Retired Byu Religion Professor Brian Hauglid on Rfm Podcast

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, CA Steve said:

These issues are only relevant if the KEP is not a translation device as Jensen. Hauglid et all think it is. If the KEP was part of the process in which JS translated the BoA from the papyri then it is clear he didn't know what he was doing. That isn't to say the BoA isn't an inspired word, simply it is not on the papryi as JS it was

 

The problem here, and may be part of the reason that Hauglid thinks Gee's scholarship is "abhorrent"; is that the math error is pretty basic. It is something any sort of competent peer review would have caught. And this isn't the first time Dr. Gee has been making assertions that peer review would have caught and corrected, which is Hauglid's point. Dr. Gee's claim about two inks on the KEP and his use of the Havan and  Blanchard quotes to try and claim that the "long roll" contained the BoA are also claims which would not have made it though any sort of competent peer review.

Btw, timelines and scroll length are not connected. 

Why is everyone ignoring the catalyst theory?

[champatsch]

I think there are some important points to be made on this subject. First, some comments Hauglid made around the 19m mark about Skousen. He had concerns about Royal's approach. We don't know what those concerns were. One possibility is that he might think Skousen should have used the 1840 text as the baseline, as the last lifetime edition of the author, where he had editorial control. Or Hauglid might think that Skousen should have assumed that the text was Joseph Smith's own work product.

In either case, however, there is enough syntax and lexis that would remain in a critical edition that would still indicate that the text was far above a typical pseudobiblical effort (in terms of actual archaism), which is what it would be if it were Joseph's text. So Skousen's approach not to use the 1840 as a baseline or assume that the text was Joseph's is supported by the syntax and lexis. Moreover, I can tell others who might be interested that I know firsthand that Skousen read widely in text-critical studies (biblical and nonbiblical) and prepared himself in a scholarly way in order to do first-rate text critical work on the Book of Mormon. His work isn't perfect — whose is? While we don't agree on every reading, we do on the vast majority of readings. As someone who knows his work quite well, as well as anyone else, I've concluded that the work is very solid. He received compliments from even some non-LDS scholars. Within linguistics, his expertise is in phonology, which is valuable in relation to interpreting a number of difficult readings. [He taught linguistics since the early 1970s (just retired), when he was a grad student at Illinois, where he taught mathematical linguistics.]

[champatsch]

On related matters, we are on much surer ground concluding things about Joseph's revelatory abilities based on the Book of Mormon text rather than the Book of Abraham text, which is extremely short, relatively speaking, and has a more difficult and confused manuscript history than the Book of Mormon. We can conclude from a vast array of syntactic and lexical evidence that the Book of Mormon is not Joseph's text. In other words, he wasn't responsible for wording it. So there needs to be clear and convincing evidence in the Book of Abraham that it was his text. Let's say there is that evidence, it still doesn't take away from what we know of the Book of Mormon, which provides us with much stronger evidence, and so cannot be overturned by any (weaker) Book of Abraham evidence.

[champatsch]

I haven't analyzed Book of Abraham language very much, but from what I have looked at, it appears to be at least a fine specimen of pseudobiblical English. Three examples follow.

The Book of Abraham has the verbal expression "purpose to do something", which isn't in the Book of Mormon and is archaic or literary usage by Joseph's time. Although it does appear in the King James Bible 10 times (11 more times in the Apocrypha), its usage there isn't very salient, and so it isn't found in most longer pseudobiblical texts, appearing in only three of them (in a corpus of 12 such texts).

The use of fain in the Book of Abraham is also (pseudo)biblical, though it occurs only twice in the King James Bible as "would fain <lexical verb>" (the Book of Abraham usage). This archaic fain syntax appears in at least five (longer) pseudobiblical texts. Apparently the Luke 15:16 instance (prodigal son passage) is sufficiently well-known so that it prompted more pseudobiblical usage than "purpose to do something", which is more common textually. (The use of fain in the Book of Mormon is a little different: "we would fain be glad". It seems redundant [semantically, probably an intensifier] and the usage is nonbiblical and rare before 1830, mostly early modern.)

The literal use of "lay violence (up)on someone" is rare in the early 19c. I haven't found one yet, so if someone finds one, they can quote it for us here. I've only found figurative instances, and only one of these personal. So far the two literal ones I've found are from the 17c, one of these in an early 1600s play and another by John Milton. So this usage is either archaic or literary.

