It is currently Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:29 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Why Nibley and Gee cannot be trusted
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:02 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:27 am
Posts: 2750
I will provide what I believe to be a good reason why Nibley’s scholarship should not be trusted. When the papyri were rediscovered in 1967 there was a concerted effort to develop apologetic theories to distance it from the Book of Abraham. At this point we witness the birth of the missing papyrus theory. In order to promote this theory Nibley offered this following bit of misinformation, and this is taken directly from Jeff Lindsay’s website:

Quote:
The Prophet Joseph himself has supplied us with the most conclusive evidence that the manuscript today identified as the Book of Breathings, J.S. Papyri X and XI, was not in his opinion the source of the Book of Abraham. For he has furnished a clear and specific description of the latter: 'The record of Abraham and Joseph, found with the mummies, is (1) beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and (2) a small part red, ink or paint, (3) in perfect preservation.'...

Since Joseph Smith actually possessed quite a number of perfectly preserved, beautifully written Egyptian manuscripts adorned with rubrics [red characters], there is no reason to doubt that he was describing such a document as the source of 'the record of Abraham and Joseph.' And there can be no doubt whatever that the manuscript he was describing was and is an entirely different one from that badly written, poorly preserved little text, entirely devoid of rubrics, which is today identified as the Book of Breathings. One cannot insist too strongly on this point, since it is precisely the endlessly repeated claim that the Book of Breathings has been 'identified as the very source of the Book of Abraham' on which the critics of Joseph Smith have rested their whole case...."
Hugh W. Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1975, pp. 2-3).


The problem with this apologetic is that it is patently false on several points:

1) This statement didn’t derive from “the Prophet.” It comes from Oliver Cowdery’s passing description.
2) Nibley doesn’t understand that Cowdery describes the entire collection consisting of two different records (Abraham’s record and the other from Joseph)
3) Nibley doesn’t acknowledge that among the papyri that were rediscovered in 1967, rubrics do appear on fragments IV and VIII.

According to Nibley’s logic, since the papyri (Sensen text) commonly identified as the record of Abraham, is “badly written, poorly preserved little text, entirely devoid of rubrics,” then the real record of Abraham must be missing. The problem here is that Nibley is twisting the citation to say something it doesn’t. This is where point #2 comes in. This description doesn’t strictly refer to this record. It is a general statement about the collection of records, which also included the record of Joseph.

Now according to William Appleby, “there is a perceptible difference between the writings [of Abraham and Joseph]. Joseph appears to have been the best scribe.” This piece of evidence pretty much slams the door on Nibley’s argument because it accounts for the evidence mush better than Nibley’s shot in the dark apologetic. Among the extant records we have today, Appleby’s description fits perfectly because he makes the clear distinction between two records and he says the record of Abraham is inferior in quality to that of Joseph’s. And as I have already noted, the rubrics do appear on two of the better preserved fragments.

It is also worth noting that this “red ink” argument stood the test of time for decades. And because the Church refused to publish color copies of the papyri, we had no other choice but to take Nibley’s word for it that the papyri were void of rubrics. It wasn’t until Charles Larsen published his book, that the world could see the papyri in all their glory.

And who is responsible for making Nibley look like an idiot here? In 1990 Edward Ashment, another dastardly anti-Mormon, researched this issue thoroughly to show the world why Nibley cannot be trusted: http://www.buchabraham.mormonismus-onli ... onance.htm

Now this lame argument still lives on at the Jeff Lindsay museum of failed apologetics, but it is good to know some LDS apologists have admitted the error in Nibley’s argument. Take for example, Kevin Barney, who back in January of 2002, made the following comment: “I am a believer in the Book of Abraham, but personally I don't put much stock in this ‘description’ argument.” And then again in June of 2003, “…the Nibley rubrics argument doesn't hold water.”

But the “hide the color” game played by LDS scholars continued with Nibley’s successor, John Gee. This time the color was shaded out to support his argument regarding the significance of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. The KEP provide us with manuscripts of the Book of Abraham written by Joseph Smith’s scribes. The natural conclusion here is that these were the translation manuscripts. The problem for the apologists is that these manuscripts contained Egyptian characters lined up on the left margins – characters which are identical and in sequence, to those found on the Sensen text (the text the apologists cannot accept as the source for the Book of Abraham).

