Was Nibley a Genius, Scholar, or Crackpot?

[_harmony]

Noah was born around 2944 B.C., putting the Flood at roughly 2344 B.C. This according to W. Cleon Skousen's fold out chart in the back of his book "The First 2,000 years". I'm not a big Skousen fan, but that was the first source I could think of to answer your question.

Psst. Gaz. I hate to break it to ya, but he's not going to accept Skousen as an expert either. He's not going to accept anyone except a verifiable source, like an ancient relic or papyrus with Noah's name and address on it, and the museum in which said relic is kept. Noah's kinda like Adam... there doesn't seem to be any non-religious mention of him. That's the trouble with ancient myths. They just don't stand up to the glaring light of substantive sources.

[_Coggins7]

I used to have statements by James Charlesworth, Cyrus Gordon, Jacob Milgrom, I believe the late Bruce Metzger, and some others, lauding Hugh Nibley's learning and scholarly abilities. He was well known and considered little less than brilliant by most of his peers in the relevant fields.

The people here, most of whome do not even approximate Nibley's learning, intelligence, educational background, or experience, calling him a crackpot, for no other reason than that he is a Mormon (and this is the definition of bigotry) leaves one breathless.

[_harmony]

I used to have statements by James Charlesworth, Cyrus Gordon, Jacob Milgrom, I believe the late Bruce Metzger, and some others, lauding Hugh Nibley's learning and scholarly abilities. He was well known and considered little less than brilliant by most of his peers in the relevant fields.

The people here, most of whome do not even approximate Nibley's learning, intelligence, educational background, or experience, calling him a crackpot, for no other reason than that he is a Mormon (and this is the definition of bigotry) leaves one breathless.

I don't know anyone whose called him a crackpot because he was a Mormon. I think they're saying he was a genius, but that didn't keep him from having some off the wall ideas.

[_Ray A]

I recommend a reading of "Zeal Without Knowledge". This is one of Nibley best articles:

http://www.thereasonableman.com/wp-cont ... wledge.pdf (PDF file!)

[_Fortigurn]

The people here, most of whome do not even approximate Nibley's learning, intelligence, educational background, or experience, calling him a crackpot, for no other reason than that he is a Mormon (and this is the definition of bigotry) leaves one breathless.

Could you provide evidence that people are calling Nibley a crackpot 'for no other reason than that he is a Mormon'? Why do you think they're calling Newton a crackpot? He wasn't a Mormon.

[_grayskull]

Nibley was published in non-Mormon academic journals.

This post is in the direction I'm interested. But can you elaborate? Anyone with a phd and a post publishes something. I have a number of the FARMS collections of Nibley and some of the papers here and there were taken from journals. But of what lasting value? What works of Nibley's are standard to quote from by antiquarians? Remember, Nibley is the great genius of Mormonism. When textbooks are written and papers churned with hundreds of citatations litering the bibliographies, which works by Nibley are commonly referenced? I'm familiar with the "Nibley was feared" stories that FARMS includes in say, the Timely and the Timeless. I don't doubt them. But what was his net contribution to real scholarship as acknowledged by the academic world?

I realize newton possibly did more pseudoscience than real science. But the little solid thinking he did revolutionized the world. Now, I picked the names I did because they'd be known to everyone. I don't expect Nibley to have revolutionsized the world, few do. My question is fairly simple, did Nibley do anything - anything - that is memerable to anyone but Mormons (or those who debate the church)?

Someone with FAIR privileges might want to ask this question over at their official message board, MAD, to see if they have any ideas. From what I can tell, Nibley's contribution to the real world is a big.....0.

[_gramps]

I recommend a reading of "Zeal Without Knowledge". This is one of Nibley best articles:

http://www.thereasonableman.com/wp-cont ... wledge.pdf (PDF file!)

Hey Ray A, thanks for that link. I remember reading this essay back in the 80's, and have wanted to read it again. Now, I can.

Cheers. gramps.

[_Fortigurn]

I realize newton possibly did more pseudoscience than real science.

