My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 836
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Dr Moore »

It seems pretty clear that Dr. Peterson denies having sent the email or called local authorities to come down on Brian. Why is it still a debate?

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 8005
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Dr Moore wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:54 pm
It seems pretty clear that Dr. Peterson denies having sent the email or called local authorities to come down on Brian. Why is it still a debate?
Do you believe him, Dr. Moore? And it seems to me that the more salient point here is not whether or not DCP himself contacted the bishop, but, instead, the *role* that DCP has played in facilitating and/or encouraging such behavior.

“Inner circle,” no?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

Temp. Admin.
Deacon
Posts: 208
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:50 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Temp. Admin. »

Shulem" wrote:I’ll bet my bottom dollar John Gee is racist and doesn’t like blacks. No wonder he’s all too happy with keeping Anubis a slave. You’re a racist, John Gee! You’re a traitor to Egyptology and a shame. Your name will be dragged through the mud. You think Budge is the butt of jokes. No! The name Gee will forever be ranked as traitorous and racist against blacks and ancient Egypt.

Black lives matter! You go to hell, Gee, you racist hypocrite! Your name is dirt.
Dude, you throw around the "R" word WAAAAAY too liberally. You have NO PROOF that John Gee is a racist. It was Joseph Smith who labeled Anubis a slave, not John Gee.

In this politically-charged day and age, it behooves no one to frivolously accuse someone of being a racist without any hard proof. I hereby invite you to cease and desist doing so.

I have a question
God
Posts: 9738
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by I have a question »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:15 pm
Dr Moore wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:54 pm
It seems pretty clear that Dr. Peterson denies having sent the email or called local authorities to come down on Brian. Why is it still a debate?
Do you believe him, Dr. Moore? And it seems to me that the more salient point here is not whether or not DCP himself contacted the bishop, but, instead, the *role* that DCP has played in facilitating and/or encouraging such behavior.

“Inner circle,” no?
Why not take him at his word and ask him to condemn Gee for calling on Dr Hauglid's local church authorities and employer to act to censure him?

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22387
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by moksha »

Shulem wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:32 am
John knows this. He does. He's miserable!
He works at BYU in a permanently funded position. He has a cadre of apologetic friends and a family. Why should he be miserable?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21281
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Kishkumen »

Dr Moore wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:54 pm
It seems pretty clear that Dr. Peterson denies having sent the email or called local authorities to come down on Brian. Why is it still a debate?
On the one hand, I am sympathetic to this line of thought. On the other hand, I find it interesting that time and again the things that we were ridiculed for thinking might be the case about LDS apologetics turned out to be true, after all. And I think I understand why. I think it is probably thought that this is none of our business and no one is obliged to be perfectly honest with us. Moreover, it is unfortunately the way of things that people who are opposed to each other's objectives will not trust each other. They just won't.

I would say that the sum total of all of the things we have seen and heard steadily dripping out concerning LDS apologetics tends to confirm our overall sense of the problems. Sure, we may be wrong about individual things, and I have no doubt that that is the case, but, on the whole, I would say that our suspicions were generally correct. At least, they were not so far off that we deserve the ridicule coming from some quarters. But, of course, we can expect to be ridiculed, and we ought not to cry about it. These are our opponents. They must run us down in order to protect their own credibility. We can also see honestly that we treat our opponents pretty badly for our own emotional and rhetorical purposes.

What is really unfortunate, in my mind, is that for many people the memory of FARMS is tainted by this particular facet of its history. I don't think that this is necessarily our fault, however. When Bill Hamblin lamented the end of classic-FARMS, and we were reading all of this in terms of hit-pieces and unfair reviews, or general overzealousness and mean-spiritedness as we experienced it from our vantage point, we and many others came to associate FARMS with that negative experience.

My work on the MToM (Master Timeline of Mopologetics) pretty much upended my whole sense of what FARMS was. The nastygram reviews and hit-pieces were just one part of a much larger picture. Sometimes it is easy to forget that. Sure, we may not believe or agree with the rest of FARMS either, but I hope we can sympathize with the genuine, sincere love, curiosity, and search for meaning at the heart of the FARMS enterprise at its foundations. FARMS was so much about Jack Welch's energy, enthusiasm, bright and voracious mind, and desire to do good as he understood it. He hit upon chiasmus long before FARMS was formally started. It continued to be something that FARMS celebrated pretty much up to the point where Maxwell was transformed into what it is now. Frankly, I love that. I am very sympathetic to the joy in curiosity, the interest in texts, and the desire to unpack meaning that seems to have inspired Jack Welch to do what he did. That for me is the true legacy of FARMS.

I still see that legacy over at Interpreter.

