Nibley: Footnote faker or not?

[_Kishkumen]

I have to confess that I really don't get the hostility to Nibley. I would say he was a brilliant man. Certainly he had an amazing facility with languages. It would be much more generous to say that he believed things we don't hold to be true, and employed methodologies and arguments that are out-of-date and sometimes downright dubious. He did not fake his footnotes. He had too much faith in his memory, and, like the professors of yesteryear, thought it was the job of his research assistants to pick up the slack. Yeah, Nibley's arguments look goofy today, and they might have always looked goofy to those who did not approve of his Mormo-centric methodology. I know I don't. But, he was a brilliant person, in my opinion.

Having said that, I can't say I disagree with most of what Symmachus says.

[_Maksutov]

I have to confess that I really don't get the hostility to Nibley. I would say he was a brilliant man. Certainly he had an amazing facility with languages. It would be much more generous to say that he believed things we don't hold to be true, and employed methodologies and arguments that are out-of-date and sometimes downright dubious. He did not fake his footnotes. He had too much faith in his memory, and, like the professors of yesteryear, thought it was the job of his research assistants to pick up the slack. Yeah, Nibley's arguments look goofy today, and they might have always looked goofy to those who did not approve of his Mormo-centric methodology. I know I don't. But, he was a brilliant person, in my opinion.

Having said that, I can't say I disagree with most of what Symmachus says.

What's your take on Morton Smith, Kish?

[_Rosebud]

I have to confess that I really don't get the hostility to Nibley. I would say he was a brilliant man. Certainly he had an amazing facility with languages. It would be much more generous to say that he believed things we don't hold to be true, and employed methodologies and arguments that are out-of-date and sometimes downright dubious. He did not fake his footnotes. He had too much faith in his memory, and, like the professors of yesteryear, thought it was the job of his research assistants to pick up the slack. Yeah, Nibley's arguments look goofy today, and they might have always looked goofy to those who did not approve of his Mormo-centric methodology. I know I don't. But, he was a brilliant person, in my opinion.

Having said that, I can't say I disagree with most of what Symmachus says.

You have no proof that he didn't fake his footnotes or any of the rest of it. You make that judgement because of your own life experiences and personal confidence in people like Nibley. That's cool and all. I do the same: I make my judgements based on my own life experiences and personal confidence in people like Nibley (I have little). My main point is, of course (trying not to be too repetitive or didactic), that each of us discern based on our own life experiences and what each of us say and believe, without evidence, speaks about each of us, nor the person, object or subject about whom/which we are speaking.

We all live within the context of our time(s). Those with more intelligence and/or more authority or influence are more accountable for any harm that comes from intentional and dishonest actions. Thus, the hostility.

[Guest]

You have no proof that he didn't fake his footnotes or any of the rest of it. You make that judgement because of your own life experiences and personal confidence in people like Nibley. That's cool and all. I do the same: I make my judgements based on my own life experiences and personal confidence in people like Nibley (I have little). My main point is, of course (trying not to be too repetitive or didactic), that each of us discern based on our own life experiences and what each of us say and believe, without evidence, speaks about each of us, nor the person, object or subject about whom/which we are speaking.

We all live within the context of our time(s). Those with more intelligence and/or more authority or influence are more accountable for any harm that comes from intentional and dishonest actions. Thus, the hostility.

OK, so how well did you know Nibley and those who worked with him? Did you spend a lot of time in the Ancient Studies Library at BYU? Did you chat with Nibley's research assistants? I am trying to get a sense of how well you know Nibley's work and the people with whom he worked. I can tell you I heard the grumbling of his research assistants. I talked with his secretary, who assisted him as he put together his articles. I actually happen to know from the people who worked with him how he worked and why he could be frustrating. Some of these things are related to overconfidence in his memory, some are related to the way he burdened others with chasing down his references. Some of the frustration also resulted from his idiosyncratic interpretations. I don't recall, however, that he simply made up crap. Did he massage the sources aggressively, misremember, and interpret things in a Mormo-centric fashion? Yes.

