Jump to content

Retired Byu Religion Professor Brian Hauglid on Rfm Podcast


Recommended Posts

@Robert F. Smith has it pretty much in the right. My thinking is that we don't know enough to authoritatively declare a relationship between glyphs and texts. Did the English text make it to paper first, or the glyphs? Was it a glossalalia as Manu Padro suggests, a fraud, a cipher-key, or some other production? In my experience the field of possibilities is artificially narrowed by commentators in the name of almighty "parsimony", when the circumstances at hand do not justify such absolute conclusions. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
4 hours 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.

While I think it is interesting to speculate (educatedly, of course ... technically, that's not a word, but just roll with it! :D) on how much papyrus might be missing, in a lot of ways, that's beside the point: We don't have anything from the original Book of Mormon (a short selection of transcribed characters, yes, but we don't have the actual plates), and yet the lack of source material isn't a problem for anyone who has tested Moroni's Promise with positive results.  I don't see any reason why it should be different with the Book of Abraham, the Book of Moses, Joseph Smith--History, Joseph Smith--Matthew, the Joseph Smith Translation of the Holy Bible, the Doctrine and Covenants, or anything else in the open canon of the Church of Jesus Christ.

And as much personal value as I derive from the accounts of Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom Omni, Mormon, Mosiah, or anyone else, the Book of Mormon's real value lies in its ability as a tool to help me develop a better personal relationship with my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

  • Like 3
Link to post
3 hours 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.

If we could discuss it ignoring our temple covenants, which I will not do, I think there is plenty of evidence for the catalyst theory when one compares the facsimilies to what is taught in the temple.  Facsimile 2 figure 7 comes readily to mind if one assumes a totally naive view of the hieroglyphics and the supposed "meaning" given to it my real scholars.  Joseph thought he was "translating" by the spirit and in a sense he was, but hieroglyphics might just as well have been tea leaves or patterns on the wall paper which he was "translating". 

Again and again we see confusion between spiritually seeing something vs a literal interpretation.

If we ignore Egyptology completely we see a figure with his right arm partially unseen behind his body,  the forearm extended at 90 degrees to his body and his left arm forming a square and compass, a bird figure doing the same, and another, more stick-like figure with both hands raised with fingers apparently making similar meaning signs, arguably a compass and square.

Suppose one was convinced that this was a spiritual message from Father Abraham, as a type for Heavenly Father, " revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove".  That would be exactly what Joseph saw, I am sure, and exactly what he said he saw.

I have no problem with the wording that this message was spiritually from Abraham "translated" by the gift and power of God.

We can see this easily paralleling the rabbit/duck illustration Wittgenstein used to illustrate the concept of "seeing as".

Perceiving all reality becomes an exercise of interpretation to see things "AS" whatever we see them "as"!   Even in this thread some see the professor as seeking freedom, some see him as a scoundrel etc.

So is Facsimile 2 actually describing what Joseph "saw it as"?

Or is it describing what modern Egyptologists "see it as"?

There is room for both, but as always when we mix the two interpretations we get ourselves in trouble.

So now let's follow Wittgenstein and have a several page debate on whether or not this is a rabbit or a duck?!?!   Oh wait, we already are.

Rabbit–duck illusion - Wikipedia

 

  • Like 2
Link to post

Another thing:

Joseph had already been through the Anthon thing.

What was he worried about there?

That someone would take what was copied from the plates and translate it with a different meaning.

How stupid could Joseph be to release the original Facsimilies AND their "translations" without even thinking that the same thing could happen again!!!??!?!

And yet he is supposedly some kind of fraudster with evil intent?

I am surprised anyone would think he would make the same mistake TWICE.   It just makes no sense.

  • Like 2
Link to post
24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So now let's follow Wittgenstein and have a several page debate on whether or not this is a rabbit or a duck?!?!   Oh wait, we already are.

Rabbit–duck illusion - Wikipedia

In what universe is that a rabbit?

Link to post
40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If we could discuss it ignoring our temple covenants, which I will not do, I think there is plenty of evidence for the catalyst theory when one compares the facsimilies to what is taught in the temple.  Facsimile 2 figure 7 comes readily to mind if one assumes a totally naive view of the hieroglyphics and the supposed "meaning" given to it my real scholars.  Joseph thought he was "translating" by the spirit and in a sense he was, but hieroglyphics might just as well have been tea leaves or patterns on the wall paper which he was "translating". 

I hear that and I think it is a valid approach. My thought is that the content of the Book of Abraham was given as a temple primer, preparing and instructing Joseph and the Saints in things they would need for temple purposes. The contents of the papyri served effectively the same purpose as temple ordinances for Egyptians, ie liturgical access to the presence of Deity. That and Pyle's notes about Facsimile 1 make me think that the story of the papyri as presently told is too simple. However, I do think you are right, his revelations can be legitimate even if it was the goshdarn wallpaper in the Mansion House. Rhetorical glossalalia is a live option. 

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Another thing:

Joseph had already been through the Anthon thing.

What was he worried about there?

