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

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by moksha »

At Sic et Non Dr. Hauglid has been labeled as a non-believer. I am thinking that this is grossly unfair to Dr. Hauglid. Seems to me that Dr. Hauglid said he didn't believe the Egyptian origin story of the Book of Abraham, not that he disavowed anything else. This apologetic step to cast him as a non-believer seems unfair, both to Dr. Hauglid and to anyone else at BYU who wishes to come clean in terms of intellectual honesty.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11562
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Shulem »

DCP is an unbeliever because he doesn't believe there is a king's name written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3 and has refused to cite the name.

DCP is an apostate! A heretic! Evil. Deranged. And fat. Very, very, Fat.

:lol:

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 »

The Mopologetic commentary on this has gotten remarkably personal and nasty. I just can't see any good reason why Dr. Peterson felt it necessary to drag Hauglid's children into the discussion, but he did:
DCP wrote:His loss of faith was fairly well known, I think -- I'm guessing that it must have been, because people I scarcely knew mentioned it to me over years; even his daughter (whom I've never met) was apparently telling people about it -- but the reactions that I saw were typically sad rather than angry.
Wow: what a toxic sink-hold of gossip-mongering.

And besides: I heard that DCP's crappy parenting skills led to one of his kids taking over his Amazon wish list account and adding Grand Theft Auto 3 onto it. Is that an excommunicatable offense? Hey, Dan: your kid wanted to play Grand Theft Auto 3. Just think about what that says about you.
"[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
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 »

Gadianton wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:31 pm
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?
Dr. Robbers:

That's the point--they weren't. That's Gee's explanation for the Abraham Egyptian Papers. Most people looking at the AEP (and they also get called the "Kirtland Egyptian Papers," or KPE--there are lots of fantastic old threads about them, esp. w/ Kevin Graham and Brent Metcalfe)--even laypersons--will see that they're translation documents. You've got a character, and then you've got the English text--they've been laid out side-by-side in a way that strongly implies that this was being done for translation: that is the simplest, most intuitive reaction to those documents.

Gee and the Mopologists, though, need to try and drum up support for the "Missing Scroll" theory, and so he posits that these documents are instead an attempt to "reverse engineer" Joseph Smith's translation. I guess the idea is that Joseph Smith is such a genius, and these scribes are in such thrall of him, that they're spending their free hours attempting to "reverse engineer" the text just in order to better come to terms with Joseph's supreme intellect?

It doesn't make any sense, and that, I think, is why you're reacting that way.
"[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
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6432
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Philo Sofee »

Dr. Scratch
Wow: what a toxic sink-hold of gossip-mongering.

And besides: I heard that DCP's crappy parenting skills led to one of his kids taking over his Amazon wish list account and adding Grand Theft Auto 3 onto it. Is that an excommunicatable offense? Hey, Dan: your kid wanted to play Grand Theft Auto 3. Just think about what that says about you.
Oh yes, the famous mopologist innuendo smearing of others who dare think and understand things differently than apologists do, and hence the ad hominim takes over. Its the only schtick they can muster since it requires no evidence. They resort to this for the vast most part for that reason alone, evidence is entirely, 100% lacking for any of their scriptures, and they know it, so they do the Trump thang and divert attention from the elephant in the room over to some kind of defect in the person. It's an old routine, and they have mastered it. But from their weirdo view point it vindicates Jesus.....somehow. Don't ask how, they haven't got a clue. They'll just start talking about the color of your hair, or that strange metal object in your ear or some such.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

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 »

Doctor Scratch wrote:Gee and the Mopologists, though, need to try and drum up support for the "Missing Scroll" theory, and so he posits that these documents are instead an attempt to "reverse engineer" Joseph Smith's translation. I guess the idea is that Joseph Smith is such a genius, and these scribes are in such thrall of him, that they're spending their free hours attempting to "reverse engineer" the text just in order to better come to terms with Joseph's supreme intellect?
Thank you for your erudite response, Doctor, and the great human compassion by which you make your points. No doubt if I were un-banned and allowed to post this question on Sic et Non, everyone would just laugh at me and tell me how stupid I am and then down-vote the question.

As far as I can tell, the supposition of reverse engineering is compatible with the "missing scroll" theory, but it doesn't require the missing scroll theory. The whole point is to make the missing scroll theory plausible. But beyond plausibility, how does it help?

