Jump to content

Retired Byu Religion Professor Brian Hauglid on Rfm Podcast


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

As I said,  I'm not interested in helping RFM get more listens on his podcasts. I'm pretty picky about which one's I support. And I don't think it's necessary to listen to RFM to know there's no love lost between Hauglid and Gee.

Link to post
  • Replies 208
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am not disregarding the huge pressure...chances are I would keep quiet and continue working if I had 7 years left before retirement if there were no other decent jobs available, but the phrasing of

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

Actually, Hauglid told us what he thought already last year, including on this board.  There is no surprise here, and nothing new.  And the LDS Church did not take preemptive action against him, thoug

Posted Images

11 hours ago, Calm said:

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. 

I only finished listening to this podcast this morning.  Towards the end of the interview, Hauglid does say he has nothing against the church or its members but that he does hold views that the mainstream church would view as  "heritic"  he called both the BoM and the BoA 19th century productions, based on the evidence. He and Gee have had some kind of falling out.  he still attend church (when it reopens I'm assuming) with his wife but only sacrament meeting.

Link to post
8 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

yes

 

 

Choosing to not share, then, which is, of course, your prerogative.  Each of us will evaluate the information you have provided in light of that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

hold views that the mainstream church would view as  "heritic"  he called both the BoM and the BoA 19th century productions, based on the evidence. 

I disagree with Hauglid that these views are heretical. 

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, alter idem said:

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.

I do not know either of these men personally, although I do have several friends in the religion department at BYU and others that have worked on the JSP project of which I remain very close friends. I only know these men from their public engagements. I share this only to say that all of my expressions of Dr. Hauglid are speculation and my interpretation from listening to the podcast and reading his work.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour 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.

Hauglid and Gee evidentially have had issues with each other for a few years now.  Its my impression that Hauglid feels Gee gets away with a lot of questionable claims by not having his work thoroughly and  critically reviewed by peers outside of BYU.  He gives the example where Gee' had taken two quotes from two individuals where one said that she saw a long papyri roll and another quote where another girl was show the actual papyri that Smith used to translate the BoA.  Gee had combined these two separate quotes to form his conclusion that the papyri Smith used to translate was a long papyri roll.  The evidence does not support this conclusion but this is the kind of shoddy work Hauglid criticizes Gee on.

Edited by Fair Dinkum
  • Like 1
Link to post
40 minutes ago, alter idem said:

As I said,  I'm not interested in helping RFM get more listens on his podcasts. I'm pretty picky about which one's I support. And I don't think it's necessary to listen to RFM to know there's no love lost between Hauglid and Gee.

Thanks, alter.  I only commented because it seems you were being unfair with Hauglid.

Link to post
49 minutes ago, alter idem said:

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

That may be a consequence of my post but not my motivation.  I'm generally interested in a discussion.  It's not every day that we have a member of the BYU Religion Department part the curtins and give us a peek behind stage.  I thought the podcast was fascinating if only from that point.

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Hauglin and Gee evidentially have had issues with each other for a few years now.  Its my impression that Hauglid feels Gee gets away with a lot of questionable claims by not having his work thoroughly and  critically reviewed by peers outside of BYU.  He gives the example where Gee' had taken two quotes from two individuals where one said that she saw a long papyri roll and another quote where another girl was show the actual papyri that Smith used to translate the BoA.  Gee had combined these two separate quotes to form his conclusion that the papyri Smith used to translate was a long papyri roll.  The evidence does not support this conclusion but this is the kind of shoddy work Hauglid criticizes Gee on.

I've attempted to address Gree's use of those quotes in various forums, I do believe including here (I cant really check because it appears the search function doesn't work for those posters put on limited.  I can't get it to work).  So I was delighted to see Hauglid bring that up as an example.  

Link to post
28 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Choosing to not share, then, which is, of course, your prerogative.  Each of us will evaluate the information you have provided in light of that.

I'm being circumspect.  I do have access to a copy of the actual email Gee sent to BYU Administration but I don't think its prudent to share since it contains personal information and Gee private BYU email address.

  • Like 2
Link to post
37 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I disagree with Hauglid that these views are heretical. 

 

It was Hauglid that used the word heritic to describe this beliefs

Link to post
8 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I'm being circumspect.  I do have access to a copy of the actual email Gee sent to BYU Administration but I don't think its prudent to share since it contains personal information and Gee private BYU email address.