That someone would take what was copied from the plates and translate it with a different meaning.

How stupid could Joseph be to release the original Facsimilies AND their "translations" without even thinking that the same thing could happen again!!!??!?!

And yet he is supposedly some kind of fraudster with evil intent?

I am surprised anyone would think he would make the same mistake TWICE.   It just makes no sense.

I hadn't thought of it this way before, but you have a point. 

Edit: As a comedic sidenote, the bushiness of the "eyebrows" on Wittgenstein's creature makes it so that it appears perpetually disgruntled at being a philosophical abstraction. 

Edited by OGHoosier
  • Like 2
Link to post
25 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

In what universe is that a rabbit?

Interesting that I saw the rabbit first.

  • Like 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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?

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.

First: where have I ever said the BoA is an obvious fraud?  However is it what Joseph himself said it was? No.  So at least in my mind the BoA remains an enigma.    

Second:  nothing you have provided in your post I’ve quoted above supports the missing scroll theory which is what my comments were directed to

Link to post
51 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

In what universe is that a rabbit?

You can’t see the rabbit?  That is what always appears first to me. I have to mentally concentrate to see the duck. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
28 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Interesting that I saw the rabbit first.

I wonder if what you see first has any implications or it is just random or where your eye falls first and maybe the direction it is tracking ( focus on eyes and track down to nose of rabbit or up the beak)

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

I wonder if what you see first has any implications or it is just random or where your eye falls first and maybe the direction it is tracking ( focus on eyes and track down to nose of rabbit or up the beak)

Quote

The meaning of the rabbit duck illusion says that people who are able to see both animals easily are more creative in general. Most people can see the duck, but have difficulty seeing the rabbit — so if you can see both, congratulations! You probably have a greater sense of creativity than most people.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post

I think it is probably I like bunnies better than ducks, lol

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

There are actually a number of such pages which duplicate one another.  OGHoosier is probably asking whether the glyphs or translation came first, and which was the first sheet to have it?  Why did the different scribes write the same thing over again in a different hand?  Who put the glyphs in?  What was their purpose?

For example, based on the May 27, 1835, letter of W. W. Phelps to his wife, we know that Phelps began this cipher-key work before the arrival of the Egyptian papyri and mummies in Kirtland, and that afterward he was the “dominant force” in continuing that effort – which likely utilized an already extant, complete Book of Abraham text along with significant portions of already extant revelations (D&C 76 and 88).  It appears that the multiple copies of BofA English text with glyphs in the left margin was an attempt to create a cipher-key to the BofA (Nibley thought of it as back-engineering from the finished product).  In other words a Grammar and Alphabet, even though it does not actually contain any grammatical or alphabetical information.

What’s the Hauglid response to this?

Link to post
Posted (edited)

Also before anyone attempts to separate Smith from the KEP keep in mind that several of the 34 pages that were written on were done so in Smiths own handwriting. So all the theory handwringing trying to remove smith from the KEP is a waste of time. And the KEP Link’s Smiths translation to  the extant papyri not to mention that the book itself directs the reader to the extant papyri
 

 

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

Also before anyone attempts to separate Smith from the KEP keep in mind that several of the 34 pages that were written on were done so in Smiths own handwriting  

How much was in Smith's handwriting? A scattered word here and there? A signature? Or was he doing full entries and/or paragraph-length text?

Link to post
1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

How much was in Smith's handwriting? A scattered word here and there? A signature? Or was he doing full entries and/or paragraph-length text?

JSP vol 4

Link to post
1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Also before anyone attempts to separate Smith from the KEP keep in mind that several of the 34 pages that were written on were done so in Smiths own handwriting. So all the theory handwringing trying to remove smith from the KEP is a waste of time. And the KEP Link’s Smiths translation to  the extant papyri not to mention that the book itself directs the reader to the extant papyri
 

 

Are you sure it is a waste of time?  I have JSP vol 4 and went through the sections on the Egyptian Alphabet (pages 55-109) and the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (pages 111-190).

For the later, there are 36 pages and it only says "English in the handwriting of William W. Phelps and Warren Parrish; hieratic and unknown characters in unidentified handwriting (likely Phelps and Parrish)"

For the former, it has "English in the handwriting of JS, Oliver Cowdery, and William W. Phelps; hieratic and unknown characters in unidentified handwriting (likely JS and possible Cowdery)".

It sounds like the Grammar has no JS handwriting.  As for the Alphabet, apparently there are three versions (A, B, and C).  A was written by JS, B was written by Cowdery, and C was written by Phelps.  It says that C was most likely written first, then B, then A.  So if Joseph Smith is the last person to write down the Grammar, how does this link him to the work done on the Alphabet besides just copying existing work?

Edited by webbles
  • Like 3
Link to post
9 minutes ago, webbles said:

Are you sure it is a waste of time?  I have JSP vol 4 and went through the sections on the Egyptian Alphabet (pages 55-109) and the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (pages 111-190).