The great Ronald Syme could also be a little too confident in his memory of things and, yes, he made errors as a result. But he was still one of the very finest Roman historians of his day. No question.

Lots of people of Nibley's generation, including non-Mormons, were guilty of massaging the sources to fit their grand theories. As for footnotes, this is really a matter of fashion. I love footnotes, but my dissertation advisor thought I tended to overdo it. Some of his other advisees were a lot more sparing in their footnotes. Footnoting is an interesting subject unto itself. People use footnotes a lot of different ways.

[_Kishkumen]

What's your take on Morton Smith, Kish?

That issue is a real stumper. At this point I throw my hands up in the air. Did he make up the Secret Gospel of Mark? I have heard persuasive stories from scholars and people who knew him arguing both sides of that issue. I tend to think the Secret Gospel was a forgery, but then I love the idea of a forgery.

[_Rosebud]

You have no proof that he didn't fake his footnotes or any of the rest of it. You make that judgement because of your own life experiences and personal confidence in people like Nibley. That's cool and all. I do the same: I make my judgements based on my own life experiences and personal confidence in people like Nibley (I have little). My main point is, of course (trying not to be too repetitive or didactic), that each of us discern based on our own life experiences and what each of us say and believe, without evidence, speaks about each of us, nor the person, object or subject about whom/which we are speaking.

We all live within the context of our time(s). Those with more intelligence and/or more authority or influence are more accountable for any harm that comes from intentional and dishonest actions. Thus, the hostility.

OK, so how well did you know Nibley and those who worked with him? Did you spend a lot of time in the Ancient Studies Library at BYU? Did you chat with Nibley's research assistants? I am trying to get a sense of how well you know Nibley's work and the people with whom he worked. I can tell you I heard the grumbling of his research assistants. I talked with his secretary, who assisted him as he put together his articles. I actually happen to know from the people who worked with him how he worked and why he could be frustrating. Some of these things are related to overconfidence in his memory, some are related to the way he burdened others with chasing down his references. Some of the frustration also resulted from his idiosyncratic interpretations. I don't recall, however, that he simply made up s***. Did he massage the sources aggressively, misremember, and interpret things in a Mormo-centric fashion? Yes.

The great Ronald Syme could also be a little too confident in his memory of things and, yes, he made errors as a result. But he was still one of the very finest Roman historians of his day. No question.

Lots of people of Nibley's generation, including non-Mormons, were guilty of massaging the sources to fit their grand theories. As for footnotes, this is really a matter of fashion. I love footnotes, but my dissertation advisor thought I tended to overdo it. Some of his other advisees were a lot more sparing in their footnotes. Footnoting is an interesting subject unto itself. People use footnotes a lot of different ways.

Again, my perception of Nibley is based on my life experience as is yours.

I do not have any academic connection to Nibley.

His books hurt my brain -- not because they were genius, but because they didn't make sense and I couldn't figure out how to make sense out of nonsense. I feel similarly confused and brain-tired when I read more than a few paragraphs of the similar s*** that gets spewed in our "time." Whatever. I don't have time or patience for that. It doesn't make sense and just about anyone with a legitimate academic background can see through it. Nibley was very well read and he didn't restrict his reading to one discipline. I assume he could see through the nonsense too, but who am I to say?

If you believe "massaging sources aggressively" in a manner that brings one personal benefit is different than making up s*** for self-aggrandizement, career forwarding, book sales or whatever, then I suppose we're not on the same page. If it's kind of all one-and-the-same, then perhaps you might agree that he was making up s***. I think it's about the same and that he made up a lot of s*** because he was brilliant and creative and people believed him. So why not? It's the unintelligent ones who are so stuck in their time (especially when they're students of language, history, and culture) that they actually believe what they write. But maybe Nibley was more a fool than I take him for. Maybe he was a savant who couldn't see past the end of his nose. I don't know.

