Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

[_Markk]

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.

That about all you have offered in regards to what we are discussing, all you have is a adhom argument about me...?

I have asked several times to back up the assertions that he was not successful with any type of objectivity? The offer still stands.

If your assertion is that according to your own opinion he did not reach the potential that one of his intelligence and promise should have reached fine...but that is just an opinion and nothing more, and cannot erase the success he had as a LDS scholar and apologist.

[_Maksutov]

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.

I haven't said one way or the other if Nibley was successful, Mark. It all depends on how you look at it and from what perspective. You're saying that he was one or the other. You're the one who has to make a case. I'm just pointing out--heckling, if you will--about your poor argument.

You haven't offered "objective reasons" beyond some lame reviews and your own opinion. You tried to dismiss Kish's POV because he and Nibley were supposedly "the same faith". What a crock.

Where do I claim to be a scholar? I don't. I don't compare myself to Nibley. Why can't you focus on the issues?

You've claimed there's some kind of conspiracy against you of elites on this board. You're a whiner.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Mark--

It may be that the disagreement just boils down to your answer to this question: How can someone simultaneously be a "successful scholar" and a "hack"? Maybe "successful pseudo-scholar" would be the better phrase, eh?

[_Markk]

I haven't said one way or the other if Nibley was successful, Mark. It all depends on how you look at it and from what perspective. You're saying that he was one or the other. You're the one who has to make a case. I'm just pointing out--heckling, if you will--about your poor argument.

You haven't offered "objective reasons" beyond some lame reviews and your own opinion. You tried to dismiss Kish's POV because he and Nibley were supposedly "the same faith". What a crock.

Where do I claim to be a scholar? I don't. I don't compare myself to Nibley. Why can't you focus on the issues?

You've claimed there's some kind of conspiracy against you of elites on this board. You're a whiner.

Then I guess you won't offer up a link to your papers or the news letter you edited?

I have offered up plenty of objective "evidence" for those that chose to acknowledge it...in one breath you are saying that you have no opinion and then in another offer your opinion that I am wrong???

How is it my opinion he was a author of many books, still being sold and published, a winner of many awards, a scholarship named after him... and a very popular professor and speaker?

You've claimed there's some kind of conspiracy against you of elites on this board.

LOL..elites??? who are the elites, so I know who the minions are? And where did I say there was a conspiracy against me by these "elites?"

It all depends on how you look at it and from what perspective. You're saying that he was one or the other. You're the one who has to make a case. I'm just pointing out--heckling, if you will--about your poor argument.

If you can objectively say my argument is weak, then you must know the objective benchmark for establishing him as a successful scholar...which I have asked for several times from several people...so again what is it?

[_Maksutov]

I haven't said one way or the other if Nibley was successful, Mark. It all depends on how you look at it and from what perspective. You're saying that he was one or the other. You're the one who has to make a case. I'm just pointing out--heckling, if you will--about your poor argument.

You haven't offered "objective reasons" beyond some lame reviews and your own opinion. You tried to dismiss Kish's POV because he and Nibley were supposedly "the same faith". What a crock.

Where do I claim to be a scholar? I don't. I don't compare myself to Nibley. Why can't you focus on the issues?

You've claimed there's some kind of conspiracy against you of elites on this board. You're a whiner.

Then I guess you won't offer up a link to your papers or the news letter you edited?

I have offered up plenty of objective "evidence" for those that chose to acknowledge it...in one breath you are saying that you have no opinion and then in another offer your opinion that I am wrong???

How is it my opinion he was a author of many books, still being sold and published, a winner of many awards, a scholarship named after him... and a very popular professor and speaker?

You've claimed there's some kind of conspiracy against you of elites on this board.

LOL..elites??? who are the elites, so I know who the minions are? And where did I say there was a conspiracy against me by these "elites?"

It all depends on how you look at it and from what perspective. You're saying that he was one or the other. You're the one who has to make a case. I'm just pointing out--heckling, if you will--about your poor argument.

If you can objectively say my argument is weak, then you must know the objective benchmark for establishing him as a successful scholar...which I have asked for several times from several people...so again what is it?

No, I won't provide links to the things I was associated with because I have no intention of revealing my in real life information here. Can you understand that?

So you're going to deny your whining about the "homers" on the board? And you deny dismissing Kish's statements because of them being the "same faith"? You can compound your ridiculousness here and now, it's your choice.

You can't admit that someone like Nibley could be complex. He was possibly a mixture of fraud and scholar, doubter and believer, success and failure. That's too nuanced for you.

[_Markk]

Mark--

It may be that the disagreement just boils down to your answer to this question: How can someone simultaneously be a "successful scholar" and a "hack"? Maybe "successful pseudo-scholar" would be the better phrase, eh?

Hey doc,

The same way Clinton and Trump are successful...they make a living out of lying and telling people what they want to hear. Their math is 1+1 = "what ever you need it to be."

I believe what it boils down to is... being a scholar is just a trade or profession, just like any other trade or profession, there are both good and bad, and success has nothing to do with whether they are good or bad, but how they market their work to their audience.

A owner of a 99 cent store is selling nothing but crap, but can be very successful at doing so by selling their crap to their audience...Nibley sold pretty much nothing but crap, but with great success to his audience?


Thanks
MG

[_Markk]

[

No, I won't provide links to the things I was associated with because I have no intention of revealing my in real life information here. Can you understand that?

