Jump to content

Retired Byu Religion Professor Brian Hauglid on Rfm Podcast


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

glitched

Edited by Calm
Link to post
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not really. This is what I was responding to. 
 

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

I don't work for the church, but I'm not transparent because it would hurt the majority of the people in my husband and I's life. The only ones that really know me like I truly am is my kids and husband. If I were fully transparent I would lose so much. In fact relationships are far more important to me than money. Not that I have that much, but that is my predicament, not trusting that people will stay in my life if they know. I've seen it in action with people in my ward, so that made me have cold feet I guess. I have a couple of friends that are a couple that have known us for years, they kind of know we aren't as active, and that I struggled when I learned of JS's polygamy. But that is the extent of it. 

BTW, just curious Calm, do you have "Alexa" in your home? If you do and want to listen to RFM's podcast with Hauglid, that is one way.  Just say RadioFreeMormon podcast and it should come up.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Gee has certainly gone out of his way to attack Hauglid, so the jerky move has context. 

Before or after the “abhorrent”? (I think that was the word he used) comment?  Serious question because I don’t pay much attention to the BoA debate as I don’t have the time to invest to study the issues well enough to make informed judgments (I do think one needs to be familiar with what content papyri are generally, how they are set up, etc in order to reliably conclude what should and shouldn’t be found on them).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm not transparent because it would hurt the majority of the people in my lives

And that is a choice and not a bad one, your motivation is admirable (though I can’t say it is right or wrong as I know from experience sometimes choices to protect others without consulting them can backfire).
 

You have that priority in your life, to avoid hurting others. A very good priority. The way FD responded (the quote I posted) made it appear Hauglid had made a choice based on the priority of ensuring his retirement was funded*** and then used words like “had to”.  I saw that phrasing as inaccurately framing the discussion...which apparently it was for other reasons ( Hauglid did not say anything to imply he wasn’t transparent about his beliefs or feelings according to others if I understand them correctly).

***a practical priority, whether good or bad depends on what is sacrificed for it imo. 

Edited by Calm
Link to post
13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

BTW, just curious Calm, do you have "Alexa" in your home? If you do and want to listen to RFM's podcast with Hauglid, that is one way.  Just say RadioFreeMormon podcast and it should come up.

I don’t do podcasts.  I don’t retain the info much, can’t stand the inability to check sources that generally are t supplied or difficulty even when given (because I can’t copy/paste and have to trust I am spelling names right, etc) and the usual chit chat that floods the substantive content frequently annoys me (some chit chat is interesting in itself, but I heard too much uninteresting, self absorbed babble when they first came out to want to try most).

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, cacheman said:

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

Maybe I didn't word it properly.

He did criticize other scholars. It took a while to remember exactly what was discussed awhile ago on this. Here is a blog posting regarding the rift between Hauglid and Gee and also Muhlestein (in particular, the facebook posting where he called Gee's and Muhlestein's scholarship abhorrent.

https://proveallthingsholdfasttogood.wordpress.com/book-of-abraham-apologist-brian-hauglids-transformative-journey/

Jeff Lindsey wasn't upset that they didn't criticize other scholars, he was upset that they didn't mention any of the other scholars' work to offer an alternative, a more faith based belief (this is what he found lacking in the presentation by Hauglid and Jensen),  It sounded like he felt their presentation was  supportive of the idea that the Book of Abraham was a 19th century work by Joseph Smith.

 

Link to post
2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

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?

I don't know what Jensen's position is.  Is he on facebook?  Has he written anything to share his thoughts? Because, Brian Hauglid DID share his thoughts, so that's why I'm speculating.  That and his going on RFM to make a 3 hour podcast, and his saying he only goes to Sacrament meeting for his wife(not to take the sacrament even).  I am speculating, absolutely, but from what I've read and from what I've seen of others like him, I bet it's a faith crisis that led to this.

