Gad, welcome back. I had heard rumors you were around, but could never tag you. Did you deliberately keep your remarks brief as your alter-ego to avoid detection? Tell me yes so I don't have to view myself as completely clueless. And you brought huck out of lurking, even better. :)
I'm not an expert on Nibley. I did watch part of a public access series in which he taught a class - I think it was about the Book of Abraham, but I'm not sure. He was obtuse and confusing. He kept throwing out esoteric bits of trivia about ancient cultures that would prove to be impossible to hunt down for anyone except those already very familiar with the source. It reminded me of his confession as to throwing a bunch of spaghetti on the wall to see what would stick, so to speak, when apologists were caught with their pants down regarding the Book of Abraham. It seemed an apt description of what he was doing.
And, of course, your primary point is correct. Most of us are aware that high IQ does not inoculate one from strange beliefs and odd justifications of those same beliefs.
An IQ of 449 (which is average for an apologist as they self-report)
snort!
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I'd say welcom back, but I'm one of those in the know. My nature drives me to curiousity as to why the previous moniker. What I associate with it is perhaps different than what you do. I also know one other poster who knew and that was one clue which led me to solve the puzzle--that and your subject matter. You'll have to work harder disguising your voice next time. ;)
As to genius and scholarship, I think it obvious that there is a correlation to some degree. However, I have heard, and it is perhaps not so obvious, that once you reach a certain point of intelligence, that more doesn't tend to make you a better scholar or scientist. I think it obvious that smart people--probably even smarter than Nibley--do not believe the church to be true. It seems then that Nibley's parallels should only be used as points of interest or possible leads to greater understanding. However, being a layman makes such leads fairly useless to me. I can hardly understand Nibley's actual point let alone understand that which he refers to.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
harmony wrote:Nibley was a rare bird who loved words, academia, and the church. He allowed his great intelligence to be used not for the betterment of mankind in general, but to push the agenda of the LDS church. Just think what he might have done, had he not spent the majority of his adult life defending ancient and not-so-ancient myths.
That's just it, I don't think he spent his life defending it. He seemed more interested in teaching what he knew about it and how he found it had worked for him and others. He was a casual apologist, not a full-time one. Most of his religious efforts were to teach the Gospel in his own unique way, not prove it.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Here's a segment of Peterson's post on the official message board of FAIR:
QUOTE(JNclone @ Jul 7 2007, 08:16 AM) It seems to me that he was using his cleverness and erudition to spread a confusing fog over the obvious issues, while not actually addressing the substantive question - in other words that he was not placing his knowledge, status and intellectual training at the service of promoting clearer thought in his audience, but rather at strengthening their religious convictions at the expense of clear thinking.
I'm sure it's pure coincidence that this is the party line over on the Shades Obsession Board. Yo! Gadianton!
Did you, incidentally, read the exchange between R. M. Grant and (if I recall correctly) Hans Hillebrandt in Church History that followed the publication of Nibley's article there on "The Passing of the Primitive Church"? Possibly it's too boring for you.
How is this the party line over here on SOB? I haven't yet seen this position. I personally disagree with JNclone. I never saw any confusing fog in Nibley's writings, he was always very clear. I wouldn't know what obvious issues he should have been addressing. All I'm noting is that the issues he chose to address and the insight he provided doesn't seem to have shaken the scholarly world.
I'd be interested in Peterson's take on Streuss's topic. Is Hugh Nibley an Enigma, a scholar's scholar? Does the fact that two professors had an interesting exchange on something Nibley wrote Put Nibley head an shoulders above his peers? Nibley fits one half of the scholarly Enigma mold. He's got the quirky and unconventional genius part down. But he didn't contribute anything that will be noted in textbooks and seriously debated a hundred years after his passing. He wasn't a Benjamin Whorf or a Ludwig Wittgenstein.
FAIR has no message board, official or unofficial. The MA&D board doesn't belong to FAIR, and hasn't for quite some time. FAIR's official website is entirely distinct.
(And to think when I saw your name on this thread, I'd be in for an answer to my question. heh.)
I respectfully disagree. In fact, I consider every post on "MAD" written by an apologist from yourself to Charity to be an official representation of the views of the organization FAIR. And if anyone ever were to ask me what FAIR believes, I'd simply point them to MAD.
FAIR divested itself of the message board quite a while ago and exercises precisely no control over it. Few of the leaders of FAIR ever post on MA&D. And I certainly don't speak for FAIR.
However, you have no less freedom to believe that the MA&D board is FAIR's official public voice than certain other people do to believe in the shapeshifting reptilian Mormon brotherhood:
Oh yeah, I remember something like that. But this is the sort of thing apologists do. They divest themselves. The views of FAIR in no way intend to represent the views of the church, the FAIR message board in no way represented the views of FAIR, and the church itself even, according to FAIR, has never had any positions which represent the views of the Lord.