Ash, Shaken Faith Syndrome: FAIR, , ; see index item on p. A second technique is to engage Coe on matters about which he is not an expert. Coe did not know what chiasmus is. If Dehlin does not understand this, he does not understand the relevant science at all.
An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Coe | Book of Mormon Central
And do you have thoughts or feelings or perspective on that clash? You can kind of live in a partitioned world where you kind of reap the benefits of science and of intellectual inquiry and at the same time compartmentalize and still believe. But at some point for some it becomes untenable. The message conveyed to the listener is obvious — you cannot believe the Book of Mormon literally: Or you can stop believing but still be a highly moral, ethical person.
Buy for others
A third technique resurrects arguments that most LDS scholars and apologists have dismissed because they do not constitute reliable evidence for the Book of Mormon, even though some used to find them persuasive. This includes a supposed elephant glyph that is actually a macaw, 96 Quetzalcoatl as a veiled reference to Christ, 97 and Izapa Stela 5. Brant Gardner identifies the item as a macaw, not an elephant, in Second Witness , 6: It is mentioned as a possible elephant by Roper and Peterson in , but this one-sentence reference is accompanied by three pages discussing biological remains that they obviously consider of more significance.
B rant Gardner has likewise been skeptical of this argument: See also Andrew J. A fourth technique creates straw men, easily-dismissed arguments that no Mormon has ever offered. Yet no marginally informed Latter-day Saint has ever expected to find such references see Enos 1: New World chickens are likewise announced to be of Polynesian rather than Middle Eastern descent, although chickens are mentioned in the Book of Mormon only by the risen Christ, in a passage whose language is clearly influenced by the New Testament.
See discussion in Gardner, Second Witness , 5: Sorenson and Carl L. When overtly expressing their views, Dehlin and Coe usually adopt a kind, even sympathetic tone. 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.
- Product details;
- Interpreter: A Journ | An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Coe (1… | MagCloud;
- Introduction to the Devout Life.
- Book of Mormon Central Archive.
- How To Use What Others Call Failure As Your Ticket To Astounding Success (Ultimate Success Program Book 14)?
- An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Coe (1, 2012:91-109).
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.
The perfect reply from your dad. Dehlin deserves no more publicity for his "nincompoopery", to use my very favorite word coined by Bill Hamblin. Actually, "nincompoopery" can be found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. So do you know if your father sent the letter directly to Mr Coe?
If not - why wouldn't he? Seems logical he would have sent such letter to Mr Coe if he "really" wanted a response from him - right? 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? I haven't seen one. 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. 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.
Sign up to get emails
The real intent of the letter is to very strongly indicate that the interview was pretty much a joke--frankly, on both ends. 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.
General Discussions Search In. Michael Coe By John L. An Open Letter To Dr. Sorensen By smac97 , July 30, in General Discussions. Posted July 30, Sorensen really takes Dr. Coe to the proverbial woodshed with this open letter: 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. Share this post Link to post. So, be careful going to the links: Posted July 30, edited. I'm the fourth of eight sons, BTW.
Did Coe respond to this, and if so, has that been shared? Deseret Book, forthcoming that deals with these matters in much greater depth.