An Open Letter To Dr. Michael Coe By John L. Sorensen

[rodheadlee]

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!

The only foundation that has been established is your desire to critcize everything that has to do with the Church or defending the Church.

[William Schryver]

It was ... nothing more than apologetic drama and theatre.

I did not perceive anything dramatic or theatrical about it.

On the other hand, I seem to recall you pretending to be a new convert when you first appeared on this message board. Now that was certainly an example of someone abusing theatrical license in the extreme.

I would have preferred that you identify yourself as the spade you are.

As far as Sorenson's "open letter" is concerned, you are, as per usual, assigning fault where none is indicated.

[cursor]

As an open letter, it was not addressed to Dr. Coe. It could be that since my father and Dr. Coe consider themselves friends, a copy of the letter might have been mailed to him as a heads up. If so, it would certainly have been accompanied by a personal cover letter -- probably starting with something like, "Dear Mike." Nor do I know if my dad has communicated with Dr. Coe by phone since.

Like I said ... I'll ask.

He may well tell me, however, that it's none of my business.

He may well tell me, but ask that I not share the information.

In any event, it's past time for me to get in the car and start my drive to the FAIR Conference.

[Calm]

Drive safely.

[Scott Lloyd]

As an open letter, it was not addressed to Dr. Coe. It could be that since my father and Dr. Coe consider themselves friends, a copy of the letter might have been mailed to him as a heads up. If so, it would certainly have been accompanied by a personal cover letter -- probably starting with something like, "Dear Mike." Nor do I know if my dad has communicated with Dr. Coe by phone since.

Like I said ... I'll ask.

He may well tell me, however, that it's none of my business.

He may well tell me, but ask that I not share the information.

When I referred to it as being "addressed" to Mr. Coe, I did not mean your father put it in an envelope, put Coe's name and address on it, put a stamp on it and put it in the mail. I was referring to the content of the letter, which began "Dear Mike," and spoke to him in the second person.

Such is the case with a typical open letter, which is directed to one entity but intended for all to read.

[Calm]

Such is the case with a typical open letter, which is directed to one entity but intended for all to read.

Just at the interview it was rebutting was intended for all to hear. If one was a public statement, then why not the other? Edited July 31, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bob Oliverio]

I did not perceive anything dramatic or theatrical about it.

That's fine.  But I did.  And I do see a lot of drama and theatrics  in LDS apologetics.  Like i said, maybe those at BYU finally began to see it as well - thus the change. And you have to admit this board seems to thrive on drama and theatrics - especially of late..

On the other hand, I seem to recall you pretending to be a new convert when you first appeared on this message board.  Now that was certainly an example of someone abusing theatrical license in the extreme.

And new members are required to subscribe to the "group think" of this place and MI apologetics?  "Bless me brother for I have sinned".  Love the judgement here.  Again, the changes at the MI may well be to distance themselves from this type of past behavior.

[Calm]

And you have to admit this board seems to thrive on drama and theatrics - especially of late..

With a hefty contribution from yourself it would seem.

[Scott Lloyd]

And new members are required to subscribe to the "group think" of this place and MI apologetics? "Bless me brother for I have sinned". Love the judgement here. Again, the changes at the MI may well be to distance themselves from this type of past behavior.

It would seem that an accusation of "group think" is the last resort of someone who cannot present a persuasive argument.

_____________________

Scott Lloyd, proud consumer of Chick-fil-A food since the attempted boycott/intimidation/suppression of July 2012.

[William Schryver]

It would seem that an accusation of "group think" is the last resort of someone who cannot present a persuasive argument.

_____________________

Scott Lloyd, proud consumer of Chick-fil-A food since the attempted boycott/intimidation/suppression of July 2012.

"Bob Oliverio" is simply a sock puppet for one of our old friends at MDB. As such, he knows all about "group think."

[Scott Lloyd]

"Bob Oliverio" is simply a sock puppet for one of our old friends at MDB. As such, he knows all about "group think."

You don't say!

The wide-eyed, troubled, new-convert persona began to wear thin very early on, but his being a sock puppet never occurred to me.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And new members are required to subscribe to the "group think" of this place and MI apologetics?  "Bless me brother for I have sinned".  Love the judgement here.  Again, the changes at the MI may well be to distance themselves from this type of past behavior.

Tired worn out and old Bob. Group think?? Is that code for I don't have an argument and I just got my butt handed to me?Your post is ironic. You just judged a whole group of people.

[Bob Oliverio]

With a hefty contribution from yourself it would seem.

Cal, we've already discussed this - I don't have enough time to spend my life here like others.  So my posts are few.

But this board does have a gang-up mentality on those who don't reach the conclusions advocated by the strong majority here - whether they are members or not.  And that is quite ok with me.  I can appreciate the fact that this board is "life" for many here and they don't want their comfort zones challenged.

But it also does appear that the antics of past LDS apologetics, which seem to be supported by the strong majority of this board, caused the Church to step in and make what they believed was a well needed change.  That is a fact that simply can't be denied. And as a new member, I believe it will only help with how we are viewed and perceived from the outside. Obviously our Church leaders think so as well.