So you're going to deny your whining about the "homers" on the board? And you deny dismissing Kish's statements because of them being the "same faith"? You can compound your ridiculousness here and now, it's your choice.

You can't admit that someone like Nibley could be complex. He was possibly a mixture of fraud and scholar, doubter and believer, success and failure. That's too nuanced for you.

How is a homer a elite?

definition for elite...

" a select part of a group that is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities."

A homer is one that no matter what more or less have each others back. whether right or wrong.

And how is there a conspiracy against me? I never said that?

You can't admit that someone like Nibley could be complex. He was possibly a mixture of fraud and scholar, doubter and believer, success and failure. That's too nuanced for you.

I have no problem with some of that...

I disagreed with those here that said he was NOT successful. I don't know if I could say he was a fraud, although I was accused by Kish for saying so...I have no way to know if he doubted, but we all have doubts so I have no problem with that, I am pretty sure he believed.

We all fail, that's part of life...but overall in terms of a career he was very successful in the end, and still has a following.

[_Maksutov]

[

No, I won't provide links to the things I was associated with because I have no intention of revealing my in real life information here. Can you understand that?

So you're going to deny your whining about the "homers" on the board? And you deny dismissing Kish's statements because of them being the "same faith"? You can compound your ridiculousness here and now, it's your choice.

You can't admit that someone like Nibley could be complex. He was possibly a mixture of fraud and scholar, doubter and believer, success and failure. That's too nuanced for you.

How is a homer a elite?

definition for elite...

" a select part of a group that is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities."

A homer is one that no matter what more or less have each others back. whether right or wrong.

And how is there a conspiracy against me? I never said that?

You can't admit that someone like Nibley could be complex. He was possibly a mixture of fraud and scholar, doubter and believer, success and failure. That's too nuanced for you.

I have no problem with some of that...

I disagreed with those here that said he was NOT successful. I don't know if I could say he was a fraud, although I was accused by Kish for saying so...I have no way to know if he doubted, but we all have doubts so I have no problem with that, I am pretty sure he believed.

We all fail, that's part of life...but overall in terms of a career he was very successful in the end, and still has a following.

And I thought a homer was a greek poet or a score in baseball.

I first encountered Nibley as an investigator, through his stuff on the Egyptian papyri in the New Era, If I recall correctly, and I was not impressed then. When I later encountered his attack on "Mrs. Brodie", helpfully attached by rubber band to NMKMH by the BYU book store employees, I was very disappointed. So I've never considered Nibley to be a great church scholar or any kind of scholar.

However, my opinion of him rose again when I encountered his heterodox opinions on politics and his skepticism of the touted "artifacts" that were being promoted by Jakeman and Christensen. Stela 5...that was truly embarrassing.

I think that "Sgt Nibley, PhD" is a pretty good description of him. He was a good soldier with more education than his fellows, and he put it in the service of his tribal nation. This may have involved some internal conflict for him, but he persisted and served to the end. So he was a loyal son of Zion, an apologist, when he *might* have been a scholar. We'll never really know.

[_Kishkumen]

Thanks, Mak, for your comments on complexity, which hit the nail on the head.

I would only add that he is indeed a scholar of a certain type. No, he is not an exemplary representative of modern academia. But that is not the only way to be a scholar. Nibley decided at some point that being a regular academic was not what he wanted. My guess is that Nibley sought first to enrich the faith lives of his co-religionists because of his spiritual devotion and his temple covenants. He wanted his fellow Mormons to apply all of their best thought, study, creativity, and faith to their religion.

If one is able to set aside their own expectations of what Nibley should or could have achieved and the limitations of what he did achieve even in what he set out to do, one can appreciate what he hoped to achieve. It is also important to note, when looking at that list of Nibley Fellows, that people on that list stand on both sides of the apologetic/critic divide, and the old and new Maxwell Institute divide. Nibley deserves credit for, at the very least, stimulating a hell of a lot of worthwhile discussion. And in that sense, he certainly is a success, even though he might not have wanted to lay claim to much of what he instigated.

[_Kevin Graham]

Back around 2002 when I was writing apologetics for FAIR and my own website I wrote a piece on the Anthropomorphic God and had to remove two citations from Nibley because I couldn't justify them. Nibley claimed that certain Protestant scholars had conceded the points about God being a man of flesh and bones, therefore strengthening the Mormon argument that it is biblical. So I checked the sources he provided and was left scratching my head. I can't recall the exact books but I remember one had absolutely nothing to do with the subject and the other barely had anything to do with the subject, and really didn't even come close to substantiating Nibley's claim.

It was really hard for me at the time to see this because as a loyal apologist I had always looked up to Nibley. But I couldn't help thinking to myself ... these were the only citations I had ever tried to verify from Nibley and they came from two different books written at least five years apart and they were both absolutely bogus.

Later I read Nibley's ludicrous defense of the Book of Abraham and saw that it involved misrepresenting the papyri in ways that could only be understood as intended deception. He flat out lied in a couple of instances. And that was it for me. I never had a problem calling him a dishonest person from that point on. I mean how can anyone make these kinds of "honest mistakes" by accident? Doesn't make sense to me. They were used because they furthered the thesis he was driving home and he just hoped no one would bother to look up his sources. Maybe that's why he had a tendency to bury his chapters in dozens of footnotes. To give the impression that he had actually read all this stuff for himself, and intimidate the rest of us into thinking we have no business questioning the integrity of such an intellectual God.