Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

[_Markk]

You consider cherry-picked positive amazon reader reviews by nonprofessional readers to be evidence of rockstar status? that's gullible.

This does not constitute evidence, support, or a reference: "you can spend hours finding support to my assertion that he was very popular to his audience (rock star)."

Show you now equally.... what? you didn't show anything.

I gave you book reviews, in their entirety by those that bought and read his books. How these are not "evidence" of his success as an author, again to his audience, is beyond me. As a author you want to reach your audience. I am pretty sure both HN and his publisher knew his book were not going to be on the NY Times best seller list...but I am equally sure they would be pleased with the results and surprised at their run after so many years. This is surely a evidence of success.

He inspired folks like Kish to study... per Kish.

He still has a web site and a film was made about him. https://hughnibley.net/

And again he was a avid speaker and was sought after as a speaker in the LDS community.

He has an award named after him at BYU...and (LoL) won the Father Lehi Award in Book of Mormon studies...while laughable too many, it show his success too his audience. From his Obit... He received numerous awards, among them the David O. McKay Humanities Award in 1971, Professor of the Year in 1973, Distinguished Service Award in 1979, the Exemplary Manhood Award in 1991, and an honorary doctorate from BYU in 1983. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, which is being published by FARMS, has reached 15 volumes.

There is more than enough evidence that he was successful, that is if you want to acknowledge it exists, but if you honestly believe he was a failure, then show me that evidence...please?

And at least establish for me your bench mark in determining he was not a success?

Lastly here is a list of Nibley fellows...heck maybe Kish is on this list? several post or have posted here.

Adams, Sharon (2000, 2003-2006)

Anderson, Jared William (2004-2009)

Anderson, Mindy J. (2004-2005)

Ardern, Wade (2001)

Beccerra, Daniel (2011-2013)

Bay, Stephen M. (1999-2003)

Belnap, Daniel (1998, 2000-2004)

Benson, RoseAnn (2001-2002)

Blumell, Lincoln H. (2003-2008)

Bokovoy, David (1998-1999, 2004-2006)

Bowen, Matthew (2006-2011)

Bozung, Bryan (2012-2013)

Blythe, Christopher J. (2010)

Bradley, Don (2012-2013)

Calabro, David M. (2000-2005)

Child, Jessica C. (1999-2000)

Child, Mark B. (1997-1999)

Christenson, Allen J. (1995-1997)

Clark, Allison D. (1996-1997)

Combs, Jason (2009-2013)

Cranney, Carl Joseph (2005)

Crawford, Cory Daniel (2000-2001, 2003-2006)

Crawford, John (2001-2002)

Davis, D. Morgan (1999-2001)

Davis, Ryan C. (2010-2013)

Douglas, Alexander (2012-2013)

Drake, Luke (2012-2013)

Ellison, Mark (2013)

Farnes, Alan (2012-2013)

Felt, Paul (2011)

Fisher, Amy (2010)

Fowles, Ian (2009-2010)

Garrett, Robert (2000-2001, 2005)

Gee, John (1995)

Grey, Matthew J. (2003-2008)

Griffin, Carl (1995-1998)

Hale, Lincoln (2012-2013)

Halverson, Jared (2012-2013)

Halverson, Taylor (1998-1999, 2001-2004)

Hatch, Trevan (2007-2008, 2012-2013)

Hauglid, Brian M. (1996-1997)

Head, Ronan J. (2000-2004)

Heal, Kristian S. (1996)

Hodges, Blair (2011)

Hull, Kerry (2000)

Hunt, Robert D. (2002-2003)

Innes, Courtney J. (2010-2011)

Judd, Frank F., Jr. (1995-1998)

Kohrman, Seth (2010-2011)

LaDuke, Cameron Gabe (2005-2006)

Lane, Jennifer C. (1996-1999)

Larsen, David Joseph (2008-2011)

Laughton, Ariel Bybee (2008-2009)

Ludlow, Jared A. (1996-1998)

McClellan, Daniel O. (2009-2011)

Miller, Paul Derek (2005-2009)

Moody, Jacob (2011-2012)

Muhlestein, Kerry (1998-2002)

Nielsen, Dave (2009-2010)

Olson, Jason (2011-2012)

Park, Benjamin (2012)

Peterson, Boyd (1998-2001)

Petrey, Taylor (2001-2002)

Ponczoch, Joseph (2003)

Pope, Brady (2011-2012)

Procter, Melissa (1998-2000, 2002-2004)

Properzi, Mauro (2001-2002)

Rainey, Jon R. (2007-2008)

Rennaker, Jacob (2007-2013)

Rivera, Anthony, Jr. (1995-1996)

Schade, Aaron (1999-2003)

