Retired Byu Religion Professor Brian Hauglid on Rfm Podcast

[ldsatty]

Brian expressed these opinions in 2018 on Dan Vogel's Facebook page. This was before he retired.   Neither BYU or the Church took any action.    He wasn't hiding anything, and he didn't wait until after he retired to express his opinions.  

[Bob Crockett]

56 minutes ago, ldsatty said:

Brian expressed these opinions in 2018 on Dan Vogel's Facebook page. This was before he retired.   Neither BYU or the Church took any action.    He wasn't hiding anything, and he didn't wait until after he retired to express his opinions.  

1:49:  Said he thought it would be better to wait, after his retirement, to talk about the Book of Abraham on RFM.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

BYU doesn’t exactly have the reputation of promoting academic freedom. 

You still haven’t said anything about which of his beliefs would draw action. 
 

Given he has worked there for the last 7 years during which times his beliefs have changed if I understand correctly, for seven years no action was taken. Which seems to indicate either BYU had sufficient academic freedom for him to express himself freely or there were some beliefs he didn’t speak about till now. According to others, he hasn’t said anything new.
 

However you seem to think he has or you have beliefs he has other beliefs. If just speculation, I am not interested in rumors, but if you have documentation of his beliefs that you believe would draw action if he had said then two or three weeks or years ago, please share. 

[Calm]

On 7/7/2020 at 6:32 PM, CA Steve said:

Calm.

As far as I remember, nowhere in the interview did he mention anything about his "true self". These are words the OP used, not Hauglid. If you could listen to the interview, I think you would find that he did exactly that and ended up getting criticized for it publicly. It seems for some, the acceptance of the missing scroll theory is a test of faith.

I know they are from the opening post.  I quoted the OPer because he used them to present the idea that Hauglid had been less than open about his current beliefs. I suppose I probably should have added “whatever that means” but I was using that phrase in terms of what the OPer said about Hauglid, not Hauglid. 

I also well remember the public criticism for his comments, the “abhorrent”, etc. But as far as I am aware BYU took no action against him, which led some to be unhappy with BYU. 

Edited July 10, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ldsatty said:

Brian expressed these opinions in 2018 on Dan Vogel's Facebook page. This was before he retired.   Neither BYU or the Church took any action.    He wasn't hiding anything, and he didn't wait until after he retired to express his opinions.  

I appreciate you adding your voice. 
 

That was my understanding, that he has expressed certain strong opinions and neither BYU nor the Church took action. That is why I thought since the opening poster expressed the belief he had not been fully open about his “true self” (quoting OP), I assumed he said something new that was obvious criticism of the Church that could have got him booted from BYU. 
 

If he is merely repeating what he said before which drew no action (and I have no doubt someone reported him to his leaders and bosses back then just because that is what people do these days it seems and why should church members be much different), it seems not exactly newsworthy and I am wondering why the OPer thinks it is. 
 

I probably should have waited till it was confirmed he said anything new if I was not willing to listen to it myself (and I am not, but if there is a transcript let me know), would have avoided the derail.  For that I apologize.
 

Not for my belief if you take money from a company, you owe the company respect enough not to plan to undermine it as soon as or shortly after you retire like Grant Palmer did (he was working on his book attacking church truth claims while the Church was paying his salary for many, many years, not just in the last several years before).  Being a whistleblower while employed and risking one’s job at that time or becoming a whistleblower years after retiring because of new info is something quite different and may be admirable.
 

Still interested though in what FD thinks would now draw action. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

1:49:  Said he thought it would be better to wait, after his retirement, to talk about the Book of Abraham on RFM.

RFM being what it is, the venue is problematic.  But if he just repeated himself, what difference does it make really?

Edited July 8, 2020 by Calm

[stemelbow]

It was a great podcast episode.  Brian said a lot.  And it was well explained.  I don't want to comment much about his beef with Gee and the other way around, but I do think Gee's arguments have been problematic.  So that probably sways how i view things.  

I'm surprised to see such strong opinions from those who haven't listened.  It's good.  Listen then come back and let us know what you think--not saying you'll change your.mind but itd be nice to hear.  

