Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Mark--

I think the problem may be that you are conflating two different (but perhaps easy to confuse) things: apologetics and scholarship. I agree with you that Nibley *did* attain a kind of "rock star" status amongst a certain subset of LDS. The slavish fandom that you see among the classic-FARMS/Mopologist set is evidence of this, and as you point out, a quick Google search shows that Nibley achieved a certain level of "celebrity"--something that, I agree, is probably beyond what most academics achieve.

But what Blixa and Kishkumen are pointing out is that Nibley achieved this at the expense of doing "serious" scholarship. Being a Mopologist and being a scholar aren't the same thing, even though the one has been deliberately designed to resemble the other. What Blixa and Kishkumen are saying is that Nibley will only ever have this small Mormon fandom: the rest of the world won't give two squats about him--his legacy is going to be that he was the photo-Mopologist and functioned as a figurehead for LDS intellectualism.

I guess maybe you can sum this all up with a question: Would you rather be respected by the larger world for being an accomplished, intellectually rigorous scholar? Or, would you rather be admired by a bunch of Mopologists because you stood up to Church critics and acted like you were smart? It may be that the idea of being admired--by anybody, for whatever reason--is desirable on some level, but what Kish and Blixa are telling you (and I agree with them) is that in this case it means that Nibley became an intellectual sell-out.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Where is the line in scholarship when someone is successful and when they are not?


I believe Nibley was a hack, but very successful, he made a pretty good living doing so and was very well respected by his target audience.

This sums it up right here, Mark. *That* is what Nibley gave up--he became (as you put it) a "hack" rather than a legitimate, "successful" scholar. Being successful as a scholar isn't about having a following; it's about producing legitimate, serious, insightful scholarship. Nibley traded that it for a career that was instead devoted to what he thought the LDS Church wanted him to do: "the mantle is greater than the intellect."

[_Markk]

Mark--

I think the problem may be that you are conflating two different (but perhaps easy to confuse) things: apologetics and scholarship. I agree with you that Nibley *did* attain a kind of "rock star" status amongst a certain subset of LDS. The slavish fandom that you see among the classic-FARMS/Mopologist set is evidence of this, and as you point out, a quick Google search shows that Nibley achieved a certain level of "celebrity"--something that, I agree, is probably beyond what most academics achieve.

But what Blixa and Kishkumen are pointing out is that Nibley achieved this at the expense of doing "serious" scholarship. Being a Mopologist and being a scholar aren't the same thing, even though the one has been deliberately designed to resemble the other. What Blixa and Kishkumen are saying is that Nibley will only ever have this small Mormon fandom: the rest of the world won't give two squats about him--his legacy is going to be that he was the photo-Mopologist and functioned as a figurehead for LDS intellectualism.

I guess maybe you can sum this all up with a question: Would you rather be respected by the larger world for being an accomplished, intellectually rigorous scholar? Or, would you rather be admired by a bunch of Mopologists because you stood up to Church critics and acted like you were smart? It may be that the idea of being admired--by anybody, for whatever reason--is desirable on some level, but what Kish and Blixa are telling you (and I agree with them) is that in this case it means that Nibley became an intellectual sell-out.

Hey doc,

My point is he was successful, and that there is no way to know what he would have been if he choose another field of study. Given his study 'style" and as Kish wrote his ability to "Mis-remember" he may have gone nowhere? Mormonism was and is willing to accept his faulty "style"...would others outside or the faith be so willing? I believe that is a very fair question.

Hope all is well

MG

[_Kishkumen]

But the overall situation he was in strikes me as tragic rather than villainous.

Indeed.

And I heartily agree with the disturbing tendency toward anti-intellectualism. People presume to opine on things they don't know anything about, and then get offended when people who know something dare to contradict them. I get that it's uncomfortable to be contradicted. I am corrected and instructed all the time. Better to benefit from informed others than to persist in ignorance, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. I stand amazed at so many of my peers on this board, and it may smart at times to be reminded that I am not the smartest kid on the block (or anywhere close), but how lovely it is to be in on an interesting conversation.

[Guest]

This sums it up right here, Mark. *That* is what Nibley gave up--he became (as you put it) a "hack" rather than a legitimate, "successful" scholar. Being successful as a scholar isn't about having a following; it's about producing legitimate, serious, insightful scholarship. Nibley traded that it for a career that was instead devoted to what he thought the LDS Church wanted him to do: "the mantle is greater than the intellect."

Then you are assuming he was purposely butchering the text, and he would have been honest with study outside of Mormonism? Does that support the view that he was a liar, even if lying for the lord?

Was his character somehow less as a Mormon scholar that it would be as a secular scholar?

Or is this a warrant on Mormonism being false and impossible to support honest scholarship?

But again ether way, at least too me, it boils down to character in his "scholarship."

[_Markk]

Indeed.

And I heartily agree with the disturbing tendency toward anti-intellectualism. People presume to opine on things they don't know anything about, and then get offended when people who know something dare to contradict them. I get that it's uncomfortable to be contradicted. I am corrected and instructed all the time. Better to benefit from informed others than to persist in ignorance, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. I stand amazed at so many of my peers on this board, and it may smart at times to be reminded that I am not the smartest kid on the block (or anywhere close), but how lovely it is to be in on an interesting conversation.

LOL...Sounds like something DCP would say. Like I said get off the porch and deal with the reality of the subject and not the process.

