My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7881
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Kishkumen wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:38 am
Another possibility is Young Smoot. The lad who was really into mixing it up and making fun of critics. He was a friend of Gee and Peterson. He went off to study Egyptology and then decided against pursuing a Ph.D. in the subject, if memory serves. He is probably also familiar with the term GSTP.
Good observations, Reverend. Smoot is a strong candidate, IMO. He hasn't updated his blog since January. My guess is that, instead, he's been pouring all his energy into the "Neville Nevill Land" blog, which seemingly gets updates almost every day.

As a sidenote: if he doesn't get the Ph.D., that is going to pose a problem for him in all sorts of ways.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Analytics
God
Posts: 4190
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:24 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Analytics »

Dr Moore wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:54 pm
It seems pretty clear that Dr. Peterson denies having sent the email or called local authorities to come down on Brian. Why is it still a debate?
This is how I see it.

1- We know that somebody informed the SCMC committee (or its contemporary equivalent) about what Hauglid said in the JSP volume, which resulted in Hauglid having to answer to his bishop.

2- Hauglid indicates that doing this is the 'MO' of the usual suspects.

3- We know somebody informed Gee about the podcast and its announcement here.

4- We know Gee took it upon himself to bring this to the attention of BYU.

Peterson doesn't indicate whether he knows who ratted on Hauglid to the SCMC.

Peterson says that he personally doesn't rat out people, but doesn't address Hauglid's acquisition that doing this is in fact their MO. Does Peterson know who informed the SCMC? Heck, did Peterson delegate it to somebody else?

Peterson does NOT deny that he emailed Gee about it (although personally I'm inclined to I suspect it was Schryver). Assuming it was Schryver, how did he find out? Does he monitor this place, or did somebody like Peterson mention it to him?

Peterson says he didn't attempt to interfere with anybody's employment. So what? We already know it was Gee who did this.

From my seat, Peterson's denials are so specific and evasive, it is hard to imagine that he is telling the whole truth about this. He doesn't say whether he knows anything about who informed the SCMC, nor does he say whether he knows who informed Gee. And he doesn't say whether he condones Gee's actions or knew about them ahead of time.

I don't necessarily think Peterson is lying, but I do think his comments need to be cross-examined and should not bectaken at face value.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22171
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by moksha »

Wonder what the people at the Church Office Building thought about a member of the Joseph Smith Papers project getting Church discipline invoked on him as retribution for Professors Gee and Muhlestein not being picked to lead that project? It seems to be akin to being "SWATTED" by some vindictive teenage gameplayer who is angry for losing a game. Where did those halcyon days go when BYU professors could simply resort to fisticuffs to resolve a dispute?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 21298
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

[quote=moksha]Where did those halcyon days go when BYU professors could simply resort to fisticuffs to resolve a dispute?[/quote]

Can you point me to a thread or post where this was discussed? It'd be fun to read about it.

- Doc

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3444
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Dr Exiled »

Analytics wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:28 am
Dr Moore wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:54 pm
It seems pretty clear that Dr. Peterson denies having sent the email or called local authorities to come down on Brian. Why is it still a debate?
This is how I see it.

1- We know that somebody informed the SCMC committee (or its contemporary equivalent) about what Hauglid said in the JSP volume, which resulted in Hauglid having to answer to his bishop.

2- Hauglid indicates that doing this is the 'MO' of the usual suspects.

3- We know somebody informed Gee about the podcast and its announcement here.

4- We know Gee took it upon himself to bring this to the attention of BYU.

Peterson doesn't indicate whether he knows who ratted on Hauglid to the SCMC.

Peterson says that he personally doesn't rat out people, but doesn't address Hauglid's acquisition that doing this is in fact their MO. Does Peterson know who informed the SCMC? Heck, did Peterson delegate it to somebody else?

Peterson does NOT deny that he emailed Gee about it (although personally I'm inclined to I suspect it was Schryver). Assuming it was Schryver, how did he find out? Does he monitor this place, or did somebody like Peterson mention it to him?

Peterson says he didn't attempt to interfere with anybody's employment. So what? We already know it was Gee who did this.

From my seat, Peterson's denials are so specific and evasive, it is hard to imagine that he is telling the whole truth about this. He doesn't say whether he knows anything about who informed the SCMC, nor does he say whether he knows who informed Gee. And he doesn't say whether he condones Gee's actions or knew about them ahead of time.