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

RFM being what it is, the venue is problematic.  But if he just repeated himself, what different does it make really?

I'm only half hour into it. Highly critical.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Okay, but that doesn’t say what there is about his opinions that is likely to draw action....which is what I am wondering. 

He said that the BoA wasn't on the scrolls, just a funerary blessing, not his words but the jist. And he said he didn't believe the BoM was historical, not his words again. I hope I'm right on that. Whoever listened please correct if wrong.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

RFM being what it is, the venue is problematic.  But if he just repeated himself, what different does it make really?

Since he is well known as an employee and worked on the JSP's for the church, that might get him ex'd I believe. Also, he was very close to being one of the authors of the BoA essay if I'm remembering right, but then there were last minute changes, I believe, which was a good thing according to him with his changed feelings. Again, hope I'm remembering right.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, CA Steve said:

..........................................

If so, would you like to respond to Hauglid's criticism of the use by Gee of the Haven and Blanchard accounts in Dr. Gee's Introduction to the Book of Abraham. to try and establish that the Book of Abraham came from the "long roll"? I have reviewed both of those citations and Hauglid is dead on with his criticism. There is no link and there was no long roll connected with the BoA based on those citations.

We discussed the sources not too long ago on this board, and the conclusion was not as you describe it here.  However, whether the actual BofA text came from a long roll, from some other papyrus, or from no papyrus at all, has yet to be established.  Why?  Because we obviously do not have the original.  Wes Walters theorized that Joseph "translated" holes in the Snsn Papyrus of Hor, which was his way of saying that Joseph simply imagined it all -- or that it was a con job.  Everyone seems to bring his/her own apriori notion to the discussion, as though that is definitive.  Since when is guesswork definitive?

I prefer a substantive discussion of what we can actually know, based on normative biblical and Egyptological scholarship.  Rancorous discussion about things we cannot know doesn't seem particularly productive.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

BYU doesn’t exactly have the reputation of promoting academic freedom. 

And your evidence for that is what?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I'm only half hour into it. Highly critical.

Could you post some examples?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Since he is well known as an employee and worked on the JSP's for the church, that might get him ex'd I believe. Also, he was very close to being one of the authors of the BoA essay if I'm remembering right, but then there were last minute changes, I believe, which was a good thing according to him with his changed feelings. Again, hope I'm remembering right.

I am referring not to where he said things, but what he said when I ask what difference it makes. I am still looking for any evidence he was not being public with his “true self” as the opening poster said. If he is saying the smart stuff, how is that not being his “true self”?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm surprised to see such strong opinions from those who haven't listened

Who else this thread hasn’t listened to the podcast in the thread besides me?  And I am not commenting about the podcast itself, but about the claim Hauglid (not made by Hauglid, but the OPer) couldn’t be his true self until he retired. 
 

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Who else this thread hasn’t listened to the podcast in the thread besides me?  And I am not commenting about the podcast itself, but about the claim Hauglid (not made by Hauglid, but the OPer) couldn’t be his true self until he retired. 
 

I don't know, Calm.  I guess I saw you posting and saying you hadn't listened and thought others were in the same boat.  I want to reconsider it though, now that you ask.

OP said:

Quote

I find it sad that he had to wait until being retired before he could be his true self and speak freely.

I don't think Brian suggested this.  He did indicate he wanted to wait until after his retirement before going on RFM and talking to him.  BUt I think Gee's response explains that well.  It's not so much the material, perhaps, that is the issue for him, but simply that he went on a podcast with which many apologists have taken issue with.  

Your response:

Quote

No one forced him to stay employed by the Church. He chose to put his retirement funding before his “true self”. 

Where'd you get this idea of retirement funding?   That takes it beyond what the OP suggested, of course.  That's far more about questioning his motives and all of that.  I"m curious because as he indicated many old friends have seemingly turned against him, particularly on the apologetics side of things.  He also indicated he was far more interested in attempts at objective scholarship than at apologetics, which seems to be a main reason for the vitriol from certain quarters.  