So what does Gee do here? After trying to figure out a way to explain how these characters could be on these manuscripts, yet have nothing to do with the actual translation process, he thinks that maybe if he can show that these characters were added after the text had been written, then maybe he could support the crazy Nibley scenario that some mysterious twit came along and added them to the texts, erroneously thinking they actually had something to do with the Book of Abraham translation.

Enter the two ink argument.

First let me not that Juliann informed us at FAIR how important Gee was. John Gee we were told, should be trusted. John Gee, we were told, had access to what the “weekend warriors” could only dream about. John Gee, we were told, had been Yale trained and had the required critical tools. Quite simply, John Gee was the hero we so desperately needed.

So at a time when apologetics needed it the most, John Gee published his “A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri.” On page 22 we find the following argument with “color” illustrations of the KEP:

Image

When I first read this I couldn’t help but notice there was something strange about the coloring. Each photo seems to have been changed with a different hue. I then realized that maybe this is actually what the manuscripts looked like. The problem was that Gee’s argument about different inks was based on evidence provided in these photos. From these photos it does seem like the characters to the left were in a much darker ink, perhaps a different color.

More crucial to Gee’s argument, however, was his assertion that it the Egyptian characters sometimes “run over… the English text.”

Enter Brent Metcalfe, deceitful apostate, friend to Mark Hoffman, former security guard at the LDS archives (working undercover for the Tanners), a man who was out to destroy the Church at all costs, and a man who couldn’t tell the truth if his wife’s life depended on it. At least that was the impression most LDS apologists liked to spread.

Brent kindly pointed out that Gee’s apologetic on this point was entirely without merit. How would Metcalfe know? Well, Metcalfe had previously obtained color photos of the KEP from Steve Christensen, who was commissioned by the Church to photograph them before he was killed by Mark Hoffman. To support his counter-argument, Brent kindly shared some of the photos. I’ll present one just to prove the point:

Image

Notice that a full blown color image of the same section provided by Gee, reveals that the ink used for the Egyptian characters is the same exact ink used in the English text to the right. The reason some points are darker than others has everything to do with the double stroke using the quill. Notice the lower portion of the “s” shows that it is just as dark as the Egyptian to the left. So Gee’s argument relies heavily on the ignorance of his audience. He wasn’t counting on anyone out there actually having the means to disprove his presentation, but that was his fault. Ultimately, the apologists want to blame Metcalfe and derail by accusing him of obtaining the photos illegally or whatever, but the fact is these photos prove Gee was being dishonest. He was manipulating the evidence to try saving the Book of Abraham. And the “run over” the English text argument is equally bankrupt. The characters do not “sometimes” run over the text. Gee was called to the carpet and decided to respond while hiding behind Dan Peterson. This was so embarrassing: http://www.lds-mormon.com/gee_abraham.shtml

Now all I have seen since this time are attempt to explain how Gee could have made an honest mistake.

I don’t think so.

Remember, we were told he should be trusted because he had first hand access to the materials. This was Juliann’s trump card and she still pulls it out whenever Brent shows his face.

The point here is that FARMS reviews have been pointing out errors by critics that are not even close to being as egregious as the errors committed by Nibley-Gee duo. If anti-Mormon critics should be rejected because of errors far minor than these, then how much more so should we reject Nibley and Gee?

_________________
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein


Last edited by dartagnan on Sat May 09, 2009 8:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:22 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:09 pm
Posts: 2455
Location: House of Lords cellar
Saved to hard drive for future reference.

_________________
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:32 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:50 am
Posts: 2799
What bout anything else Nibley did aside from PoGP stuff?

_________________
One moment in annihilation's waste,
one moment, of the well of life to taste-
The stars are setting and the caravan
starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste!

-Omar Khayaam

*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:58 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 13623
Location: On the imaginary axis
LifeOnaPlate wrote:
What bout anything else Nibley did aside from PoGP stuff?


One thing at a time. For the moment, let's just do "Why Nibley and Gee cannot be trusted on the PoGP".

If they come out clean on that, we can look at other issues.

If they don't, then frankly why bother?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:53 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:47 am
Posts: 4247
Location: The Ivory Tower
Good points, Kevin. I'll just add that anyone who tries to read and genuinely understand Nibley's Message of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers is in for a wild ride. Nibley contradicts himself something like a dozen times. After very strongly stating his argument against the KEP, his last paragraph basically says, "but hey, there's some really good stuff in the KEP that we might be able to use as evidence, so maybe Joseph wrote them after all."