In any event, much remains to consider from a comparative syntactic and lexical perspective, and it might be important evidence to bear in mind on the issue of Book of Abraham authorship.

[Teancum]

On 7/7/2020 at 6:07 PM, Calm said:

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

It is sad that a Church  has such authoritarian control its members I think. One of the main reasons I cannot go back to active church participation is I am not able to be authentic.One cannot openly discuss anything that does not toe the party line. There is a word for this.

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is sad that a Church  has such authoritarian control its members I think.

I don't think that's a fair characterization of things.

Quote

One of the main reasons I cannot go back to active church participation is I am not able to be authentic.

I'm not sure what "be authentic" means.  I suspect it's something like "Say whatever I want during Church meetings, even if - or particularly if - it is likely to cause offense, to sow discord and doubt, and otherwise disrupt what is supposed to be a sacred and unifying convocation."

I hope I'm wrong.

Quote

One cannot openly discuss anything that does not toe the party line.

Apparent translation: "I should be at liberty to loudly complain about the Church and its leaders and members on any and every topic I choose during the Gospel Doctrine class, 'cuz that's me being 'authentic.'"

I've been on this board for sixteen years.  Hundreds upon hundreds of members of the Church come here and to dozens/hundreds of other venues and discuss controversies, concerns, speculative stuff, etc.  And we do so "openly."

None of us wants to misappropriate Sunday services to pontificate and criticize and accuse and find fault and sow sees of doubt and discord.  I hope that is not what you have in mind in terms of "be{ing} authentic."

Quote

There is a word for this.

What is that word?  No need to be coy.

Do you appreciate that Sunday services are supposed to be a sacred, unifying, uplifting experience?

Is it possible that there are plenty of ways in which members can discuss difficulties and controversies without needing to disrupt those services?

Is it possible that the Church is an entirely voluntary association, such that accusing it of being "authoritarian" is neither fair nor accurate?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 9, 2020 by smac97

[OGHoosier]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why is everyone ignoring the catalyst theory?

I dunno. I find it compelling. That said, I also think there's more to the papyri that we have than meets the eye.

I'm not sure about Pyle's length conclusions - he disagrees with both Gee and Cook/Smith and doesn't provide his methodology here. I've asked about that, we'll see what he says. But I think his notes about Facsimile 1 are interesting and betray some deeper weirdness that conventional explanations of the vignette don't include. 

[Kenngo1969]

16 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

... But I think his notes about Facsimile 1 are interesting and betray some deeper weirdness that conventional explanations of the vignette don't include. 

"Deep Weirdness"?  I like it!  Does that mean I'm deeply weird?  All of these years, I've been dissatisfied because people think I'm just plain weird.  But, now, I've found my purpose in life!  I've discovered the key!  I'm deeply weird!  Man, that's almost as good as knowin' I'm a child of God!   (You know how they have "Deep Thoughts, With Jack Handey"?  You could do "Deep Weirdness, With OGHoosier"!  You're welcome!)

Edited July 9, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Fair Dinkum]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are wrongly assuming several things about modern academic institutions of higher learning.  First you would be gobsmacked to know that nearly all American and Canadian institutions of higher learning are dominated by neo-Marxist ideologues who will destroy even tenured professors who practice true academic freedom.  As Jordan Peterson has rightly pointed out, free speech and free inquiry are now prohibited in nearly all North American colleges and universities, at least in the humanities and social sciences (STEM fields are relatively untouched).  Academic freedom is a very relative concept.  Free to do what?  Pot, meet kettle. 

Move the goal posts bro smith. We were talking about BYU. Yes academic freedom and freedom of speech is under attack at many institutions of higher learning both from the left and the right. But we were specifically talking about BYU’s academic freedoms specifically as they related to Brian Hauglid feeling he needed to wait until after his retirement had been secured before he could speak openly and freely. Why would he feel he needed to wait?  Fear of having his retirement impacted?  At least that was what he felt. Are you really suggesting the Hauglid could have gone on this particular podcast saying what he said and remained in good standing with BYU?  If that is how you honesty feel, You’re living in an alternate universe Robert 

edit to add:  I don’t enjoy that we often disagree. I would think that at least on this matter we could fine agreement. Help me understand why you see academic freedom at BYU when I see that freedom only within the bumper pads?  

