I read Lehi in the Desert which was pretty much one bit Tu Quo Que argument. Is there anything worthwhile in the rest of his books?

I read Approaching Zion, and I have to say, I really like some of the things he spoke about. There is some value to that book if you are at all Christian.

However, since I no longer believe in the great spirit in the sky, it lost most of its value.

Well I am an atheist so I probably wouldn't get much out of that book.

Yes. I think it was the Lehi in the Desert one, and a bunch of stuff he wrote about the temple and the Book of Abraham (that was sold as a packet of copies at Deseret Book).

It was so convoluted that it gave me a headache to try to bend my mind into that pretzel. But at least I tried to maintain my belief, by reading the guy that LDS people thought was SUCH a genius.

Turns out he was just a pro at obfuscation.

I have read several of Nibley's books. I knew him personally when I was at BYU. He was very much into himself.

I have since come to realize that Nibley played fast and loose with his cited "proofs". Some were made up, those in foreign languages were biasedly translated, and more than not the intended meaning of the quoted author was misrepresented or taken out of context. Nibley's daughter, Martha Beck, discussed his dishonest footnotes in her book about leaving the church.

Some of what he wrote was a total lie. For example, in his famous rebuttal to Fawn Brodie's NMKMH, he said not once, but twice that the mormon church has NEVER had to change any of it's doctrine!

Be very careful in accepting anything found in Nibley's writings.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/2015 06:34PM by Templar.

If someone is so intellectually dishonest to say that the church NEVER changed any of their doctorine they need to stop writing books.

Mormons who claim that the church has never changed its doctrines rationalize it with the old circular definition:

"Mormon doctrine: those teachings within Mormonism that have never changed."

Very good!

I thought Nibley did a fairly good job of defending the Book of Mormon with his emphasis on parallels. He tried to show that certain things were NOT inherently absurd, and had happened elsewhere in recorded history. That work is found in Lehi in the Desert, The World of the Jaredites, and An Approach to the Book of Mormon. That approach worked best for the Jaredites, since in their case their was no claim of Semitic origin that can be falsified.

That said, he was a total nutcase. I think that by 1967 he had already gone over the edge. His work on the Book of Abraham was insane and unreadable. Absolute nonsense. And in response to his work on church history, I would say, "No, that's not history." It was just a polemic response to anti-Mormon polemics, with no real research or insight of his own.

Historischer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought Nibley did a fairly good job of
> defending the Book of Mormon with his emphasis on
> parallels.

Except for the fact that he took Fawn Brodie to task for using parallels and stated that parallels prove nothing!

Just more Nibley dishonesty.

Historischer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He tried to show that certain things
> were NOT inherently absurd...

What a great defense for the Book of Mormon!

"Hey, guys, look -- I can show some small parts of it are not inherently absurd! So it must be true!"

Sigh.

When the Joseph Smith papyri were re-discovered in 1967, the brethren actually expected Hugh Nibley to save the fraudulent "Book of Abraham". Of course he completely failed, and his daughter Martha Beck claims he had a nervous breakdown as a result of trying to do the impossible. Nibley's star slowly fell after that fiasco. Only the BYU apologists still honor him.

Aw. I kinda feel bad for him. Didn't he harass his daughter?

Actually, she claimed that he sexually molested her when she was five years old.

She is well respected and has been on Oprah Winfrey's staff for a number of years. However, since there is such a thing as "False Memory Syndrome" and the fact that Nibley was not alive to respond to her claims, I prefer to "let sleeping dogs lie" on this one. There's more than enough in Nibley's writings alone to discredit him without going there.

No need to feel bad for him. In person he was mild-mannered and scholarly, but in print he was a monster. His violent emotions exploded into all sorts of dubious accusations, usually against fellow Mormons who failed to adopt his own proclaimed ideals.

Nibley castigated his late grandfather, and his daughter castigated him in his dying years. Its hard to win in a game like that.

No. I did read part of a Cleon Skousen book and had to put it down because I thought the guy was nutty and had bizarre ideas and I was TBM! Was Nibley over-the-top and into weird doctrine he pulled out of thin air like Skousen?

Over the years, I've read most of Nibley's books. He once seemed to me as among the more reasonable ones simply by virtue of not being a young-earth creationist. He was sane compared to, say, Joseph Fielding Smith, which I admit is not a high bar to clear.