_________________
Worlds Without End


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:11 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:45 am
Posts: 8381
Location: somewhere else
LifeOnaPlate wrote:
What bout anything else Nibley did aside from PoGP stuff?


At the risk of derailment let me just say this quickly:

I've read some Nibley. He wrote a lot and lots of it is at varying levels of scholarship---I think one could even differentiate between a kind of "high" and "low"-tech apologia, as well. So, yes, I've only read a fraction, but I think I've at least sampled the range of his output.

I've not seen anything that was impressive...I could go on but you'll think I'm exagerating and bashing him, when I'm sincerely trying to characterize how his work appears to me. I suppose that it might be interesting to see something he produced that had nothing to do with Mormonism at all. I have seen one thing like that: it was a transcript (I think) of a lecture he gave on Roman history at BYU. I think it came from a volume of collected lectures, which could account for it being somewhat problematic. I know that when I lecture, while I do work from extensive notes, I don't always phrase things harmoniously or cast things in as careful a way as I would if I were writing an essay. So those factors could account for what read like a very sloppy blather peppered with inaccuracies. Kind of obvious inaccuracies, too, given they were visible to me, someone who hasn't studied Latin or Roman history for over 30 years.

I don't dispute that he had a big IQ and knew more languages than I, however.

Now don't let this derail the thread, I beg you.

_________________
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."


Last edited by Blixa on Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:41 am 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:40 am
Posts: 4792
Hi Kevin,

It has been a while since that Book of Abraham thread on FAIR...

So, what does Gee (& Co.), say now about the two ink theory? Is he still holding to it? Has he moved on? Acknowledged his error? What is his current position?

~dancer~

_________________
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:26 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:27 am
Posts: 2750
Quote:
So, what does Gee (& Co.), say now about the two ink theory? Is he still holding to it? Has he moved on? Acknowledged his error? What is his current position?


Well he doesn’t want to just come out with it and say “I was wrong” because that would be too much of an obvious blow to his ego. But I once pressed this issue with Hauglid. I said I do not believe the Egyptian characters were written in a different ink as Gee suggested. He responded with a pithy, “Neither does Gee.” He left it at that leaving it to the readers to think I was somehow lying by saying that is what Gee argued. So I pressed it further until he admitted that no, he no longer believes it.

But every time I note the failed “two ink” argument at FAIR people like Kerry Shirts and Schryver would imply I didn’t know what I was talking about. I remember one of them saying the theory was “alive and well.”

Well, this is false. These guys were spinning, and let me tell you why. The “new” two ink argument refers to the ink used in the emendations to the text, which is altogether different from John Gee’s original argument which said all the Egyptian characters were written in different ink. They were trying to slide that one under the radar, argue the points for it as if we were supposed to disagree (points Metcalfe always agreed with) and pretend that Gee’s original theory never took a beating, and that all is well again in Zion

It is funny to watch how sneaky these guys can be.

_________________
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:53 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 13623
Location: On the imaginary axis
Blixa wrote:
LifeOnaPlate wrote:
What bout anything else Nibley did aside from PoGP stuff?


At the risk of derailment let me just say this quickly:

I've read some Nibley. He wrote a lot and lots of it is at varying levels of scholarship---I think one could even differentiate between a kind of "high" and "low"-tech apologia, as well. So, yes, I've only read a fraction, but I think I've at least sampled the range of his output.

I've not seen anything that was impressive...I could go on but you'll think I'm exagerating and bashing him, when I'm sincerely trying to characterize how his work appears to me. I suppose that it might be interesting to see something he produced that had nothing to do with Mormonism at all. I have seen one thing like that: it was a transcript (I think) of a lecture he gave on Roman history at BYU. I think it came from a volume of collected lectures, which could account for it being somewhat problematic. I know that when I lecture, while I do work from extensive notes, I don't always phrase things harmoniously or cast things in as careful a way as I would if I were writing an essay. So those factors could account for what read like a very sloppy blather peppered with inaccuracies. Kind of obvious inaccuracies, too, given they were visible to me, someone who hasn't studied Latin or Roman history for over 30 years.

I don't dispute that he had a big IQ and knew more languages than I, however.

Now don't let this derail the thread, I beg you.