Edited July 9, 2020 by Fair Dinkum

[Fair Dinkum]

13 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Name those other institutions that are so open minded and willing to entertain honest, liberal discussions. All I read about is the purges to ensure everyone toes the line in far Left politics. They step out of line and they are out the door.  See here, here, there is a lot of them. Here is a Google list that may be even more current. 

I just googled it and have not read the articles, but it does seem like there is a problem at universities and their inability to accept a conservative thought process to exist.

My personal desire for universities is for them to resemble more the Academy instituted by Plato so long ago. Regardless of what side one is on, opposing ideas should be welcomed and offered the space to debate their ideas. What we have no diminishes wisdom, knowledge, and logical thought.  We have dumbed down college education and allowed the students to dictate what will and will not be taught and led by the most egregiously radical professors that view opposing ideas as something that must be stopped at all costs.   

Read my reply to Robert F Smith 

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

"Deep Weirdness"?  I like it!  Does that mean I'm deeply weird?  All of these years, I've been dissatisfied because people think I'm just plain weird.  But, now, I've found my purpose in life!  I've discovered the key!  I'm deeply weird!  Man, that's almost as good as knowin' I'm a child of God!   (You know how they have "Deep Thoughts, With Jack Handey"?  You could do "Deep Weirdness, With OGHoosier"!  You're welcome!)

We finally found something we can agree on  Kenngo1969 🤪

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

"Deep Weirdness"?  I like it!  Does that mean I'm deeply weird?  All of these years, I've been dissatisfied because people think I'm just plain weird.  But, now, I've found my purpose in life!  I've discovered the key!  I'm deeply weird!  Man, that's almost as good as knowin' I'm a child of God!   (You know how they have "Deep Thoughts, With Jack Handey"?  You could do "Deep Weirdness, With OGHoosier"!  You're welcome!)

I could do "Deep Weirdness with OGHoosier", but I'm not fond of podcasts or Youtube videos as informative media, so I'll have to refrain from making one myself  

I didn't mean "deep weirdness" in a derogatory sense, far from it. The papyri don't give a straightforward Book of Abraham text, obviously, but the vignette that became Facsimile 1 also appears to defy conventional expectations coming from the other direction. It's anomalous and that beckons to me. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Move the goal posts bro smith. We were talking about BYU. Yes academic freedom and freedom of speech is under attack at many institutions of higher learning both from the left and the right. But we were specifically talking about BYU’s academic freedoms specifically as they related to Brian Hauglid feeling he needed to wait until after his retirement had been secured before he could speak openly and freely. Why would he feel he needed to wait?  Fear of having his retirement impacted?  At least that was what he felt. Are you really suggesting the Hauglid could have gone on this particular podcast saying what he said and remained in good standing with BYU?  If that is how you honesty feel, You’re living in an alternate universe Robert 

edit to add:  I don’t enjoy that we often disagree. I would think that at least on this matter we could fine agreement. Help me understand why you see academic freedom at BYU when I see that freedom only within the bumper pads?  

When I said that academic freedom is relative, I was specifically thinking of the prohibited categories of thought at most institutions, which are permitted and welcome at other institutions.  At BYU (I am an alumnus), for example, one is permitted to freely express thoughts which are severely punished at other institutions.  This is the case for other private colleges and universities.  At most institutions, one hears a constant stream of rude and crude language (and accompanying behaviors) and invective, which is not the case at BYU.

One attends BYU (or teaches there) fully understanding all that ahead of time.  One signs agreements to that effect.  For you that may constitute an alternate universe, while for others it constitutes truly civilized life and behavior.  I expect the same sort of gracious and restrained behavior (from myself and others), when I attend an LDS temple, and I behave in the same way when I visit the institutions of other religions.

Where is there more freedom of inquiry and freedom of speech?  At BYU or other institutions?  Prof Hauglid agreed at the outset to certain standards, then carried on a secret campaign against them.  Yet even when he spoke out publicy, making his beliefs obvious, no action was taken against him.  Indeed, an effort to have his temple recommend cancelled failed.  You claim that he said more in a recent podcast, which may be true, but your claim is already false based on LDS Church non-action against him for what was already obvious.  And I have no problem with that.  Of the two of us, I am by far the more tolerant.  So much for your tendentious views on free speech and academic freedom.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

We finally found something we can agree on  Kenngo1969 🤪

That I'm deeply weird?

Heh!

