DiscussMormonism.com

consiglieri wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 07, 2020 5:41 pm

I sincerely apologize for that Shulem. We had scheduled a two hour interview, and by the time we were approaching the three hour mark, I decided we needed to call it a day.

No problem. I totally get that. I was glad to see that you warmed things up and just kind of chatted about things in general. It wasn't until about minute 55 when things started taking aim at the authenticity of the Book of Abraham production. It gave Brian a perfect chance to just relax and go with the flow.

It's all good.

U did great. You'll get another donation. Don't worry.

lol

LOL!

I agree with you that all of John Gee's obfuscations hit a brick wall when it comes to the Facsimile translations.

I am sorry I wasn't savvy enough to mention that during the interview!

Physics Guy wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:39 am

Hauglid is apparently a 66-year-old Associate Professor after 21 years on BYU faculty. Is there something unusual about him not having reached the full Professor rank?

Maybe my understanding of the American academic career path is fading after all this time in the quite different German system but I thought it was normal to be promoted from Assistant to Associate after six years (though at least a few places have an eight-year tenure clock). I think of the last step as being less rigidly scheduled but 15 years ought to be long enough. You can't coast but you don't normally have to win a major prize or anything to make full Professor.

Am I wrong about American academia in general, or is BYU somehow special, or has Hauglid somehow had a rough time?

Every university has its standards and its politics. It is not uncommon for a professor to end his career as an associate. It certainly isn't the goal of the institution to have a high number of permanent associates. I have seen a lot of odd things happen in the area of promotions to full. Some people get it simply because the admin needs them to fill a certain role. Others are denied it for specious reasons. I don't know BH's case, but you have to keep in mind that BYU's College of Religion is an unusual place as it is. I would not make much of a person's rank because so often in the past the qualifications for working there were bizarre in the first place. The standards for what is desirable in a religion prof at BYU are also odd. This is less the case today than it was in the past, but it is still an idiosyncratic organization by standard academic measure.

consiglieri wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:04 pm

I agree with you that all of John Gee's obfuscations hit a brick wall when it comes to the Facsimile translations.

"Obfuscations" is the perfect word in describing Gee's excuses and ideas when it comes to turning everything into a parallel. John figures if he can turn something concrete into imaginative parallelism then the critics can't define the concrete logic that disproves the original assertion. Just throw it out there so far and wide that nothing or nobody can really explain it! The revelations are too complicated and undefined that only the mind of God can make sense of it -- and maybe a prophet if he's lucky. It reminds me of how Mormons love to criticise the doctrine of the Trinity pointing out how it doesn't make any sense -- but Mormons fail to see how the Book of Abraham translation doesn't make any sense and even the most stoic apologist will dismiss the so-called Kirtland Papers as uninspired, NOT Holy Ghost induced, but the mere thoughts and ideas of man musing to try and figure out how God just recently got done revealing something to a man, namely Joseph. The apologist chalks up the whole Kirtland Papers project as an exercise in futility -- and the translation ever remains a mystery in which nobody can approach or crack, not even today's prophets.

The Facsimiles really are the key in quickly putting Joseph Smith in his place. The evidence and proof therein is absolute. Only a mind that refuses to accept logic for testimony sake will deny the truth and cling to their testimony of the restoration for dear life! Though they may admit the translation is false but they won't deny that the testimony is still true. Go figure. But that's how apologist work and they deny the real Holy Ghost which is their inner conscious attempting to guide them though natural instincts and intuition. But apologists will deny all those things in order to keep the show going.

On another note, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that Brian Hauglid is in disagreement with official church positions regarding LGBT issues. Hooray for Brian! Way to go.I trust he perceives the hypocrisy recently demonstrated by the failed policy that excluded children of gay parents from being baptized and then suddenly reversing the policy when the membership of the church rejected it. That's pretty much what happened! The membership rejected the policy and so the leaders really had no choice other than to undo what they did or find themselves being rejected by the membership. Ultimately, the leadership feared for their jobs. So they caved.

consiglieri wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:04 pm

LOL!

I agree with you that all of John Gee's obfuscations hit a brick wall when it comes to the Facsimile translations.

I am sorry I wasn't savvy enough to mention that during the interview!

Although I don't recall you or Brian using that word, the idea definitely came across. I came away with the impression that Gee's master-of-the-universe strategy that is beyond peer review is to needlessly complicate the topics in order to impress the members with his intelligence, confuse them in the details, and ultimately put them to sleep before they figure out what is going on. His goal isn't illumination--it saving testimonies through saying things that simultaneously sound intelligent and confuse the issue. In a word: obfuscation.