[_Kishkumen]

Hey doc,

My point is he was successful, and that there is no way to know what he would have been if he choose another field of study. Given his study 'style" and as Kish wrote his ability to "Mis-remember" he may have gone nowhere? Mormonism was and is willing to accept his faulty "style"...would others outside or the faith be so willing? I believe that is a very fair question.

Hope all is well

MG

With skills like his, I bet he would have been successful. Unfortunately, he did not have the benefit of real peers to keep him sharp. Real peer review does wonders. You don't get to publish total crap without someone letting you know that it's crap. Nibley simply would not have been able to write the Mormon stuff for a scholarly readership. And he knew that. Remember: he had to go through regular peer review when he published in regular academic journals. He did so. His bibliography showed he was capable of doing it, and the fact that a couple of things he has written have been cited decades after they were first written is a tribute to their worth.

Now, would he have been a big wheel in secular scholarship? It is tough to say. Certainly he would not have had the kind of nerd cult he received as a Mormon apologist-scholar, but he may have made a real contribution to the PhD education of generations of scholars in a solid department with a PhD program. Nibley tried to cover so many bases as a Mormon apologist that he never really mastered any area, or created the kind of track record on a particular topic that would allow him to own it, more or less. We'll never know. He made his decision, and that decision severely curtailed his contributions to regular scholarship. His contributions to Mormonism have essentially imploded along with FARMS.

[_Kishkumen]

LOL...Sounds like something DCP would say. Like I said get off the porch and deal with the reality of the subject and not the process.

Roughly 10% of that sounds slightly DCPish. Your inability to tell the difference shows you are behaving like an idiot. Start using your brain; then you might not feel the need to tell anyone to "get off the porch."

[Guest]

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.

Google his name?

Give me evidence of what Nibley would have been aside from is chosen field of Mormonism?

The subject is whether he sacrificed his career for Mormonism...how can one prove that, and how was his career less that successful? What is the benchmark for success as a scholar?

Good Luck Lemmie, 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.

If it wasn't for Philo and I got a Question's updates...the board is just a rehash of the same old stuff.

How one can prove what Nibleys career would be "if", or how his career was less than successful is beyond me.

Interesting, I ask you for support for the assertions you are making, and your answer is:

1. Google his name.

___Why? are you expecting your name, your opinion and your supporting references to be on page 1?

2. I should give you evidence of a hypothetical alternate path.

___Why? how will my hypothetical musings support your statements?

3. Change the subject, and say it's a different question now.

___Why? This is sounding like a broken record, but no, musing on an alternate question does not provide support for your opinion.

4. You are criticized.

___Why? broken record time, criticism of you does not provide support for your opinion.

5. Try changing the question again.

___See answer 3.


Moving on ....I've been mulling over the peer review aspect of this Nibley argument, because there are plenty of sloppy professors and researchers who like to think big thoughts and find details a pain--for these minds, peer review provides a format that allows those big thoughts to be presented in a strictly controlled format. Does this mean that if you need peer review to keep your process in line, that you are dishonest, lazy, or bad? NO! It just acknowledges that humans are human, big brains or not, and gives some assistance to the process that in my experience, is ultimately welcomed. It gives these 'big brains' who lean toward 'sloppy' room to focus on what they may be good at.

If Nibley had been part of this peer reviewed environment throughout his career, results would likely have been different. Just because he wasn't, however, and was apparently strongly motivated by some religious ideas, doesn't mean that his sloppiness -that would have been corralled and cleaned up by a peer review process- makes him dishonest, it just makes him ..... human.

I see Kish has weighed in on this quite eloquently:

With skills like his, I bet he would have been successful. Unfortunately, he did not have the benefit of real peers to keep him sharp. Real peer review does wonders. You don't get to publish total crap without someone letting you know that it's crap. Nibley simply would not have been able to write the Mormon stuff for a scholarly readership. And he knew that. Remember: he had to go through regular peer review when he published in regular academic journals. He did so. His bibliography showed he was capable of doing it, and the fact that a couple of things he has written have been cited decades after they were first written is a tribute to their worth.

Now, would he have been a big wheel in secular scholarship? It is tough to say. Certainly he would not have had the kind of nerd cult he received as a Mormon apologist-scholar, but he may have made a real contribution to the PhD education of generations of scholars in a solid department with a PhD program. Nibley tried to cover so many bases as a Mormon apologist that he never really mastered any area, or created the kind of track record on a particular topic that would allow him to own it, more or less. We'll never know. He made his decision, and that decision severely curtailed his contributions to regular scholarship. His contributions to Mormonism have essentially imploded along with FARMS.

Well said. Thanks, Kish.

[_Lemmie]

But the overall situation he was in strikes me as tragic rather than villainous.

Indeed.

And I heartily agree with the disturbing tendency toward anti-intellectualism. People presume to opine on things they don't know anything about, and then get offended when people who know something dare to contradict them. I get that it's uncomfortable to be contradicted. I am corrected and instructed all the time. Better to benefit from informed others than to persist in ignorance, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. I stand amazed at so many of my peers on this board, and it may smart at times to be reminded that I am not the smartest kid on the block (or anywhere close), but how lovely it is to be in on an interesting conversation.

Amen, Kish, a-atheist-men!! Cassius U is lucky to have you.