Schmidt, Brent James (2003-2007)

Schulthies, Becky Lynn (1997-1998)

Sears, Joshua (2012-2013)

Seely, Jo Ann (2001-2002)

Shannon, Daniel (Avram) R. (2008-2013)

Sharp, Daniel (2007-2010)

Smith, Andrew (2012-2013)

Soderquist, Justin (2008-2010)

Sowards, Thomas K. (2008-2009, 2011-2012)

Spackman, Thomas B. (2001-2006)

Strathearn, Gaye (1995-1996)

Stahl, Michael (2012-2013)

Stair, Joseph (2009-2012)

Talmage, Jeremy (2010-2011)

Teasdale, I. Andrew (1997-1998)

Thompson, John S. (1998-2001)

Tracy, Elizabeth (2011-2013)

Triplet-Hitoto, Valerie (2001-2007)

Vernon, Eric E. (1996-1997)

Wood, Shirley Irene (2005-2009, 2012-2013)

Wright, Mark Alan (2003-2008)

Yacubic, Matthew P. (2006-2007, 2008-2009)

Yingling, Erik (2012-2013)

Young, John D. (2004-2005, 2006-2008)

[_Kishkumen]

Nope, I never was a Nibley fellow. I have been a black sheep for some time. I don't think I was truly trusted even as an undergraduate at BYU. They sniffed out my heterodoxy pretty quickly, I think.

Of course, I wasn't very quiet about it. I told Stephen Ricks that I thought adoption theology helped resolve issues with Mormon theology. I criticized Daniel Peterson's work directly to him. I took issue with the New Mormon Orthodoxy and the idea that Book of Mormon theology was the same as 20th century LDS theology.

No one came after me or anything, but I think it was pretty clear that I was not a safely conforming LDS person.

[_Maksutov]

You consider cherry-picked positive amazon reader reviews by nonprofessional readers to be evidence of rockstar status? that's gullible.

This does not constitute evidence, support, or a reference: "you can spend hours finding support to my assertion that he was very popular to his audience (rock star)."

Show you now equally.... what? you didn't show anything.

He's showed that he wants to twist the thread into some documentation of Nibley's great worldly "success" as if Nibley was some sort of Paul Dunn type. It's a ridiculous assertion he hasn't been able to back up and it's clearly something personal against Kish.

[_Markk]

Failure, success...

Rock star...

Villain...

Child rapist...

Saint...

I'll go for teacher who inspired me to study antiquity.

Just to take it full circle, and why I wrote you need to get off the porch...you wrote in part:

"... Did he massage the sources aggressively, misremember, and interpret things in a Mormo-centric fashion? Yes..."

I am certainly no scholar, just a carpenter, but I have enough horse sense to see that you, aside from motive, called the man a dishonest researcher at best, or a down right liar at worse.

In my world, that is calling someone a liar...in Washington it is called a politician, in cable news it is called a pundit, and I guess in your world it is called scholar.

[_Markk]

He's showed that he wants to twist the thread into some documentation of Nibley's great worldly "success" as if Nibley was some sort of Paul Dunn type. It's a ridiculous assertion he hasn't been able to back up and it's clearly something personal against Kish.

Hey Maksutov

In almost every post I wrote he was successful to his audience, and his world. please do not let the bandwidth stop you from showing how he was a failure...I am here, you can reply to me and show me...if you are so confident that Nibley was not successful?

How many books have you written? How many speaking engagements have you performed? Do you have a scholarship named after you? Did you have a film made about your life? ...going forward were you a patriot and hero? How many languages do you speak...ever had a sabbatical to China or spoke at Harvard?

In baseball there is a position called the DH, which as you may know means "designated hitter"...I am creating a new position here in the park also called the "DH"...and I give you that position, but here it stands for "designated heckler" it is for those that criticize without getting into the ball game while adding no substance, either right or wrong, to the conversation.

[_Markk]

[quote="Bret Ripley"No, Ma'am, That's Not Chess.[/quote]

I see Nibley even inspired you Bret...are you writing a sequel to "No, Ma'am that ain't no History"...?

[_Blixa]

He's showed that he wants to twist the thread into some documentation of Nibley's great worldly "success" as if Nibley was some sort of Paul Dunn type. It's a ridiculous assertion he hasn't been able to back up and it's clearly something personal against Kish.

Exactly. The argument was put forth that Nibley turned from being a scholar to being an apologist, that his success was limited to the sphere of LDS interest and not the scholarly community at large. Further that the kind of position he was placed in, intellectually, politically and psychologically, was far different than one a secular scholar would face and so not a career "many" would "kill to have."