I am less likely than you, probably, to discount all of his daughter's testimony on the matter just because it doesn't seem believable. I am not also saying that I think she was 100% correct. I am saying that I understand why some people take that kind of action and that it is misguided to completely disregard their testimonies. I also don't remember all the details. I read her book a long long time ago. If I recall correctly, her testimony was that he falsified a lot and did so knowingly.

That said, I have no evidence. I am not now nor have I ever been in Nibley's brain. Neither are or have you. You don't know. Neither do I.

[_Kishkumen]

Again, my perception of Nibley is based on my life experience as is yours.

I do not have any academic connection to Nibley.

And you don't know much about him or his methods. You clearly don't like him and have no sympathy for what he was trying to accomplish. That's fine with me. But please don't tell me that an ignorant take on his methods and motives is as good as an informed one. It isn't.

I assume he could see through the nonsense too, but who am I to say?

If you think he was simply being dishonest, I would have to disagree.

If you believe "massaging sources aggressively" in a manner that brings one personal benefit is different than making up s*** for self-aggrandizement, career forwarding, book sales or whatever, then I suppose we're not on the same page. If it's kind of all one-and-the-same, then perhaps you might agree that he was making up s***. I think it's about the same and that he made up a lot of s*** because he was brilliant and creative and people believed him. So why not? It's the unintelligent ones who are so stuck in their time (especially when they're students of language, history, and culture) that they actually believe what they write. But maybe Nibley was more a fool than I take him for. Maybe he was a savant who couldn't see past the end of his nose. I don't know.

Yeah, well, your degree of hostility, in which you assume believers are idiots or manipulators, is worth a bucket of warm spit when it comes to understanding them. Yes, it is possible for intelligent people to believe and to argue their best case in accordance with that belief. It is not just about self-aggrandizement or selling books. If you think you are being more perceptive by operating from a cynical perspective, you're probably not.

I am less likely than you, probably, to discount all of his daughter's testimony on the matter just because it doesn't seem believable. I am not also saying that I think she was 100% correct. I am saying that I understand why some people take that kind of action and that it is misguided to completely disregard their testimonies. I also don't remember all the details. I read her book a long long time ago. If I recall correctly, her testimony was that he falsified a lot and did so knowingly.

Yes, well, most people I respect, ex-Mo or Mo, understand that his daughter was a victim of her own false memories. Everything about the so-called recovery of them points in that direction. If you are unaware of this problem, I suggest you familiarize yourself with it. And, if you think Father Nibley was the only one who might have been motivated by self-aggrandizement and book sales.... One of the two of them made a handsome profit off of book sales and gained a great deal of notoriety. It wasn't dad.

That said, I have no evidence. I am not now nor have I ever been in Nibley's brain. Neither are or have you. You don't know. Neither do I.

Yes, I am happy to go with the evidence I have from discussing Nibley's methods with those who knew them, and from seeing some of them in process. I don't need to see inside his brain or psychoanalyze him. You do because you don't know anything about how he worked and why, as you freely admitted. You just can't or refuse to appreciate the difference.

That said, of course I don't agree with his interpretations, methods, or many of his beliefs. But that is quite different from impugning his honesty just because one doesn't understand what he thought, what motivated him, or how he did things.

[_Rosebud]

And you don't know much about him or his methods. You clearly don't like him and have no sympathy for what he was trying to accomplish. That's fine with me. But please don't tell me that an ignorant take on his methods and motives is as good as an informed one. It isn't.

First two sentences are true. Fourth sentence is a misrepresentation.

If you think he was simply being dishonest, I would have to disagree.

I think there was a lot going on in his mind and that dishonesty was part of it.

Yeah, well, your degree of hostility, in which you assume believers are idiots or manipulators, is worth a bucket of warm spit when it comes to understanding them. Yes, it is possible for intelligent people to believe and to argue their best case in accordance with that belief. It is not just about self-aggrandizement or selling books. If you think you are being more perceptive by operating from a cynical perspective, you're probably not.

