At BYU, before my mission, I had a lot of questions about whether Mormonism was true. I heard about Hugh Nibley. I got the idea that he was a giant of a man, that he was one of the smartest men on earth, and that he had successfully answered any and all arguments that could possibly be made against the Church. Hugh Nibley inspired me to go on a mission. After deciding to go, somebody I knew said, "Did Hugh Nibley convert you?"
Hugh Nibley was and will always be the "Greatest Mormon Obsfucator".
"Obfuscation is the concealment of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, intentionally ambiguous, and more difficult to interpret."
His books are downright silly. He makes his defense of difficult issues by drawing a parallel between as many related and unrelated items as possible in order to prove that the book is accurate in its portrayal.
His defense of the Book of Abraham is a masterpiece of deception and webweaving.
His talks are just as bad, whipping out fivedollar words as fast as he can and makes it sound as if he just might have some idea what he's talking about-if you can keep up.
The trick is to keep sounding too smart for the average member, thus causing them to forget issues that are figured out by smart people. And for the rest, he counts on them finally throwuing their hands in the air and saying "fine! I'll believe if you'll just shut up!"
A brillian man that would "lie for the prophet". Sad, actually, that such a brilliant mind could be cajoled into telling HUGE whoppers.
He was at BYU when I was there and you'd see him wandering around, all disheveled, looking lost with his hair sticking out sideways, his tie stained and folders with papers about to fall out.
The best way to find out who Hugh Nibley was is to read the biography of him written by his son-in-law. It is extensively documented.
The worst way to find out who Hugh Nibley is, is to read Martha Beck's book, wherein she claims to have been sexually molested by her father while he, in a fit of insanity, was trying to reenact the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham.
Even if you concede that Nibley was prone to fits of insanity, he was a good enough Bible scholar to know that you do not re-enact the sacrifice of Isaac by molesting your next-to-the-youngest daughter. You slay your oldest son, which Hugh Nibley definitely did not do.
IN FACT, HN's oldest son, Alex wrote a book about HN's WWII experience (he was there for D-Day and also for the liberation of Paris). After going thru all that, who could blame the poor man for retreating into his books?
I do not believe he molested his daughter nor do any of Martha Beck's siblings believe it, and if you read her book, "Leaving the Saints," it is hard to find one sentence where she states anything so unequivically that she can't wiggle out of it later. She isn't certain of ANYTHING she declares. Still, in true Mormon Folklore fashion, mysterious beings are always coming out of the woodwork, telling her amazing things, and then disappearing into thin air.
I think the Son in Law's book, (I think his name is Boyd Peterson but I may be wrong) is the best way to get to know the complex person HN was.
But Alex's book "Sergeant Hugh Nibley, PhD" makes fascinating reading also.
You can defend Hugh against Martha as long as you want, but there are a LOT of people who believe it's true she was molested by him. And I bet they're all non-Mos.
And a lot of his apologetics have been pretty much thrown in the trash heap also as being foolish.
As for Martha, what motive did she have to accuse her father and thereby lose her family? It doesn't make sense w/o a motive. There are people on this board that know her and stand by her writings.
Didn't her sister come out and say that they slept on bunkbeds when this "sexual assualt" allegedly took place, and that martha slept on the top bunk?
How could a man climb up onto the top bunk, sexually molest his daugther wearing a mask, and not wake up the other daughter on the bottom bunk? Seems fishy to me.
What's fishy is the garbage the family has made up after the fact, and also changes they've made to their stories. The mom actually admitted to Martha that she knew he was molesting her, she then changed her tune later after Martha went public with it. And the entire family has a lot at stake to refute Martha's claims, think about it.
Sorry to get a bit O/T, but didn't Martha Beck say that she only "remembered" her father had molested her through the "recovered memory" process, though? If that is the case, I can understand why many people would be dubious about her accusations. I've known many people who were molested, unfortunately (including two women who were molested by their father), and to a man or woman they all remembered the abuse they suffered their entire lives. They never needed to "recover" memories in therapy as adults. The entire recovered memory movement has really been brought into disrepute during the last two decades.
I think it would be possible to try to block out a terrible memory, and for it to be "recovered" sometime later. Especially if you were very young when it happened.
Also, when very young, a child would not really understand what was happening to him/her--especially if raised Mormon, where even saying the names of body parts was discouraged!
@ behindcurtain In your original post, Mr. Nibley sounds a lot like the SNL "character"* Bill Brasky; i.e. larger than life, smarter than Einstein, the greatest salesman/stock trader/(in your case) Mormon apologist ever. It's sad that people make gods out of men, but then, God never seems to show Himself.
* We never really see Brasky; three guys in a bar/Little League game/Brasky's own funeral talk about him and it's like a combination of tall tales and the "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch.
Nibley never had credibility in his own field because he made up stuff, apparently pulling much of it out of his ass, in order to prove Mormonism to Mormons. It did not matter that he was a nobody in the field of Egyptology and history outside of Mormonism, remaining unaccepted or unnoticed by peers precisely for what he was to the Mormon church--a paid apologist. What mattered is that he had the body of active church members looking to him as a scholar and expert on the Book of Mormon, describing how the BoM had to be genuine because of the use of this word or that phrase, and so forth. He blew smoke up the collective drawers of the membership all or most of his adult life. He was there to prove the church only to LDS members.
