My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

[Guest]

--The discussion about Gee, and his mindset and approach to doing Mopologetics, was fascinating. Here, Gee is revealed to be quite a cunning and manipulative person: someone willing to throw scholarly ethics out the window in order to defend the Church. I found it especially interesting that Hauglid described Gee as growing gradually more cold and distant, despite the fact that he was basically in a kind of "mentoring" relationship with Hauglid. There was apparently an "inner circle" of Mopologists (and I'm sure it's all the usual suspects: Peterson, Gee, Midgley, Hamblin, Roper, and so on, though you always wonder about the more peripheral figures....) who were plotting things behind the scenes--i.e., behind Gerald Bradford's back, and in some cases, behind the Brethren's backs. Gee is described as being into "subtleties" and "subterfuge," which rings true with other evidence we've observed.

--There have been people who've been concerned / suspicious that the Mopologist truly are targeting and trying to do harm to other people's careers, relationships, and Church membership. The Murphy incident is an obvious example, though there have been others. Hauglid here confirms that this is true, and that the Mopologists have indeed targeting people with the goal of ruining them, and he cites his Book of Abraham conflicts--and his getting summoned to his bishop's office--as yet another example of this. (I wouldn't be surprised if this was Midgley, who, frankly, often seems like the ringleader for this sort of behavior.)

--I laughed out loud at Hauglid's discussion of Mopologetic "peer review": a description that matches every single other "insider" description that I've ever seen. Basically, it's a corrupt, nepotistic "inside job" that is more about reaffirming the "inner circle'"s orthodoxy than about legitimate scholarship.

--Perhaps the best revelation: Hauglid says that Gee and Peterson were admonished by a General Authority over their 'Interpreter' criticisms of the JSP!! LOL! I mean, duh: this is a Church-sponsored production. Did they really think that they could lay into it over "sour grapes" with their usual, uh, "zeal"?

--The icing on the cake is that Hauglid says that Gee was paid by the Church to do a peer review of the book! So, he gets paid and then turns around and writes this vicious "hit piece" for "Interpreter"! Well, you sort of have to admire hubris on that scale--the sheer arrogance of it.

Doctor, this interview was a vindication and validation of much of your research. What a feather in your cap, sir!

Let's be very clear. There is the cause of "The Kingdom," or, in other words, "LDS theocracy." For the Mopologists that is THE THING. We have seen them refer to this time and again. They talk of their offerings for "The Kingdom." Anyone and anything that is perceived by them as undermining their understanding of "The Kingdom" must be attacked, neutralized, or destroyed. This is the game we have watched and been the targets of all of these years.

Know your enemy, the old saying goes, and this is true. Be assured that you, I, and anyone else that is criticizing "The Kingdom" as these fellows see it is an enemy to be attacked and neutralized or destroyed. Anyone who criticizes the defenders themselves too. Because this is God's Kingdom to them, and they are part of it. Will a man fight God? Will a man not do everything for "The Kingdom," especially when he has made solemn covenants in the House of the Lord to do that very thing?

The difference between a Brian Hauglid and a John Gee is, at its root, a difference in conception of the Kingdom of God. And, I would say that each person's conception can be defended rationally. For Hauglid following the facts is, in itself, an unquestionable virtue. Ultimately, in his view, the truth will out and it will prevail. Those on the side of the facts are on the side of truth. Hiding the truth is damaging and counterproductive. For Hauglid, the Kingdom may be a bigger ideal that is supported whenever we act ethically.

Gee, on the other side, has a very paternalistic and literal approach to the Kingdom. The Kingdom is the Church. And once one has pledged loyalty to this Kingdom, one must do everything in one's power to promote it, facts be damned. Eternity is too important to let human concepts of fact get in the way. Even if a person is genuine in promoting human facts, they can be the missing the bigger picture if those facts do not support the Kingdom. Those who support the Kingdom, those who have covenanted to support the Kingdom, should not let less important factual issues get in the way. The end justifies the means when the end is the Kingdom. That is the one place where one can make such an exception and rest easy with a clear conscience. It is only when we forget that more serious obligation to the Kingdom that we need to feel anxious.