For the later, there are 36 pages and it only says "English in the handwriting of William W. Phelps and Warren Parrish; hieratic and unknown characters in unidentified handwriting (likely Phelps and Parrish)"

For the former, it has "English in the handwriting of JS, Oliver Cowdery, and William W. Phelps; hieratic and unknown characters in unidentified handwriting (likely JS and possible Cowdery)".

It sounds like the Grammar has no JS handwriting.  As for the Alphabet, apparently there are three versions (A, B, and C).  A was written by JS, B was written by Cowdery, and C was written by Phelps.  It says that C was most likely written first, then B, then A.  So if Joseph Smith is the last person to write down the Grammar, how does this link him to the work done on the Alphabet besides just copying existing work?

Actually, I missed that only version A has the source note of "English in the handwriting of JS, Oliver Cowdery, and William W. Phelps; hieratic and unknown characters in unidentified handwriting (likely JS and possible Cowdery)".  Version B and version C have their own source note and they don't have any handwriting from JS.

So the only document that has any handwriting of JS, is the Alphabet A.  And it isn't just his handwriting.  And it is only 4 leaves.  And it is basically a copy of B and C.

  • Like 3
Link to post
16 minutes ago, webbles said:

Actually, I missed that only version A has the source note of "English in the handwriting of JS, Oliver Cowdery, and William W. Phelps; hieratic and unknown characters in unidentified handwriting (likely JS and possible Cowdery)".  Version B and version C have their own source note and they don't have any handwriting from JS.

So the only document that has any handwriting of JS, is the Alphabet A.  And it isn't just his handwriting.  And it is only 4 leaves.  And it is basically a copy of B and C.

So, then, we know that Joseph Smith was aware of and involved with the production of the Alphabets, but his "creative input" (so to speak) and general responsibility for the project is undefined? 

Link to post
2 hours ago, PacMan said:

What’s the Hauglid response to this?

Aside from his already published volumes (I have two of them), and his various audible discussions, and comments on this board, I look forward to his book or article on this subject.  Otherwise it could be difficult to figure out what he is actually claiming in scholarly detail which might be different from what he has said in the past.  That's where the rubber meets the road.

  • Like 2
Link to post
On 7/7/2020 at 3:45 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

Retired July 1st BYU Religion Professor Brian Hauglid,  author of several books on the Book of Abraham, has just been interviewed in an  interesting interview on the  RFM Podcast.  Although I was surprised that he would decide to be interviewed on this particular podcast that some may find less than faith promoting, I do find many of his assertions fascinating and thought provoking.

His views have strayed away from a traditional view of the Book of Abraham and brings into question many of the views I once held towards the Book of Abraham.

I'm curious if others have also listened to this podcast and what your thought might be concerning his approach to the Book of Abraham.

Also I do find it interesting that Dr. Hauglid, a member of the church team that published the Joseph Smith Papers and authored several books on the Book of Abraham,  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.

 

 

He felt he had to wait until he retired to speak freely.   There is little or no academic freedom at BYU.  Just check the  Association of University Professors censure list.  BYU has been on it for academic freedom violations for over twenty years.

https://www.aaup.org/our-programs/academic-freedom/censure-list

 

 

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

Also before anyone attempts to separate Smith from the KEP keep in mind that several of the 34 pages that were written on were done so in Smiths own handwriting. So all the theory handwringing trying to remove smith from the KEP is a waste of time. And the KEP Link’s Smiths translation to  the extant papyri not to mention that the book itself directs the reader to the extant papyri

 

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

How much was in Smith's handwriting? A scattered word here and there? A signature? Or was he doing full entries and/or paragraph-length text?

None of the Book of Abraham manuscripts (including the first four with glyphs in the left column) are in Joseph Smith's hand (Phelps, Williams, Parrish, Richards, and Appleby).  Joseph only signed the Valuable Discovery Notebook (VDN).  The 108 leaf GAEL is not in Joseph's hand (Phelps & Parrish).  Only the Egyptian Alphabet A material is in Joseph's hand (with additions from Cowdery and Phelps), while Egyptian Alphabet B-C and Counting are not in Joseph's hand (Cowdery, Phelps, Parrish).  That doesn't mean that Joseph wasn't superintending the whole project.  After all, he did prefer to use scribes.  However, it also does not mean that this was a project designed to create the Book of Abraham.  Indeed, it looks more like what took place after the translation had been completed.  An effort to master Egyptian by the back door, as it were, which everyone agrees was a failure.

Non-scholars generally take a by-gosh-and-by-golly approach to these documents, drawing largely apriori conclusions not warranted by logic or evidence.

  • Like 4
Link to post
23 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

He felt he had to wait until he retired to speak freely.   There is little or no academic freedom at BYU.  Just check the  Association of University Professors censure list.  BYU has been on it for academic freedom violations for over twenty years.

https://www.aaup.org/our-programs/academic-freedom/censure-list

That would be just fine if and only if the AAUP were not complicit in systematic denial of academic freedom at nearly all North American universities and colleges.  Hypocrisy is rampant within institutions of higher learning.  At least BYU doesn't participate in that hypocrisy.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...