What many of us got caught up in (and here I am including everyone on all sides in that pool from which the many are drawn) is the fighting. Fighting against anti-cult ministries, fighting against critics, fighting against apologists, fighting against each other. This board has a lot of that fighting. We are continually wrapped up in criticizing Peterson, Midgley, and others. I am not here to criticize anyone for being wrapped up in that because it would be hypocritical of me to do so. What I will say, however, is that being wrapped up in this will necessarily distort our view of these things, and distort our perception of those with whom we interact in the fight. We don't know FARMS and we don't know Interpreter. There are things about them we may never understand. Our criticisms of them are partial and not perfectly fair. Our criticisms, at the same time, also hit close to home and are at least partially accurate. We have learned things from the fight that we otherwise would not have known. And I think that this is true regardless of what we hear from Dr. Peterson about it all.

On occasion we need to be able to step back from the fighting and appreciate each other as human beings. We need to hold onto the part of our humanity that is not locked in a struggle against our opponents. Everyone we are arguing with has that part of themselves that is not defined by this fight. What I said about Jack Welch also applies to Dr. Peterson, Dr. Midgley, and the late Dr. Hamblin. We may not believe what they believe. We may not agree with their scholarship and methodologies. We may be very angry with them for the way they conduct themselves in the fight. But they, too, were and are motivated by positive things in their pursuit of meaning in Mormonism. That is one of the reasons I take a posture here and elsewhere, regardless of the criticism it invites.

To get back to Dr. Moore's original comment, I think it is understandable that people don't believe DCP. Yes, he has denied it. Yes, he may be telling the truth. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that people will believe him. This is not because they are stupid or insane. It is because they do not trust him. That's the nature of the beast. I will be honest and say that I don't fully trust him either. I may be sympathetic to him and see good things in him, but when it comes to this struggle, I have a really hard time taking him at his word, although I sometimes do.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

User avatar
Hagoth
Valiant B
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:16 am

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Hagoth »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:44 pm
Whatever the case may be, at minimum they were gossiping with each other about this. But this sounds precisely like the kind of cabal that would rat somebody out to their bishop. Did the same "Many of us" know about the contact with the bishop? Or was that just Midgley going rogue?
It's almost as if they have sworn some kind of secret masonic oath to put the church above all else and to devote all of their time, talents, and resources to defending it and its "anointed."
"Be excellent to each other." - Bill and Ted
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” - Mark Twain

User avatar
Hagoth
Valiant B
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:16 am

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Hagoth »

Brother Hauglid is still playing a few apologist tricks. Just as apologists changed the meaning of the word "translate," we now have a new meaning for the word "aphrodisiac!"
"Be excellent to each other." - Bill and Ted
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” - Mark Twain

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21281
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Kishkumen »

Hagoth wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:40 am
Brother Hauglid is still playing a few apologist tricks. Just as apologists changed the meaning of the word "translate," we now have a new meaning for the word "aphrodisiac!"
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11922
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Shulem »

Temp. Admin. wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:32 am
Dude, you throw around the "R" word WAAAAAY too liberally. You have NO PROOF that John Gee is a racist. It was Joseph Smith who labeled Anubis a slave, not John Gee.

In this politically-charged day and age, it behooves no one to frivolously accuse someone of being a racist without any hard proof. I hereby invite you to cease and desist doing so.
The senior Egyptologist at BYU has an ethical and moral responsibility to correct the anomaly regarding Anubis. The statement made by Smith in Facsimile No. 3 is based on a 19th century racist idea that blacks are slaves. It's solely derived from Smith's racist assertion and furthered with the idea that the text above supports that idea.

Egyptology is a science, a discipline -- a study of an ancient race of humans on planet earth. As an Egyptologist, Gee has the responsibility to deny Smith's racist accusation of Anubis and set the record straight. In RFM's interview, Hauglid mentioned that Gee felt that all of the controversies about the Book of Abraham could be settled or resolved using Egyptology. The problem for Gee is that he can't settle this matter using Egyptology! Egyptology doesn't support Smith's position at all but counters it to the extreme. Therefore, since Gee refuses to correct Smith's mistake he automatically endorses Smith's interpretation of a 19th century racist view of blacks.

I maintain, based on Gee's neglect/refusal to correct the record but insists on toeing Smith's line -- Gee is being racist in the matter of Anubis.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11922
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Shulem »

moksha wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:43 am
Shulem wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:32 am
John knows this. He does. He's miserable!
He works at BYU in a permanently funded position. He has a cadre of apologetic friends and a family. Why should he be miserable?
Because, in my opinion, liars aren't happy. They live from day to day in a state drudgery.

Of course, that's my opinion.

To thine own self be true

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21281
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Kishkumen »

Shulem wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:30 am
Because, in my opinion, liars aren't happy. They live from day to day in a state drudgery.

Of course, that's my opinion.

To thine own self be true
It is hard to know what makes some people happy. Some people are happy being religious fanatics.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 836
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Dr Moore »

Folks have speculated that the email to Gee must have been sent by DCP because, well, DCP's history with MormonDiscussions.com includes name calling (eg, GSTP).

But almost immediately, Peterson denied having done any such thing.

