Kishkumen wrote: Yep. You are profoundly ignorant.
Markk wrote:Kishkumen wrote: Yep. You are profoundly ignorant.
Well again, as a scholar what did he sacrifice? There are a lot of "scholars" that would dream for such recondition that he has received...just google his name, the very reason we are discussing him is a testament to his success "as a scholar." Saints revere his work and critics deplore his work...scholarship is by no means immune to criticism.
Blixa wrote:
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.
Blixa wrote:
I guess he has me on ignore. Because this has been answered. He had no success as a scholar. He had success as an apologetic "scholar" within the tiny world of the LDS church.
Other than the list you've already been provided? (I think maybe Markk has watched the "what have the bloody Romans ever done for us" scene from 'Life of Brian' too many times.)Markk wrote:Kishkumen wrote: Yep. You are profoundly ignorant.
Well again, as a scholar what did he sacrifice?
No. It is a testament to his success at appealing to a relatively tiny popular audience. Nibley is not even on the radar in the world of scholarship.There are a lot of "scholars" that would dream for such recondition that he has received...just google his name, the very reason we are discussing him is a testament to his success "as a scholar."
Again, you are confusing Nibley's appeal to ... aww, hell, there really is no point to repeating this, is there?Saints revere his work and critics deplore his work...scholarship is by no means immune to criticism.
Could you give some references on which you are basing your rock star, legend, following, place in history, etc.?Markk wrote:Pure conjecture...he has a legacy, a following, and place in history that the very most of "scholars" will never achieve. Like I wrote earlier he is a rock star and a legend. Your assertions are based on arguments of silence, I could just as easily say, with probability, without his chosen field of "Mormonism," and style of research he would never have the legacy he has today.
Blixa wrote:Markk wrote:
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.
Lemmie wrote:
People with other opinions have given specific examples in this thread, could you please do the same? It would be interesting to see where your opinion comes from.
Markk wrote:what this is about is that I dared to question the "elite" of the board, and like I wrote earlier, since Mopology is more or less dead, the board has evolved into a homer board...and anyone that questions the "homers" is criticized.
