Retired Byu Religion Professor Brian Hauglid on Rfm Podcast

[The Unclean Deacon]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

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 the comment was that he was forced to keep his mouth shut somehow when it was a simple pragmatic choice made by him. 
 

Though I don’t think I would within a week of retirement choose to publicize what I saw as faults.  If I accepted their money by my own choice, I think I would show enough respect to not turn around and immediately criticize them. 
 

If they were detrimental enough that I thought they were harming others and that is why I chose to speak up, I would be ashamed to take their money and would likely have quit.

what if its between those two edges

[The Unclean Deacon]

12 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

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

confirmation bias means that no matter how respectful and evidence based the opposing opinion is, one will always find a way to dismiss it rather than consider it.

[The Unclean Deacon]

4 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

"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.

it poisons the well to believers who wish to maintain their beliefs.  It seems to fare extremely well with those who are deconstructing and using critical thinking skills with the dominant narrative

[The Unclean Deacon]

3 hours 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. 

that was John Gee

[The Unclean Deacon]

2 hours 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.

isnt that confirmation bias?

[The Unclean Deacon]

2 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I disagree with Hauglid that these views are heretical. 

 

says a heretic.... and i think your views are the only faithful way to stay and honor the data and avoid being irrational and using too much conjecture.

[The Unclean Deacon]

1. Hauglid considers himself a heretic and not an apostate. (He attends sacrament meeting with his wife. He isn’t seeking to draw people out of TSCC.)

2. Hauglid opined that both the BoA and BoM are 19th century texts based on the evidence.

3. Hauglid referred to some sort of belief shift that made the last third of his time at BYU difficult and included "Faith crises" of some sort. (The last third would be around 6-7 years I suppose.)

4. Hauglid expressed some vague disagreement with LGBTQ+  and social matters in the church.

5. Hauglid did not discuss any opinion on TSCC leaders.

[rodheadlee]

20 minutes ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

it poisons the well to believers who wish to maintain their beliefs.  It seems to fare extremely well with those who are deconstructing and using critical thinking skills with the dominant narrative

Well course those of us who wish to maintain our belief don't use critical thinking . Instead of ad hominem attacks how about putting up the evidence and letting it speak for itself.

Edited July 8, 2020 by rodheadlee

[The Unclean Deacon]

10 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Well course those of us who wish to maintain our belief don't use critical thinking . Instead of ad hominem attacks how about putting up the evidence and letting it speak for itself.

I didn't say that.  I said those deconstructing AND using critical thinking skills.  

[Bob Crockett]

34 minutes ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

confirmation bias means that no matter how respectful and evidence based the opposing opinion is, one will always find a way to dismiss it rather than consider it.

What does that mean?  Tricky jargon doesn't work with me.

[The Unclean Deacon]

18 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

What does that mean?  Tricky jargon doesn't work with me.

If the terms used by professionals and laymen alike is not understandable to you, then I will be of little help.

[Bob Crockett]

4 minutes ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

If the terms used by professionals and laymen alike is not understandable to you, then I will be of little help.

It means nothing to me.  You're not communicating.

[alter idem]

42 minutes ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

that was John Gee

There could be something John Gee said about Brian Hauglid before the January 19th Presentation "A window into Joseph Smith's Translation', but it's that particular event and I believe a facebook post that I was referring to.

Jeff Lindsey wrote about a Maxwell Institute presentation Hauglid and Robin Jensen gave.  It's titled  'Friendly fire from BYU:  Opening old Book of Abraham wounds without the first Aid.'

https://mormanity.blogspot.com/2019/03/friendly-fire-from-byu-opening-old-book.html

 

Lindsey was concerned for how the information was presented as he had a friend who was very shaken by it.  He wrote several blog postings on this subject, which were very informative.  It now makes sense knowing that Brian Hauglid was having some kind of faith crisis at the time he gave this presentation.  I guess that explains it.

 

[cacheman]

7 minutes ago, alter idem said:

There could be something John Gee said about Brian Hauglid before the January 19th Presentation "A window into Joseph Smith's Translation', but it's that particular event and I believe a facebook post that I was referring to.

Jeff Lindsey wrote about a Maxwell Institute presentation Hauglid and Robin Jensen gave.  It's titled  'Friendly fire from BYU:  Opening old Book of Abraham wounds without the first Aid.'

https://mormanity.blogspot.com/2019/03/friendly-fire-from-byu-opening-old-book.html

 

Lindsey was concerned for how the information was presented as he had a friend who was very shaken by it.  He wrote several blog postings on this subject, which were very informative.  It now makes sense knowing that Brian Hauglid was having some kind of faith crisis at the time he gave this presentation.  I guess that explains it.

