Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

Post by _Markk »

Chap and Kish are doing the same? How is my believing HN is a hack a sign of insecurity?

You jumped on the Kish bandwagon as a clone, now that he has changed his mind about HN as a scholar...did you change your mind in march with his lead? or will you debate him on his change of mind which you once agreed with?

If you are a puke, how can you be one of the elite? LOL...I'm sorry but that was such a "tool" of a thing to say I will have a hard time forgetting it.

But I tell you what..if you disagree that HN is a hack fine...but many would disagree with very good reason.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

Post by _Kishkumen »

Oh, whew! So glad we are allowed to have a different opinion.

Chap is not exactly one to agree with me just because. He is more likely to challenge what I say because he doesn't agree and he has his own opinions.

We each have our own opinions. Agreement and disagreement do not depend upon status, academic vocation, educational level, etc.

I am sure I will yet say many things that Chap will disagree with. He is his own person.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

Post by _Chap »

Kishkumen wrote:Chap is not exactly one to agree with me just because. He is more likely to challenge what I say because he doesn't agree and he has his own opinions.


I'm not sure I can agree with you about that.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Symmachus
_Emeritus
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

Post by _Symmachus »

Kishkumen wrote:Hugh Nibley was an influential writer, intellectual, and social critic in the Mormon community.

I think that about covers it.


He also may have been an alien lizard temporarily in humanoid form. From time immemorial these lizard people have been well known in the near east. They are the Anunnaki from the Enūma Eliš, closely associated with wisdom and knowledge, as we learn from Genesis and from the Book of Moses. They come from the constellation Draco. The schoolmen have come increasingly to recognize the importance of lizard-people in ancient and in modern societies, especially as most of the powerbrokers in our economic and political class are alien lizards.
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Rosebud wrote:Sometimes message boards are lame. This is one of those times.


I haven't really kept up with this thread. I'll take your word for it.

If I get involved in it, it might become even more lame. :wink:

I'm sure Nibley had his faults/strengths. I'm sure he taught and/or came up with some good stuff and some not so good.

He was a scholar though, right? Lots of those around...

Arm of the flesh.

Thanks,
MG
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

Post by _honorentheos »

mentalgymnast wrote:He was a scholar though, right? Lots of those around...

Arm of the flesh.

I was steered clear of Nibley twice in my youth.

The first was by a recently returned missionary Uncle who, when the subject of Fawn Brody came up over a Sunday dinner and Nibley's No Ma'am was brought up, made a comment that stuck with me. I was elementary school age so I only caught the general idea that Brody was anti-Mormon but that Nibley did not represent the Church well in his defense. And this was what happened when a person got involved with conflict over religion rather than living one's religion.

The second was as a missionary where the legendary prayer by Nibley about being gathered in the black robes of the false priesthood was cited among a few missionaries familiar with him as the consensus view of worldly influence in the work of the gospel. It was generally looked at as a statement of self-knowing wisdom that suggests the better path was to simply steer clear. So I did.

Your comment reminded me of this, and why I've never felt inclined to read Nibley at any point. As a faithful member, with limited time to study outside of scriptures, lessons, etc., he was too fringe to be worth the time. By the time I was in faith crisis, he was too far in the past for me to see his contribution as meaningful. Given how put off I was by the polemic side of apologetics, I wonder how things may have differed if his had been the works I'd read rather than the FARMS/FAIR material? Arm of the flesh regardless? Perhaps.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

Post by _mentalgymnast »

honorentheos wrote:
The first was by a recently returned missionary Uncle who, when the subject of Fawn Brody came up over a Sunday dinner and Nibley's No Ma'am was brought up, made a comment that stuck with me. I was elementary school age so I only caught the general idea that Brody was anti-Mormon but that Nibley did not represent the Church well in his defense.


Waaay back, when I read "No Ma'am and took it for granted that apologists always 'got it right' from beginning to end, I finished reading Nibley's small little book/rebuttle and remember thinking, "Oops". It left a sour taste. I guess it was a bit disconcerting to think that he could pass off a small little book written in large font, with the expectation of doing a 'take down' on a well researched book by a well respected and basically friendly voice.

Regards,
MG
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

Post by _Kishkumen »

honorentheos wrote:I was steered clear of Nibley twice in my youth.