Link to post

Something I found of interest. "

“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” ― Matthew Syed, Black Box Thinking: Why Most People Never Learn from Their Mistakes--But Some Do

Would new explanations be "missing papyri" "catalyst"?

 
Link to post
23 minutes ago, Calm said:

I do think one needs to be familiar with what content papyri are generally, how they are set up, etc in order to reliably conclude what should and shouldn’t be found on them

I do not believe the content of the extant papyri is an issue. Multiple people have provided translations of it over the years and they are, for the most part, remarkably similar. No one that I am aware of disputes the translations that Robert Ritner provided in  The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition , even those who disagree with him on other issues. We know the content of the extant pieces.

The dispute lies in two principal areas. 

1. The purpose of those portions of the KEP which show Egyptian characters and their purported translation.

2. The extent of the missing sections.

Regarding number 1.

It is important to the missing scroll theory that the KEP was created after the BoA was completely translated. If any portions of the KEP were done simultaneously or after the BoA was completed, it would show that the KEP was used as part of the translation process, which in turn would show that the extant pieces of the papyri are where Joseph and his scribe thought the BoA was written, because the Egyptian glyphs on the KEP manuscripts can be found on extant pieces. This negates the missing scroll. Not because there isn't any missing portions of the papyri, no one disputes that, but because we would still have the papyri pieces where JS thought the BoA was inscribed, so what ever is on the missing scroll portions is no longer relevant. This is the most important issue in the disagreement between the people at the JSPP (including Huaglid and Jensen and others )and Dr. Gee. The timeline of the KEP and the existence of a non-extant original complete BoA manuscript are critical issues, neither of which require one to be an Egyptologist to understand. I should point out here that most people are forgetting the fact that the Church itself has agreed with Jensen and Hauglid on this issue. We can see that in the BoA JSPP book. In fact they agreed with them enough to ask Dr Gee to stop criticizing the volume.

2. Missing scroll. This is a simple. One side needs there to be enough missing scroll that it could contain the complete extant BoA, (at a minimum 15') the other side is making their evaluations based on the evidence. If Dr. Gee is correct and the KEP is really some sort or reverse engineering project then the length of the missing scroll is important, If not, then it is irrelevant since we have the papyri that contains the portions that JS thought contained the BoA. Since Dr. Gee has not responded to Cook and Smith, we can assume  that he does not have any sort of response. Frankly, his scroll length papers are really not good.

 

By the way, the recently released book Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith's Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christian contains a chapter by Mat Grey which shows that portions of the translation of the BoA were done in Nauvoo 1842. Effectively showing that Gee's BoA translation timeline is incorrect.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I bet it's a faith crisis that led to this.

This comment speaks volumes. Do you have any idea who Dr Jensen is?

You really ought to get better informed on this before questioning the faith of members employed by the Church.

Edited by CA Steve
Link to post
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

do not believe the content of the extant papyri is an issue. Multiple people have provided translations of it over the years and they are, for the most part, remarkably similar

I am talking more about what one should expect to see on papyri, such as the discussion over what is the illustration being referred to in the text, what might have been on the missing parts, whether the description of the papyri from one witness matches what is there or could better match something one should expect that we don’t currently have, and other issues I vaguely remember from years ago. 
 

And it has been years since I looked at where the arguments were so undoubtedly I am out of date on what is the current issues of debate.  At this point, I don’t want to invest in reading the articles and books dealing with it and don’t believe online discussion is in depth enough from what I have seen. 
 

I did work in the math problem that was connected with this and agree Gee made an error there, but that is because I have the foundation in math and it doesn’t depend on timelines, etc. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
51 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

This comment speaks volumes. Do you have any idea who Dr Jensen is?

You really ought to get better informed on this before questioning the faith of members employed by the Church.

And you need to read a little more carefully.  I wasn't talking about Dr. Jensen,  YOU brought him up and tried to tie him in to what was being discussed about Hauglid.  This thread is about Brian Hauglid, my comments have been about him, and the OP is about a podcast he's made, now that he no longer is employed by the church.

