My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

[_consiglieri]

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?

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.

[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?

It is all about the KEP. If Joseph Smith and scribes were producing it before or concurrently with the Book of Abraham then we know we have the papyri where Joseph Smith thought the Book of Abraham was located. It is on the extant Hor scroll. So Gee has to explain that the KEP was not an original translation effort (which it clearly was) but that it a misguided scribe driven reverse translation attempt to produce a secular Egyptian lexicon. The argument is that the scribes took the existing (non-extant) text of the Book of Abraham and tried to reverse engineer the translation. Since we know when the KEP was created (fall 1835) the existing text must of been created before that for the reverse engineer effort to make sense.. Otherwise the KEP proves we are not missing the papyri which Joseph Smith and the scribes thought contained Abr 1-2:18.

This is critical to Gee. If Hauglid and others are right, that Joseph Smith simply could not translate Egyptian, it makes his job and the Egyptian side of the Book of Abraham studies pretty much useless. Ritner has translated all the extant documents so there is not much left to do on that side since Joseph Smith couldn't read Egyptian anyways. If Gee is right, then arguments about the KEP are not relevant to the historicity of the Book of Abraham and an Egyptian scholar can continue to research what the Egyptians knew about Abraham.

[_Dr Moore]

It's all about moving the facts around to make the conclusion appear more likely.

[_Analytics]

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?

I would suspect it has to do with when it is plausible for Joseph Smith to have produced the translation, given what we have in his journals and everything else that was going on. He either finished the translation in 1835 or he finished it in 1842--there are no other possibilities. To Gee's point, it isn't about proving the Book of Abraham was translated before the hypothetical missing papyri hypothetically went missing. It is about establishing the plausibility that the KEP were produced long after the translation was finished.

[_Shulem]

Hauglid was heavy on the fact that apologetics is entirely dependent on creating a hodgepodge of fake evidence through a massive campaign of parallelomania which has essentially been taking place ever since Hugh Nibley. Parallel this and parallel that! This and That! See Here and see There! That is the mantra of the apologists as they continue to lie to themselves and in doing so lie to others in lying confusion that goes straight back to Smith's lying translations and the uninspired Kirtland Papers which are a direct refection on Joseph Smith's own work.

The whole thing is a lie. Hauglid has come to realize this. One who was deeply involved in the Church Essay has bailed out of the boat. You can bet the remaining apologists are angry just like Holland gets angry when one bails out of the boat. They will vent their frustration and anger on those who are COURAGEOUS enough to admit the truth and move on. People like Gee are spiritually immature and full of pride. People like Daniel F Peterson are puffed up in their own conceit and will lie and cheat using any word or combination of words to fulfill their crooked designs. Basically, Peterson is a wretched soul. He lives and loves lies. That is the kind of man he is. Just like Donald Trump -- a liar.

YOU, are evil, Dan. You're evil. Period. Can you spell "evil"? can you spell "Shulem"?

You fat ass!

[_Craig Paxton]

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?

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.

Thanks for this but I believe I heard Hauglid say that he calls the KEP the AEP because some of the papers were done in Nauvoo. Also Smith's diary entries state clearly that he was engaged in translation in March of 1842. Does Gee have an explanation for the Nauvoo AEP's? Is he asserting the same reverse engineering of these Nauvoo AEP's by enterprising scribe's? That scribe's also took on this Nauvoo project independent of Smith?

[_Shulem]

I noted that Hauglid was quite ready to answer any and all questions RFM was going to put to him. Hauglid was ready but he was in effect, on many technical issues, let off the hook because RFM was a gentleman and quite respectful to his guest. Hauglid must have appreciated that. RFM could have tossed a number of difficult questions in Hauglid's face -- especially pertaining to the Facsimiles and I have to think that Hauglid was ready to answer whatever was going to come his way.

Perhaps there will be a second interview sometime in the future? Time will tell.

I confess that I'm disappointed that some of my questions weren't asked.

[_Craig Paxton]

I guess part of the problem I'm having in wrapping my head around Gee's assertions is that they seem so completely flawed. On so many pathways the Book of Abraham is a complete fraud. Gee's attempt to make it believable leaves me with a headache. The KEP/AEP only make sense as a tool of Smith's effort into make others believe he was actually translating the Egyptian papyri when it is obvious that he was not.

[_consiglieri]

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.

[_Shulem]

Hauglid very specifically pointed out that Joseph Smith was translating Egyptian up until the time of publication in 1842. Smith was still translating and tweaking his work -- readying it for the press. His journals bear this out. The Times and Seasons Vol. 10 was printed just prior to Smith making additional Egyptian translations and readying the "large cut" (Facsimile No. 2). Smith exhibited the Book of Abraham in the original which consisted of both papyrus and translation manuscripts. The papyrus WITH the manuscripts and the manuscripts WITH the papyrus. Reuben Hedlock the engraver had to have the original Hypocephalus (Facsimile No. 2) in order to receive final instructions from Smith concerning the arrangement of the writing and whatever principles Smith wanted to relay about the imagery of the Hypocephalus in which to tie it to his Explanations.

Smith continued to translate elements of the Book of Abraham, namely the Facsimile, right up until publication. He continued translating and revising till the very end. He was tweaking his work and making final touches. One of those touches, I believe, was when he had Reuben hack off Anubis's nose because he didn't like the way the jackal head looked when it first came off the press. So, Anubis had his nose hacked off! But he got to keep his doggy ear. Smith was happy with the mutation and the press continued to roll with its final cut of the Book of Abraham. Nobody would ever come to talk about this matter again until Mormon DISCUSSIONS.COM came on the scene and Shulem revealed it.

So how about that, John Gee -- you worthless piece of crap!