 

You said that Dr. Hauglid criticized other scholars.  But, the presentation that Jeff Lindsey writes about complains that they didn't even mention John Gee or other relevant prior research.  So, you're upset if they criticize other scholars, and Lindsey is upset when they don't.  It looks like Dr. Hauglid is stuck between a rock and a hard place!

-cacheman

[CA Steve]

24 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Lindsey was concerned for how the information was presented as he had a friend who was very shaken by it.  He wrote several blog postings on this subject, which were very informative.  It now makes sense knowing that Brian Hauglid was having some kind of faith crisis at the time he gave this presentation.  I guess that explains it.

How do you explain Jensen's participation or is it just easier to dismiss what they are saying because of a "faith crisis"  without really listening to what they say?

Edited July 8, 2020 by CA Steve

[cacheman]

2 hours 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.

Where did the dishonesty occur?  She expressly said that she understood that her views ran counter to the policies of the church.  She also says that she never discussed LGBT rights with her classes.  It sounds like she simply had different views on certain church policies. 

-cacheman

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

isnt that confirmation bias?

Not necessarily. If I'm doing a lit review, I will bypass articles by scientists who have questionable research methods or who regularly publish in non scientific journals. Over time, we all form opinions about the objectivity of certain individuals or forums.

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

I didn't say that.  I said those deconstructing AND using critical thinking skills.  

It would be nice if somebody laid out the evidence for Brian's theory with footnotes and let us decide for or against on the merits of the evidence.

Edited July 8, 2020 by rodheadlee

[CA Steve]

36 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

It would be nice if somebody laid out the evidence for Brian's theory with footnotes and let us decide for or against on the merits of the evidence.

It has been done and published, by the Church itself. See Revelations and Translations, Volume 4: Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts.

I highly recommend it.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Thank you for confirming my point.

I confirmed that she lied, which is against academic canons at any university, or in any academic setting.  Are you claiming that free speech at a university must include the right to deliberately lie?

[The Unclean Deacon]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

It means nothing to me.  You're not communicating.

I'm sorry

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

Where did the dishonesty occur?  She expressly said that she understood that her views ran counter to the policies of the church.  She also says that she never discussed LGBT rights with her classes.  It sounds like she simply had different views on certain church policies. 

-cacheman

Robertson claimed that "This is my official announcement and declaration that I believe heterosexuality and homosexuality are both natural and neither is sinful. I will never support the phrase 'love the sinner, hate the sin' because that 'sin' is part of who that person is. Homosexuality and transgenderism are not sins; if God made us, and those are part of who we are ... then God created that as well."  That was Robertson's Facebook post, according to the citation provided by Fair Dinkum.  Since her position or belief is that "heterosexuality and homosexuality are both natural and neither is sinful" are both not in conflict with LDS doctrine, she has lied in claiming that they are.  She may be confused in not differentiating desire and action, or in not understanding that the LDS Church does not condemn homosexual feelings, nor transgender feelings.

I have often argued that Jesus himself does not condemn the parents or their blind son.  The son did not sin, nor his parents that he was born blind.  This was natural, whatever the cause.  Same for heterosexuality or homosexuality.  Those who experience either are not sinners, and Robertson is a liar to accuse either of sinning under LDS doctrine simply because LDS doctrine does not condemn them.  Heterosexual acts and homosexual acts can be condemned under LDS doctrine.  However, one does not have to be LDS.  No one is required to be LDS or to abide by LDS doctrine.  Only LDS Church members are required to abide by LDS rules.  Seems rather simple to me, and everyone has free choice.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

what if its between those two edges

What if he is a pragmatist?

[Damien the Leper]

19 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.

What business is it of Gee's or any other irrelevant persons to have the audacity to turn Hauglid into the church? Gee nor any other person is a watchdog for the church. It just doesn't make sense for Gee to do what you seem to be accusing him of. If such an accusation is true then Gee is a scumbag that is not to be confused with a "guardian" of his church and faith.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Where'd you get this idea of retirement funding?   That takes it beyond what the OP suggested, of course. 

Not really. This is what I was responding to. 
 

Quote

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.

Quote

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

It would appear that Fair Dinkum’s impression is very much in the minority. This is good to know. I need to remember when I am not willing or able to check out a source myself to wait for multiple views before making assumptions.

Just to be clear though, I was challenging FD’s judgment that Hauglid ‘had to wait’ to be his “true self”****, not Hauglid himself though at the time I assumed Hauglid had said stuff that led FD to the judgment. 

***the quotes I use with this is to indicate it is someone else’s as I don’t like that term myself, the choices we make on what to hide and what to expose of ourself are as “true” as any other choices in most cases imo, I prefer “transparent self” as conveying the concept of being fully open better

Edited July 8, 2020 by Calm