I do not believe all believers are manipulators or idiots. Nor do I think I understand them any less than you do. In fact, I think that if you were to talk to many of the believers I worked with over the last several years, they would tell you I gave them more respect than most willingly self-identifying unbelievers. I like the bucket of warm spit part, though. Fancy. (wink)

I am saying that I think Nibley was more intelligent than most believers. Thus my assumption about possible dishonesty.

I don't really go about trying to operate cynically. Or trying to be more or less perceptive based on any kind of attempt to operate in some way. Those are hostile assumptions about me.

Yes, well, most people I respect, ex-Mo or Mo, understand that his daughter was a victim of her own false memories. Everything about the so-called recovery of them points in that direction. If you are unaware of this problem, I suggest you familiarize yourself with it. And, if you think Father Nibley was the only one who might have been motivated by self-aggrandizement and book sales.... One of the two of them made a handsome profit off of book sales and gained a great deal of notoriety. It wasn't dad.

This may be the major difference between us. As I said before, I am more likely to assume there was some truth to her words than are you.

I will not assume that his daughter was a victim of her own false memories any more quickly than I will assume Nibley was an honest man. I will assume that neither or both may be true and it appears, as far as I can tell, that I can find indications of neither and both. I have no doubt that I am far more educated on the topic of false memories than you are, but this is a message board and it isn't really an education competition as far as I know. (Well.... lol at myself on that one... message boards really do devolve into them sometimes. That said, I'd prefer not to have to write a post about the difference in our levels of education on this topic. That's just lame. I am not here to win an argument by writing a thesis on my education on the subject. Nor do I want to get into the false memory topic.)

Yes, I am happy to go with the evidence I have from discussing Nibley's methods with those who knew them, and from seeing some of them in process.

As you like.

I don't need to see inside his brain or psychoanalyze him. You do because you don't know anything about how he worked and why, as you freely admitted. You just can't or refuse to appreciate the difference.

Do you know what psychoanalysis is? Just kidding, but don't get after me about making statements that you say are ignorant about subjects you have more information about than I do while you make ignorant statements about subjects I know more about than you do. Mote and beam thing.

That said, of course I don't agree with his interpretations, methods, or many of his beliefs. But that is quite different from impugning his honesty just because one doesn't understand what he thought, what motivated him, or how he did things.

I don't know why you assume you know what he believed. Just because people say they believe things, it doesn't mean they do. You can't know someone's beliefs just by listening to them, reading their books, or talking to people who knew them. Especially smart people. You have to know this -- It's 2 + 2 in human interaction. As far as Nibley goes, smart people have far more capacity for sophisticated misrepresentations than do less intelligent people.

And how do you really know his methods? Just because you had access to the way he presented them publicly and to people who worked with him, etc.? Why do you believe in those things? People are constantly setting forth public self-presentations that don't represent the way they really do things. That's the way people are... even less intelligent ones. It's completely normal behavior. The fact that I understand that this is normal human behavior doesn't also mean that I'm trying to operate cynically out of some desire to be superior in some way (is that what you were trying to say above?) or that I'm hostile. It just means that I get that people generally don't make accurate public presentations of themselves and that sometimes people intentionally misrepresent themselves to such an extent that they are just lying.

The fact that I say the above doesn't also mean I don't have respect for the methods you respect when they're used appropriately and honestly as I'm sure many use them. (In case you were going to try to make that claim.) I'm just not sure Nibley was one of them who did.

Glad you don't agree with his interpretations. They're nonsense.

Why does it bother you so much that some people think Nibley might not have been the man he presented himself to be? Why accept some information and disregard other information? Tad bit of bias perhaps?

[_mentalgymnast]

“Wie Adam dasteht und sich aufzuklren sucht, kam der Mann, sein Helfer. Der hohe Helfer kam zu ihm, der ihn in ein Stu?ck reichen Glanzes hineintrug. Er sprach zu ihm: Ziehe dein Gewand an… Die Mnner, die dein Gewand geschaffen, dienen dir, bis du abscheidest’”

Here is the translation from google translator...