Then the standards of success got revised over and over to include having a job and good "customer reviews" (as opposed to actual book reviews or assessment by academic peers). Was Nibley popular in the LDS world? Yes. Was he a successful scholar---well no, because he did not do a great deal of work as a scholar, he put aside a strictly scholarly career.

How popular was he? Well not a Paul Dunn level and not worshiped like a GA and not given the extensive job perks of a mission president, so what he got in return for his acquiescence is debatable.

None of this is that hard to understand. But Markk apparently resents being educated. He can't even be bothered to quote the title of Nibley's anti-Brodie pamphlet correctly in his suppose "zinger."

Scratch gave him a good answer, pointing out how he was confusing and misunderstanding several things about academic and scholarly work. So I think at least five people with scholarly and academic jobs and experience have tried to untangle the plot here.

[_Maksutov]

He's showed that he wants to twist the thread into some documentation of Nibley's great worldly "success" as if Nibley was some sort of Paul Dunn type. It's a ridiculous assertion he hasn't been able to back up and it's clearly something personal against Kish.

Hey Maksutov

In almost every post I wrote he was successful to his audience, and his world. please do not let the bandwidth stop you from showing how he was a failure...I am here, you can reply to me and show me...if you are so confident that Nibley was not successful?

How many books have you written? How many speaking engagements have you performed? Do you have a scholarship named after you? Did you have a film made about your life? ...going forward were you a patriot and hero? How many languages do you speak...ever had a sabbatical to China or spoke at Harvard?

In baseball there is a position called the DH, which as you may know means "designated hitter"...I am creating a new position here in the park also called the "DH"...and I give you that position, but here it stands for "designated heckler" it is for those that criticize without getting into the ball game while adding no substance, either right or wrong, to the conversation.

That's fine, Markk. I'll be the designated heckler. You can redefine everything on this board into your own personal strawman if it makes you feel better. I don't recall having to submit my CV and bibliography in order to register on this forum. Several people on this board quote me in their sigs. I've had some kind of impact. That's enough for me.

I have actually written several book length manuscripts and edited a newsletter for several years, received a writing scholarship to BYU with the help of Clinton F. Larson. I don't feel the need to prove anything, however. To you or anyone else.

Whether or not I add substance--or any other poster does--is the judgment of the reader. You're just one reader and your response to my posts is just fine. I don't write to impress you and I really don't care about your opinions, especially as you present them here. You have to resort to attacks on the entire board, and have repeatedly, as a diversion from the fact that your posts are unconvincing. When you put up stuff that is palpably and obviously false, it doesn't require a dissertation to point that out. Refuting you isn't that hard, especially when you resort to distortions and exaggerations as you're doing now.

[_Kishkumen]

I am certainly no scholar, just a carpenter, but I have enough horse sense to see that you, aside from motive, called the man a dishonest researcher at best, or a down right liar at worse.

In my world, that is calling someone a liar...in Washington it is called a politician, in cable news it is called a pundit, and I guess in your world it is called scholar.

As I have said repeatedly, Markk, you are ignorant. Whatever else you may be (a fine carpenter, a generous soul, a good son), you simply have no frame of reference regarding this topic, and you have proven yourself impervious to education from those who know something about it. Carry on with your uninformed prejudice.

[_Markk]

That's fine, Markk. I'll be the designated heckler. You can redefine everything on this board into your own personal strawman if it makes you feel better. I don't recall having to submit my CV and bibliography in order to register on this forum. Several people on this board quote me in their sigs. I've had some kind of impact. That's enough for me.

I have actually written several book length manuscripts and edited a newsletter for several years, received a writing scholarship to BYU with the help of Clinton F. Larson. I don't feel the need to prove anything, however. To you or anyone else.

Whether or not I add substance--or any other poster does--is the judgment of the reader. You're just one reader and your response to my posts is just fine. I don't write to impress you and I really don't care about your opinions, especially as you present them here. You have to resort to attacks on the entire board, and have repeatedly, as a diversion from the fact that your posts are unconvincing. When you put up stuff that is palpably and obviously false, it doesn't require a dissertation to point that out. Refuting you isn't that hard, especially when you resort to distortions and exaggerations as you're doing now.

Then refute that Nibley was not successful, which your heckling has supported ...if his resume is not successful, what does that make yours?

I have offered objective reasons why I believe he was successful, please offer the same that he failed? This is what it boils down to, we have had conjecture and if's and but's...maybe you can actually tell why he was less than successful and what is the benchmark of success for a "scholar"?

by the way, maybe you can offer a link to your manuscripts and newsletters, I am sure they compare the accomplishments of Dr. Nibley? But... I do have confidence your writing is far more accurate and trustworthy though...which has nothing to do with success, at least outside a moral context. Which is why he can "massage of truth" and be successful at the same time to his audience.