I don't necessarily think Peterson is lying, but I do think his comments need to be cross-examined and should not bectaken at face value.
The problem with cross examining Dr. P is that when he needs to be compelled to answer, there isn't anyone to compel him. So, he continues to be evasive, especially to someone from this board. If someone from his neck of the woods were to get incensed at the thought of Dr. P and his buddies running to the BYU Administration or local authorities merely because a professor took an alternative view, perhaps we would get somewhere.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22171
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by moksha »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:10 pm
moksha wrote:Where did those halcyon days go when BYU professors could simply resort to fisticuffs to resolve a dispute?
Can you point me to a thread or post where this was discussed? It'd be fun to read about it.

- Doc
The part about Professors Gee and Muhlestein is from Dr. Hauglid in his RFM interview. I am simply guessing about BYU having some past halcyon days where disputes were dealt with directly rather than in a cloak and dagger manner, I mean there must have been some time when people were more honorable. Think of that silent generation era when they built the nation's infrastructure with the CCC and fought the Nazis.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Water Dog
God
Posts: 1798
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:10 am

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Water Dog »

Shulem wrote:
Mon Jul 06, 2020 8:13 pm
William Schryver, where are you?
sup?

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11566
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Shulem »

Water Dog wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:43 pm
Shulem wrote:
Mon Jul 06, 2020 8:13 pm
William Schryver, where are you?
sup?
Ah, there you is.

:biggrin:

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10368
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Lemmie »

Shulem wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:05 pm
Water Dog wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:43 pm


sup?
Ah, there you is.

:biggrin:
Hah! We knew it.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11566
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Shulem »

Lemmie wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:34 pm
Hah! We knew it.
We're all one big happy family!

:wink:

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10368
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Lemmie »

Shulem wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:38 pm
Lemmie wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:34 pm
Hah! We knew it.
We're all one big happy family!

:wink:
Yes, we are.

“ The family we choose for ourselves is more important than the one we were born into...”

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11566
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Shulem »

Radio Free Mormon wrote:Unfortunately, Dr. John Gee will not be appearing on Radio Free Mormon any time soon. Below is the email he sent me in reply to the one I sent him.

_________________________________________
_________________________________________


Dear _____________,

I'm sorry. I would like to address this personally, but you did not leave a name so I cannot. I usually do not respond to anonymous emails.

I am somewhat aware of certain accusations made. I am, however, already committed to another podcast and thus cannot appear on yours at this time.

Thank you for thinking of me. I appreciate the generous offer.

John Gee
William (Bill) Gay Research Professor
Asian and Near Eastern Languages
Brigham Young University

If not sooner, maybe later.

User avatar
Symmachus
God
Posts: 1492
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:32 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Symmachus »

I have listened to most of this so far, Consiglieri, and would like to commend you for this extraordinarily helpful interview. Hauglid obviously has a comprehension of the details that is so intricate and total that it can be hard for him to unwind it all into simpler terms for those of us like myself who haven't done as much homework on this as John Gee. The Egyptological and linguistic arguments are much more up my alley, but I've never really thought much about the material issues of the scrolls and know next to nothing about the Abraham Papers, so it has been very helpful to me whenever you have summarized the main points of what he is talking about and connected them to the core arguments that are advanced or implied.

I have always been hesitant to assume duplicity in the apologists. I tend to think most are like Michael Rhodes, who comes off well in this podcast, because, as someone who detests uniformity, I celebrate approaches to scholarship that are unorthodox or eccentric, if that scholarship is done well. If an apologist (or faithful scholar, if you prefer) starts from the assumption that the Book of Abraham (or what have you) is ancient and then proceeds to offer an interesting idea about the text, I find I can generally learn something or stretch my mind while wrestling with it. The Interpreter's editor (or at least its symbolic editor) has claimed, if I recall rightly, that the starting premise is the only thing that distinguishes what they do from what non-LDS scholars are doing. He's right but not in the way he intends. So why doesn't it actually live up to the promise?