Mopologetics will run according to those dictates, and the Mopologists will feel just peachy about it. Not just peachy about it, but ecstatic. They are warriors in the only fight that matters in the long run. They can feel a little twinge of pity for the Gina Colvins, Brian Hauglids, and Severus Kishkumens (have to include the little nobodies too) of the world, who may believe they are right and fighting for what is good but are terribly, terribly mistaken.

[_moksha]

I am still pondering Brian Hauglid's contention that not only does the Book of Abraham not have anything to do with Egyptology, but expertise in that subject could hamper understanding the book.

[_Shulem]

Trained at one of the very best universities in the world. Knows he is massaging the evidence in order to reach conclusions others would find dubious at best. And yet, there he is, a true believer. He is so committed that he feels duty-bound to double down on flimsy theories and even ones that fly in the face of the totality of the known evidence.

The alternative is to do what Brian did. Admit it's a production of Joseph Smith, 19th century text. That my friend, is taking one giant step outside the bounds the Lord has set; if ye know what I mean. <snicker>

[_Shulem]

I am still pondering Brian Hauglid's contention that not only does the Book of Abraham not have anything to do with Egyptology, but expertise in that subject could hamper understanding the book.

Because the book is to be received and understood according to Joseph Smith's viewpoint and we know he couldn't read Egyptian or understood Egyptian iconography. Smith just made stuff up. He looked at pictures and made stuff up. He looked at the text and made stuff up. Then, when in came to the creation story in the Book of Abraham, he looked at the Bible and copied from it.

The more one understands real Egyptology the more one has to reject what Joseph Smith said on the subject. Smith didn't know what he was talking about. He started his lying when Chandler came to Kirtland and Smith peeled off a translation about some characters he looked at in the privacy of his office while all along Chandler was waiting outside hoping for a sale.

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.

[_Shulem]

John Gee's missing papyrus theory maintains that the real Book of Abraham was actually penned on papyrus not in possession of the Church today. It is those lost fragments or roll that would indeed match the Book of Abraham story. The problem with this theory is it doesn't take into consideration that the text of the Facsimiles does not match the Explanations given by Smith as printed in the Times and Seasons. So if the Facsimiles don't match the Explanations, why should we think the roll would match the chapters? The very hieroglyphic text of the Facsimile doesn't match what Smith said! This is John's worst nightmare. What is he to do? How can he explain his way out of that? The answer is: he can't! John knows this. He must be miserable. He knows that if he had the actual fragments in which Smith wrote the chapters it would NOT be the Book of Abraham. John knows this. He does. He's miserable!

[_Shulem]

Does anybody know how many years John has left until he retires? He doesn't need BYU!

If John can take a job elsewhere, he can recant his story, move on -- and become one of the greatest Egyptologist today. I really think he has potential to become great. But he has to give up the lying and admit the truth. Then he can move on. He is intelligent and bright. His mind is clouded by cult brainwashing and his false testimony of the Kingdom is holding him back from achieving true greatness.

John, please, admit the truth and move on. Do it for your own sake! Put yourself first and put the Church last. Get out of the Cult. Put yourself within the bounds Egyptology has set and break free from Smith's hold.

[_Craig Paxton]

The Abraham/Egyptian papers appear to show hieroglyphs from the recovered papyri to translate the first section of the Book of Abraham.

The Abraham/Egyptian papers are dated to the end of 1835.

Gee posits this was not a translation project because the recovered papyri do not contain the text of the Book of Abraham.

Gee posits that the part of the papyri with the Book of Abraham on it is missing.

Therefore, Gee must argue (following Nibley) that the Abraham/Egyptian papers do NOT show a translation from Egyptian to the the first part of the Book of Abraham. (Even Gee knows that the characters in the margins do not translate into the English shown in the Abraham/Egyptian papers.)

Therefore, Gee must argue that the Abraham/Egyptian papers are not a translation project, but instead show some of Joseph Smith's scribes taking the Book of Abraham text and trying to reverse engineer it into the some of the characters on the papyri.

But, and this is critical, in order for this theory to work, the scribes MUST have had the text of the Book of Abraham in order to attempt their "reverse engineering" project as he thinks the Abraham/Egyptian papers show.