  • Like 1
Link to post
43 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am talking more about what one should expect to see on papyri, such as the discussion over what is the illustration being referred to in the text, what might have been on the missing parts, whether the description of the papyri from one witness matches what is there or could better match something one should expect that we don’t currently have, and other issues I vaguely remember from years ago

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

 

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

I did work in the math problem that was connected with this and agree Gee made an error there, but that is because I have the foundation in math and it doesn’t depend on timelines, etc. 

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, alter idem said:

And you need to read a little more carefully.  I wasn't talking about Dr. Jensen,  YOU brought him up and tried to tie him in to what was being discussed about Hauglid.  This thread is about Brian Hauglid, my comments have been about him, and the OP is about a podcast he's made, now that he no longer is employed by the church.

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.

Edited by CA Steve
  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Btw, timelines and scroll length are not connected. 

I know. 

I do have an issue with Hauglid using “abhorrent” rather than “incompetent” or some synonym. Abhorrent has a huge moral component to its connotations and is typically used for stuff like molestation and assault, not sloppy scholarship. 
 

I am not claiming anyone is incompetent here. I am talking solely about what I don’t think is a term scholars should use in appraising other scholarship (unless it advocates for genocide or rape or something similar). 

Edited by Calm
Link to post
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

... in my husband’s and my life 

Hahahahaha! I was sure searching in my head for what sounded best, eek! Thanks Scott, can't believe I sub in the schools, lol!

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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?

Quote

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.

So you’re suggesting that had Hauglid been more honest about his beliefs he could have kept his teaching position?  I completely disagree he would have been fired. Again thanks for proving my point. BYU does not allow intellectual aka academic freedom.  Which as a private higher learning institution is their right. But let’s not pretend they allow academic freedom...they do but only within the bumper pad.  Go outside and you’ll get fired.

Edited by Fair Dinkum
Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I do not believe the content of the extant papyri is an issue. Multiple people have provided translations of it over the years and they are, for the most part, remarkably similar. No one that I am aware of disputes the translations that Robert Ritner provided in  The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition , even those who disagree with him on other issues. We know the content of the extant pieces.

The dispute lies in two principal areas. 

1. The purpose of those portions of the KEP which show Egyptian characters and their purported translation.

2. The extent of the missing sections.

Regarding number 1.

It is important to the missing scroll theory that the KEP was created after the BoA was completely translated. If any portions of the KEP were done simultaneously or after the BoA was completed, it would show that the KEP was used as part of the translation process, which in turn would show that the extant pieces of the papyri are where Joseph and his scribe thought the BoA was written, because the Egyptian glyphs on the KEP manuscripts can be found on extant pieces. This negates the missing scroll. Not because there isn't any missing portions of the papyri, no one disputes that, but because we would still have the papyri pieces where JS thought the BoA was inscribed, so what ever is on the missing scroll portions is no longer relevant. This is the most important issue in the disagreement between the people at the JSPP (including Huaglid and Jensen and others )and Dr. Gee. The timeline of the KEP and the existence of a non-extant original complete BoA manuscript are critical issues, neither of which require one to be an Egyptologist to understand. I should point out here that most people are forgetting the fact that the Church itself has agreed with Jensen and Hauglid on this issue. We can see that in the BoA JSPP book. In fact they agreed with them enough to ask Dr Gee to stop criticizing the volume.

2. Missing scroll. This is a simple. One side needs there to be enough missing scroll that it could contain the complete extant BoA, (at a minimum 15') the other side is making their evaluations based on the evidence. If Dr. Gee is correct and the KEP is really some sort or reverse engineering project then the length of the missing scroll is important, If not, then it is irrelevant since we have the papyri that contains the portions that JS thought contained the BoA. Since Dr. Gee has not responded to Cook and Smith, we can assume  that he does not have any sort of response. Frankly, his scroll length papers are really not good.

 

By the way, the recently released book Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith's Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christian contains a chapter by Mat Grey which shows that portions of the translation of the BoA were done in Nauvoo 1842. Effectively showing that Gee's BoA translation timeline is incorrect.

