Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
I understand that there has been lots of thoughtful, serious criticism and critical analysis of Nibley's response "No Ma'am" to Fawn Brodie's book about Joseph Smith.
I'd like to find a serious response or analysis of Nibley's work, preferably something scholarly. Does anyone know of such an analysis?
I'd like to find a serious response or analysis of Nibley's work, preferably something scholarly. Does anyone know of such an analysis?
At an Exmormon Conference. He called Nibley a "prostitute," seriously. It's probably archived. Nibley's daughter, Martha Beck, also "laid bare" his decision that he was going to defend JS and the BOM no matter what. Google "Leaving the Saints."
http://www.mrm.org/leaving-the-saints
Fawn Brodie's book about Joseph Smith is the definitive biography, and nobody has ever touched her in the facts department. Brodie was also outraged at his dishonest heavy-handedness. Praise be to the Google God and RFM's own Seagull Choker himself, Cricket (who still puts in an appearance here now and then).
http://www.salamandersociety.com/interviews/fawnbrodie/
http://www.mrm.org/leaving-the-saints
Fawn Brodie's book about Joseph Smith is the definitive biography, and nobody has ever touched her in the facts department. Brodie was also outraged at his dishonest heavy-handedness. Praise be to the Google God and RFM's own Seagull Choker himself, Cricket (who still puts in an appearance here now and then).
http://www.salamandersociety.com/interviews/fawnbrodie/
Didn't Nibley fake a lot of footnotes?
Reading Nibley isn't something on my priority list however. The allegations of sexual abuse were the "hot button items," however.
to: Josephina
My understanding is that a lot of Nibley's footnotes are made-up nonsense.
My understanding is that a lot of Nibley's footnotes are made-up nonsense.
it is not necessary to get into nibley's footnotes to see where nibley is completely full of crap, some of the stuff that Nibley says is just prima facie idiocy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuKb2HbiihI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVqr0SgKTck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwi0L-mwn4M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuKb2HbiihI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVqr0SgKTck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwi0L-mwn4M
It all happened before I was born, but the controversy of Fawn's book lasted a long time and I heard a lot about it in the fifties and early sixties. Coming from an extreme TBM family, what was usually said very smugly was, "Nibley sure put her in her place."
What a difference a decade or two makes. Looking back at it all now what I see is Nibley's short rebuttal comes from a biased position toward Mormonism while the very well researched NMKMH by Brodie comes from scholarship. One was looking for verifiable facts to construct a history and the other was out to prove a point by any means.
Nibley was preaching to the choir. Mormons didn't care about the integrity of the rebuttal---all they required was that there was a rebuttal so they could hold Nibley's short hurried book up and claim victory--without reading either book themselves.
What a difference a decade or two makes. Looking back at it all now what I see is Nibley's short rebuttal comes from a biased position toward Mormonism while the very well researched NMKMH by Brodie comes from scholarship. One was looking for verifiable facts to construct a history and the other was out to prove a point by any means.
Nibley was preaching to the choir. Mormons didn't care about the integrity of the rebuttal---all they required was that there was a rebuttal so they could hold Nibley's short hurried book up and claim victory--without reading either book themselves.
Some of his footnotes were sloppy interpretations.
He also borrowed heavily from the works of Mircea Eliade, who was a topnotch scholar.
He also borrowed heavily from the works of Mircea Eliade, who was a topnotch scholar.
Oops, wrong thread. You wanted something "scholarly", and not a bunch of swear words, concerning Nibley.
to exminion
I have little doubt that Nibley's response was just what the Mormon church wanted, regardless of how correct it was, and that the fact that a Mormon "scholar" had allegedly refuted Brodie was enough for people, and that they didn't have to read Nibley for themselves.
I have heard that Nibley's work contains lots of ad hominem attacks on Brodie, and my suspicion is that that's correct; I've also heard about his nonsense footnotes.
I *might* read some of Nibley, but I'd like my starting point to be the criticisms of his work by scholars--if there is such a thing. It's frustrating that so far no one has cited such a work.
I have little doubt that Nibley's response was just what the Mormon church wanted, regardless of how correct it was, and that the fact that a Mormon "scholar" had allegedly refuted Brodie was enough for people, and that they didn't have to read Nibley for themselves.
I have heard that Nibley's work contains lots of ad hominem attacks on Brodie, and my suspicion is that that's correct; I've also heard about his nonsense footnotes.
I *might* read some of Nibley, but I'd like my starting point to be the criticisms of his work by scholars--if there is such a thing. It's frustrating that so far no one has cited such a work.
I read just enough a long time ago to see the ad-hominem approach which was why I didn't bother with the whole thing. His writing had a very snide tone--like he was reprimanding and belittling rather than discussing facts. Snotty might be a better word.
My guess is that because it was not a scholarly book there wasn't much of a scholarly response.
Even so, it seems to me that one might expect at least someone with a serious reputation to analyze and tear apart Nibley's work.
Now, I recognize that this could be the starting line in an argument in support of Nibley, but it's not. It seems to me that there has to be someone, some person who enjoys analyzing things and pointing out fallacies and illogic and so on, and who dislikes Mormonism, who has done the job. There are lots of ex-Mos who've done a serious, at least near-scholarly job of analyzing the nonsense of Mormonism; an analysis of Nibley's work, showing how silly and shallow it is, would certainly be appreciated by lots of folks, ex-Mormons as well as us never-Mormons.