Put yourself in the shoes of the scribes. You have the finished text of Abraham. And then you have a collections of scrolls. IIRC, Nibley called the "Joseph Smith papyri" a "scrap", and said that a much longer scroll existed with colorful inks. John Gee says the other scroll is 41 feet long?? Again, supposing you are Joseph Smith's scribe, and you're trying to get back to where Joseph Smith started, why would you pick symbols concentrated on the "scrap" of papyri to get back to, with this beautiful mega-scroll available that's so much more impressive? You'd only do that if you had very good reason to believe the "scrap" was what Joseph Smith was using in the first place! In other words, in a blind selection test, you'd probably pick the cool, impressive looking scroll, not the lame duck scrap. If you picked the lame-duck scrap, it probably wasn't a blind guess.

The only possibility I can think of (in an apologetic narrative) is that the impressive scroll was lost much earlier, and so the scribes didn't have access to it or even know about it. But the apologetic narrative suggests the existence of the much larger scroll is based on all kinds of credible eye-witness reports, so we're saying all these other people knew about the longer scroll but the scribes didn't?

(found this just now)

https://www.ldsscriptureteachings.org/2 ... us-theory/
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: 11562
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Shulem »

I wonder what the king's name is, Goddamnit.

Image

For in behalf of . . . .

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6432
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Philo Sofee »

Craig Paxton
The most important part of this podcast for me was the discussion between RFM and Dr. Hauglid over Gee's use of questionable source material to support his claim of the missing papyri roll. Splicing two eye witness accounts into one by taking a little from one and a little from another to support his questionable claim of a missing papyri roll is blatantly dishonest scholarship. That the church supports this kind of sloppiness only shows how weak the apologetic scaffolding supporting the Book of Abraham really is. The church must be getting very desperate.

Note that one of the quotes was hearsay and both were recorded decades after the papyri viewing claims took place. <---That's getting very desperate
I discovered this exact same problem when I went through the eyewitness descriptions of the papyri and what they had said! I was stunned and wrote that long paper online which Shulem made an entire thread about. See here, the singular most complete and important writing I have ever done on the Book of Abraham from Joseph Smith's point of view - https://drpepaw.wixsite.com/backyardpro ... e-Evidence
Once we get THEIR context, and SMITH's context, we automatically SEE that Gee is outright LYING and CHEATING with the evidence in order to attempt to rescue Smith because he was just pointedly WRONG about all of it. It's why I said over and again and emphasized we MUST use what JOSEPH SMITH said, and NO ONE ELSE, since it is his prophetic mantle that is on the line. The apologists KNOW this, and its why they struggle to come up with things that DO connect with what Egyptology says. BUT JOSEPH SMITH DIDN'T, and the apologists KNOW THIS, so they have no choice but to lie. It's why Shulem, while seeming shrill is positively CORRECT to call them and the church out on it. Their apologetic is, to use my favorite Trumpism I love to hate, A HOAX. It actually is FAKE NEWS.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11562
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Shulem »

A king's name you say? What might that be?

Joseph Smith & a LITERAL 3500 Year Old Abraham Autograph

Image

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 Scratch wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 9:39 pm
Hey, Dan: your kid wanted to play Grand Theft Auto 3. Just think about what that says about you.
That is only relevant if the kid used one of the cars to abscond with the long scroll or ran over Dr. Nibley's footnote containers. Families should be out of bounds on both boards.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

I have a question
God
Posts: 9669
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by I have a question »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 9:46 pm
Gee and the Mopologists, though, need to try and drum up support for the "Missing Scroll" theory, and so he posits that these documents are instead an attempt to "reverse engineer" Joseph Smith's translation. I guess the idea is that Joseph Smith is such a genius, and these scribes are in such thrall of him, that they're spending their free hours attempting to "reverse engineer" the text just in order to better come to terms with Joseph's supreme intellect?
How does that apologetic dovetail with the apologetic for The Book of Mormon - that Joseph was just a simple farm boy and too unlearned to have produced such a thing? 'Cake and eat it' springs to mind...