"As Adam stands and aufzuklren be investigated, the man, his assistant came. The high helpers came to him, who? Ck rich luster into carrying him in a Stu. He said to him: Draw thy robe ... The men who created your robe, you serve until you abscheidest '"

Here is Nibleys translation...a paraphrase according to Jeffrey M. Bradshaw

Nibley paraphrases a passage from the Mandaean Ginza: “… when Adam stood praying for light and knowledge a helper came to him, gave him a garment, and told him, Those men who gave you the garment will assist you throughout your life until you are ready to leave earth'”

Scouting around I found these meanings for "abscheidest".

1. To separate something from.

2. To depart this life.

http://de.thefreedictionary.com/abscheidest

Interesting. Covenant language?

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

Fourth sentence is a misrepresentation.

Explain?

I think there was a lot going on in his mind and that dishonesty was part of it.

A statement that could apply equally well to just about anyone, including you.

I am saying that I think Nibley was more intelligent than most believers. Thus my assumption about possible dishonesty.

Ah, so one is not likely to be intelligent and honestly believe. Gotcha.

I don't really go about trying to operate cynically. Or trying to be more or less perceptive based on any kind of attempt to operate in some way. Those are hostile assumptions about me.

It's not like you are an unknown quantity who is posting here for the first time. I think I have some sense of your biases and posting habits.

This may be the major difference between us. As I said before, I am more likely to assume there was some truth to her words than are you.

Oh, I think there is some truth to her words. I believe she believes her words. I believe she was sexually assaulted by a neighbor boy as she claims she was. I believe BYU is a psychologically stressful environment, especially if you are gay. I believe almost anyone would have struggled as a child in that family. It is not as though I have no sympathy with her plight. I just don't find some of her claims very credible, particularly those memories she recovered through the process she describes.

I am always happy to be educated on what I might be missing. If you have something to bring to the table here, by all means do. I am willing to accept the truth. I want the truth. Merely alluding to your expertise is not really all that helpful.

As you like.

Yes, I prefer going with the evidence. I like that.

Do you know what psychoanalysis is? Just kidding, but don't get after me about making statements that you say are ignorant about subjects you have more information about than I do while you make ignorant statements about subjects I know more about than you do. Mote and beam thing.

Using the term psychoanalysis in its popular sense is not "making ignorant statements about subjects you know more about than I do." Unless, of course, you are claiming great expertise on the subject of American slang.

I don't know why you assume you know what he believed. Just because people say they believe things, it doesn't mean they do....

His methods were pretty consistent with his avowed beliefs. He was fairly open about his assumptions, and if you knew his work, you wouldn't need to rely on circular reasoning about high intelligence and dishonesty. His writings, methods, and avowed beliefs are all what one might expect of a person of his time, place, circumstances, and training. His assumptions and his methods are certainly open to criticism--they practically beg for criticism.

If the best you can do is to cast doubt on Nibley's honesty with general statements on the capacity of the intelligent to be successfully deceptive, then it's weak sauce.

Why does it bother you so much that some people think Nibley might not have been the man he presented himself to be? Why accept some information and disregard other information? Tad bit of bias perhaps?

You are mistaking critical thinking for bias. Critical thought will result in trusting some information and doubting the veracity of other information. Yes, I doubt Martha Beck on certain topics. I don't dismiss everything she says out of hand, as anyone who went to the trouble of investigating all of my posts on the subject would know. Here's the bias: It gets wearying to watch a lot of ignorant and cynical nonsense about Nibley regularly trotted out.

You know, like, "smart people are good liars and don't really believe in religion, and we all know Nibley was smart, so he was probably a liar and didn't believe in his religion, not really."

Gag.

Lastly, I have enough experience with the type of person you think Nibley was to know the difference.