Ryan Larsen's ("mormon Puzzle Pieces") Response To Professor Brian Hauglid

[Brian Hauglid]

Dr. Hauglid, what would be helpful would be a retraction or disclaimer helping people understand that Joseph Smith is not necessarily the one who made the statement in question. Or, if you feel that he is necessarily the one who made the statement, then an explanation of how that conclusion can be reached when so many of the statements attributed to Smith in HC did not actually come from him.

Which specific statement of JS do you have in mind? What did I say that needs to be retracted? And where exactly am I supposed to put this retraction?

 

ETA: One more question

Edited February 9, 2015 by Brian Hauglid

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

Which specific statement of JS do you have in mind? And where exactly am I supposed to put this retraction?

Just an explanation in this thread would be great. The statement attributed to JS to which I refer is the one you read on the podcast i.e. "...contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt..."

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

What did I say that needs to be retracted?

You said that the words in question came from Joseph Smith, even though HC routinely attributes words to Smith which did not actually come from him.

[Brian Hauglid]

Just an explanation in this thread would be great. The statement attributed to JS to which I refer is the one you read on the podcast i.e. "...contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt..."

 

So that's it? Okay. I retract my statement on the podcast that JS said " . . . contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt . . ." I should've said (on the podcast) that this statement was attributed to JS (thanks to W. W. Phelps). I hope this can now end the matter.

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

So that's it? Okay. I retract my statement on the podcast that JS said " . . . contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt . . ." I should've said (on the podcast) that this statement was attributed to JS (thanks to W. W. Phelps). I hope this can now end the matter.

I hope we are in agreement that the attribution in HC is not reliable, since most of the attributions to JS in HC are false. I hope you meant to imply that in your retraction.

[Brian Hauglid]

I hope we are in agreement that the attribution in HC is not reliable, since most of the attributions to JS in HC are false. I hope you meant to imply that in your retraction.

 

I honestly don't know if we're in agreement. How are you so sure the HC attributions are false? In fact, please list out the attributions in the HC that have been proven false, and how they were proven false. I certainly have no problem entertaining the hypothesis, but I haven't seen actual definitive proof of your assertion. If you convince me then I guess we'd be in agreement. But if you don't convince me will this back and forth have to continue until you believe you've convinced me? When does this end?

 

ETA: I did what you asked. I acknowledged my mistake and retracted it. Why do we have to be in absolute agreement on this point?

Edited February 9, 2015 by Brian Hauglid

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

I honestly don't know if we're in agreement. How are you so sure the HC attributions are false? In fact, please list out the attributions in the HC that have been proven false, and how they were proven false. I certainly have no problem entertaining the hypothesis, but I haven't seen actual definitive proof of your assertion. If you convince me then I guess we'd be in agreement. But if you don't convince me will this back and forth have to continue until you believe you've convinced me? When does this end?

I will gather some information (Clayton's Kinderhook journal entry, attributed to Smith in HC, is the first thing to come to mind). I appreciate the opportunity to resolve this, thank you.

[mfbukowski]

..... most of the attributions to JS in HC are false.

Good luck on that one.

 

Get out the time machine.  How could anyone possibly know this?  It is an epistemological absurdity.

[Brian Hauglid]

I will gather some information (Clayton's Kinderhook journal entry, attributed to Smith in HC, is the first thing to come to mind). I appreciate the opportunity to resolve this, thank you.

 

You go ahead and do that. But you should know I will have no time to respond after today as I have many other things to attend to. To save you time I'm mostly interested in whether the JS statement in question has been proven false and how this conclusion has been arrived at.

[Brian Hauglid]

Good luck on that one.

 

Get out the time machine.  How could anyone possibly know this?  It is an epistemological absurdity.

 

Bingo!

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

ETA: I did what you asked. I acknowledged my mistake and retracted it. Why do we have to be in absolute agreement on this point?

Dr. Hauglid, I respect your right to disagree with me, if it comes down to that, but my fear is that information which I believe to be false and which contradicts my theory, will give people the false impression that my theory is rebutted when it is not.

[Brian Hauglid]

Dr. Hauglid, I respect your right to disagree with me, if it comes down to that, but my fear is that information which I believe to be false and which contradicts my theory, will give people the false impression that my theory is rebutted when it is not.

 

I'm sorry Ryan, but I don't know what to say to this.

[mfbukowski]

Dr. Hauglid, I respect your right to disagree with me, if it comes down to that, but my fear is that information which I believe to be false and which contradicts my theory, will give people the false impression that my theory is rebutted when it is not.

Believe whatever you want, but if you don't have the evidence the theory is rebutted.

 

Theories are not based on wishful thinking which is contrary to the evidence.

[pogi]

Dr. Hauglid, I respect your right to disagree with me, if it comes down to that, but my fear is that information which I believe to be false and which contradicts my theory, will give people the false impression that my theory is rebutted when it is not.