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11562
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:42 pm
Once we get THEIR context, and SMITH's context, we automatically SEE that Gee is outright LYING and CHEATING with the evidence in order to attempt to rescue Smith because he was just pointedly WRONG about all of it. It's why I said over and again and emphasized we MUST use what JOSEPH SMITH said, and NO ONE ELSE, since it is his prophetic mantle that is on the line. The apologists KNOW this, and its why they struggle to come up with things that DO connect with what Egyptology says. BUT JOSEPH SMITH DIDN'T, and the apologists KNOW THIS, so they have no choice but to lie. It's why Shulem, while seeming shrill is positively CORRECT to call them and the church out on it. Their apologetic is, to use my favorite Trumpism I love to hate, A HOAX. It actually is FAKE NEWS.
The presentation provided by JOSEPH SMITH in the Times and Seasons is all the proof we need to show that his creative imagination was a hoax. Smith commissioned Reuben Hedlock to present the sacrifice scene of Abraham according to the vignette on the Book of Abraham roll and therewith they filled in the missing parts or the lacuna. The so-called inspiration or revelation of Joseph Smith was out to lunch on that day because the contradiction portrayed by Anubis is much worse than Nibley ever imagined. Oh, Nibley went on and on trying to show how the Facsimile No. 1 was unique and special. Oh, it was UNIQUE -- one of kind! How many images of Anubis do you know of in all of Egyptian art depict him with a black skinned body having a white skinned head? That, my friend, is a crime against nature in which Joseph Smith and his Spirit are guilty. You can't take a black body and put a white head on top!

Bottom line, Smith got it ALL wrong and he really screwed up by not giving Anubis a black head. Caught in the very act proving that the so-called inspiration of Holy Ghost of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a ____ liar and an evil spirit.

I rebuke the evil spirit that moved Joseph Smith to create the Book of Abraham! Get behind me, ye wicked and deceitful spirit.

Depart in the name of Egyptology! I rebuke you. And, I rebuke John Gee too.

Amen.

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6432
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Philo Sofee »

RFM YOU ***ROCK***!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was the BEST interview you have ever done! Brian Hauglid is a hero for his honesty. And you had better allow my comment I made, it says it is in moderation, so please accept it.
I listened to it all in one setting. SENSATIONAL!
Give me an honest scholar ANY day to a John Gee or Daniel C. Peterson. I will take Hauglid! That interview was EPIC......***EPIC***
Hauglid being called into the bishop's office because he's being honest with the evidence........may the vile shame of it reflect on any MORON involved including the church for having its policy. So immature, childish and admission that they WILL NOT tell THE truth, but will coerce people to live their own lying views which now makes John Gee's stupid apologetic make much more sense. He lies in order to cover the truth because the truth WILL lead you out of belief in what Mormonism said. And Gee hypocritically makes his scholarship into a lie. HOWLING LAUGHTER! Is it any wonder we slam Sic et Non and the idiots who defend the Book of Abraham using Gee's ridiculous "scholarship"?
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6432
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Philo Sofee »

Dr. Scratch
Anyways: pretty lousy that DCP, or Midgley, or whoever it was would try to get Hauglid in trouble like this. They're basically a bunch of stool pigeons.
Actually they are the pigeon's stools.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11562
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 12:35 pm
That was the BEST interview you have ever done! Brian Hauglid is a hero for his honesty. And you had better allow my comment I made, it says it is in moderation, so please accept it.
Ur comment is up.

I've listened to the podcast twice and may end up doing a third time before long.

I'm thinking there may end up being a part II. When the saw hits the wood the chips fly!

:wink:

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21117
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Kishkumen »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 9:39 pm
The Mopologetic commentary on this has gotten remarkably personal and nasty. I just can't see any good reason why Dr. Peterson felt it necessary to drag Hauglid's children into the discussion, but he did:
DCP wrote:His loss of faith was fairly well known, I think -- I'm guessing that it must have been, because people I scarcely knew mentioned it to me over years; even his daughter (whom I've never met) was apparently telling people about it -- but the reactions that I saw were typically sad rather than angry.
Wow: what a toxic sink-hold of gossip-mongering.
I really hate the whole loss of faith fixation. Obviously it is convenient for apologists to use against those who disagree with their apologetics. "Yeah, but he is not a faithful Mormon anymore, so you really don't have to pay attention to what he says."
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6432
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Philo Sofee »

Its proof of the lack of logical thinking in apologetics however Kish......
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11562
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Shulem »

J Smith's FACSIMILE NO. 1 Boner

You can't put a white man's head on a black man's body!

:mad:

Isn't that right, professor Gee? Care to discuss that here on Mormon Discussions? Come talk to Shulem. I'm the real expert! I'll set you straight (no pun intended). Bring your friends if you want. I'll take all of you on all by MYSELF!

Come to Shulem, so I can rip you a new one. Your academic qualifications and certifications do not scare me one bit. I'll kick your mother f c k ing ass and teach u a lesson you'll never forget.