A brilliant and sad man whose life was ruined by Mormonism.
He eventually had a nervous breakdown, most likely brought on by knowning that the Book of Abraham was a fake but trying to defend it as genuine. The cog dis must have been unbearable.
BTW he did not try to re-enact Abraham.
He tried to to sacrifice to the licentious god MIN
Hugh Nibley gave me a big push out of the Church. I was at the beginning of my "crisis of faith" and happened upon one of his "defense of the faith" articles in the IMPROVEMENT ERA (remember that? Fore-runner to the ENSIGN) on the Book of Abraham. First he laid out the critics' case. It was pretty convincing to me. I was waiting for him to blow it away by the end of the article. Unfortunately for Mormonism his defense was pitiful. I found myself saying, "that's it? That's the supposed refutation?"
Nibley was a smart guy but he was a tool of Mormonism. He became famous even among Mormon scholars for VERY BAD "scholarship." His plethora of footnotes made his stuff look scholarly but his strongest arguments usually were not backed up by the sources he footnoted them to. In some instances the footnoted source said the OPPOSITE of what Nibley was trying to make it say.
I say he was either really stupid or really dishonest. And he wasn't stupid.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2011 01:39AM by baura.
After hearing of HN for years, then really finding out how contrived his stuff was in looking up his sources and the ignorance of those that were so awed over it, it was a big factor in me realizing the fishiness of the whole thing.
One very telling anecdote is how the church called upon Nibley to explain the Book of Abraham after the irrefutable proof was in that it was 100% fake-fake-fake.
He actually took the assignment, which for anyone studying scholarship, would immediately recognize as a complete refutation of logic AND the scientific method. Find a way to explain this? Really?
I went to a devotional where he was the featured speaker. He stood at the pulpit, rifling through the scriptures at the speed of light, and babbling all the way, like an auctioneer on meth.
I'd heard that he was an expert on scripture, but seeing him in person just made me think he was weird, if not downright crazy.
I've heard about the molestation charges by his daughter, Martha.
Some say she's the crazy one, but I believe her, and if she's indeed a nutbar, she got it from her father.
I've read at least half of Hugh Nibley's published books. You get into the mind of a person that way.
I'd bet there are more likely to be child molesters among the ex-Mo's who are this forum dissing Hugh Nibley than the likelihood he was at all; that's why they accuse others. (Nibley pointed out how Satan accuses others of wrong doing).
And regarding what I read of Nibley, and saw of him on TV, and heard of him, I'd say the odds are higher that John F. Kennedy was a virgin than Hugh Nibley was a child molester. And wasn't there yet another book charging JFK with an affair he had with an intern, the other day?
You said: (Nibley pointed out how Satan accuses others of wrong doing).
So if you are accusing ex-Mormons on this board of wrong-doing, by Nibley's definiton that you hold close to your burning bosom, that makes you.....Satan? So, Satan, do you still have a part in the temple movie and wear that gawd-awful apron like all the temple attendees have to wear? Being so of-the-world and all, I'd think you'd have more sartorial sense!
Thank you for dropping by to bear witness of the truthfulness of Hugh Nibley. Be sure to confess to your bishop that you were associating with apostates. ;) Seriously though, stick around. The doubts about "the gospel" that brought you to this site are well-founded.
...and for the record, I have no reason to doubt Martha. Hugh Nibley was a paid liar, so it's not a stretch to believe he had other character flaws.
I've read Hugh Nibley, and I've read his daughter's book. I'm not in a position to say whether she was really molested by him, but it's apparent that she's a much better writer and, presumably, a clearer thinker.
Nibley was very intelligent, but his writing is a whirlpool of disjointed thoughts, marginally relevant observations, and occasionally clever comments. For the most part, it is not scholarship. But it is a sort of facsimile of scholarship.
His arguments are not convincing to most people who approach them with an open mind and try to follow them logically. But they can be intimidating to people who start by giving him the benefit of the doubt. I think that in most cases the people who accept his arguments do so on the basis of "I don't understand him, but he's obviously smarter than me, so if he believes in Mormonism I will too."
I came across it in the library in my small Southern city. I thought it might be able to explain some things that had been bothering me. Instead, it convinced me that the famed Hugh Nibley was crackers and his "scholarly" views on LDS subjects are basically rubbish. The book is so absurd (as was a good deal of the FAIR/FARMS hogwash) that I just finally accepted that the church's claims were not rationally defensible.
Was he brilliant, or even very intelligent? Or a big nutty fish in a a small nutty pond? I don't know. I think it's very possible he might have been in need of serious medication. Either way, his life's work is sad and ultimately unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
all of the LDS Scriptures. I heard him speak many times, read much of his writings. They were considered "spot on" and the most important scholarly treatment of the scriptures the church could produce. He was able to answer questions about the BOM, and other scriptures in ways that satisfied the believers. It was always considered a Big Deal to hear him speak or have him visit your Ward/Stake. He could weave the ancient languages in and out of the Mormon scriptures like a magician. He was a "Giant" of a man in his field . That was then, this is now. Important to remember that!
Outside of the Mormon church he was viewed as a deceiver of ignorant rubes. A dishonest fudger of scholarly citations. A delusionist. IOW, a person of low morals and little consequence. Non-Mormon academic scholars didn't touch him with a 10-foot pole. The never even bothered to refute his idiotic claims because he was never a serious enough scholar to make it onto their radar.