Retired Byu Religion Professor Brian Hauglid on Rfm Podcast

[mfbukowski]

On 7/10/2020 at 12:49 PM, Ahab said:

i think we agree on this but as usual with you I am not entirely sure about that. 

For example, I think pixels CAN do a pretty good job of representing things, sometimes, but the pixels and what the pixels represent are not the same things.

I hope I am getting my thoughts across to you, with these pixels, well enough for you to understand what I mean.

Pixels represent words that we use to describe what we call "things"- which are perceptions of the world generated by our minds/spirits.

The minute you say that words "represent true reality" you go wrong, imo.  The best way to say that imo is that "words represent perceptions"- though even that is pretty shaky. 

If you want to understand my position on this stuff, just read my siggy, below.

Remember we now see things "through a glass darkly".   We see only perceptions and understand words- none of which are "real" but are perceptions OF "reality", not reality itself.

Is looking through a mirror your whole life about "representing reality"?  Imo, nope.

I think if we could just get togther and talk for a few hours, we would agree on a lot- we think similarly, but it's the details that get in the way. 

 

[OGHoosier]

16 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Why is wondering why seen as a problem with his credibility?  

The problem with his credibility is not that he's wondering why. Calm is doing the wondering, about Hauglid's emotional baggage. That's where the problem lies. Hauglid veered away from dispassionate scholastic analysis when he denounced the work of Gee and Muhlestein as "abhorrent";.

[readstoomuch]

I listened to a good chunk of the podcast.  RFM style is not my cup of tea.  I would prefer to use his name since it is so easy to find out, but I will defer.  Obviously, Brother Hauglid is hurt by Gees actions.  There really is a sort of feud going on.  He is really good friends with David Bokovoy and is in his band.  I know David was greatly effected by his daughter returning from a mission and coming out as LGBT.  Brian and David respect each other’s scholarship and talk with Brent Metcalfe.  Brent is more nuanced than he used to be.  Somebody wrote that Hauglid pretty much debunked the catalyst theory of The BOA.  I didn`t see that myself.  Brother Hauglid has always impressed me from reading about his story to listening to him at a FAIR Conference.  At that Conference he and Brent went at it just a little bit.  I have enjoyed reading Brothers Bokovoy and Hauglid in the past.  I wish them well.  I have found them faith promoting.  Scholarship and belief can be a tough path.  I see David and Brian very similar in their paths and their choice in music since they are in the same band.  

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Pixels represent words that we use to describe what we call "things"- which are perceptions of the world generated by our minds/spirits.

The minute you say that words "represent true reality" you go wrong, imo.  The best way to say that imo is that "words represent perceptions"- though even that is pretty shaky. 

If you want to understand my position on this stuff, just read my siggy, below.

Remember we now see things "through a glass darkly".   We see only perceptions and understand words- none of which are "real" but are perceptions OF "reality", not reality itself.

Is looking through a mirror your whole life about "representing reality"?  Imo, nope.

I think if we could just get togther and talk for a few hours, we would agree on a lot- we think similarly, but it's the details that get in the way. 

 

I'd like to believe that, that we would agree on a lot of issues, but when we don't agree I don't think it's because the words are getting in our way.  More like our perceptions of the words we are using, I think..

Let's talk about horses, for example.  Notice I used the word horses to start off this discussion, rather than some other word that might not do the trick. Are horses real? Of course they are.  There are horses in reality.

Words are fabulous.  I think they are one of our best inventions.  People can still not understand each other though, sometimes, even when they use words to try to communicate with each other. And I do not blame words for that.

Edited July 16, 2020 by Ahab

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

The problem with his credibility is not that he's wondering why. Calm is doing the wondering, about Hauglid's emotional baggage. That's where the problem lies. Hauglid veered away from dispassionate scholastic analysis when he denounced the work of Gee and Muhlestein as "abhorrent";.

I know.  I was asking Calm how did she take it from wondering why to problem with is credibility?  I think Hauglid explains nicely why he used the term abhorrent when he did.  I don't see how it impacts his credibility, even if one disagrees with his use the term.  

[Bede]

23 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I do find it interesting that Dr. Hauglid was considered credible with our community until he 01. Came to a conclusion on the BoA that differed from Dr. Gee's 02.Expressed his changing views on the BoA and 02. Went on the RFM podcast.  Remember he was a member of BYU's Religion Department, a member of FAIR and an editor of Volume 4 for the the JSP Project.  Only after coming to a different conclusion was his credibility questioned, before that he was a go to apologist.

The only thing that bothers me is his going on the RfM podcast. The host, whom we all know is a harsh and unforgiving exMormon, and Hauglid laugh it up (in a very stiff way) about a text that many find sacred. They mock Gee and Tvedness then turn right around and say that Hauglid didn't like FARMS because it was "mean." 

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, Bede said:

The only thing that bothers me is his going on the RfM podcast. The host, whom we all know is a harsh and unforgiving exMormon, and Hauglid laugh it up (in a very stiff way) about a text that many find sacred. They mock Gee and Tvedness then turn right around and say that Hauglid didn't like FARMS because it was "mean." 

Several parts of the interview left me with a bad taste in my mouth, and what you say here is largely why.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Bede said:

The only thing that bothers me is his going on the RfM podcast. The host, whom we all know is a harsh and unforgiving exMormon, and Hauglid laugh it up (in a very stiff way) about a text that many find sacred. They mock Gee and Tvedness then turn right around and say that Hauglid didn't like FARMS because it was "mean." 

I don't think RFM is an ex Mormon, keep wondering when he'll get ex'd though. But hopefully someone in the know will correct if wrong.

[Bede]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't think RFM is an ex Mormon, keep wondering when he'll get ex'd though. But hopefully someone in the know will correct if wrong.

I don’t think he is officially “out,” meaning that he has done the paperwork. But he is out. He has criticized and hated the church for many years on the boards.