My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

[_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.

[_Gadianton]

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 SeN, 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. If I recall correctly, 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/

[_Shulem]

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



For in behalf of . . . .

[_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.

[_Shulem]

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

Joseph Smith & a LITERAL 3500 Year Old Abraham Autograph

[_moksha]

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.

[_I have a question]

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...

[_Shulem]

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 damned 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.

[_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"?