:twisted:

Image

Shulem gonna kick Gee's ass!

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 »

Gadianton wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:36 pm

Put yourself in the shoes of the scribes. You have the finished text of Abraham. And then you have a collections of scrolls. IIRC, Nibley called the "Joseph Smith papyri" a "scrap", and said that a much longer scroll existed with colorful inks. John Gee says the other scroll is 41 feet long?? Again, supposing you are Joseph Smith's scribe, and you're trying to get back to where Joseph Smith started, why would you pick symbols concentrated on the "scrap" of papyri to get back to, with this beautiful mega-scroll available that's so much more impressive? You'd only do that if you had very good reason to believe the "scrap" was what Joseph Smith was using in the first place! In other words, in a blind selection test, you'd probably pick the cool, impressive looking scroll, not the lame duck scrap. If you picked the lame-duck scrap, it probably wasn't a blind guess.

The only possibility I can think of (in an apologetic narrative) is that the impressive scroll was lost much earlier, and so the scribes didn't have access to it or even know about it. But the apologetic narrative suggests the existence of the much larger scroll is based on all kinds of credible eye-witness reports, so we're saying all these other people knew about the longer scroll but the scribes didn't?
An excellent point, Dean Robbers. I don't recall even Hauglid making it (perhaps I missed it), but it certainly strips away whatever cloak of plausibility the lost scroll theory has. So, the question becomes: assuming there was a lost scroll, why did the scribes find the papyri that eventually made into the front of the Peal of Great Price to be so compelling? Even if you believe there was a missing scroll, it is a question worth addressing. And the reason I say that is because Hugh Nibley spent thirty years writing a whole book about one of these scraps, the hypocephalus. If he really believed the lost scroll explained away all the Egyptological problems of the Book of Abraham, why waste time on a papyrus that has nothing to do with Book of Abraham?

That gets me to the bigger question: why does the Church have these papyrus scraps enshrined as scriptural canon if they have nothing to do with the Book of Abraham? I feel like there is a chance to solve some of their troubles here: just remove these papyrus scraps, because they're just the irrelevant obsessions of Joseph's scribes. No more papyri in scripture = no more questions about Joseph Smith's Egyptological ignorance. Blame it on Warren Parrish, or whoever. At least that way, the Book of Abraham can stay in the canon, and it won't be any worse off than the Book of Mormon is.
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11562
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Shulem »

Symmachus wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:28 pm
That gets me to the bigger question: why does the Church have these papyrus scraps enshrined as scriptural canon if they have nothing to do with the Book of Abraham? I feel like there is a chance to solve some of their troubles here: just remove these papyrus scraps, because they're just the irrelevant obsessions of Joseph's scribes. No more papyri in scripture = no more questions about Joseph Smith's Egyptological ignorance. Blame it on Warren Parrish, or whoever. At least that way, the Book of Abraham can stay in the canon, and it won't be any worse off than the Book of Mormon is.
Yes, there is the case of the missing hieroglyphs on Abraham's Facsimile No. 2. Smith filled in the gaps (lacuna) -- BUT did he do that with characters from John Gee's imaginary missing roll? Heavens no! He took them from the very papyrus roll in which John Gee knows are funerary spells or literature of the Book of the Dead. Isn't that right, professor Gee? Care to read the writing Smith inserted down under the so-called Dove (Holy Ghost) and the seated Hebrew God of Israel of Fig. 7. That is the God of Israel, is it not, professor Gee? Does he really have a boner? Dr. Shades is itching to know! What about Abraham on the lion couch in Facsimile No. 1, is it not him? How do we know? Because JOSEPH SMITH said so.

I'm afraid for John Gee there is no missing roll that can save his faith. Professor Gee will have to come to terms and figure out what to do with his dying faith in the Book of Abraham translation. Isn't that right, Gee? Perhaps you can write a book on how to save faith. That should sustain you for a while at least.

Joseph Smith Hypocephalus - Wikipedia

Image

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6432
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Philo Sofee »

Shulem
Professor Gee will have to come to terms and figure out what to do with his dying faith in the Book of Abraham translation. Isn't that right, Gee? Perhaps you can write a book on how to save faith. That should sustain you for a while at least.
Writing a book with actual and verifiable facts would be vastly superior........ :biggrin: Gee tried to write about how faith verified a longer roll using mathematics and Chris Smith and his co-author destroyed him with accurate mathematics, not faith mathematical facts. Mathematical facts that Gee's faith cannot refute.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

Post Reply