As DCP once said on MAD, Nibley took a conscious decision at some point in his career to abandon conventional scholarly publishing to concentrate on apologetics. You will find some of his earlier stuff on JSTOR, such as

Christian Envy of the Temple
Hugh Nibley
The Jewish Quarterly Review > New Ser., Vol. 50, No. 2 (Oct., 1959), pp. 97-123

and

Evangelium Quadraginta Dierum
Hugh Nibley
Vigiliae Christianae > Vol. 20, No. 1 (Mar., 1966), pp. 1-24

These are not bad articles - he has read a lot, and of course from an unusual perspective. Once one knows his LDS loyalties one can see why these subjects (The Temple, Jesus's post-resurrection teaching) drew him. Their impact amongst colleagues does not seem to have been great: the first one got a couple of citations, but not the second.

I suspect that while he had the discipline of editors, referees and colleagues in conventional academic backgrounds to keep him on the rails, his style of omnivorous reference-gathering and dense narrative could have led to some valuable work. But once he abandoned those constraints, he went off the rails and lost all critical sense. Being lionised and flattered as a great Mormon scholar cannot have done him any good. It was a Faustian bargain he struck, and looking at the stuff about the Book of Abraham I reviewed in another thread, I think it destroyed him intellectually, and perhaps morally too.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:06 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:47 am
Posts: 4247
Location: The Ivory Tower
As a sidenote, Nibley's Christian Envy of the Temple essay was one of the things that got Margaret Barker started on her work.

_________________
Worlds Without End


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:07 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:27 am
Posts: 2750
Where did all the Gee and Nibley defenders go?

_________________
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:09 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:45 am
Posts: 8381
Location: somewhere else
Thanks Chap and CalKid, those are articles and "asides" that will help me get a better picture of Nibley's work.

I hope I was clear in my respons to LOAP that I really didn't want to sound like I was dismissing a large body of work out of hand, or indulging in egregious character assassination, BUT, I have read some Nibley, on various topics and from various levels of his work, AND it's very, well...shocking. Especially in the context of his position within Mormon culture. Within "the church" he is THE DEFINITIVE INTELLECTUAL GENIUS, outside of it he's either unknown or not the assumed commanding presence.

And while I don't doubt the existence of some foundational intelligence in Nibley, the gap between what he may have been capable of doing and what he did looks utterly tragic to me. It's because his story seems so sad to me that I don't want to come off as merely trying to belittle the man, yet at the same time I want to give an honest appraisel of how he reads to me.

_________________
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:53 pm 
Deacon

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:40 pm
Posts: 222
The funny thing is how those of us who were born and raised LDS worshiped him in our own special way. Letting go of the church also included letting go of the idea that Nibley wasn't quite all that we thought he was. My husband had been intellectually out of the church for 5 years before he was able to allow himself to think poorly of Nibley's apologetics.

Recently, in a heated discussion with his parents, my husband said some negative things about Nibley and his father nearly went ballistic. He ordered my husband to apologize!

LOL, my husband issued no apologies and stood his ground.

_________________
Fidelity
Raindrops
The Call

“If God dwells inside us like some people say, I sure hope He likes enchiladas, because that's what He's getting” -Jack Handy


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:59 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:28 pm
Posts: 7213
Chap wrote:
These are not bad articles - he has read a lot, and of course from an unusual perspective. Once one knows his LDS loyalties one can see why these subjects (The Temple, Jesus's post-resurrection teaching) drew him. Their impact amongst colleagues does not seem to have been great: the first one got a couple of citations, but not the second.

I suspect that while he had the discipline of editors, referees and colleagues in conventional academic backgrounds to keep him on the rails, his style of omnivorous reference-gathering and dense narrative could have led to some valuable work. But once he abandoned those constraints, he went off the rails and lost all critical sense. Being lionised and flattered as a great Mormon scholar cannot have done him any good. It was a Faustian bargain he struck, and looking at the stuff about the Book of Abraham I reviewed in another thread, I think it destroyed him intellectually, and perhaps morally too.


I think there are a couple of things to keep in mind here. First, Nibley was very much a man of his age. He relied on the Cambridge Myth and Ritual school in his approach to antiquity, but then so did many other people. If he had continued to apply his mind to more mainstream scholarly subjects, I do not doubt that he would have been a respected, if not exceptional, scholar. He certainly had a rare intelligence, sense of humor, and ability to acquire knowledge (languages, facts). I would even go so far to say that he is the last great mythographer of Mormonism. The only other great mythographer of Mormonism being Joseph Smith.

