My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

[_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 PhD. Perhaps it will have a bigger payoff.

Anyway, if it's not an Egyptology PhD, an education EdD from BYU will help in getting a position teaching ancient scripture there.

[_Tom]

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

[_Symmachus]

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 PhD to stamp credentials on his Mormon apologetic work.

[_Hagoth]

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!"

[_Gadianton]

over at SeN, junior apologist John Pack Lambert writes:

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:

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.

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.

[_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?

[Guest]

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.

[_moksha]

At SeN 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.

[_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.

[_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:

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.