At this stage, I'd say that Approaching Zion is his only work that holds any merit. The book offers several scathing critiques of the LDS worship of money (the members, not the church itself) and their enthusiastic acceptance of the prosperity gospel. They're quite entertaining and generally spot-on. There's also an essay that rips into BYU for its hypocrisy.

Couple of problems though. While Nibley rightfully decries Mormons' obsession with wealth, he himself appears enamored with the United Order. He all but calls for the reintroduction of the Law of Consecration. That would obviously give the church a ton of additional money, power, and control, which is just about the worst idea ever – that is, if the masses were to agree to go along with it. They wouldn't, of course; even in my most believing jackmo days I couldn't imagine how the UO could possibly work. It had been tried only in small-scale agricultural environments and had still failed, every time. In a modern connected industrial and technological economy? Not a chance in hell, and Nibley was blind to it.

Nibley's second problem was his admiration for Brigham Young. He quoted approvingly from BY's sermons on a number of occasions in the book. Given that the UO was one of BY's babies, I guess it's not too surprising. But knowing what we do about Young, the fact that Nibley would give that old SOB any credence does not sit well in the 21st century.

Nibley an expert in a made up scam

Also his Book of Mormon challenge is complete bullcrap

Yes, it is. I think Holland may have borrowed it for his own bluster about the Book of Mormon. Holland goes back to the mid-1960s with that stuff.

Nibley is held up on a pedestal by my TBM BIL-
Same BIL is reading Nibleys book OUT LOUD to my FIL who is in a rest home.
It's so he can read the BOM in "the correct framework"

Ha ha ha ha ha REALLY?

Yes.

One supposed point that Nibley likes to bring up on a regular basis though out his books is that people in ancient times were much more philosophically oriented and sophisticated than people of current times, which tends to indicate that, despite all of our modern technology, people back then were more intelligent than they are now.


In April of 1999, LDS General Conference Sunday Morning Session MORmON PRofit Gordon B. Hinckley / Gordon BS Hinckley gave an Easter theme talk titled: He is not Here, But is Risen.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1999/04/he-is-not-here-but-is-risen?lang=eng

Quote:

His friends must have wept. The Apostles He loved and whom He had called as witnesses of His divinity wept. The women who loved Him wept. None had understood what He had said about rising the third day. How could they understand? This had never happened before. It was totally unprecedented. It was unbelievable, even for them.

End Quote:

Just as Hinckley says leading up to this quote from his talk, conquering death was one of mankind's highest aspirations, a thought/ notion most prevalent on the human consciousness just as death itself is.

Jesus upon accomplishing this grand task -a grand mission assigned to Him in a pre mortal existence well before the inception of life on earth according to MORmON doctURine, would unquestionably be the greatest figure of all humanity and history. Also according to MORmON doctUrine: the glory of God is intelligence.

This makes things very quizzical, from the standpoint that according to PRofit Hinckley's account, Jesus had managed to pick as His special witness apostles for His greatest mortal accomplishment ever of permanently defeating death, some guys who were so Dense that they just could NOT grasp exactly what the savior of all mankind was trying to do with respect to rendering death ineffective, a story line task that most 8 year old children can fairly readily master and explain.

From the MORmON temple ceremony, The apostolic figures of Peter, James, and John are also identified as pre mortal cohorts of the Universe creating ULTRA Genius super intelligent Jesus, and so, it can be implied that the rest of the ancient apostles also have this same pre mortal familiarity with the New Testament Messiah.

Sure, Jesus can create the universe, and Jesus can atone for the sins of all mankind, and Jesus can defeat death, but Jesus does not have the reserve left after all of that messianic heavy lifting to see to it that his closest associates are provided with mental capabilities above that of Idiots. SO, after they end up on earth, Jesus' apostles are all as dumb as posts. They definitely were NOT the more philosophically inclined people that Nibley was talking about.

From the Hinckley account, it can be concluded that ancient apostles were not very smart and that there must have been some dialog at various times like this between Jesus and his chosen (retard) apostles:


Jesus (attempting to explain): OK, first, I am alive, then I am dead, then I am alive again. Now you try it!

Apostle A : Ok, First, you are....... (confused) DEAD !

Jesus: (interrupting) No! FIRST, I am ALIVE, just like right now, THEN I am dead, then I am Alive again! Now, try it again.

Apostle A : (On a fast roll) Ok, first you are dead.

Jesus: (Interrupting) No! First, I am ALIVE !

Apostle B: OK, let me try!

Jesus: OK

Apostle B: OK, First you are Alive, then you are Alive ....

Jesus: NO, first, I am alive, then I am dead.....

