesy and patience to wait for a response from Mr Coe (assuming Mr Coe was actually even sent the letter) to get a response from a well known and respected scholar before posting a "presumed letter to Mr Coe" on a public message board?I think foundation has already been established!
Calm Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 That is not how things are usually done in academic circles when public positions have been stated as Dr. Coe did in his interview. He did not clear his positions with Dr. Sorenson before vocally publishing them, why would Dr. Sorenson clear it with Dr. Coe first when he rebutted those public statements? The usual professional response does not send it privately to the individual who had publicly presented a position, instead a public rebuttal is made and then the other has a chance to respond. 3
Verum Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I meant that Sorensen, in my opinion, should not go on Dehlin's show or dignify that heap program by appearing on it.I have no clue how you inferred the rest from what I said.I know, and what I am saying is, why is this a concern? Is there a better forum where people from all sides can come together and talk? I don't think John Dehlin is trying to get people to come and "dignify" is program but instead is trying to get various point of views on these complex issues. If John Sorenson were to come and point out the ridiculousness of Coe's claims, in what way does this "dignify" John's program?
mfbukowski Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I know, and what I am saying is, why is this a concern? Is there a better forum where people from all sides can come together and talk? I don't think John Dehlin is trying to get people to come and "dignify" is program but instead is trying to get various point of views on these complex issues. If John Sorenson were to come and point out the ridiculousness of Coe's claims, in what way does this "dignify" John's program?Let me make this perfectly clear. In my opinion John Dehlin is clearly an anti-mormon pretending to "help" people. His show is shallow, prejudiced, and one-sided and only presents Dehlin's agenda.Having a scholar of Sorensen's caliber on that show would be like using the Ringling Brothers Circus as a "forum".A circus is not a forum.If you disagree, that is your privilege. I have no need to discuss this further. 2
cursor Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Mr. Dehlin may be sincere in his efforts to comfort those who feel disaffected from the LDS faith—I don't know—but sincerity alone doesn't qualify one to interview scholars in an effective way. Dr. Coe's podcast is a prime example. 3
Popular Post William Schryver Posted July 31, 2012 Popular Post Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) I guess I just wonder. Is it typical and professional for communication that is supposedly addressed to a fellow respected peer and scholar usually done publicly on a Mormon message board?? Is that a sign of respect for a well known respected peer or just a way to get yourself noticed?Speaking of nincompoopery!The "Open Letter" is a common rhetorical/literary device that dates back thousands of years. There is nothing unusual or unprofessional about Professor Sorenson employing the device as a reply to Coe's interview on MormonStories. Edited July 31, 2012 by William Schryver 5
Scott Lloyd Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) Speaking of nincompoopery!The "Open Letter" is a common rhetorical/literary device that dates back thousands of years. There is nothing unusual or unprofessional about Professor Sorenson employing the device as a reply to Coe's interview on MormonStories.The very fact that it is an "open letter" indicates that the author intended for others to read it in addition to the specific person to whom it was addressed.Seems like a no-brainer to me.There is nothing to preclude Mr. Coe from publishing his own open letter in response -- or finding some other means of mass dissemination, such as going on Dehlin's podcast again, writing a blog, printing a pamphlet, etc.The notion that an open letter must necessarily be regarded as hostile or disrespectful strikes me as altogether misguided. Edited July 31, 2012 by Scott Lloyd 2
William Schryver Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) The very fact that it is an "open letter" indicates that the author intended for others to read it in addition to the specific person to whom it was addressed.Seems like a no-brainer to me.Kind of like Paul's letters to Timothy, or the Ephesians, or the Romans ...The notion that an open letter must necessarily be regarded as hostile or disrespectful strikes me as altogether misguided.It strikes me as absurd. Mr. Oliverio is simply (once again) trying to find fault where none is present. Edited July 31, 2012 by William Schryver 2
Bob Oliverio Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Speaking of nincompoopery!The "Open Letter" is a common rhetorical/literary device that dates back thousands of years. There is nothing unusual or unprofessional about Professor Sorenson employing the device as a reply to Coe's interview on MormonStories.Exactly! I know that.As I said before, it was nothing more than an apologetic public response. Cursor knew very well when I asked him if it was meant to be a serious letter written for a response from and sent to Mr Coe directly. He knew it was not.It was just, like most apologetic pieces, written for a specific apologetic audience. Framing it as some sort of direct inquiry from Mr Coe was nothing more than apologetic drama and theatre. And that's fine too. Seems to be the norm for LDS apologetics. Perhaps that's is another factor in this recent change at the MI. Maybe Bradford just wants to raise the bar of credibility and peer professional acceptance in the academic community.But let's just call a spade - a spade.
Recommended Posts