Second, I saw one of his articles on a Roman gifting practice cited recently (late 90s?) in a book on Roman games. Sure, Nibley only published a few things in mainstream scholarly venues, but they were respectable and still useful within their particular scope. I should qualify this a little. The article I know certainly meets these qualifications. Based on today's methodologies and standards, his work is antiquated. His apologia, on the other hand, is fundamentally wrong-headed. I can think of few things more academically perilous, at least for a historian, than accepting a bunch of 19th forgeries as ancient and then basing many other historical decisions on that belief.

Nibley's greatest value, however, was in a totally different area. Nibley was a great cultural critic of his own people. I would say that of any of the noteable LDS people of the last fifty years, Nibley best fit the role of an OT style prophet. This guy called it as he saw it, and many people could not take his well-deserved criticisms.

About the Martha Beck stuff I have no comment. All I can say is that I dearly hope it is not true, and not because I have anything against Martha. In spite of everything, I still treasure Hugh Nibley. His defense of Joseph Smith's translation of Abraham does not work, and I do not believe any of his apologetics, but without this guy, I would have never entered academics or fallen in love with ancient history as I did. I thought his classes were a blast. How many guys do you know who can recite Homer and Pindar at the drop of a hat? Awesome.

_________________
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:19 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 13623
Location: On the imaginary axis
Trevor wrote:
Nibley's greatest value, however, was in a totally different area. Nibley was a great cultural critic of his own people. I would say that of any of the noteable LDS people of the last fifty years, Nibley best fit the role of an OT style prophet. This guy called it as he saw it, and many people could not take his well-deserved criticisms.


I am not being ironic when I say I would be interested if you could refer us to some online examples of this.

Trevor wrote:
How many guys do you know who can recite Homer and Pindar at the drop of a hat? Awesome.


Well, some people who taught me at (high) school. I was lucky to be brought up in a cultural environment that was a bit more varied than Utah, and I accept that if that was the land that gave you birth meeting Nibley could be a liberating experience. Again, no irony here. In a way, that makes the whole thing worse. If only he had not been led up the garden path by that crazy religion. No wait: it was his choice.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:29 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:45 am
Posts: 8381
Location: somewhere else
I think Trevor is refering to essays Nibley wrote decrying materialism (as in "greed," not philosophy) and supporting a more "for the good of all" society vs. competitive acquisitiveness.

I'm glad Nibley inspired you, though, Trevor. That's at least one good thing to his credit ; )

_________________
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:47 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:28 pm
Posts: 7213
Chap wrote:
I am not being ironic when I say I would be interested if you could refer us to some online examples of this.


His writings on Zion were essentially Mormon Socialism. He was a merciless critic of the self-important, greedy, and vain among his own people. I could look up other examples if you are at all interested.

Chap wrote:
Well, some people who taught me at (high) school. I was lucky to be brought up in a cultural environment that was a bit more varied than Utah, and I accept that if that was the land that gave you birth meeting Nibley could be a liberating experience. Again, no irony here. In a way, that makes the whole thing worse. If only he had not been led up the garden path by that crazy religion. No wait: it was his choice.


So the people you studied with in highschool could recite Pindar in Greek? I'm impressed, but I doubt you would find many public school teachers who could do so these days, or even 30 years ago. Perhaps this says more about your background than it does Nibley's value. And, by the way, I grew up next to one of the major metropolitan centers on the east coast. Still, Nibley was a liberating experience within the Mormon paradigm because he was unafraid of criticizing things that he disagreed with. He was one of the few people who could get away with it.

I like what I have read of your comments generally, Chap, and no offense, but your snark on this subject is not appreciated by me. It is easy for you to criticize Nibley from where you sit, but you live in a different time and in different circumstances. How much that affects the choices we make should not be minimized. I love Chris Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, but I think their arrogance on religion wears a little thin. A good portion of religion is personal, lived experience. A Dawkins can make fun of religion as stupid, and much of the reason he can is because he is not wired that way. Maybe he ought to remember that more often.

I am happy to have left behind a religious world that did not work for me, but I am in no hurry to cast aspersions on all of those people who still reside there. I also make no excuses for Nibley's conclusions, but I am not anxious to make light of him. Anyway, that's cool. Just sayin''.