Apostle B: OK .....First, you are Alive, then you are.... dead.....


Jesus: (Coaxing and encouraging) Yes, Yes, and then......

Apostle B: ....you are still dead!


Jesus: No! No ! that is NOT it !!!

First, I am alive,then I am dead,then I am alive again.
You try it.

Apostle C: Ok...... firrrrrssssst you arrrrrre .......dead!

Jesus: ( in utter frustration) No! listen! First, I am ALIVE......


The one thing even more entertaining than listening to a MORmON make things up, is listening to several MORmONS make up stuff and then comparing notes. Hugh Nibley was a REAL MORmON. Gordon Hinckley was an even bigger MORmON.

Hinckley told lots of LIES in his life time.

Here is Nibley telling one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuKb2HbiihI

I love the dialog! It sounds like the parent to a two or three year old trying to help them understand, not an adult speaking to adults. Was Hinckley inferring that the apostles in ancient days were dumb but the modern ones weren't? Or was Hinckley just misinformed or lacking in knowledge? Or maybe he just liked to make it up as he went?

Hinckley is THE PRofit of THE church, the self proclaimed great communicator and PR master. SO, what did Hinckley say?

Hinckley's exact words: "None had understood what He had said about rising the third day. How could they understand? "

How could they understand?

How about because the ancient apostles were NOT as dumb as rocks, especially as rocks would be compelled to cry out in confession of their knowledge / understanding that Jesus was THE Christ according to the biblical account (Luke 19:40) that Hinckley picks and chooses from, AND because Jesus had explained it to them AS THE UPCOMING MOST PIVOTAL EVENT IN HUMAN HISTORY AND IN THE HISTORY OF THE COSMOS ........ or perhaps among all of His profound teaching duties Jesus just let that issue slide by with His closest associates -the very people who would later be wholly relied on to convey the critical importance of Christ's divine mission to the world ( I get that, I understand the Christian message context and the implications, and I am saying that as an atheist not as a supposed prophet) ....... AND because the ancient apostles had been with Jesus as Jesus went from place to place in the Holy Land performing miracles INCLUDING RAISING THE DEAD JUST AS HINCKLEY EVEN MENTIONS EARLIER IN HIS OWN TALK.

THAT is how.

By Hinckley's account, the ancient apostles LITERALLY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BEEN DUMBER THAN ROCKS, (or perhaps as stupid as Hinckley and the MORmON members that buy into Hinckley's hyping diatribe on these matters) in order to not be able to fathom in any degree what Jesus' ultimate mission was and to not have any inkling that it was possible after all of the miracles that Christ had supposedly performed as they had front row seats to witness the many miracles that Jesus had performed according to the New Testament account.

Understanding / comprehending the concept of resurrection is easy, even a small child can do it. A person comes back from the dead. Whether or not such a thing is actually possible is a different issue. IF Hinckley meant that the ancient apostles did not have belief that such a thing was possible, then Hinckley the PR master should have said so, but he did not. Hinckley said that the ancient apostles did not understand. HINCKLEY THE SUPPOSED PR MASTER DID NOT USE THE WORD BELIEF WHERE THE WORD UNDERSTAND WAS USED. HINCKLEY FRAMED THE ISSUE IN TERMS OF COMPREHENSION BY CHOOSING TO USE THE WORD "UNDERSTAND" and the attendant context of comprehending is in place instead of a context of believing. SO a person is compelled to take Hinckley at his own dumb bell choice of words.

The quirky thing is, as Hinckley has set things up, even if the context of lack of belief, as in a lack of faith, is used instead of a lack of comprehension, due to the New Testament basis of the story and the mentioned miracles that Jesus regularly performed, the ancient apostles still appear as a group of idiots that can not begin to grasp what is really going on right in front of them. Either way, by Hinckley's account the ancient apostles are a bunch of idiots. Either faithless idiots or just outright dullards who just can NOT catch on to what is going on right in front of them, even though Jesus picked them as His special witnesses. Yah! thank God that the current latter day apostles are not THAT dumb !!!!!

The facts remain; any problems with this lame brain account of the matter belong to Hinckley because he came up with it, and regardless of the exact interpretation of usage of the word "understand" in this instance, huge problems remain relative to the implied dismal (lack of) intelligence levels of the ancient apostles.

AND back to vaunted MORmON scholar Nibley, Hinckley's account flies completely counter to Nibley's favored assertion that ancient people were more adept philosophically than modern people. So thanks to Hugh for making Hinckley's account seem even more ridiculous when it seemed that such a thing just was not possible.

