Well, I have wrapped up my tour through this issue of
FARMS Review. As usual, most of it was trash. It seems that the two most interesting pieces were Midgley's introduction, and the Boyle article. I can't say that I much cared for the
saug arbeit that was performed on the Turley MMM book, and Shirley Ricks's lame attempt to defend Nibley fell flat. (Honestly, have you ever heard of a scholar who made so many "happy mistakes" as Nibley?) I did rather enjoy Professor Midgley's apoplectic Nibley piece, though. Here are some highlights:
There is a nasty, self-serving rumor going around that he had a kind of psychotic episode during this interview, and that this was somehow the result of his having been ordered by the Brethren to defend what he knew to be the indefensible Book of Abraham.[5] This is utter rubbish.
Which part of the rumor is Midgley claiming is "rubbish"? That Nibley felt the Book of Abraham was "indefensible"? Or that he was ordered by the Brethren to defend it? It makes one wonder whether or not the "top dawg" Mopologists are set apart by the Brethren. In any case, Midgley reveals that Nibley did indeed suffer a "disturbance" of some kind:
Both prior to and during that interview, as well as in the meetings leading up to it, he did not give the slightest indication of being a bit lugubrious about the Book of Abraham, but just the opposite. He regaled me (and others) about its wonders. Whatever the medical difficulty that he experienced during the interview, which I immediately sensed, he was fine when I visited him the next morning. He was sorry for having made what he considered a fool out of himself. And he was still not pleased at not being able to script his remarks. But he immediately lectured me on the wonders in the Book of Abraham.
I am not altogether familiar with this. Does anyone know what happened to Nibley during this interview?
Midgley continues his vengeance-fueled harangue:
There is also a tall tale being circulated that has become a favorite of one sectarian anti-Mormon zealot. His argument is that Nibley both roundly distorted the sources he cited and faked his footnotes.[6] This is also rubbish. Does one who can quote during an interview passages from three Shakespeare plays need to fabricate materials?
Huh? I'm not sure I follow Prof. Midgley's logic here. *Three* plays? Well, if I can cite
five, does that make me even more impressive than Nibley?
This next bit is a classic. It is incredible to watch the Mopologists try to bail out poor Nibley:
I did the source and quotation checking on two of his more complicated essays, and I was eventually able to track everything down. The many problems I had finding the sources he cited, I discovered, were the result of my own ignorance. And whatever tiny mistakes I found were either transpositions of page numbers or the obvious result of his having relied on his shorthand notes. This is not, of course, to say that I would put exactly the same spin on all the passages he cited or quoted. But my mastery of the languages and literature he consulted and cited is at best rudimentary. Of course, Nibley got some things wrong. And, of course, subsequent LDS scholarship has not always supported some of his hunches. That is to be expected. It happens to everyone who ventures away from routine, safe paths. It is time that critics cease attacking the man and deal, instead, with relevant substantive issues. When some of Nibley's critics have tried to do this, they have floundered at times because they lack his command of the relevant languages and cannot match the scope of his learning.
If Midgley's "learning" in this arena is "at best rudimentary," then how is he in any position to evaluate the learning and criticisms of the critics?
Finally, I thought this passage was interesting:
The other "open letter" included in this collection was addressed to "Dear Sterling" McMurrin (pp. 142—47), who back then was the leading light among cultural Mormons. Nibley concludes this stunning letter with the following candid comment: "I am stuck," he says, "with the gospel. I know perfectly well that it is true; there may be things about the Church that I find perfectly appalling—but that has nothing to do with it. I know the gospel is true" (pp. 146—47).Everyone with any sense knew exactly where Nibley stood on fundamental issues. This freed him to act as a staunch defender of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, as well as an apologist for the gospel of Jesus Christ, but also as a kind of gadfly pestering both lazy Saints and cultural Mormons alike.
Of course, Midgley rather neatly overlooks Nibley's somewhat stunning admission that he finds certain things about the Church "perfectly appalling," and instead wants to praise him for bearing his testimony. But, as we have observed, the bearing of the testimony by the apologists is always a sure sign that they have been beaten.