It was interesting Dr. Hauglid indicated the final third portion of his time at BYU was very difficult, but it seems clear that was because he was his true self.  You should at least listen, it seems to me before you jump on him and question his intentions, I'd think.  

[churchistrue]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Who else this thread hasn’t listened to the podcast in the thread besides me?  And I am not commenting about the podcast itself, but about the claim Hauglid (not made by Hauglid, but the OPer) couldn’t be his true self until he retired. 
 

I listened. I think the only part that he might not have felt comfortable saying until after he retired was that in the last few minutes of the interview he mentioned vaguely about stepping slowly away from the church, that he only went to sacrament meeting now to support his wife, and that he was against some church policy such as LGBT+ issues. But he also seemed to imply this was a new development and not something that he's been suppressing for a long time to talk about until he retired. Nothing he said related to the BoA or his research is any different than he's been saying for several years in articles and presentations, as far as I understand. I took the desire to wait until his retirement to do the interview primarily as to minimize the conflict he had with a colleague--not church related. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by churchistrue

[rodheadlee]

14 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I'm only an hour into this 3 hour podcast. A lot of the podcast, at least the part I've listened to, relates to Hauglid's conflicting views with John Gee's view related to the KEP/AEP and their relation ship to the translation of the Book of Abraham.  Hauglid's view have changed, he now views and he makes a strong argument supported with historical diary entrees by JS, that Smith continued to translate well into March 1842.  If true this would completely undermine the Lost Scroll theory promoted by Gee. 

Gee's Lost Scroll Theory rests on the premises that all of the BoA translation was completed in mid 1835 and that the KEP was an independent effort by Smith's scribes to re engineer his translation and was not in any manner connected to the translation.  Hauglid feels that the historical record supports the KEP being the directly connected to with the translation of the BoA.

The direct impact as I understand each argument is that IF the KEP is connected to the BoA translation it undermines the BoA as a translation of an ancient record and exposes the process as a imaginary work of Joseph Smith.

 

https://radiofreemormon.org/2020/07/radio-free-mormon-184-the-brian-hauglid-interview/

"Coming to you from behind enemy lines" Really kind of poisons the well right off the bat. After wasting a half an hour listening to the set up I had to call it quits. Perhaps a transcript will be available someday.

[alter idem]

15 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Retired July 1st BYU Religion Professor Brian Hauglid,  author of several books on the Book of Abraham, has just been interviewed in an  interesting interview on the  RFM Podcast.  Although I was surprised that he would decide to be interviewed on this particular podcast that some may find less than faith promoting, I do find many of his assertions fascinating and thought provoking.

His views have strayed away from a traditional view of the Book of Abraham and brings into question many of the views I once held towards the Book of Abraham.

I'm curious if others have also listened to this podcast and what your thought might be concerning his approach to the Book of Abraham.

Also I do find it interesting that Dr. Hauglid, a member of the church team that published the Joseph Smith Papers and authored several books on the Book of Abraham,  felt it necessary to wait unto his retirement had been funded before he could speak freely in public concerning his true beliefs.  I find it sad that he had to wait until being retired before he could be his true self and speak freely.

 

 

Isn't he the one who criticized other scholars over their work involving the Book of Abraham several months ago? I.remember it seemed so out of character and unprofessional to comment as he did,  but now it makes sense. Imo, he probably lost his faith and let the mask slipped. 

[alter idem]

14 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Important to note that Bro Hauglid was also one of the authors of the Book of Abraham Church Essay and a contributing member of the Maxwell Institute AKA F.A.R.M.S as recently as a year ago. This man has Mormon Gravitas

It's very sad that some lose their faith, but it happens, Didn't his interviewer RFM also used to be an active member,  but now look at him. I'm reminded of some early Saints who left the church after having such wonderful spiritual experiences, and enduring a lot, but things happen and choices are made, sometimes it leads them away from what were once firmly held beliefs. I am curious how long he's been hiding his change in beliefs though.

[alter idem]

13 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Someone, pretty sure it was John Gee, has turned him into the church,  I’m guessing for the purpose of a membership removal meeting ( forget what they call them now) for sharing his views and opinions on this podcast.