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

I could do "Deep Weirdness with OGHoosier", but I'm not fond of podcasts or Youtube videos as informative media, so I'll have to refrain from making one myself  

I didn't mean "deep weirdness" in a derogatory sense, far from it. The papyri don't give a straightforward Book of Abraham text, obviously, but the vignette that became Facsimile 1 also appears to defy conventional expectations coming from the other direction. It's anomalous and that beckons to me. 

No, no, don't worry.  I knew exactly what you meant, and didn't take it otherwise.  (I apologize if I gave you a mistaken impression in that regard.)  I think I know why opinions on this vary so much within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but, allegedly-problematic provenance notwithstanding, if the Church were to jettison the Book of Abraham, we would lose a deep, rich reservoir of doctrine that is distinctive to the Church of Jesus Christ.

[alter idem]

15 hours ago, Maureen said:

IIRC, he said he went to Sacrament meeting with his wife and he didn't mention anything about not taking the sacrament.

M.

I did not say he doesn't take the Sacrament, I have no idea one way or the other.  Here is the quote that I was going from, which was posted earlier on this thread:

Quote

"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,"

Now, maybe this listener was wrong, but there it is.  He 'only' went to Sacrament meeting 'for' his wife, not 'with' his wife.  From that I surmised that he did not attend so that he could take the Sacrament.  MOO

[OGHoosier]

28 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No, no, don't worry.  I knew exactly what you meant, and didn't take it otherwise.  (I apologize if I gave you a mistaken impression in that regard.)  I think I know why opinions on this vary so much within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but, allegedly-problematic provenance notwithstanding, if the Church were to jettison the Book of Abraham, we would lose a deep, rich reservoir of doctrine that is distinctive to the Church of Jesus Christ.

Oh, certainly. Jettisoning the Book of Abraham is not a live option for me, nor does it appear to be so for the Church. I still think it's ultimately related to the papyri; the rise of Gee's missing-papyrus theory prompted John Tvedtenes to abandon a investigation into the possibility of papyri-as-mnemonic-device which could have been fruitful and ought to be revisited. The BoA could also be an expansion of the anomalous Facsimile 1 or non-extant elements on the ~2 feet of missing scroll. Furthermore, since both the BoA and Book of Breathings serve as soteriological instruction manuals, a substitution of Egyptian ritual material with revealed liturgy  would count as a "translation". The doors are not closed on it by any means and it remains a valuable source of doctrine, though I do think that I can't maintain the Gee missing papyrus model at present.

[Fair Dinkum]

54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

When I said that academic freedom is relative, I was specifically thinking of the prohibited categories of thought at most institutions, which are permitted and welcome at other institutions.  At BYU (I am an alumnus), for example, one is permitted to freely express thoughts which are severely punished at other institutions.  This is the case for other private colleges and universities.  At most institutions, one hears a constant stream of rude and crude language (and accompanying behaviors) and invective, which is not the case at BYU.

One attends BYU (or teaches there) fully understanding all that ahead of time.  One signs agreements to that effect.  For you that may constitute an alternate universe, while for others it constitutes truly civilized life and behavior.  I expect the same sort of gracious and restrained behavior (from myself and others), when I attend an LDS temple, and I behave in the same way when I visit the institutions of other religions.

Where is there more freedom of inquiry and freedom of speech?  At BYU or other institutions?  Prof Hauglid agreed at the outset to certain standards, then carried on a secret campaign against them.  Yet even when he spoke out publicy, making his beliefs obvious, no action was taken against him.  Indeed, an effort to have his temple recommend cancelled failed.  You claim that he said more in a recent podcast, which may be true, but your claim is already false based on LDS Church non-action against him for what was already obvious.  And I have no problem with that.  Of the two of us, I am by far the more tolerant.  So much for your tendentious views on free speech and academic freedom.

Ok i tried

[Fair Dinkum]

13 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Oh, certainly. Jettisoning the Book of Abraham is not a live option for me, nor does it appear to be so for the Church. I still think it's ultimately related to the papyri; the rise of Gee's missing-papyrus theory prompted John Tvedtenes to abandon a investigation into the possibility of papyri-as-mnemonic-device which could have been fruitful and ought to be revisited. The BoA could also be an expansion of the anomalous Facsimile 1 or non-extant elements on the ~2 feet of missing scroll. Furthermore, since both the BoA and Book of Breathings serve as soteriological instruction manuals, a substitution of Egyptian ritual material with revealed liturgy  would count as a "translation". The doors are not closed on it by any means and it remains a valuable source of doctrine, though I do think that I can't maintain the Gee missing papyrus model at present.