Great interview Consig, but it annoyed the hell out of me. :) Here is my reaction from the other side of the planet, that I am sharing on my Facebook page.

"𝗢𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻...𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱'𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝘆 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗬𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗗𝗔𝗬!”

I just listened to almost three hours of an explosive Radio Free Mormon interview with Brian Hauglid, a Mormon authority on the Book of Abraham (Book of Abraham). I came away from the interview feeling annoyed; a bit like Robbie Hart felt when his girlfriend revealed she didn’t want to marry a wedding singer the day before the wedding! But I was only frustrated by the first 2 hrs and 40 mins! The interview was somewhat rescued in the last 15 minutes, but not enough to placate me. Allow me to elaborate.

Brian Hauglid edited the Joseph Smith Papers volume on the Book of Abraham, which was recently published by the Mormon Church. Brian has studied the diaries of Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham for over 20 years. There is abundant evidence, from Smith’s diaries and writings by several of his scribes, that Smith was actively involved in the process of translation, and the papyrus the church possesses were the source. Big problem. The papyrus don't match the Book of Abraham text at all.

Hauglid became convinced the Book of Abraham was created in the 19th century mind of Joseph Smith. But at BYU he ran up against John Gee, a devotee of Hugh Nibley; widely considered in the church to be a lay prophet. Since the text and the papyrus don’t match, Nibley invented a desperate theory that there was a missing scroll that contained the Book of Abraham. Gee, and almost all Book of Abraham Mormon scholars (a handful) subscribe to this ridiculous theory.

In a post on Dan Vogel's Facebook page in November 2018, Hauglid publicly renounced his former belief that the Book of Abraham came from a missing section of scroll and heavily criticised the scholarship of his colleagues Gee and Muhlestein.

“𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑, 𝐼 𝑛𝑜 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑞𝑢𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑚𝑦 2010 𝑏𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑜𝑠. 𝐼 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑚𝑦 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑛 "𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑜𝑢𝑠" 𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑠𝑡. 𝐼𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡, 𝐼'𝑚 𝑛𝑜 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑤𝑎𝑦. 𝐼 𝑤ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑒ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝐷𝑎𝑛'𝑠 𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝑏𝑟𝑎ℎ𝑎𝑚/𝐸𝑔𝑦𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑛 𝑑𝑜𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑜𝑠. 𝐼 𝑛𝑜𝑤 𝑟𝑒𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑎 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐴𝑏𝑟𝑎ℎ𝑎𝑚 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑡. . . . 𝐼 𝑛𝑜 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝐺𝑒𝑒 𝑜𝑟 𝑀𝑢ℎ𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑛. 𝐼 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐 "𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝" 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐵𝑜𝐴 𝑎𝑏ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡. 𝑂𝑛𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝐼'𝑣𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑦 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠.”

In the interview on Radio Free Mormon, Hauglid complained about John Gee’s habit of “omitting important evidence” that seriously undermined the missing scroll theory, and Gee’s fear of peer review, even by colleagues within BYU’s Maxwell Institute! Gee thinks that it is his role to produce scholarship that defends the faith, and so he ignores evidence that doesn’t fit his views. Gee comes across in the interview as an academic coward and bully. Gee has already complained about the interview to his superiors in “BYU Religious Education Leadership” in an email in which he asked “Is he retired yet?” This is about as cowardly as academic bullying gets.


𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺: 𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻 𝗚𝗲𝗲 <𝗷𝗼𝗵𝗻_𝗴𝗲𝗲@𝗯𝘆𝘂.𝗲𝗱𝘂>
𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗲: 𝗪𝗲𝗱𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗱𝗮𝘆, 𝗝𝘂𝗹𝘆 𝟭, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟬 𝗮𝘁 𝟵:𝟱𝟱 𝗔𝗠
𝗧𝗼: [𝗕𝗬𝗨 𝗥𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗘𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽]
𝗦𝘂𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁: 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

𝗗𝗲𝗮𝗿 [𝗦𝗶𝗿],
𝗜 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴:

𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗛𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗹𝗶𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗼 𝗙𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝗽𝗼𝗱𝗰𝗮𝘀𝘁. 𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗦𝗧𝗣:
𝗵𝘁𝘁𝗽://𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.𝗰𝗼𝗺/𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝘁𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗰.𝗽𝗵𝗽?𝗳=𝟭&𝘁=𝟱𝟯𝟲𝟬𝟭

𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 "𝗮𝗶𝗿," 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗱𝗰𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲:
𝗵𝘁𝘁𝗽𝘀://𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗼𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗼𝗻.𝗼𝗿𝗴/

𝗦𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗵𝗲 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘅-𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽, 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁?