Now, I recognize that this could be the starting line in an argument in support of Nibley, but it's not. It seems to me that there has to be someone, some person who enjoys analyzing things and pointing out fallacies and illogic and so on, and who dislikes Mormonism, who has done the job. There are lots of ex-Mos who've done a serious, at least near-scholarly job of analyzing the nonsense of Mormonism; an analysis of Nibley's work, showing how silly and shallow it is, would certainly be appreciated by lots of folks, ex-Mormons as well as us never-Mormons.
To a large extent, Nibley's NMTNH debunks itself.
http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=971&index=1
Pick out just about any random topic discussed in Nibley's pamphlet and it's easy to spot errors in his reasoning, distortions and bald assertions contrary to fact.
The "Essays" recently put out by the Church contradict several of Nibley's points.
His comments on Egyptian are a joke.
His attempt to "debunk" the obvious Masonic source of the temple rites is a joke.
His attempt to "debunk" the obvious implications of Joseph Smith having plural wives is a joke.
The footnote section is a joke.
That said, I wouldn't say that Nibley is 100% wrong or that Brodie is 100% right. Nibley makes a few valid points. But they aren't enough to discredit the main thrust of Brodie's work. One of his valid criticisms perhaps is the one that attacks her "psychoanalysis", i.e. her presumption of knowing what Joseph Smith was thinking at particular times. OTOH, I think Brodie did not really claim to know his thoughts precisely, but rather used those parts where she referred to what Joseph was probably "thinking" at different points as a device to explain what she had deduced about his state of mind from the relevant facts and sources.
I couldn't find quickly anything where somebody has taken the time to systematically review and analyze Nibley's pamphlet in a particularly "scholarly" way. As others have pointed out, that may be because few objective readers would find Nibley's pamphlet persuasive enough to merit spending several hours or days deconstructing it point by point.
At this point, Nibley's "rebuttal" is more of a curiosity and a piece of historical trivia than anything else. Few people rely on Brodie's work as anything more than an easy-to-read overview and introduction to critical history concerning Joseph Smith and the founding of Mormonism. There is such an abundance of historical reference works and scholarly analyses that do not in any way rely on Brodie's work (but which corroborate many of her key points), that you really don't need Brodie's work at all to come to similar conclusions: i.e.: Joseph Smith was a failed treasure hunt scammer, who decided to go into the religion business, his story about the golden plates was a lie, he slept around with other women and pretended to get "revelations" that made it okay, the temple rites are heavily copies from Masonry, etc., etc., etc....
http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=971&index=1
Pick out just about any random topic discussed in Nibley's pamphlet and it's easy to spot errors in his reasoning, distortions and bald assertions contrary to fact.
The "Essays" recently put out by the Church contradict several of Nibley's points.
His comments on Egyptian are a joke.
His attempt to "debunk" the obvious Masonic source of the temple rites is a joke.
His attempt to "debunk" the obvious implications of Joseph Smith having plural wives is a joke.
The footnote section is a joke.
That said, I wouldn't say that Nibley is 100% wrong or that Brodie is 100% right. Nibley makes a few valid points. But they aren't enough to discredit the main thrust of Brodie's work. One of his valid criticisms perhaps is the one that attacks her "psychoanalysis", i.e. her presumption of knowing what Joseph Smith was thinking at particular times. OTOH, I think Brodie did not really claim to know his thoughts precisely, but rather used those parts where she referred to what Joseph was probably "thinking" at different points as a device to explain what she had deduced about his state of mind from the relevant facts and sources.
I couldn't find quickly anything where somebody has taken the time to systematically review and analyze Nibley's pamphlet in a particularly "scholarly" way. As others have pointed out, that may be because few objective readers would find Nibley's pamphlet persuasive enough to merit spending several hours or days deconstructing it point by point.
At this point, Nibley's "rebuttal" is more of a curiosity and a piece of historical trivia than anything else. Few people rely on Brodie's work as anything more than an easy-to-read overview and introduction to critical history concerning Joseph Smith and the founding of Mormonism. There is such an abundance of historical reference works and scholarly analyses that do not in any way rely on Brodie's work (but which corroborate many of her key points), that you really don't need Brodie's work at all to come to similar conclusions: i.e.: Joseph Smith was a failed treasure hunt scammer, who decided to go into the religion business, his story about the golden plates was a lie, he slept around with other women and pretended to get "revelations" that made it okay, the temple rites are heavily copies from Masonry, etc., etc., etc....
My suspicions are exactly what you point out re his easily-refuted arguments and so on. I've read that there is a lot of ad hominem attack in the work, and that is extremely telling.
And "reading the mind of another" is absolutely verboten in serious work.
Part of the problem for Brodie, of course, is the lack of hard evidence.
Still, the fact that the church is clearly so antsy about so much in its history--and therefore discourages study of church history--tells us much about the church. An enormous amount, in fact. Clearly, if the church admits error in any single major point, lots of folks are gonna say "well, now what about topic A and topic B" and so on.
And "reading the mind of another" is absolutely verboten in serious work.
Part of the problem for Brodie, of course, is the lack of hard evidence.
Still, the fact that the church is clearly so antsy about so much in its history--and therefore discourages study of church history--tells us much about the church. An enormous amount, in fact. Clearly, if the church admits error in any single major point, lots of folks are gonna say "well, now what about topic A and topic B" and so on.