Rex Lee and Michael Young

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Nibley, also published in articles scholarly journals (although maybe not enough to entice SeattleUte to dinner). See, for example:

1. The Passing of the Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme,
Hugh Nibley, Church History, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun., 1961), pp. 131-154.

2. The Hierocentric State, Hugh Nibley The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Jun., 1951), pp. 226-253.

3. Christian Envy of the Temple, Hugh Nibley, The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Ser., Vol. 50, No. 3 (Jan., 1960), pp. 229-240.

4. Sparsiones, Hugh Nibley, Classical Journal, Vol 40, Bo .9, June 1945.

5. Tenting, Toll, and Taxing, Hugh Nibley, The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Dec., 1966), pp. 599-630.

I liked Nibley and recognized him for what he was, a well-trained Church apologist. Seattle is of the belief Nibley was a hoax with no training, no abilities, and completely devoid of any scholarship. In my few encounters with him, although his train of thought was oft difficult to follow, he demonstrated in personal meetings considerable knowledge, at least well beyond my paltry set of knowledge. He had significant linguistic abilities. Now, I'm aware some of his arguments aren't favored by nonLDS, but so what, he's not the hack Seattle depicts him as.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Now, I'm aware some of his arguments aren't favored by nonLDS, but so what, he's not the hack Seattle depicts him as.

I think SU is still pissed about that pamphlet he wrote in response to Sister Brodie's book.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I think SU is still pissed about that pamphlet he wrote in response to Sister Brodie's book.

It wasn't his finest hour, but did Brodie deserve better given the bullshit she produced? I think not. I would have given her shorter shrift than Nibley but my patience level is not great.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It wasn't his finest hour, but did Brodie deserve better given the bullshit she produced? I think not. I would have given her shorter shrift than Nibley but my patience level is not great.

I haven't read either the book or the pamphlet, but plan to read both soon. They are in my queue.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I think SU is still pissed about that pamphlet he wrote in response to Sister Brodie's book.

The contrast between Holland and Nibley is an interesting illustration of why I'm not a fan of Nibley's. With Holland, what you see is what you get. He's a lot like a TV minister who's a great speaker, takes his scriptures at face value, and knows them inside and out. There's real value in understanding the myths and their subtexts inside and out, as Brian has shown us. It's facinating stuff in its own right. I respect a man who does his craft well and honestly whatever that may be.

Nibley, on the other hand, seems to me a charlatan. The anti-Brodie pamphlet is a good litmus test for his real substance. This was the one time when he did something that directly addressed scholarship outside his LDS haven, and it was a weak effort. It was like the Dukakis/Bush I debate. He developed iconic status in the LDS church, but he is responsible for FARMS, teachings that all indians are Lamantites and similar mischief. I think he knew better, but hey, everyone has to earn a living. I don't begrugde that but I just don't put much stock in anything he said or wrote. He was forever an apologist but he just plain wrote a lot of stuff that made no sense.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The contrast between Holland and Nibley is an interesting illustration of why I'm not a fan of Nibley's. With Holland, what you see is what you get. He's a lot like a TV minister who's a great speaker, takes his scriptures at face value, and knows them inside and out. There's real value in understanding the myths and their subtexts inside and out, as Brian has shown us. It's facinating stuff in its own right. I respect a man who does his craft well and honestly whatever that may be.

Nibley, on the other hand, seems to me a charlatan. The anti-Brodie pamphlet is a good litmus test for his real substance. This was the one time when he did something that directly addressed scholarship outside his LDS haven, and it was a weak effort. It was like the Dukakis/Bush I debate. He developed iconic status in the LDS church, but he is responsible for FARMS, teachings that all indians are Lamantites and similar mischief. I think he knew better, but hey, everyone has to earn a living. I don't begrugde that but I just don't put much stock in anything he said or wrote. He was forever an apologist but he just plain wrote a lot of stuff that made no sense.

His books on the temple are good stuff, and as Pelagius has shown, he has published in peer reviewed journals. You judge him by perhaps his weakest work? He did a quick and dirty job on a dirty, dumb book.

I'll respect your disrespect of him, if you can answer a few questions. Did you ever meet with him personally to discuss any matter with which you had personal knowledge?

Have you ever had contact with him regarding linguistics?

Have you studied his nonBrodie works, not involving Mesoamerican archaeology?

With Brodie I've read No Man and the Thomas Jefferson one, which I couldn't finish. I've never met but her psychobabble crap makes no sense.

To speak with him was to speak to a brilliant mind. Perhaps you had the pleasure but find your intellect greater. I wasn't his friend but a lowly student when I met him and he still interacted reasonably with me. He had a great mind, even if he put it to work for apologetics.

[nikuman]

Young's rep at Columbia was fantastic. I was there shortly after he left, and notwithstanding the political differences, every professor there absolutely loved him. He was more or less single-handedly responsible for the overly large LDS numbers there as well - he evidently went to the admissions department and said "look, you've got a bunch of Ivy league caliber talent at BYU and Utah who stay back for family or other reasons - you ought to tap into them." So Columbia now has recruiting dinners in London, NYC, San Francisco, Chicago, LA...and SLC.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Archaea

His books on the temple are good stuff, and as Pelagius has shown, he has published in peer reviewed journals. You judge him by perhaps his weakest work? He did a quick and dirty job on a dirty, dumb book.

I agree, not his best work. However, the pamphlet certainly does not reveal him as a charlatan. I just can't see a hermeneutic that gets you to charlatan. However, I suspect SeattleUte is engaging in hyperbole for effect.

P.S.

I don't think I am particularly biased against Brodie. There are actually many things I like about her biography. Its so vivid and engaging (yes, it is seriously flawed as well; seriously flawed in many ways). I might be the only one that feels this way, but given she thought he was a fraud, it is about a as positive a biography as one could possible write.

[Surfah]

I met with Nibley once in Special Collections in the HBLL where he showed my literature class some of BYU's best examples of illuminated manuscripts. Interesting fellow. It wasn't the most focused presentation but he had some great insight especially in regards to the early Bibles he showed us. I just remember they treated those books like vials of ebola. We had to leave our backpacks, coats, and any other loose articles in lockers and we weren't allowed to take notes.

Aside from a few essays I have only read Temple and Cosmos and Lehi in the Desert by Nibley. I enjoyed his work for the most part. He has a few ideas that I don't agree with like pre-Adamites. But he could be right. B.H. Roberts believed similarly IIRC.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I agree, not his best work. However, the pamphlet certainly does not reveal him as a charlatan. I just can't see a hermeneutic that gets you to charlatan. However, I suspect SeattleUte is engaging in hyperbole for effect.

P.S.

I don't think I am particularly biased against Brodie. There are actually many things I like about her biography. Its so vivid and engaging (yes, it is seriously flawed as well; seriously flawed in many ways). I might be the only one that feels this way, but given she thought he was a fraud, it is about a as positive a biography as one could possible write.

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.