Rex Lee and Michael Young

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

He developed iconic status in the LDS church, but he is responsible for FARMS, .

Nibley clearly influenced FARMS, no question about that, but I must say I dislike uniform dismissals of FARMS. FARMS is not monolithic. I have read some articles by FARMS that were really quite good and I have read some articles that I thought were poor.

Good example: Nephi and His Asherah by Daniel C. Peterson
Bad Example: The reviews of In Sacred Loneliness a few years ago.

I really think nuance is required in these cases. Sweeping indictments are really just unfair.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I suspect he's trying his Ute method of Socratic dialogue through the absurd. Just once, I'd like to see a begrudging acknowledgement that Nibley wasn't an idiot, because he was a very bright man, and approachable. If he hadn't been an apologist, I imagine he could have accomplished much more academically and in scholastic achievement. Sometimes apologetics seems to hold one back.

He pioneered LDS apologetics. He was promiscuous in seeing evidence of the truth of LDS faith in almost anything. Generally I dislike using exegesis and other jargon and scholarship tools of scholarship regarding the antiquities to provide evidence to support religious faith.

He was undeniably very bright.

I've read the Brodie pamphlet as well and thought it was terrible. The parts of Brodie's book that are easy to attack are easy to spot--the psychoanalysis and conjecture including the hard and fast conclusions regarding Joseph's motiviations, Oliver Cowdery's delusions when he thought he saw Peter, James and John, etc., and the cause thereof. But her summary of the historical evidence that she marshaled is breathtaking both as a literary and a scholarly work and, as we've discussed here, remains highly influential and largely unrefuted. In terms of volume this formed the overwhelming majority of the book.

Part of the problem Nibley had was that he had a weak case. So HE turned to hyperbole and shrillness including some name calling that at times smacks of sexism, focusing, again, primarily on those parts of Brodie's book that were subject to attack though those parts formed a minor percentage of it. He just thought he could give her the back of his hand.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I really think nuance is required in these cases. Sweeping indictments are really just unfair.

Damnit, Jim, he's a lawyer, not a scholar!





(if you're not a trek geek this will probably not make sense)

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

He pioneered LDS apologetics. He was promiscuous in seeing evidence of the truth of LDS faith in almost anything. Generally I dislike using exegesis and other jargon and scholarship tools of scholarship regarding the antiquities to provide evidence to support religious faith.

He was undeniably very bright.

I've read the Brodie pamphlet as well and thought it was terrible. The parts of Brodie's book that are easy to attack are easy to spot--the psychoanalysis and conjecture including the hard and fast conclusions regarding Joseph's motiviations, Oliver Cowdery's delusions when he thought he saw Peter, James and John, etc., and the cause thereof. But her summary of the historical evidence that she marshaled is breathtaking both as a literary and a scholarly work and, as we've discussed here, remains highly influential and largely unrefuted. In terms of volume this formed the overwhelming majority of the book.

Part of the problem Nibley had was that he had a weak case. So HE turned to hyperbole and shrillness including some name calling that at times smacks of sexism, focusing, again, primarily on those parts of Brodie's book that were subject to attack though those parts formed a minor percentage of it. He just thought he could give her the back of his hand.

So Nibley's criticism of Brodie is weak because it is based on such a small part of her work. How are we to consider your criticism of Nibley, given that it is based on such a small part of his works?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by creekster

Damnit, Jim, he's a lawyer, not a scholar!





(if you're not a trek geek this will probably not make sense)

Not a Trekkie, but I know enough for that to have made me chuckle.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by All-American

So Nibley's criticism of Brodie is weak because it is based on such a small part of her work. How are we to consider your criticism of Nibley, given that it is based on such a small part of his works?

Seattle has no interest in discussing things when he's proven wrong.

[All-American]

By the way, Nibley's best works (in my opinion) aren't apologetic at all. Many of them, among them Zeal Without Knowledge, Work We Must, but the Lunch is Free, and The Meaning of the Temple have been nigh unto life-changing for me, and there's really very little that is apologetic about them. It is as though his strategy was to show that what the LDS Church had to teach was true because it leads one closer to God-- which is as effective of a test as any I can think of.

FARMS is an organization that has attempted to fill Nibley's footprints, and only occasionally can they claim to adequately do so.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

So Nibley's criticism of Brodie is weak because it is based on such a small part of her work. How are we to consider your criticism of Nibley, given that it is based on such a small part of his works?

Ouch! The oldest amongst us got zinged by the youngest amongst us.

[Surfah]

Originally Posted by All-American

By the way, Nibley's best works (in my opinion) aren't apologetic at all. Many of them, among them Zeal Without Knowledge, Work We Must, but the Lunch is Free, and The Meaning of the Temple have been nigh unto life-changing for me, and there's really very little that is apologetic about them. It is as though his strategy was to show that what the LDS Church had to teach was true because it leads one closer to God-- which is as effective of a test as any I can think of.

FARMS is an organization that has attempted to fill Nibley's footprints, and only occasionally can they claim to adequately do so.

Zeal without Knowledge is a great read.