Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

[_aussieguy55]

One of Nibley's books I found intriguing was The Myth Makers where he dealt with Joseph Smith's Reputation. He argued that if the 1826 trial was true it would be the most devastating evidence against Smith. Forward Wesley P Walters finds the relevant documents proving it did happen. Roger Anderson, a relative of Richard L Anderson in his book deals with his relative and Nibley's book here
http://signaturebookslibrary.org/joseph ... the-cover/

Roger writes "Also among The Myth Makers‘s failings is its author’s use of arguments which are non sequiturs. For example, Nibley argues at some length that the stories about Joseph Smith’s money digging could be attributed to earlier money-digging stories involving other people. Since “every weird detail of the stories later attached to Joseph Smith is found in full bloom before Smith,” Nibley contends that those who attribute similar stories to Smith are simply “trying to dress Joseph Smith in other men’s clothes.”6 Such a conclusion not only far outstrips the available evidence, ignoring numerous contemporary witnesses who either saw Smith digging or heard him talk about the subject, it simply confirms that the practice of money digging did not originate with Smith. All it answers is the question of where Smith learned how to dig for money."

[_Kishkumen]

I know many folks that would kill for a career like Nibley's, I will concede he sacrificed for his country as a patriot, but hardly a "scholar."

You have no idea what you are talking about Markk. The more you try to describe the situation, the more ignorant you reveal yourself to be. You ought to leave well enough alone.

[_Kishkumen]

Actually there was a quite profitable segment of the thread newly (at least for me) discussing the role of peer and/or an in house type review that gave some good insights into Nibley's process. Sorry you missed it.

As long as someone is using a thread to talk "smart" about things that are purportedly "over [her] head," Rosebud will be dissatisfied with the discussion. It's always the same old thing with those smart people who win battles online. Tragic.

[_Johannes]

Hello, all. I see this thread is still going strong after another week.

I don't think I've got anything new to add to the discussion, but I suppose the lesson for me as a Nevermo is what a divisive and enigmatic figure Nibley still is for the LDS (and post-LDS) community. The sheer range of subjects brought up here is amazing.

Look at it this way. A thread about Thomas S. Monson would not have ignited a flame-war ranging across academic ethics, child abuse, post-structuralism, whether really smart people can believe nonsense, the case of Martha Beck, whether Jesus took the apostles through the temple, Florian Ebeling's work on Hermeticism, Nibley's salary and the functioning of toxic power dynamics - all of which have been mentioned at some point on this thread, as have various other topics. Nor would a thread about Gordon B. Hinckley, Mitt Romney, Donny Osmond or even Brigham Young. Maybe you have to go back to Joseph Smith, Jr. to find a prominent Mormon who is such a polarising and provocative figure across so many different fields.

[_Kishkumen]

Hello, all. I see this thread is still going strong after another week.

I don't think I've got anything new to add to the discussion, but I suppose the lesson for me as a Nevermo is what a divisive and enigmatic figure Nibley still is for the LDS (and post-LDS) community. The sheer range of subjects brought up here is amazing.

Look at it this way. A thread about Thomas S. Monson would not have ignited a flame-war ranging across academic ethics, child abuse, post-structuralism, whether really smart people can believe nonsense, the case of Martha Beck, whether Jesus took the apostles through the temple, Florian Ebeling's work on Hermeticism, Nibley's salary and the functioning of toxic power dynamics - all of which have been mentioned at some point on this thread, as have various other topics. Nor would a thread about Gordon B. Hinckley, Mitt Romney, Donny Osmond or even Brigham Young. Maybe you have to go back to Joseph Smith, Jr. to find a prominent Mormon who is such a polarising and provocative figure across so many different fields.

It is remarkable, Johannes. I stand all amazed.

[_Markk]

I know many folks that would kill for a career like Nibley's, I will concede he sacrificed for his country as a patriot, but hardly a "scholar."

You have no idea what you are talking about Markk. The more you try to describe the situation, the more ignorant you reveal yourself to be. You ought to leave well enough alone.

Kish, at some point you are going to have to get off the porch and make a decision and stick with it, it seems by your posts you are only existing. As a scholar what did he sacrifice? Talk about ignorance.