It really does not bother me that the "lifers" here want to criticize independent thought that may differ from the group. As a new member and an atty, I've just not lived such an insulated and isolated life so heavily impacted by LDS apologetics.  And for those that enjoy that stuff - I say it's a great thing if it provides them a fulfilling and happy life. Obviously it has for you and that's great.

[Calm]

But it also does appear that the antics of past LDS apologetics, which seem to be supported by the strong majority of this board, caused the Church to step in and make what they believed was a well needed change. That is a fact that simply can't be denied.

I find the claim that this is a "fact that simply can't be denied" fantastical.

[William Schryver]

But it also does appear that the antics of past LDS apologetics, which seem to be supported by the strong majority of this board, caused the Church to step in and make what they believed was a well needed change.  That is a fact that simply can't be denied.

"Antics of past LDS apologetics"? What might those be, and where might I see an example of these "antics"?

And what "well needed change" are you talking about?

If you are referring to what Jerry Bradford did at the MI, I know quite a bit about what happened, and I expressly deny that "The Church" had anything to do with it. Bill Hamblin knows quite a bit about it, and he also expressly denies that "The Church" had anything to do with it. Dan Peterson knows quite a bit about it, and he also expressly denies that "The Church" had anything to do with it.

Quite simply put, you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

[Bob Oliverio]

I find the claim that this is a "fact that simply can't be denied" fantastical.

Thanks.  Nice of you to say.  But it wasn't really that difficult  of a conclusion to reach.  :-)

[ERayR]

Thanks. Nice of you to say. But it wasn't really that difficult of a conclusion to reach. :-)

To some it probably isn't. To those who actually have a clue it would be quite difficult.

Edited July 31, 2012 by ERayR

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks. Nice of you to say. But it wasn't really that difficult of a conclusion to reach. :-)

She said "fantastical," not fantastic. There's quite a difference.

A synonym that occurred to me for the word she used is fanciful. But I found a couple of dictionary definitions that apply rather well here: "existing in fancy only" and "ludicrously odd."

___________________

Scott Lloyd, a proud consumer of Chick-fil-A food since the attempted boycott/intimidation/suppression of July 2012

[smac97]

Edit: SNIP. Never mind.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 31, 2012 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

Edit: SNIP. Never mind.

Thanks,

-Smac

Doh! I've been waiting for you to weigh in here, Smac. You finally make a post, then you delete it?

[smac97]

Doh! I've been waiting for you to weigh in here, Smac. You finally make a post, then you delete it?

Ah, Scott! My one and only fan!

-Smac

[jwhitlock]

Thanks for posting the link, SMAC. Very instructive about the growing agenda Dehlin has in casting doubt against the Church and its members.

The archaeological perspective provided by Dr Sorensen was interesting. Dehlin was building quite a strawman in the podcast (you can fool some of the people all of the time...) knowing that he'll have a certain audience ready to blindly believe it (Bob O is evidence of that) and Coe was unfortunately caught in it. There's a significant market out there of people who will believe absolutely anything against the Church, even if the research methodology makes Hitchens look good. Dehlin plays to that in what he's trying to build.

[TAO]

Yes, it is apologetic Bob, but I don't think the address at the end is simply added as flair and theatre; it's added in to show which critical researcher the response letter is aimed at. That's pretty... normal, I guess? It wouldn't really do to publish a paper response without identifying what you are responding to, no? While it isn't aimed directly at him (it's open to intend others to read and respond), I think, really, that it's not all that... condemning, to be honest.

Edited August 1, 2012 by TAO

[ERayR]

It really does not bother me that the "lifers" here want to criticize independent thought that may differ from the group. As a new member and an atty, I've just not lived such an insulated and isolated life so heavily impacted by LDS apologetics. And for those that enjoy that stuff - I say it's a great thing if it provides them a fulfilling and happy life. Obviously it has for you and that's great.

The independent thought you so proudly present sounds so much like the rhetoric emanating from less savory places so excuse us if we don't receive it joyously. It just seems to get old.

[jwhitlock]

The independent thought you so proudly present sounds so much like the rhetoric emanating from less savory places so excuse us if we don't receive it joyously. It just seems to get old.

In reality, there is no independent thought at those places. It's a myth, something they spout off to each other to congratulate themselves with their illusion of freedom and truth.

They're all just spouting the same old anti-Mormon party line. It's what they've hooked onto in order to sound progressive and enlightened. Dehlin feeds on it, exclaiming that faithful members of the Church can't take the "real" truth.

The irony is that Bob comes here and smugly accuses this group, which digs into all the so-called issues of Mormonism more than anyone else, of having blinders on. The chutzpah of such a blatant misrepresentation is a thing of wonder to behold. It's an attempt to convince us of an illusive reality that they use to rationalize their antipathy towards the Church and its members.

Quite instructive of where they're coming from.