Excellent analysis of the problem.  Edit to add, I think it’s sad that John Gee felt the need to do shoddy scholarship to support his lost papyri theory.  It completely undermines his entire argument.

Edited by Fair Dinkum
Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So you’re suggesting that had Hauglid been more honest about his beliefs he could have kept his teaching position?  I completely disagree he would have been fired. Again thanks for proving my point. BYU does not allow intellectual aka academic freedom.  Which as a private higher learning institution is their right. But let’s not pretend they allow academic freedom...they do but only within the bumper pad.  Go outside and you’ll get fired.

In fact, Hauglid did not get fired, proving you quite wrong.  BYU certainly knew his opinions, as he had voiced them repeatedly long before his retirement.  I understand that you desperately want your delusion to be true, so are grasping at straws.

You at the same time fully ignore the agreement which every faculty member agrees to in teaching at BYU.  Why would you favor lying as academic freedom?  Those who deliberately lie after having agreed not to are apparently just O.K.  Right, Jack?

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 3
Link to post
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In fact, Hauglid did not get fired, proving you quite wrong.  BYU certainly knew his opinions, as he had voiced them repeatedly long before his retirement.  I understand that you desperately want your delusion to be true, so are grasping at straws.

You at the same time you fully ignore the agreement which every faculty member agrees to in teaching at BYU.  Why would you favor lying as academic freedom?  Those who deliberately lie after having agreed not to are apparently just O.K.  Right, Jack?

Read what I wrote.  I clearly stated that as a private institution of higher education BYU is within its rights to hire and or fire whomever they wish to. So I agree that Hauglid was not fired after making some of his views known but he was not fully open about his current beliefs until after his retirement was secured.  Surly you can’t believe that had he been as open regarding his beliefs as he was in the podcast interview he would have maintained his position?  There is no freaking way BYU would allow that level of academic freedom.  Why can’t you accept that BYU does not have the same academic freedom as other institutions of higher learning?  I’m frankly gobsmacked at your need to be right...even when you are wrong.

Edited by Fair Dinkum
Link to post
2 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Read what I wrote.  I clearly stated that as a private higher learning institution BYU is within its rights to hire and or fire whomever they wish to. So I agree that Hauglid was not fired after making some of his views known but he was not fully open about his current beliefs until after his retirement was secured.  Surly you can’t believe that had he been as open regarding his beliefs as he was in the podcast interview he would have maintained his position?  There is no freaking way BYU would allow that level of academic freedom.  Why can’t you accept that BYU does not have the same academic freedom as other institutions of higher learning?  I’m frankly gobsmacked at your need to be right...even when you are wrong.

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.  :crazy:

  • Like 2
Link to post
6 hours ago, alter idem said:

...Brian Hauglid DID share his thoughts, so that's why I'm speculating.  That and his going on RFM to make a 3 hour podcast, and his saying he only goes to Sacrament meeting for his wife(not to take the sacrament even)....

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

M.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Read what I wrote.  I clearly stated that as a private higher learning institution BYU is within its rights to hire and or fire whomever they wish to. So I agree that Hauglid was not fired after making some of his views known but he was not fully open about his current beliefs until after his retirement was secured.  Surly you can’t believe that had he been as open regarding his beliefs as he was in the podcast interview he would have maintained his position?  There is no freaking way BYU would allow that level of academic freedom.  Why can’t you accept that BYU does not have the same academic freedom as other institutions of higher learning?  I’m frankly gobsmacked at your need to be right...even when you are wrong.

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 now 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 they are led by the most egregiously radical professors that view opposing ideas as something that must be stopped at all costs.   

Edited by Storm Rider
  • Like 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

Something I found of interest. "

“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” ― Matthew Syed, Black Box Thinking: Why Most People Never Learn from Their Mistakes--But Some Do
 

Or find out that what we think is evidence, isn't.

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...