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

[volgadon]

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

Who also posted as DanGB, right?

[mfbukowski]

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.

Bravo!

[Geoff B]

I reopen the debate on this issue on the Millennial Star, a faithful Mormon group blog.

www.millennialstar.org

[Robert F. Smith]

Bob Oliverio said:

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?

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.

It is always inappropriate and gauche to assume the negative in cases of this sort. Assuming the worst is bad manners at least and unprofessional at best. Such bad behavior tells us more about you than about the target of your barely concealed venom.

Scholars often carrying on vociferous debates in public, either formally (often in a university setting) or in print. Journals often follow a formal article or interview with a reply from the other side, followed then by a rejoinder from the original source. Sometimes several scholars joint the fray. All of them understand that this is designed to inform and clarify issues for the entire community. That is why it takes place so openly. Since J.L. Sorenson is an anthropologist, you might want to take a look at this phenomenon in the American Anthropologist.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Bob Oliverio said:

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!

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.

This is what is known as an ad hominem response. A personal attack in which you attack the messenger rather than the content of the message. Since you have no legitimate or substantive response to the open letter, you instead engage in psywar and agitprop. How professional is that? Are you really so frightened at the substance of Sorenson's open letter that you must stoop to such scurrilous charges? Is that how you deal with your cognitive dissonance?

[Robert F. Smith]

. . . 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.

I know of no evidence to support your contention here, except for some off-the-wall statements by John Dehlin, which you are trying to dignify by claiming that the Brethren feel that way too. You'd be laughed out of court, counselor, were you to make a claim to such an unproven "fact." Indeed, the "antics" you speak of do not exist, unless you'd like to enlighten us as to what they consist of. Go ahead, make your case with specific charges. Or continue with the vicious ad hominems and non sequiturs. It really is your choice.