...... SO, WHO would be dumber; the ancient apostles according to Hinckley's account that literally makes them dumber than rocks, or Modern MORmONS who listen to Hinckley milk the resurrection story for all possible whip lash emotional effect and then just gulp down Hinckley's idiotic hype tripe as a MORmON spiritual message? AS IF some one resurrecting themselves from the dead just is not stupendous enough in its own right, so Hinckley had to rev it up emotionally for the MORmONS.


It appears that Hinckley is framing the story for hype, in terms of the lowest common dumb-nominator, to reel in those dumb enough to buy into such an emotionally charged and stupid and unorthodox account, those dumb enough to become MORmONS, be MORmONS and stay MORmONS, and Hinckley might as well take that approach, because any one bright enough to pay real attention to the issues and implications of "preposterous" MORmON claims and the idiocy of the MORmON religion, especially as BS artist Gordon Hinckley spouts it, will never make a very good MORmON anyway. SO, Hinckley can maintain his focus on bilking the weak and shallow -people who can for fall for Hinckley's MORmONIC idiocy, people who can take the Hinckley idiot bait and imagine themselves as being better Christian believers or smarter than the ancient apostles (not to mention the rest of Jesus' family and friends) who have been turned into a cadre of blithering idiots for the sake of Hinckley's MORmON PR promotional spiel and purposes.

Even as the intellectual whore that Hugh Nibley was for LD$ inc and their MORmON purposes, there had to be times when Hugh shook his head in amazement and wondered just how much stupider that Gordon Hinckley could really be.

( I love that dialog too, it makes me laugh every time I contemplate such a scene, and I think about how it makes Hinckley look even more stupid than the ancient apostles that Gordon so readily disparaged for his own MORmON hyping purposes.)

smirkorama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> ...... SO, WHO would be dumber; the ancient
> apostles according to Hinckley's account that
> literally makes them dumber than rocks, or Modern
> MORmONS who listen to Hinckley milk the
> resurrection story for all possible whip lash
> emotional effect and then just gulp down
> Hinckley's idiotic hype tripe as a MORmON
> spiritual message? AS IF some one resurrecting
> themselves from the dead just is not stupendous
> enough in its own right, so Hinckley had to rev it
> up emotionally

^ this really got me thinking. It might not seem related but: every time I watched conference I felt good and as soon as it was over I felt terrible. The revving up you spoke about is one of the many mental manipulations the GA's use and I can't help but wonder if like drugs mental manipulation has a let down. Or maybe it was just the underlying message of obey, pray and by-the-way you'll never be good enough but keep killing yourself trying and pay,pay,pay!

Responding to just one of your points, I'd say that Nibley probably harbored some contempt for those ancient apostles who just didn't get enough paid time off to purchase and study ancient documents. Nibley would have been far more at home with the scribes and Pharisees.

+1

I always instinctively considered him a wingnut, so no, I haven't read any of his works.

So we're all down in the McKay Bldg. pit for another Nibster lecture on some arcane ancientries, religion 104.6.6.

He's late and ascends the lecturn, three-by-five cards fluttering from every pocket.

Today he will reveal the secret of his craft.

Title: The ancient Greek art of Rhetoric.

Our professor describes said art as a process of quickly scanning studies in every possible scholarly field then spinning them back to the admiring bog to create the illusion of one man's profound learning.

The old mago blows his secret to sophomores at BYU.

He ran with this trick for thirty years. He was clocked in the head with a polo ball by Sean McCreany one day which may explain publication of his insane "Egyptian Endowment".

You had to love ol' Neibaur though.

Thanks for revealing his secret after all these years!

I suspected something like that was going on.

I believe Hugh Nibley is the one who molested his own daughter

and she wrote a book about it. People tried to discredit her

because they didn't want to believe he was capable of doing

something as horrid as that.

Needless to say I had no desire to read any of his books.

The compilations.

I have also read Bushman, Ash, Peterson, and a few other non-memorable apologists.

I have also read a few Catholic apologist writers.

They are SO amazing because they are all the same.

I can't tell you how beautifully hilarious it is to read the same logic from Nibley to a Catholic apologist. The harmony and balance to their bullshittery is breathtakingly astonishing.

If you read any Muslin apologists it's also exactly the same.

His daughter Martha Beck's book "Expecting Adam" is excellent.
This link has some info on Martha Beck
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Books+by+Martha+Beck