𝗜𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻:
𝗜𝘀 𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘆𝗲𝘁?

𝗗𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻?


𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻 𝗚𝗲𝗲
𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺
(𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹) 𝗚𝗮𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗿

𝗔𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀

𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗮𝗺 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗴 𝗨𝗻𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘆

Hauglid’s about face affects some of the most important apologetic claims made in the Church’s Book of Abraham essay concerning missing papyri. Consider this quote from the essay which is sourced directly from his work.

“𝐼𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑓𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝐽𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑝ℎ’𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑡𝑜 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑦𝑟𝑖 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑤𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑤 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑎 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑦𝑟𝑖 ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑑 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛. 𝐸𝑦𝑒𝑤𝑖𝑡𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑘𝑒 𝑜𝑓 “𝑎 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙” 𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑒 “𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑠” 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑦𝑟𝑢𝑠. 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑣𝑒, 𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑚𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑦𝑟𝑖 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝐽𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑝ℎ 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑏𝑟𝑎ℎ𝑎𝑚 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑦𝑟𝑖 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑦𝑟𝑖 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑒𝑥𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑏𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑏𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑦𝑟𝑖.”

Brian Hauglid is now being praised by exmormons for his integrity and bravely standing up for what he believed. I believe it was a very courageous move by Brian and I applaud him. So why am I still annoyed?

𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗛𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗹𝗶𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗕𝗬𝗨 𝟱 𝗱𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄.

Hauglid was paid by the Mormon Church for over two decades. The church exerted so much power over him that he wasn’t able to share his concerns more widely for fear of losing his job at BYU. Out of respect for the cherished beliefs of his family and friends he doesn't publicly question the church. Hauglid now sees himself as a heretic rather than an apostate.

Brian Hauglid was in possession of information many of us would have appreciated knowing years ago but he kept it largely to himself until his financial security wasn’t tied so closely to the church. This is an all too familiar story in the church (e.g. Grant Palmer) and it is completely understandable, but it still angers me.

Many of us have devoted large portions of our lives and money to this wealthy American church. We deserved to know the truth, not have it hidden from us by church scholars. What about the hundreds of thousands of Mormons not in Hauglid's circle of friends? Are they not entitled to know the truth? Before they sign that next tithing check, are they not entitled to make an informed decision about the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham before they put pen to paper?

"𝗢𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻...𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱'𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝘆 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗬𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗗𝗔𝗬!”

Living example of the dilemma - to speak your truth and lose your living, or hold your tongue and try reforming from within? BYU professor specializing in Book of Abraham history isn’t exactly a portable skill set. I think Hauglid did his best with the cards he was dealt. I applaud his honesty and inside efforts to push boundaries, such as they were, when he was able.

Simon Southerton wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:17 am

Consider this quote from the essay which is sourced directly from his work.

“𝐼𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑓𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝐽𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑝ℎ’𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑡𝑜 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑦𝑟𝑖 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑤𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑤 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑎 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑦𝑟𝑖 ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑑 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛. 𝐸𝑦𝑒𝑤𝑖𝑡𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑘𝑒 𝑜𝑓 “𝑎 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙” 𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑒 “𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑠” 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑦𝑟𝑢𝑠. 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑣𝑒, 𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑚𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑦𝑟𝑖 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝐽𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑝ℎ 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑏𝑟𝑎ℎ𝑎𝑚 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑦𝑟𝑖 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑦𝑟𝑖 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑒𝑥𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑏𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑏𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑦𝑟𝑖.”

Oh, but when it comes to Facsimile No. 3 we have all the hieroglyphic writing in which Smith translated and published his findings in the Times and Seasons. We can compare the text with what's on the papyrus and settle the matter, quite, conclusively.

Anubis is NOT a slave. That is is a conclusive fact -- forever settled in the hieroglyphs and Egyptian religion.

John Gee is damned scum. A bastard! A traitor. A liar! A cheat. And you, PETERSON are a fat oversized whale. Fat! Full of glob and lard and poop gas. Go on a diet and do something beside sitting on your FAT ass. It's called diet and exercise, fatso!

Anubis, a god of Egypt, has a message for you, John Gee:

F off, you perverted Egyptologist!



I CAN'T BREATHE!

Let’s imagine I am a CES educator who is starting to reject the Church's Book of Abraham apologetics. I don’t agree that disbelieving in the Church’s BS apologetics regarding the Book of Abraham should be grounds for firing, excommunication, or any negative consequence. Unfortunately the Church does not agree. Am I obligated to suffer the consequences of their messed up priorities? I pay my tithing too. I put all my eggs in the basket of being a CES educator. Now what do I do? I still find the subject interesting. I can still do my job. Why should anyone feel I am obliged to tell them what they need to hear to decide to leave the Church? Is there no room for me to go through my process and fulfil my obligations to my family?