O.K. my exmo. brainiacs, I need your brains! My TBM bro. (the one who almost died) is still a believer:( ! He still believes in the BoM. And keps talking about Hugh Nibley. Claims hes psychic. I honesty dont know anything about him. Quick ! Give me info. fast! so I can answer him! THX.

Hugh Nibley is an apologist who wrote a whole bunch of stuff in the 1970s or so including a couple of books about the Book of Mormon.

He was a professor at BYU and there are allegations that he sexually abused his daughter.

He is known for including fake references in his work and everything he writes is in the persuasive writing tone.

The allegations made by his daughter are based on "recovered memories" recovered during self-hypnosis and assisted hypnosis. I would not give them much credence.

He's a junk scholar, but don't make the mistake of overreaching. Part of what kept me in the church so long was the ability to dismiss critics as grasping at straws, thereby permitting me to overlook the actual meat of the critical evidence.

Only TBMs give a hoot about Nibley. When I first saw his writing back in about 1978 I immediately concluded he was wrong and made up his references.

Will give you a deep look into the disturbed mind of her father, Hugh Nibley. Whether or not you believe Martha's allegations of bizarre and horrific sexual abuse at his hands, many Mormons/Ex-Mormons see Hugh Nibley as a discredited whack-job.

FWIW . . .

;o)

http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=transcripts&id=67

If you read a little you can get a "feel" for nibley.

While he was a very smart man, the reason the article is difficult to follow is because it's all forced.

He can't explain connections that aren't there. So everything feels incredibly difficult to follow. When a "scholarly" author does that - they usually start to use big words so that the reader feels stupid and just thinks, "Well, I don't get it; he must be smarter than me and knows what he's talking about."

But it's not about smarts. It's about his argument is incoherent because there is no argument.

obfuscation, its his specialty :)

hows that for a big word lol!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2013 01:24AM by sparkyguru.

Hugh Nibley was very smart and very dishonest.

When the evidence didn't go the way he wanted it to he either
deleted a few words and put in elipises (". . .") or else
claimed it did then put a footnote to something obscure that he
hoped nobody would lookup. He loved to multiply footnotes for
all kinds of meaningless asides so I guess he figured he could
get a few "howlers" in there and nobody would look it up.

He was later taken to task about this by faithful Mormon
scholars. Kent Jackson, was one of them.

His work on the Book of Abraham was nicely dissected by Ed
Ashment, Mormon Egyptologist and critic of the Book of Abraham,
to the point that Nibley's response was to say "I will not be
responsible for anything I wrote more than three years ago."