[_Kishkumen]

Kish, at some point you are going to have to get off the porch and make a decision and stick with it, it seems by your posts you are only existing. As a scholar what did he sacrifice? Talk about ignorance.

Yep. You are profoundly ignorant.

[_Blixa]

Kish, at some point you are going to have to get off the porch and make a decision and stick with it, it seems by your posts you are only existing. As a scholar what did he sacrifice? Talk about ignorance.

You've had your question answered by me as well as others. He sacrificed what could have been an actual scholarly career. His talents were mostly squandered on niche research so far from the academy and the disciplines he was trained in that he is virtually unknown outside of LDS circles (and how well really known within them is also open to debate). He was not untalented; his talents were not developed or used in a way that would have contributed to the greater scholarly good and probably to his own sense of accomplishment.

Kish knew the man, I didn't. But judging from what I've read of him and his works, and also going on the opinions of actual scholars in his discipline (people like Kish and Symmachus), I have some amount of sympathy for Nibley.

In fact, much of the sympathy I do have is a direct result of Martha Beck's nutjob tome (while I think she speaks of some real problems in Mormon culture she writes in a vacuous Oprahfied style and makes wild and bizarre claims that are not only not backed up, but also undone by her sensationalist approach). The only thing Beck convinced me about her father was that he was a depressed and troubled man. He was placed in a completely intractable position by the LDS church and his own sincere belief in it allowed his institutional exploitation. It's not hard for me to imagine how that could psychologically destroy a person.

And what did he get from it? You mistakenly assume he profited financially: his job at BYU, like many academic jobs, do not come with huge salaries. Beck makes it clear in her book that the family was not well off. You assume he profited by having some "rock star" status in LDS culture. Again, he was a professor and an intellectual, not a GA or "successful businessman"---those are the types that garner worship in LDS culture. His works were used to combat criticism of the church and his name was promoted as one of respectable authority in order to give assurance to questioning members that questions had been answered. But how many members read his works? How many members would even have recognized him on the street? He had no lucrative or "favored" "speaking career;" he spent his time teaching and writing. The perks of LDS power and recognition (the guaranteed income, travel stipends, money for family entertainments, networking connections, etc., that GA's and mission presidents are rewarded with) were never part of Nibley or any other apologist's "payment." Whatever "ego strokes" you assume he got would not have been enormous. Not only that, he also took positions against the grain of modern Mormon politics. His work, "Approaching Zion" contains a critique of capitalism, he was critical of US involvement in Vietnam, he was an active environmentalist and life long Democrat. Despite his apologetic work, this kind of thing earned him enemies within BYU and church administration.

Markk you say "many folks that would kill for a career like Nibley's." No, they would not. Here you really are making ignorant statements. No academic would want to have a job which placed such impossible demands and contradictions on them and insured that their work would never be taken seriously by their intellectual peers.

I don't know how Nibley saw his own career. As a believer, he must have found satisfaction in doing work to build the greater glory. As a teacher, he must have found gratification in being able to spark in his students a genuine interest in things other than a life of material status and reward and interest in topics and ideas still not much valued by the larger culture and community. But to me, that must have come at a steep psychological cost as well.

[_Kishkumen]

Thanks, Blixa. I understand that it must be deeply exasperating to have to repeat this point so many times. I know I am thoroughly tired of it. It would probably be better for me to let go of it. But, I find it difficult to watch uninformed criticism continue unanswered.

Thanks for doing it so well.

[_Blixa]

Thanks, Blixa. I understand that it must be deeply exasperating to have to repeat this point so many times. I know I am thoroughly tired of it. It would probably be better for me to let go of it. But, I find it difficult to watch uninformed criticism continue unanswered.

Thanks for doing it so well.

It's exasperating because of the anti-intellectualism and ignorance of the realities of academic and scholarly work that circulate in some of the responses here.

I get why Nibley is lightning rod: a product called "Nibley" was used by the church for legitimization in the face of criticism. But that ideologic weapon is not commensurate to the man or the entire scope of his work and abilities.

He wrote some terrible things. Honestly, "No Ma'am That's Not History" is worse to me than any of the Book of Abraham and ancient culture parallelism. That some one of his education could be tasked with producing such dreck and then actually produce that garbage, is grotesque. But the overall situation he was in strikes me as tragic rather than villainous.