My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

[_consiglieri]

RFM,

Should John Gee accept your invitation to come on your show you're going to have to be very prepared and somewhat conditioned in your approach or he could mow you over. He's very smart and has an arsenal of apologetic weapons at his disposal.

Never fear! If he accepts, contact me ASAP so that I can give you my thoughts and advice.

Thanks,

Shulem

I have you on speed dial.

Thanks, mi amigo!

[_Shulem]

Click the link, scroll down a little, and activate the video of Brian Hauglid:

Start at 8:30 - 26:30

Jenson and Hauglid at Benchmark Books 11/14/2018

When I first watched this video some time ago I knew Brian had fully realized he couldn't keep up the charade. It was REFRESHING to see him speak that way and it gave me hope.

This video is absolutely indispensable -- a primer to the discussion of this thread. It calls attention that members of the church need to consider making a "paradigm shift" in understanding how the Book of Abraham was translated.

Be sure to clock in at 46:00 when Robin is speaking with Brian at his side.

Facsimile No. 3 is discussed!

Just keep listening.

[_Shulem]

DCP says "an email or letter" to pretend ignorance when he knows perfectly well it was an email. Nobody has said it was a letter. If he has heard the allegation, he knows it was an email.

Dan loves to play word games. He also claimed to have never seen it until he began to notice it showing up in posts by "certain critics" -- which leads me to believe that he probably refers to critics here at Mormon Discussions.

It couldn't have been a letter because letters are delivered by the US postal service and they don't include an @ with the name. So for DCP to say "an email or letter" is a total stretch and fabrication to his story. Right off the bat he starts lying and making stuff up. He knew it wasn't a letter. He knew it was an email. But he feigned a kind of innocence and couched it with an "or".

Oh poor pitiful persecuted Dan!

[_Hagoth]

In the end, Chandler got his sale and went on his way. Smith kept making stuff up and blatantly, knowingly -- continued to tell lies. Hence the Book of Abraham. A Book of Lies.

I think Joseph got himself into a bit of a pickle and had to dig himself out.

Some documents with ancient writing show up in Kirtland and everybody yells, "Go get Joseph, he can read this kind of stuff!" Joseph wouldn't want to let people down so he came up with a bigger-than-life answer, "Wow, these things were written by Abraham and Joseph."

I have often wondered if he had any expectation that people would put their money together and actually buy the damn things, but they did, so Joseph was pretty much forced to provide a translation. This was different than his other efforts though because for the first time he was surrounded by some pretty smart people who had direct access to the original documents. He had to come up with something that would pass some degree of muster with people who would be scrutinizing his translation against the original characters. What a headache. That's why he needed the GAEL, and that's why the translation took so long, compared to everything else he had done. He tried really hard to make the story actually make sense in light of his pretended translations of Egyptian writing. Of course, that was completely unsustainable and eventually he gave up and just went ahead and cobbled the rest of it together from his imagination and other sources at hand.

And it's why he never attempted, and probably never intended to do any kind of translation of the Book of Joseph.

[_Hagoth]

Does Gee ever explain why then the scribes did their reverse engineering from the extant papyri instead of from the so called missing papyri rolls? Why would they use papyri for their reverse engineering NOT used in the translation (coming from Gee's perspective)

What a great question!

[_Doctor Scratch]

DCP seeks to reframe the allegation into one of his trying "to interfere with the employment of somebody at BYU" so he can deny it in good conscience. He probably also seeks some wiggle room with the phrase "somebody at BYU" when he knows Brian Hauglid is no longer "somebody at BYU."

If I were posting comments at Sick et Non (sic), I would see if Professor Peterson would answer the simple question of whether he has sent a communication to John Gee regarding Brian Hauglid in the past week, and see if he will deny it.

If he does his usual side-step shuffle, we know the answer.

He's straight-up lying over there at the moment. He acts like he knows nothing about the SCMC, and yet he's told the story on more than one occasion about how he served as an "agent" for the SCMC, and even helped with an "interrogation" of some poor sap for something like 4 hours! And his claims about never "targeting" anyone, ratting them out, etc. are completely disingenuous. There's no way that he could have provided "editorial oversight" for the Dehlin hit piece--among many other things--without being complicit in precisely the kind of "targeting" that Dr. Exiled mentioned.

By the way: I have heard through the rumor mill that the "reprimand" that DCP and Gee received (i.e., when they got in trouble for Gee's "Interpreter" article) came in two stages, the first of which was apparently a "screaming match" between Gee, Peterson, and a high-ranking person affiliated with the JSP. After this--so I'm told--they later had to meet with a General Authority.

[_Tom]

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.

Can someone post a link to learn more about how this accusation of "splicing" witness accounts works?

The relevant chapter from Dr. Gee's book is available here: https://rsc.BYU.edu/introduction-book-a ... l-overview. See, in particular, the text associated with footnotes 6 and 7.

[6] Charlotte Haven to her mother, 19 February 1843, printed in “A Girl’s Letters from Nauvoo,” Overland Monthly 16, no. 96 (December 1890): 624.
[7] Jerusha W. Blanchard, “Reminiscences of the Granddaughter of Hyrum Smith,” Relief Society Magazine 9, no. 1 (1922): 9.

The source cited in footnote 6 can be accessed here: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moajrnl/ah ... view=image (p. 624)

The source cited in footnote 7 can be accessed here: https://archive.org/details/reliefsocie ... 8/mode/2up (p. 9)

Also, see this chapter in Dr. Gee's book: https://rsc.BYU.edu/introduction-book-a ... ext-papyri

[_Dr Moore]

Thank you Tom. Those links worked perfectly. Very odd choice of quotes to splice, indeed.

I did not know that "Madame Smith" (Joseph's mother) also had the gift and power to read the Hebrew and Sandscrit written on scrolls. WTF!!?!?! How is that a credible witness to establish the "long scroll" theory? "Long scroll" recollected what, 8 years after the fact, could mean anything longer than a regular sheet of paper, or anything that would wrap more than a few times around the handle. SMH.

[_Shulem]

Thank you Tom. Those links worked perfectly. Very odd choice of quotes to splice, indeed.

I did not know that "Madame Smith" (Joseph's mother) also had the gift and power to read the Hebrew and Sandscrit written on scrolls. WTF!!?!?!

Mother Smith was gifted with all kinds of supernatural abilities. Had the woman lived in Salem in the 1600's they would have burned the old witch to a stake! And Joseph? Well, they would have castrated him.

[_Shulem]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints maintains that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from papyri, but they do not specify which papyri.

I don't care what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of 2020 has to say about the papyrus and translation. All that matters is what JOSEPH SMITH said and the Church in which he affiliated with in his day. I know what Smith said. That's what counts. The Church today is irrelevant because it played no part in those affairs.

Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.

WHAT'S THE KING'S NAME, GEE?

it is impossible to directly compare the Book of Abraham with the papyri from which Joseph Smith translated

Really? You got to be kidding me. Hey, Gee, I can read Egyptian, can you?



Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.

Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

Fig. 6. Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.