Why Nibley and Gee cannot be trusted

[_dartagnan]

Where did all the Gee and Nibley defenders go?

[_Blixa]

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.

[_Always Thinking]

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.

[_Trevor]

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 Old Testament 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.

[_Chap]

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 Old Testament 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.

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.

[_Blixa]

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 ; )

[_Trevor]

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.

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'.

[_Chap]

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.

[_Trevor]

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.

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.

[_Trevor]

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.