Okay.

Link to post
4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Okay.

I attempted to send you a copy of the email to your mailbox but was informed that for some reason you can not receive mail.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Your example is of a female temporary faculty who was dishonest in discussing LDS doctrine, which is itself a violation of standard scholarship anywhere.  She knew LDS doctrine on that issue and then deliberately ignored that doctrine, which is:

Quote

The honor code mirrors church doctrine, which distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior, condoning the former but not the latter. According to church teachings, "the attraction itself is not a sin but acting on it is," and even though people "do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them."

Lying is not the same as free speech.  Moreover, to teach in the LDS Church Educational System, one must have a temple recommend and this further requires belief in LDS doctrine.  So, of course one can decide to cease believing in LDS doctrine, but that will bring on the schizophrenia of agreeing beforehand to the requirements of teaching at BYU while not believing in the doctrine.  That was Hauglid's dillemma, which he admits that he hid for 7 years.  Opinion is just not the same as scholarship, something which has Hauglid very confused.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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.

I thought that that was well established years ago.

Just the usual logical error that history has anything logically to do with religious belief.

Sigh.

Deja vu all over again.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your example is of a female temporary faculty who was dishonest in discussing LDS doctrine, which is itself a violation of standard scholarship anywhere.  She knew LDS doctrine on that issue and then deliberately ignored that doctrine, which is:

Lying is not the same as free speech.  Moreover, to teach in the LDS Church Educational System, one must have a temple recommend and this further requires belief in LDS doctrine.  So, of course one can decide to cease believing in LDS doctrine, but that will bring on the schizophrenia of agreeing beforehand to the requirements of teaching at BYU while not believing in the doctrine.  That was Hauglid's dillemma, which he admits that he hid for 7 years.  Opinion is just not the same as scholarship, something which has Hauglid very confused.

Thank you for confirming my point.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I thought that that was well established years ago.

Just the usual logical error that history has anything logically to do with religious belief.

Sigh.

Deja vue all over again

I completely agree...well stated.

Link to post
9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Instead we get a thread about one person's decision about when to retire.

:mega_shok:

  • Like 1
Link to post
7 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 would suggest that if this is really an issue of such magnitude for you, that you listen yourself.  :)

But if you are looking for someone who has not listened to the podcast here I am. 

 

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Speaking as an adjunct professor myself, she wasn't fired. We are contract workers and the schools have absolutely no obligation to renew our contracts for any reason semester to semester. She was allowed to finish teaching her current course. If she had been fired, they would have dismissed her before her term was over. Frankly, I have no idea why any young person would even want to be an adjunct. I only do it for fun because I have other sources of income. Also, this really isn't about academic freedom. I teach Biological Anthropology. If the school told me that I could not include evolution in my teaching or required me to give alternate explanations for life, that would be a violation of my academic freedom (and a gross violation of science in general). She wasn't speaking academically because she wasn't speaking in an academic setting, she was speaking her opinion on her own personal blog. Frankly, I also find it ridiculous but they were definitely within their rights.

  • Like 4
Link to post
18 hours ago, Calm said:

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

When you see the vitriol that is pointed to anyone who both disbelieves and who speaks out as they leave along with the damage that happens to relationships with parents, kids, siblings and most importantly spouses, and lastly combined with the same mechanisms in other unhealthy high demand fundamentalist religions....... I completely see why folks feel pressured to be silent. 

I think your judgment of him and lack of empathy is unnecessary. 

Link to post
18 hours ago, CA Steve said:

This a quite harsh Calm. Most of us work for someone else and most of us would probably like to see things done differently in the organization where we work, but how many of us are going to risk our livelihood, our families security and any future employment by publicly expressing our opinions about our employer?

 

 

 

AMEN CA Steve

Link to post
18 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I haven't listened to all of it, but I don't think he said anything relative to the BoA he hasn't said over the past few years. He disagrees with Gee, but he's not taking a critical approach, imho. The last little bit of the interview he mentioned something vaguely about stepping away from church activity. Is that what you mean? I have to admit, I was a little bummed about that.  

 

he stated the Church is "mostly manmade" and he seemed to indicate he has had faith crises and that he finds it difficult to be active with such doubts and disbeliefs.  Most folks in this space always go further in their inner private thoughts then public ones.  He seems to me like a disbeliever who is trying to take the soft approach.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...