Because the Abraham/Egyptian papers are concretely dated to the end of 1835, the text of the Book of Abraham MUST have been completely translated prior to the creation of the Abraham/Egyptian documents.

That is why Gee must argue that the entirety of the Book of Abraham was translated in 1835; in spite of the evidence.

At least, that is how I understand the situation.

Ding ding ding....There is hope in the world for dim whited folks like me...The Lights Just Turned ON.

But, and this is critical, in order for this theory to work, the scribes MUST have had the text of the Book of Abraham in order to attempt their "reverse engineering" project as he thinks the Abraham/Egyptian papers show.

Because the Abraham/Egyptian papers are concretely dated to the end of 1835, the text of the Book of Abraham MUST have been completely translated prior to the creation of the Abraham/Egyptian documents.

Gee's theory can only work if ALL of the Book of Abraham translation had been fully completed prior to the scribe reverse engineering. Gee also theorizes that the Book of Abraham came from a missing long papyri roll. 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)

[_Shulem]

Gee's theory can only work if ALL of the Book of Abraham translation had been fully completed prior to the scribe reverse engineering. Gee also theorizes that the Book of Abraham came from a missing long papyri roll. 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)

Well, perhaps apologists might like to invent the pre-missing roll theory, you know, the roll that came up missing before it came up missing. Perhaps Smith kept it locked up in his desk and he forgot where it was until years later when it came time to publish. So the ignorant scribes (under Joseph's direct supervision) used one of the funerary rolls to try and reverse engineer Egyptian but realizing they weren't getting anywhere, gave up.

The poor scribes (and Joseph) must have tired while attempting to think things out in their own mind as directed by the D&C. Working it out in their own mind, day after day, week after week, month after month -- and the Holy Ghost was nowhere to be found -- no enlightenment, no inspiration, so they gave up. Can you really blame them? You would too!

But, the brethren felt the work was so important even though it was uninspired, they preserved it and took great care of those papers and manuscripts. Then, years later, the Kirtland Papers were packed up and carefully taken across the plains and put in the vault of the First Presidency to be ever guarded and kept safe.

And there you have the missing roll theory before the missing roll theory. Amen.

thank u jesus

[_consiglieri]

Well, let's see what RFM says when he checks in. Is that true, RFM? Did you only have a list of softball questions ready to pitch and avoid the hard questions? You know quite well, there are some very hard (no pun intended) questions you could have asked that show that Smith had absolutely no idea what he had his hands on (no pun intended) as he dressed down the Facsimiles for his uninspired and false Egyptological Explanations.

Time to return and report!

I met Brian in person a year ago at Sunstone.

Since then, we have kept up regular contact by phone and talked about a number of things. Every now and again, I would drop hints about wanting him to come on my show for an interview. He politely declined.

As the date of his retirement approached, I started laying it on thick.

About a month ago, I used the tactics I learned as a Mormon missionary to get Brian to "commit" to coming on my show for an interview. I felt bad about it and called him back the next day and apologized for being so overzealous; that I wasn't trying to get him to do something he didn't want to do; and that the ball was in his court. He appreciated that, and told me he wanted to do an interview but that he needed to think about it some more. His overriding concern was for the feelings of members of his family and his colleagues who might feel he had "betrayed" them in some way.

He finally committed for real (of his own choice) to come on the show for an interview and we scheduled it for last Monday, July 6, 2020.

A week before that, on Monday, June 29, 2020, I called him and asked if he was really committed to this. He said yes. I asked if I could announce the fact he was going to come on for an interview. At that point, he waffled, and asked for 24-hours to think about it some more.

I called back the next morning on June 30, 2020, to get his final answer, and he then committed to come on the show and gave me permission to post an announcement.

Later that day, I posted the announcement here, as well as on my Facebook page.

(It was that announcement here that was seen by Daniel Peterson, I strongly suspect, who then emailed John Gee about it and asking if Brian Hauglid had retired yet. John Gee saw that email on Wednesday morning, June 1, 2020, and forwarded the email to a person in leadership at the BYU Religious Education Department, asking if that person knew the answer to the question. Ironically, this email was sent on the very day that Brian Hauglid's retirement became official. I knew nothing of this email until the evening of July 6, 2020.)