There is nothing, I repeat nothing to support the theory of a missing scroll containing the Book of Abraham.  There are missing scrolls, yes, but nothing other than convenient conjecture and speculation that those missing scrolls contained the Book of Abraham 

If translation took place after 1835, which the diary evidence supports, then the KEP were a translation tool in the production of the Book of Abraham.  This evidence would show that the Book of Abraham came from the extant papyri in the churches possession. 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Fair Dinkum

[alter idem]

19 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I read just fine. Your attacks on Hauglid are just as applicable to Jensen. Explain why they don't apply to Jensen. Both of them are saying the same thing.

It seems you want to make inferences about Jensen.

Hauglid is the subject, and some who've listened to the podcast say he seems to have problems with the church now, but apparently my agreeing with that has hit a raw nerve.  So, in order to not offend, I'll just  assume that nothing has changed for him, except that now he's retired.

[OGHoosier]

3 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

There is nothing, I repeat nothing to support the theory of a missing scroll containing the Book of Abraham.  There are missing scrolls, yes, but nothing other than convenient conjecture and speculation that those missing scrolls contained the Book of Abraham 

I don't believe in a missing scroll containing the Book of Abraham. Andrew Cook and Christopher Smith reported that, per their calculations, the Scroll of Hor is missing ~2 feet on the interior end. Here's the famous Dialogue article, the very same that serves as the gravestone for Gee's theory in the minds of many: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V43N04_413.pdf

On page 36: 

Quote

Therefore, no more than 56 cm of papyrus can be missing from the scroll’s interior

I think it's possible that the Book of Abraham is an expansion of non-extant material from that section or mnemonic material through the scroll. I don't believe that the whole text, word for word, is written out anywhere in the papyri, and I'm also open to a pure catalyst theory. 

[Maureen]

1 hour ago, alter idem said:

I did not say he doesn't take the Sacrament, I have no idea one way or the other.  Here is the quote that I was going from, which was posted earlier on this thread:

Now, maybe this listener was wrong, but there it is.  He 'only' went to Sacrament meeting 'for' his wife, not 'with' his wife.  From that I surmised that he did not attend so that he could take the Sacrament.  MOO

If you're interested in what he actually said, it starts around 2:47:00 of the podcast. He said he has stepped back from the Church, he attends Sacrament meeting "with" his wife and does not attend the 2nd hour. He feels that "belief" in something is personal and he's not trying to convince others to leave the Church. He supports his wife and his children.

M.

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

 

If translation took place after 1835, which the diary evidence supports, then the KEP were a translation tool in the production of the Book of Abraham.  This evidence would show that the Book of Abraham came from the extant papyri in the churches possession. 

Contemporality does not imply a direction of relationship. 

[CA Steve]

34 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Contemporality does not imply a direction of relationship. 

I think it does when the document in question shows extant Hor scroll glyphs in the left margin and the text of the Book of Abraham next to the glyphs.

Book of Abraham Manuscript, circa Early July–circa November 1835

Either the translation was already done at this point or this is the translation manuscript.

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by CA Steve

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

There is nothing, I repeat nothing to support the theory of a missing scroll containing the Book of Abraham.  There are missing scrolls, yes, but nothing other than convenient conjecture and speculation that those missing scrolls contained the Book of Abraham 

The problem with that conclusion is that it doesn't account for the actual content of the Book of Abraham.  What does one do, for example, with Joseph's uncanny ability to correctly interpret the vignettes, including being able to translate Egyptian words and phrases contained in them?  I point to specific instances in my own careful study, in which I cite standard Egyptology.  You cavalierly use the word "nothing," instead of coming to grips with that problem.  After all, from your POV, why bother to give a moment's consideration to an obvious fraud?

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

If translation took place after 1835, which the diary evidence supports, then the KEP were a translation tool in the production of the Book of Abraham.  This evidence would show that the Book of Abraham came from the extant papyri in the churches possession. 

There is indeed a well-developed theory to that effect which has been around for over half-a-century,  with quite a few adherents -- most of whom know nothing of the ancient world and most of whom are uninterested in the details.  This is likely to continue to be the case.