I wouldn't say that. He has been called the first scientist, and the last alchemist, but I don't think he was either. He was one of those remarkable men like Boyle, who are able to discern the usefulness and truth among the dross. His science was inextricable from his theology, and his alchemy drove his chemistry (just like Boyle).

But the little solid thinking he did revolutionized the world.

I believe he did a lot of solid thinking.

Now, I picked the names I did because they'd be known to everyone. I don't expect Nibley to have revolutionsized the world, few do. My question is fairly simple, did Nibley do anything - anything - that is memerable to anyone but Mormons (or those who debate the church)?

Someone with FAIR privileges might want to ask this question over at their official message board, MAD, to see if they have any ideas. From what I can tell, Nibley's contribution to the real world is a big.....0.

Good questions.

[_Ray A]

Nibley was published in non-Mormon academic journals.

This post is in the direction I'm interested. But can you elaborate? Anyone with a phd and a post publishes something. I have a number of the FARMS collections of Nibley and some of the papers here and there were taken from journals. But of what lasting value? What works of Nibley's are standard to quote from by antiquarians? Remember, Nibley is the great genius of Mormonism. When textbooks are written and papers churned with hundreds of citatations litering the bibliographies, which works by Nibley are commonly referenced? I'm familiar with the "Nibley was feared" stories that FARMS includes in say, the Timely and the Timeless. I don't doubt them. But what was his net contribution to real scholarship as acknowledged by the academic world?

I realize newton possibly did more pseudoscience than real science. But the little solid thinking he did revolutionized the world. Now, I picked the names I did because they'd be known to everyone. I don't expect Nibley to have revolutionsized the world, few do. My question is fairly simple, did Nibley do anything - anything - that is memerable to anyone but Mormons (or those who debate the church)?

Someone with FAIR privileges might want to ask this question over at their official message board, MAD, to see if they have any ideas. From what I can tell, Nibley's contribution to the real world is a big.....0.

How many scholars contribute to the "real world"? Have you ever been involved in academia? Why should Nibley be expected to be involved in "revolutionary discoveries" when most of his academic peers have not? I have not heard that Nibley was "feared". He doesn't (never did) scare me, at any rate. He has pointed out some very interesting evidences for the linguistic aspects of the Book of Mormon, and he was a specialist in that field, but I remain unconvinced of Book of Mormon historicity. The symbology Nibley has documented is impressive, the "how could Joseph have known this?" And one thing he has convinced me of is that Joseph could not have written the Book of Mormon with his sketchy knowledge. I have other theories about this. But par for par, he was very gifted, a genius, if not a recognised one by the international community. Nibley's importance (or lack of importance) seems only relevant to those who wish to denigrate Mormonism. So what if he had some "wacky" ideas in regard to his personal beliefs, don't we all? Defence of Mormonism was his priority, but beyond his personal beliefs, I think the most unbiased person would say that his IQ was higher than most. What does that prove? Nothing. But why attack this ebullient mind merely because he was a believer?

[_Mercury]

To say I do not have a grasp on reality is immature and based on your interpretation of my interpretations, you cult peddling numb nutz.

You misunderstand. I was being facetious by saying that I must not have a grip on reality because everyone else seems to think your opinions are rational, but they seem utterly ludicrous to me.

Ignorant generalizations concerning Monolinguists, pot smokers and those with potty mouths. Gawd man, Do you think you can come up with an argument based on my argument instead of this jerk-off BS we have to put up with every time you open your mouth?

I forget that your posts are so much more mature and intellectual than mine.

I for once would like you to concisely break apart any of my arguments instead of the hohum form letter character assassination that is your stock and trade?

Every time I show that your arguments are ludicrous you just stop posting. Then I have to insult you to get you to respond, but then you never engage the evidence. I was making a general observation and rather hoped that others would respond concerning the board's general approval of your idiotic posts. How do I get under your skin so much that you have to resort to quoting something i never said just to make yourself feel better? Is your life that pathetic?

You know what I hate is posters who can't seem to get an argument together. Once again the issue is my credibility instead of the discussion centering about nibleys lack of credibility.

Wheres your argument mac? I don't see one. What I DO see are irrational gushings about nibley followed by your typical apologist logical fallacy.