 

Demonstrate that the information which you "believe to be false" actually is false, then you have nothing to fear.  Do you only believe it is false because it contradicts your theory, or do you have evidence?  Don't be blinded by your desire to be right. 

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

I observed that most of the attributions to JS in HC are false, to which mfbukowski replied:

Good luck on that one.

Get out the time machine. How could anyone possibly know this? It is an epistemological absurdity.

To which Brian Hauglid, in turn, replied:

Bingo!

I do not understand why such assumptions would be made and stated emphatically with possibly a hint of ridicule directed at me. I asked a historian, who said, "First you have to look at the original church history manuscripts which are available through the Church History Library website, and then you have to identify the sources that are used by the church history." Why is that an epistemological absurdity? The historian gave a rough educated guess that less than half the material is from Smith. I would like to have a serious discussion in this thread without anyone resorting to polemics. Edited February 9, 2015 by Mormon Puzzle Pieces

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

I wrote, "Dr. Hauglid, I respect your right to disagree with me, if it comes down to that, but my fear is that information which I believe to be false and which contradicts my theory, will give people the false impression that my theory is rebutted when it is not."

To which Dr. Hauglid responded:

I'm sorry Ryan, but I don't know what to say to this.

I suggest understanding it in the context in which it was written, which was in response to a question from you about why I want us to be in agreement. I was not blunt, but a blunt version would read something like this, "The false information you are spreading inhibits my ability to spread valid information. That is why I want to teach you." Edited February 9, 2015 by Mormon Puzzle Pieces

[Brian Hauglid]

I observed that most of the attributions to JS in HC are false, to which mfbukowski replied:

To which Brian Hauglid, in turn, replied:

I do not understand why such assumptions would be made and stated emphatically with possibly a hint if ridicule directed to me. I asked a historian, who said, "First you have to look at the original church history manuscripts which are available through the Church History Library website, and then you have to identify the sources that are used by the church history." Why is that an epistemological absurdity? The historian gave a rough educated guess that less than half the material is from Smith. I would like to have a serious discussion in this thread without anyone resorting to polemics.

 

You're being too sensitive Ryan. No offensive intended. I appreciate you talking to a church historian. I talk to them quite a bit too. They give lots of opinions. I think Mfbukowski's point was that certainty in historical matters is impossible to attain. In history all we are able to do is interpret the past. Hence the time machine.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Brian Hauglid

[Brian Hauglid]

I suggest understanding it in the context in which it was written, which was in response to a question from you about why I want us to be in agreement. I was not blunt, but a blunt version would read something like this, "The false information you are spreading inhibits my ability to spread valid information. That is why I want to teach you."

 Why is it you have to teach me? Why can't it be the other way round? Is this because it threatens your theory?

 

ETA: You seem so certain I'm spreading false information. Please tell me precisely what " false information" I'm spreading. And then please tell me why you're not doing the same thing you're accusing me of.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Brian Hauglid

[mfbukowski]

You're being too sensitive Ryan. No offensive intended. I appreciate you talking to a church historian. I talk to them quite a bit too. They give lots of opinions. I think Mfbukowski's point was that certainty in historical matters is impossible to attain. In history all we are able to do is interpret the past. Hence the time machine.

 

Yes that was it.

[mfbukowski]

I wrote, "Dr. Hauglid, I respect your right to disagree with me, if it comes down to that, but my fear is that information which I believe to be false and which contradicts my theory, will give people the false impression that my theory is rebutted when it is not."

To which Dr. Hauglid responded:

I suggest understanding it in the context in which it was written, which was in response to a question from you about why I want us to be in agreement. I was not blunt, but a blunt version would read something like this, "The false information you are spreading inhibits my ability to spread valid information. That is why I want to teach you."

 

. I would like to have a serious discussion in this thread without anyone resorting to polemics.

Uh, I find these two statements contradictory.  I'm out.

[Brian Hauglid]

Uh, I find these two statements contradictory.  I'm out.

 

I'm out too.

 

ETA: Before I sign off I just want to say that my interactions with Ryan have pretty much followed this kind of exchange. What I say and do is never enough. It finally gets to the point of diminishing return and I have to bow out. I am happy to have two-way conversations.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Brian Hauglid

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

Dan Vogel just finished conducting an exhaustive project of this very work, History of the Church, identifying actual sources. It is my friend's understanding of Vogel's results which made his statement an educated guess. Vogel will likely be able to settle this question definitively. No time machine needed.

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

Uh, I find these two statements contradictory. I'm out.

mfbukowski, I enjoyed discussing things with you. I hope you will return and explain why you think the statements are contradictory.

[Calm]

Dan Vogel just finished conducting an exhaustive project of this very work, History of the Church, identifying actual sources. It is my friend's understanding of Vogel's results which made his statement an educated guess. Vogel will likely be able to settle this question definitively. No time machine needed.

Has it been published yet?

[mfbukowski]

Oh.  That explains it.

 

Vogel has a lot to learn about philosophy.  Now I am really out!

 

He is the same category as Riskas as a logical positivist though he probably doesn't know it.