Part of is that is that they just won't or can't do scholarship all that well on technical grounds (a basic factual grasp of things, you know, like what the Canaanite Vowel Shift is). Yet the deeper issue is not simply that so few of them work from their assumptions before they go on to do their scholarship but that they actually never move beyond their assumptions. It is all an attempt to prove the antiquity of Mormon scripture, which means they are always stuck in the assumptions phase and never get to ideas and understanding phase that we are promised—and that is what scholarship is about. It's a tedious enterprise of circuitous restatement and unidirectional recycling of previously determined positions that never gets off the ground. They promise us an acrobatic airshow but instead we get NASCAR: turning left for four hours, but with regular cars. Still, the faults are intellectual and not ethical in the main. That's been my view anyway.

But oh boy, Gee does not come off well here. I have studied and learned from one of his Egytpological papers on the Coptic imperfect, which was suggested to me long before I came here or knew much about apologetics, though I had heard that that was something he worked on. The mutual acquaintances that we have are all Egyptologists, and all I ever heard was that he seemed a bit eccentric, which to me is no bad thing. But I started from an angle that he is a highly competent scholar with a firm grasp of his subject, so I assumed in his LDS work that he was simply a believer who starts from a certain premise, hopefully secure enough in that premise that he doesn't need to spend his time proving and reproving them in an endless ring of logical circularity. The first I really looked at some of his aplogetic work, though, I was a little taken aback because it seemed to me that no one with his level of competence could handle the evidence as he did without being consciously dishonest (I discuss it in this thread here). The most I could bring myself to say there is "very close to unethical." Stubbs is an astounding special pleader, Rhodes makes amateurish mistakes, Muehlestein overstates, Nibley is sloppy, but some of what Hauglid says about Gee confirms that he simply unethical. I am astounded that he accepted and was paid for the responsibility of reviewing a book pre-publication but then withheld his scathing criticisms (which have no validity anyway) until after the book was published—and even then he published those criticisms in his friend's partisan blog, so that he didn't have to moderate them in a way that any genuine intellectual would want to.

Unbelievable. I thought it was wrong to oust Gee from MI because I interpreted his presence their as a healthy dose of heterodoxy. I can see now why people wouldn't want someone like that around for reasons that have nothing to do with intellectual disagreement.
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:54 am
Good observations, Reverend. Smoot is a strong candidate, IMO. He hasn't updated his blog since January. My guess is that, instead, he's been pouring all his energy into the "Neville Nevill Land" blog, which seemingly gets updates almost every day.

As a sidenote: if he doesn't get the Ph.D., that is going to pose a problem for him in all sorts of ways.
Why is that? It would seem to me a Ph.D. in Egyptology is more of a hindrance than a help these days.
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7881
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Symmachus wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:24 pm

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:54 am
Good observations, Reverend. Smoot is a strong candidate, IMO. He hasn't updated his blog since January. My guess is that, instead, he's been pouring all his energy into the "Neville Nevill Land" blog, which seemingly gets updates almost every day.

As a sidenote: if he doesn't get the Ph.D., that is going to pose a problem for him in all sorts of ways.
Why is that? It would seem to me a Ph.D. in Egyptology is more of a hindrance than a help these days.
I would argue that it poses a problem because of the value that the Mopologists place on degrees, "prestige," and so on.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Symmachus
God
Posts: 1492
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:32 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Symmachus »

I see. I thought Smoot was moving away from apologetics, but I hadn't known he was so devoted to fighting heartlanders. I guess it's easier to beat up on non-elite Mormons and the less educated than finishing a Ph.D.. Perhaps it will have a bigger payoff.

Anyway, if it's not an Egyptology Ph.D., an education EdD from BYU will help in getting a position teaching ancient scripture there.
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie

Tom
Savior (resurrected)
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:45 am

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Tom »

Symmachus, what have you heard about Catholic University's doctoral program in Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Literatures? See here.

User avatar
Symmachus
God
Posts: 1492
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:32 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Symmachus »

Tom wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 2:15 pm
Symmachus, what have you heard about Catholic University's doctoral program in Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Literatures?
They have excellent department of Semitics, so I assume the program is a strong one. I know some people on the faculty there; I studied with some when they were at another institution. The great Joseph Fitzmyer (of blessed memory) taught Semitic languages there, so it's been built up over a number years.