I am very inclined to believe him on this matter, because the question of who sent the email to Gee isn't a soft science -- that information is iron clad, living on BYU's servers. Moreover, the email was forwarded outside of BYU, evidently, which means the information (in email headers) is potentially all over the place by now. Dan surely knows this, and by extension he knows that it's just a matter of time until his denial is vindicated. No point in searching for angles here.

Further, my reading of the email to Gee suggests to my mind someone not-Peterson as the source. I have two reasons for that belief:
  1. The writer was uninformed about Hauglid's retirement status. This indicates to me it was less likely to have been a fellow BYU professor.
  2. The writer appears eager to score a point with Gee (by feeding a piece of juicy info that Gee might be able to use to advantage over Hauglid). DCP has no reason to earn points with Gee, but there are potentially scores of junior apologists who do.

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22387
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by moksha »

An unusual shift in the space-time information stream:

Moksha DanielPeterson • 6 hours ago
Dr. Peterson - have I advised, suggested, encouraged, ordered, directed, required, or prayed that any of my heirs, assigns, legatees, agents, disciples, subordinates, employees, third cousins, pets, ward members, neighbors, progenitors, descendants, friends, chance acquaintances, North Korean spies, mail carriers, mechanics, or piano tuners do so.
That pretty well covers it, but to nail one final lid shut do you know anyone who has turned someone in to the SCMC or acted as its agent?

Kiwi57 Moksha • 5 hours ago
So from being the class clown, you are now trying to move up to backing up the school bully?

Moksha Kiwi57 • 5 hours ago • edited
Do you think asking this question warrants some attempted misdirection?

Louis Midgley Moksha • 4 hours ago • edited
MOKSHA: "a trademark ad hominem?" You confuse an insult, which you are an expert at giving, with a logical fallacy. If I were to say that John Gee could not possibly be an Egyptologist because he is a faithful Latter-day Saint, that would be a logical fallacy. It would be a logical fallacy in exactly the same way it would be a fallacy to claim that Josef Yerushalmi could not possibly be a historian because he was a Jew.

When my Kiwi friend describes you as "the class clown" he is both describing you accurately, and thereby also insulting you. But doing this does not involve any logical fallacy.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21281
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Kishkumen »

Dr Moore wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:44 am
Folks have speculated that the email to Gee must have been sent by DCP because, well, DCP's history with MormonDiscussions.com includes name calling (eg, GSTP).

But almost immediately, Peterson denied having done any such thing.

I am very inclined to believe him on this matter, because the question of who sent the email to Gee isn't a soft science -- that information is iron clad, living on BYU's servers. Moreover, the email was forwarded outside of BYU, evidently, which means the information (in email headers) is potentially all over the place by now. Dan surely knows this, and by extension he knows that it's just a matter of time until his denial is vindicated. No point in searching for angles here.

Further, my reading of the email to Gee suggests to my mind someone not-Peterson as the source. I have two reasons for that belief:
  1. The writer was uninformed about Hauglid's retirement status. This indicates to me it was less likely to have been a fellow BYU professor.
  2. The writer appears eager to score a point with Gee (by feeding a piece of juicy info that Gee might be able to use to advantage over Hauglid). DCP has no reason to earn points with Gee, but there are potentially scores of junior apologists who do.
We are probably looking at Will Schryver as the sender. He is allied with Gee and he really dislikes both Hauglid and MormonDiscussions.com. He loved the acronym GSTP.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22387
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by moksha »

Kishkumen wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:16 am
We are probably looking at Will Schryver as the sender. He is allied with Gee and he really dislikes both Hauglid and MormonDiscussions.com. He loved the acronym GSTP.
If it is not to pornographic to write, what is the full meaning of this Schryverian acronym?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21281
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Kishkumen »

Great and Spacious Trailer Park
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21281
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Kishkumen »

Dan Vogel wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:41 pm
I listened to the whole interview and found Brian's discussion of his relationship with Gee interesting and sad. I'm reading his new essay on the Abraham material now.
I will be interested to know what you think of the essay, Dan.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21281
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Kishkumen »

Another possibility is Young Smoot. The lad who was really into mixing it up and making fun of critics. He was a friend of Gee and Peterson. He went off to study Egyptology and then decided against pursuing a Ph.D. in the subject, if memory serves. He is probably also familiar with the term GSTP.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11922
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Shulem »

Look people, if DCP didn't write the email then someone did.

I wonder . . . .

Image

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21281
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: My Interview with Brian Hauglid is Up!

Post by Kishkumen »

Shulem wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:55 am
Look people, if DCP didn't write the email then someone did.

I wonder . . . .

Image
Well, I don't think it really matters, does it? Everyone who spent a lot of time playing junior inquisitor and used the power of the Church to make fellow Mormons feel marginalized in the name of "protecting the Kingdom" is more or less responsible for a culture in which this kind of tattling, finger-pointing, and abuse thrives. The question is really what we do about it when we recognize our part in the problem. Some people continue to tattle, accuse, and abuse. Others choose to stop and even call out this kind of destructive behavior.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

Post Reply