'Turned him in'? How do you know this anyway?  I think his own ward leaders didn't need that, they can tell, I'm sure, if he no longer believes. That's not a reason for church discipline either. Lots of people are still members who don't believe anymore.

But imo, Gee has a right to be angry at what Hauglid did. Hauglid was a jerk, attacking his scholarship the way he did. Hauglid could've waited until after he retired to throw his former colleagues under the bus. That was damaging to BYU when he did that. At the time I was pretty sure something was up with Hauglid, so this just explains it.

[stemelbow]

45 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Isn't he the one who criticized other scholars over their work involving the Book of Abraham several months ago? I.remember it seemed so out of character and unprofessional to comment as he did,  but now it makes sense. Imo, he probably lost his faith and let the mask slipped. 

You probably should listen to him to understand where that was coming from.  He explains it nicely.   Its not about a loss of faith at all.  It was simply out of frustration about the dishonesty of the apologetic arguments.  

[alter idem]

13 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Can i assume then, since you labeled his claims "ad hominem", that you have listened to the podcast?

If so, would you like to respond to Hauglid's criticism of the use by Gee of the Haven and Blanchard accounts in Dr. Gee's Introduction to the Book of Abraham. to try and establish that the Book of Abraham came from the "long roll"? I have reviewed both of those citations and Hauglid is dead on with his criticism. There is no link and there was no long roll connected with the BoA based on those citations.

You know,  I personally don't want to give RFM more traffic on his podcasts,  so I'd rather not listen to a 3 hour podcast, just so I can comment. No thanks. 

Hauglid has an opinion, one that many disagree with. He's not the last word on this, and Hauglid can't prove there was no long roll, he can theorize but so can others. 

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, alter idem said:

'Turned him in'? How do you know this anyway?  I think his own ward leaders didn't need that, they can tell, I'm sure, if he no longer believes. That's not a reason for church discipline either. Lots of people are still members who don't believe anymore.

But imo, Gee has a right to be angry at what Hauglid did. Hauglid was a jerk, attacking his scholarship the way he did. Hauglid could've waited until after he retired to throw his former colleagues under the bus. That was damaging to BYU when he did that. At the time I was pretty sure something was up with Hauglid, so this just explains it.

SOunds like you haven't listened.  I'd encourage you to do so.  Probably a good idea to hear from someone's perspective before commenting.  Gee has certainly gone out of his way to attack Hauglid, so the jerky move has context.  The Facebook post was a point of frustration--he indicated he didn't want to continue to be lumped with Gee and Muhlstein (sp?) and wanted to make clear that he felt their arguments were really bad ones. 

[alter idem]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

I appreciate you adding your voice. 
 

That was my understanding, that he has expressed certain strong opinions and neither BYU nor the Church took action. That is why I thought since the opening poster expressed the belief he had not been fully open about his “true self” (quoting OP), I assumed he said something new that was obvious criticism of the Church that could have got him booted from BYU. 
 

If he is merely repeating what he said before which drew no action (and I have no doubt someone reported him to his leaders and bosses back then just because that is what people do these days it seems and why should church members be much different), it seems not exactly newsworthy and I am wondering why the OPer thinks it is. 
 

I probably should have waited till it was confirmed he said anything new if I was not willing to listen to it myself (and I am not, but if there is a transcript let me know), would have avoided the derail.  For that I apologize.
 

Not for my belief if you take money from a company, you owe the company respect enough not to plan to undermine it as soon as or shortly after you retire like Grant Palmer did (he was working on his book attacking church truth claims while the Church was paying his salary for many, many years, not just in the last several years before).  Being a whistleblower while employed and risking one’s job at that time or becoming a whistleblower years after retiring because of new info is something quite different and may be admirable.
 

Still interested though in what FD thinks would now draw action. 

Maybe I'm too cynical,  but it seems at times that forum postings can be used to generate traffic for a blog or podcast. Imo, it may be that this is nothing new, as Hauglid already let the mask slip when he criticized his colleagues,  but what's new is the interview with RFM, and FD is just doing his bit to help generate more listens for it. Imo