The first was by a recently returned missionary Uncle who, when the subject of Fawn Brody came up over a Sunday dinner and Nibley's No Ma'am was brought up, made a comment that stuck with me. I was elementary school age so I only caught the general idea that Brody was anti-Mormon but that Nibley did not represent the Church well in his defense. And this was what happened when a person got involved with conflict over religion rather than living one's religion.


Niblet's polemics were, in my view, some of his very worst stuff.

honorentheos wrote:The second was as a missionary where the legendary prayer by Nibley about being gathered in the black robes of the false priesthood was cited among a few missionaries familiar with him as the consensus view of worldly influence in the work of the gospel. It was generally looked at as a statement of self-knowing wisdom that suggests the better path was to simply steer clear. So I did.

Your comment reminded me of this, and why I've never felt inclined to read Nibley at any point. As a faithful member, with limited time to study outside of scriptures, lessons, etc., he was too fringe to be worth the time. By the time I was in faith crisis, he was too far in the past for me to see his contribution as meaningful. Given how put off I was by the polemic side of apologetics, I wonder how things may have differed if his had been the works I'd read rather than the FARMS/FAIR material? Arm of the flesh regardless? Perhaps.


I see no reason for you to read Nibley. I don't think you necessarily missed out on anything crucial by skipping him. Yes, I think there is something to be said for the way he made the past seem more pertinent to the historically illiterate latter-day saints, but it seems to me that you are on a path of wisdom that is much better than anything he could have offered you.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_kairos
_Emeritus
Posts: 1917
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

Post by _kairos »

It seems fitting perhaps at this point to thank those who replied as well as those who read the many responses on this thread. Seething or just rumbling in many minds was a desire to say something about the Nibster, for good or ill. And much was written! I know that I am much more informed on the Nibman than prior to this thread.

I leave you with what I feel captures input here on his life and work, if you can call it that, and might be etched on his tombstone- he does have a tomb does he not?

"Here lies Hugh Nibley, liar to some, hack to others, influential Mormon social commentator, untrustworthy Mormon scholar to many, something in between to still others, and child abuser to more than one."*

*Mormon Discussions Board, "Nibley- Footnote faker or not?", June, 2016.

Many of you could probably write that footnote in German or Egyptian to keep FAIR in the dark!
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

Post by _honorentheos »

Kishkumen wrote:
honorentheos wrote:Your (mentalgymnast's) comment reminded me of this, and why I've never felt inclined to read Nibley at any point. As a faithful member, with limited time to study outside of scriptures, lessons, etc., he was too fringe to be worth the time. By the time I was in faith crisis, he was too far in the past for me to see his contribution as meaningful. Given how put off I was by the polemic side of apologetics, I wonder how things may have differed if his had been the works I'd read rather than the FARMS/FAIR material? Arm of the flesh regardless? Perhaps.


I see no reason for you to read Nibley. I don't think you necessarily missed out on anything crucial by skipping him. Yes, I think there is something to be said for the way he made the past seem more pertinent to the historically illiterate latter-day saints, but it seems to me that you are on a path of wisdom that is much better than anything he could have offered you.

No worries, I have zero intention of spending precious time reading Nibley these days.

What the thread has led me to speculate about is the road not traveled. FARMS apologetics played a meaningful role in my journey out of the LDS faith, not least of which was due to it's approach of papering over huge holes in the evidence with contempt and pretention. It never stood a chance of being interesting to me let alone persuasive.

But what if I had instead found a constructive perspective at one of the critical times of crisis? Would it have mattered? I don't know. I think the evidence is probably too compelling to overlook and the moral issues involved with a deeper look at Joseph and Brigham's time as leaders would not have impacted me less. I just wondered out loud if things would have gone differently had I gone down a Nibley/Givens route of study early on or if it the results would still have been the same. I can't see myself ignoring polygamy/MMM/the first vision issues/the non-historical Book of Mormon...and I certainly would not have been on board with the Church's postion on marriage equality. But that brings me back to the point where I wonder if one's position towards the LDS Church becomes about one's moral worldview once one no longer accepts it is divinely sanctioned? I've come to suspect this is much more important when it comes to determining if a person will stay or go.

Anyway, Nibley has no appeal to me now, not even as a subject of curiousity. Too little time, many more valuable ways to spend it.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Post Reply