I had, of course, discussed many things with Brian Hauglid over the past year, but I called him every day of the week prior to the interview, talking with him about different stories, eliciting different information that I thought would be of interest to my audience. It took a lot of discussions to get Brian Hauglid comfortable with talking about many of the things he talked about, particularly as they relate to John Gee.

I wanted the main focus of the interview to be the failings of John Gee's scholarship, coupled with a number of fantastic anecdotes of what happened behind the scenes at BYU, at the Maxwell Institute, and during the writing of the Book of Abraham essay.

I sat down at my computer last Thursday morning and hammered out a nine-page outline for the interview, incorporating all the things we had talked about, getting quotes from different locations such as the famous quote from Brian on Dan Vogel's Facebook page, and also quotes from John Gee's blog. I had been doing background research during the week prior in the evenings, and was now collecting and organizing for the interview.

One evening last week I was texting Brian Hauglid. "You like sci-fi movies?" I texted. "I do," he texted back. "You like vacations to the beach?" I texted. "I do," he texted back. "I am just doing some background research on you for the interview," I texted.

It was also last week that I put up a request for any questions people on this board had, as well as at my RFM Facebook page. Lots of great questions were posed.

I directed Brian Hauglid to both locations so he could look at the questions being asked. This almost put a wrench in the interview, because Brian Hauglid was concerned about some of the questions, as they would get him into areas he did not want to make public; dealing primarily with his personal beliefs and his personal spiritual journey. I told him that was fine; we wouldn't get into those questions. He was in charge and we wouldn't get into anything he didn't want to get into. I told him I had done the same thing with my interview of Carol Lynn Pearson, and I would honor my agreement with Brian as I had honored it with Carol Lynn.

What I couldn't say publicly at the time was that I already knew that Brian Hauglid had substantially distanced himself from the church; that he didn't believe the Book of Abraham to be a translation by Joseph Smith, and that he had similar feelings about the Book of Mormon; that both were products of the nineteenth century. But these were things he didn't want to go into on the interview.

So by the time Monday, July 6, 2020, rolled around and we started recording, I already knew and had outlined everything I wanted to talk with Brian about, per our previous understanding. I took him through my entire outline. Even when we hit the two-hour mark, which was all we had allotted for the interview, there was still more to go, and so we took an additional hour to talk about everything we had planned.

I was very glad he was willing to talk about a lot of his behind-the-scenes stories of the Book of Abraham essay, and interactions with John Gee.

But suddenly, just when I was through with the outline, Brian Hauglid opened up and just started talking about all the things he had told me he didn't want to talk about! I couldn't believe it. I just sat back and let him go. I thought he did a great job! The only thing I did during the last 10-15 minutes was laugh when he described himself as a "heretic." (I am sure that self-description will figure prominently in a forthcoming hit-piece to appear at Sic et Non and/or the Interpreter.)

As to the question about a "list of soft balls," I really didn't feel like I needed to "grill" Brian Hauglid about the authenticity of the Book of Abraham because I already knew how he felt. (I wouldn't typically "grill" somebody who was a guest on my podcast at my invitation, anyway.) It would be like me grilling Shulem on why he thinks Facsimile 3 got it right on the name. The great information Brian Hauglid provided may have seemed like they were in response to "soft ball" questions, but that was only because we had previously explored those issues and stories in depth and I had obtained his agreement to talk about them.

I was prepared to not go into Brian Hauglid's beliefs about the Book of Abraham beyond his rejection of Gee's missing scroll theory, and that he didn't find the catalyst theory satisfactory. The huge bonus at the end was where Brian went ahead and told us about his beliefs on the Book of Abraham anyway. And threw in his beliefs about the Book of Mormon for no additional charge.

As to Simon Southerton's comments, they are well taken. I spoke with Brian Hauglid this morning, and he tells me he is on good terms with Simon Southerton; that they are now in personal contact; and that there are no hard feelings whatsoever.

I hope this helps flesh out the behind-the-scenes story on the interview. I had an absolute blast and am happy the interview is being generally received. At least in some quarters. In other quarters it is not being so well received. Which only makes me happier.

All the Best!

RFM

[_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