_________________
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:13 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 13623
Location: On the imaginary axis
Trevor wrote:
I like what I have read of your comments generally, Chap, and no offense, but your snark on this subject is not appreciated by me. It is easy for you to criticize Nibley from where you sit, but you live in a different time and in different circumstances. How much that affects the choices we make should not be minimized. I love Chris Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, but I think their arrogance on religion wears a little thin. A good portion of religion is personal, lived experience. A Dawkins can make fun of religion as stupid, and much of the reason he can is because he is not wired that way. Maybe he ought to remember that more often.

I am happy to have left behind a religious world that did not work for me, but I am in no hurry to cast aspersions on all of those people who still reside there. I also make no excuses for Nibley's conclusions, but I am not anxious to make light of him. Anyway, that's cool. Just sayin''.


No offence taken. Who indeed do you blame for sending Nibley (who no doubt could have been a quite creative scholar under other circumstances) up the blind alley of his apologetic career? I see his family was LDS from way back, so what choice of world-views did he have? As a man, he seems a tragic figure to an outsider, though no doubt he did not feel that way to himself.

On the other hand, Nibley today, in the sense of the 'great intellect' whose name is invoked to show that all critics of the LDS Church have already been out-thunk, is a part of the system that *here and now* may be stopping some bright young kid from escaping from the Matrix into intellectual freedom, fulfilment, and making a real contribution to the advancement of human understanding (which Nibley certainly did not do). Given that, I think the more ruthlessly he is deflated and debunked (on the basis of truth and fairness at all times, and not blaming him for things he did not do), the better.

One day I shall say something about my own escape from religion, and what all that has to do with the CoJCoLDS. But not now.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 7:45 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:28 pm
Posts: 7213
Chap wrote:
No offence taken. Who indeed do you blame for sending Nibley (who no doubt could have been a quite creative scholar under other circumstances) up the blind alley of his apologetic career? I see his family was LDS from way back, so what choice of world-views did he have? As a man, he seems a tragic figure to an outsider, though no doubt he did not feel that way to himself.


I don't know precisely who to blame, and surely the man must be considered responsible for his own choices to no small degree. Is his life tragic? I don't know how to respond to that. He was wrong, but then a lot of great thinkers are wrong (not to impute greatness to him), and I don't think that makes them tragic. I guess he is tragic inasmuch as his creative wrongheadedness was devoted to a subject about which precious few people would ever give a tinker's damn. In the tiny fishbowl of Mormondom a minority of its geeks care about or even remember him. So, I guess that is tragic.

Chap wrote:
On the other hand, Nibley today, in the sense of the 'great intellect' whose name is invoked to show that all critics of the LDS Church have already been out-thunk, is a part of the system that *here and now* may be stopping some bright young kid from escaping from the Matrix into intellectual freedom, fulfilment, and making a real contribution to the advancement of human understanding (which Nibley certainly did not do). Given that, I think the more ruthlessly he is deflated and debunked (on the basis of truth and fairness at all times, and not blaming him for things he did not do), the better.


Which goes to show that Nibley's primary contribution to the cause is that he takes up a lot of room on a Mormon shelf or two and the few that do crack the volumes are impressed because they can't understand a damn thing he is saying. Yes, I would agree that as an icon of Mormonism he is far more harmful than he is probably worth. This is because people tend to see him as little more than the brainy cheerleader for their team. You are also right about the necessity of debunking his work. It ought to be done for the sake of the very people you are talking about. I am pleased that Kevin launched this thread for that very reason. Nibley was wrong, and it looks like Gee is worse than wrong (i.e. actually lying).

Still, in a twisted way I partly credit Nibley for my departure from the LDS Church, but that, like your story, is for another day.

_________________
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 7:51 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:28 pm
Posts: 7213
Blixa wrote:
I'm glad Nibley inspired you, though, Trevor. That's at least one good thing to his credit ; )


Thanks for your patience, Blixa. I tend to overindulge my memories of Nibley's classes. At the time, they were great fun for me, and they made me question the LDS Church and BYU in some significant ways.

_________________
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:45 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:27 am
Posts: 2750
I thought I would mention Nibley's awful "scholarship" with regards to his Book of Mormon apologetics. Nibley practically lies to his audience when he says the Book of Mormon provides a "quotation" from the Book of Enoch.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/nibley.shtml

I just amazes me that he could get away with this kind of thing, especially since this would have been considered proof of deception if presented by a critic.

_________________
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Philo Sofee, The Dude and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group