My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

[_Analytics]

Pardon my ignorance, but can BYU touch Hauglid's pension? I think he is near the end of a contract.

He retired 5 days before the podcast dropped. No, they can't touch his pension.

[_Analytics]

Here is the thing ... if cojcolds attacks Mr. Hauglid for too much truth telling, people will look at what he says and they cannot let that happen because he is a respected scholar...

The Church tried that with the September 6 (+ David P. Wright), and it bit them in the ass.

This one seems fundamentally different. Our friends at Interpreter reported Hauglid to the Strengthening Church Membership Committee for what Hauglid wrote in the Joseph Smith Paper's Project, which was published by the Church itself. And Hauglid's bishop blew it off. Talk about evidence of different factions!

[_Fence Sitter]

The Church tried that with the September 6 (+ David P. Wright), and it bit them in the ass.

This one seems fundamentally different. Our friends at Interpreter reported Hauglid to the Strengthening Church Membership Committee for what Hauglid wrote in the Joseph Smith Paper's Project, which was published by the Church itself. And Hauglid's bishop blew it off. Talk about evidence of different factions!

How do you know that the people at the Interpreter reported Hauglid to the SCMC?

[_Analytics]

The Church tried that with the September 6 (+ David P. Wright), and it bit them in the ass.

This one seems fundamentally different. Our friends at Interpreter reported Hauglid to the Strengthening Church Membership Committee for what Hauglid wrote in the Joseph Smith Paper's Project, which was published by the Church itself. And Hauglid's bishop blew it off. Talk about evidence of different factions!

How do you know that the people at the Interpreter reported Hauglid to the SCMC?

Based upon what they were talking about at the end of the podcast, we know somebody reported to someone in Salt Lake that Hauglid's bishop needed to talk to him about his loyalty to the church, given what was written in the Joseph Smith Papers. That the parties involved were the Interpreter vigilantes and the SCMC is an educated guess.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The fact that “the GSTP” is well enough known and used as an acronym is amazing.

- Doc

[_Dr Exiled]

The fact that “the GSTP” is well enough known and used as an acronym is amazing.

- Doc

I'm proud to be associated with the GSTP. It means we have enemies! Therefore, we are trusted (using Kiwi57 logic):

President Packer was a target of the Church's enemies probably more than any other man since Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Which is a very sound reason to trust him.

Hoosier Kiwi57 • a day ago

Number 4 might be President Oaks, for similar reasons. The same trust is justified.

Dr. Exiled Kiwi57 • 13 hours ago

I get that you want to praise the man, but just because someone has enemies has nothing to do with trust in that person.

Kiwi57 Dr. Exiled • 13 hours ago

It's not just the fact that he had enemies. There's also the considerations of who and what those enemies are.

[Guest]

I'm trying to understand WHY it is so critical to Gee's Missing Papyri Theory that all of the translation process took place in 1835. Even if translation took place in 1842, which the historical record supports, the claimed missing papyri wouldn't have gone missing until years after 1842. So why is 1835 so important?

I understand that Gee is attempting to offer an apologetic alternative to the churches official position that the Book of Abraham came from the extant papyri the church owns since that papyri doesn't have any of the Book of Abraham on it.

[_Dr Moore]

Kiwi57 Dr. Exiled • 13 hours ago

It's not just the fact that he had enemies. There's also the considerations of who and what those enemies are.

Fascinating circular logic.

[_Analytics]

I'm trying to understand WHY it is so critical to Gee's Missing Papyri Theory that all of the translation process took place in 1835. Even if translation took place in 1842, which the historical record supports, the papyri wouldn't have gone missing until years later. So why is 1835 so important?

As I understand it, if the translation took place in 1835, that means the KEP were a misguided effort to learn Egyptian by reverse engineering the translation. But if the the translation happened in 1842, it means that the KEP were notes from the translation itself and that the Book of Abraham is based on the papyri we have, not the hypothetical missing Papyri.

[Guest]

I'm trying to understand WHY it is so critical to Gee's Missing Papyri Theory that all of the translation process took place in 1835. Even if translation took place in 1842, which the historical record supports, the papyri wouldn't have gone missing until years later. So why is 1835 so important?

As I understand it, if the translation took place in 1835, that means the KEP were a misguided effort to learn Egyptian by reverse engineering the translation. But if the the translation happened in 1842, it means that the KEP were notes from the translation itself and that the Book of Abraham is based on the papyri we have, not the hypothetical missing Papyri.

I understand this and the ramifications of this...but why, for Gee's theory to hold water, did all of the Book of Abraham translation have to be completed in 1835?