Is that where Smoot is headed? Good for him, if so. If he gets wise about it, he'll focus on Semitic linguistics or some other technical area so he can do respectable scholarship without having to confront any of his beliefs or having them confronted by others. Certainly he should avoid the impression that he plans to use a Ph.D. to stamp credentials on his Mormon apologetic work.
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie

User avatar
Hagoth
Valiant B
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:16 am

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Hagoth »

Radio Free Mormon wrote:
I am somewhat aware of certain accusations made. I am, however, already committed to another podcast and thus cannot appear on yours at this time.
Step 1: Tuck tail between legs.
Step 2: Say, "I bid you good day sir!"
"Be excellent to each other." - Bill and Ted
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” - Mark Twain

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9777
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Gadianton »

over at Sic et Non, junior apologist John Pack Lambert writes:
JPL wrote:The only people I hate more than those who collect pay by lying about their beliefs are those who proactively conspire to hide the identities of closet apostates they know of
Wow! You have to appreciate the mental anguish Kiwi57 and Louis Midgley went through as they both carefully reviewed this comment and ultimately moved on, without offering an up-vote.

But Jordan Rudd, who has made his appearance on this thread, hears the deafening silence loud and clear. After such pointed comments are pointed out, the Proprietor offers his tried-and-true "I didn't see what Will Schryver wrote in this very thread nor do I have time to comment on everything" excuse. And Rudd responds:
Jordan Rudd wrote:I'm curious if you agree with the point of view of one of your fans, expressed multiple times here, that "The only people I hate more than those who collect pay by lying about their beliefs are those who proactively conspire to hide the identities of closet apostates they know of." Evidently, that comment was not one you were interested in pushing back on - but the suggestion that Hauglid likely had a temple recommend was worthy of your interventio
Yes! It is very interesting which comments get responded to and which ones don't, isn't it?

The Proprietor treads as close to affirmation as he can, it appears with statements like these:
Catholic schools should be free to ensure that their employees embody and represent Catholic doctrines and values. Jewish yeshivas should not be obliged to employ atheists or converts to Christianity. Expressly secularizing schools -- to the extent, if any, that such exist -- should not be forced to include vocal Evangelicals on their faculty.
Jordan Rudd wrote:I'm glad you brought up Catholicism, since that's a great parallel which draws a sharp distinction to the way BYU treats non-orthodox Mormons. As an example. one of the pre-eminent critical New Testament scholars is John Dominic Crossan, who was a Catholic Priest and a scholar in employ at multiple Catholic Universities. Among his assertions are that that Jesus' physical miracles are not historical and that he did not emerge from a tomb. Your comparison makes my point for me: at other comparable religious universities, Hauglid would be considered a confessional scholar.
Lol! "Fatality"!

I can't say whether Jordan is right on the observation, but the Proprietor tries to change the subject to liberty and rights, which a Jordan points out, isn't the point. People have the right to be crappy people. The question is whether such treatment is honorable. And neither the Proprietor nor Kiwi57 is able to make the case that it is, nor do they dare to, they skirt the issue and try to make the point of contention something else.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9777
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Gadianton »

I'm about an hour into the podcast. I'm enjoying it, but I am stuck on one element of the apologist' version of reality and hoping someone can help me out.

Hauglid covers the theory of the Abraham-Egyptian papers that Joseph Smith's scribes were the ones who put the Egyptian characters in the margins of the Book of Abraham text, explaining that the scribes were reverse engineering what had already been translated.

Supposing there is a "missing papyri" that I believe is said to have been destroyed in the Chicago fire many, many years later (nothing about this on the podcast yet), why are they reverse engineering the text into the characters of one of the other papyri?
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11566
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Shulem »

Gadianton wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:31 pm
Supposing there is a "missing papyri" that I believe is said to have been destroyed in the Chicago fire many, many years later (nothing about this on the podcast yet), why are they reverse engineering the text into the characters of one of the other papyri?
That's how Smith translated, Gad. When he wrote the Explanations for Facsimile No. 3, to include the missing king's name, he was actually looking at another papyrus when he rambled off that particular bit. You see, Facsimile No. 3, is not the actual papyrus in which Smith translated. He looked at the real Book of Abraham fragment during translation but opted to use other fragments that were not related to the Book of Abraham as a matter of convenience.

When the Book of Abraham was finally published they included vignettes to go with the story to help illustrate the revelation Smith received and provide a glorious glimpse of the restoration of the Book of Abraham that was written by his own hand in ancient times.

There, now you get it. Time to go back to church. You too, Kerry.

You see, the king's name is on the other fragment that was not included in the official publication wherein they used an alternative fragment to illustrate Abraham visiting the king's court.
Last edited by Shulem on Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply