Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

[_Chap]

I don't feel tricked, deceived, or lied to. I feel let down by a person I expected more from.

OK. You are the only person entitled to tell us what you felt when you found out about the way Nibley wrote. If you say you don't feel 'tricked, deceived, or lied to', then that's it (since I don't think it is likely that we are being 'tricked, deceived, or lied to' by you).

On the other hand, if I had placed reliance on the scholarship of someone who was later shown to have made habitual misrepresentations in his writing, I'd feel I had been lied to. But then, I am not you.

[_Kishkumen]

On the other hand, if I had placed reliance on the scholarship of someone who was later shown to have made habitual misrepresentations in his writing, I'd feel I had been lied to. But then, I am not you.

The way you put it sounds personal in a way that I don't feel. Besides, I have long since stopped believing in Mormonism, so the truth or falsity of Nibley's scholarship no longer has any bearing on my faith. That said, I feel disappointed in him as a former role model. That is the only sense in which I take this hard.

[_aussieguy55]

Kish
Have you read Nibley's paper in Church History 30: 2 (June 1961): 84-85 on the passing of the primitive church. I asked Walters for his thoughts and sent me three long letters dealing with his misinterpretation of the Biblical passage and misuse of of the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

[_Kishkumen]

Kish
Have you read Nibley's paper in Church History 30: 2 (June 1961): 84-85 on the passing of the primitive church. I asked Walters for his thoughts and sent me three long letters dealing with his misinterpretation of the Biblical passage and misuse of of the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

Maybe many years ago. Huggins covers this piece and it was also subsequently rebutted by another scholar. If you have permission to post Walters' letters, by all means do so.

[_Markk]

In other words a "hack?"

One of the least interesting kinds of argument that takes place on this board is whether a particular denigratory epithet (a 'boo-word' as opposed to a 'hurrah-word') should or should not be applied to somebody or other - for example, is somebody a d**k or just an a*****e. But I shall stand out against 'hack' for Nibley. A 'hack', metaphorically applied to people from a term for a rather dull working horse that is OK for riding but not for hunting or jumping, refers in a literary context to an unoriginal person who just churns out what their bosses want. That was not Nibley, whatever else he may have been. He was an original, of a kind.

Chap

In construction we use the word hack all the time...carpentry is a prime example... a hack is some one that takes shortcuts, does not know how to use their tools, and their works is an embarrassment to the trade.

The urban dictionary says it as well as any..."a person who is a professional at doing some sort of service, but does crappy work."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hack

Edit...I looked up your definition for hack in regards to horses, which you are correct, but Websters also has as a def. for hack..."a person who works solely for mercenary reasons :" which was not my primary definition, but is interesting non the less, even if indirectly in HN case.

Edit #2...one dictionary definition..."a writer or journalist producing dull, unoriginal work.
"a hack scriptwriter"
synonyms: journalist, reporter, newspaperman, newspaperwoman, writer; More
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... definition

[_Kishkumen]

Hack just doesn't really work. I can agree to him having unethically misrepresented his sources. But he did not do what he did for mercenary reasons, nor was he really incompetent. He also had an original vision, which in many ways was much more appealing than the teachings of the GAs.

[_Chap]

Hack just doesn't really work. I can agree to him having unethically misrepresented his sources. But he did not do what he did for mercenary reasons, nor was he really incompetent. He also had an original vision, which in many ways was much more appealing than the teachings of the GAs.

Yup. 'Hack' in the usages I have encountered in both speech and writing implies dullness and lack of originality. Nibley cannot, I think, reasonably be accused of either of those two faults. He was interesting, but wrong, and from time to time unscrupulous in the way he distorted evidence to make his case seem better than it really was..

[_Kishkumen]

Yup. 'Hack' in the usages I have encountered in both speech and writing implies dullness and lack of originality. Nibley cannot, I think, reasonably be accused of either of those two faults. He was interesting, but wrong, and from time to time unscrupulous in the way he distorted evidence to make his case seem better than it really was..

Indeed. And I would add that sometimes he took things that were not evidence and distorted them until they seemed like evidence. It's a shame he did.

[_Markk]

Hack just doesn't really work. I can agree to him having unethically misrepresented his sources. But he did not do what he did for mercenary reasons, nor was he really incompetent. He also had an original vision, which in many ways was much more appealing than the teachings of the GAs.

LOL

Nibley was a hack, and footnote butcher, a end note surgeon, in that using your words, "took the liberty" to cut up his footnotes.

"Hack" is a slang word...I did a search on it here on MD and it is used often in the context in which I used it...it does not refer to a horse only, as chap seems to believe. I believe there is more than enough evidence and precedence to apply the term "hack" to Nibley and his work. I went through maybe 2 % of the hits on "hack" ...some are as follows"

Kish you wrote...

Actually, the original Book of Ether (non-Nephite) would have been a fine beginning, and it would have covered essentially the same prophetic territory as the early books of the Book of Mormon as well as the early narrative of the Brass Plates (Ether 1:3). Fortunately, Joseph Smith did hit some of the important, but heretofore missing, highlights in his translation of Moses, but the loss of the literary richness of the Book of Ether to the hack-job editing of Moroni is extremely lamentable.


You also wrote...

I would recommend to young maklelan that he take a long hiatus from apologetics, lest he devolve into a Mopologetic hack. And believe me, turning into such a pathetic creature has little to do with credentials and brilliance, and has everything to do with bad behavior in the pursuit of defending Mormonism.

You also wrote...

Worse than Ed Decker? Ed Decker is a hack compared to you. Your talent is in a whole different league.

You also wrote...

What you transparently are is an ideologue hack masquerading as an apologist. You identify certain buzz words or concepts that set off your ideological alarms and then you jump on the person using them as an enemy of Truth, when all that you have shown is that the person isn't a wacko-conservative crank like you.

You also wrote...

I will not pardon you for being the illiterate hack and asshole that craps on this board repeatedly.


Here is a interesting use of the word by maklelan...which he uses is a "academic" sense to make a very clear point...

This is how I see it, and everytime someone tries to hack at the branches of my argument I wonder if anyone is aware of the root or open to researchng it.

cinepro wrote of an article...

I agree that Smith's essay is out of date, too long, and at least part "hack job", but as I've said before, I think he does make important points about Dehlin's motives and beliefs (points which Dehlin himself confirms in his January 2013 podcast). You can argue that the points are valid, should be ignored, or are irrelevant, or aren't "nice", but irregardless, I think they are ultimately supported by the evidence and could be a concern to LDS that would otherwise be unaware of them.

mr scratch wrote of a article...

But where did the article mention this? Perhaps you can enlighten me. Basically, this seems like a hack-job.

and of BH dr. Scratch wrote...

More than any person in the entire history of Mopologetic Studies, this noteworthy individual helped to drive home the point that Mopologetic writing is not "serious scholarship," and that, indeed, even the LDS Church's flagship university, BYU, considers FARMS and Mormon Interpreter "unscholarly." This individual created quite a buzz early in 2013 after he abruptly terminated his affiliation with the fledgling "journal," MI, citing "relentless torrent of abuse from anti-Mormons and apostates" and getting called "an apologetic hack instead of a real scholar" by someone he thought was his "friend" as reasons for abandoning ship.


Blixa wrote...

Michael Bay is a total hack. But then so many are...

Tal bachman wrote of Gee...

Pretty rich coming from someone who no doubt would never refer to the sorry likes of John Gee, who is as marginalized as possible within what should have been his academic field, as a hack).

CK wrote in jest about runta...

You're just a two bit hack, compared to the greats like Decker and Tryk.

beastie wrote...

Please. Ghostwriters to a president is far different than a ghostwriter to a prophet of God, for obvious reasons. The prophet is supposed to receive inspiration and revelation from God prior to sharing his teachings with the church in his role as prophet, not from an unrecognized ghostwriter.

And the real answer is that Joseph Smith concurred with the use of these words because they were the words he "translated" by the gift and power of God, while functioning as a pretentious hack, of course.


Sock puppet wrote...

Get over yourself, Simon. Your a hack for one side of the debate. Nothing particularly moral about that.


Kish...Isn't it fair to say HN was a hack for one side of the debate, and when getting to the "roots" as mak wrote, his scholarship falls apart much of the time?

You can certainly disagree, but you are on the short side of the facts.

[_Markk]

Hack just doesn't really work. I can agree to him having unethically misrepresented his sources. But he did not do what he did for mercenary reasons, nor was he really incompetent. He also had an original vision, which in many ways was much more appealing than the teachings of the GAs.

Yup. 'Hack' in the usages I have encountered in both speech and writing implies dullness and lack of originality. Nibley cannot, I think, reasonably be accused of either of those two faults. He was interesting, but wrong, and from time to time unscrupulous in the way he distorted evidence to make his case seem better than it really was..

LOL so as long asa mis-truth (a lie) is interesting, the author cannot be considered a hack? I certainly agree that Jesus taking GA's through the 1st century Temple is original and not dull chap.

Who would you consider a hack in academia?