John Gee's Blog of Lamentations

[_sock puppet]

To me, this world built around Nibley is just so weird. I get it but I don't, I mean, I too, was taken by Nibley for several years. Well, I think Nibley's anger is far different than the typical apologist's, but at any rate, you start leaving the teen years and Nibley's idealism slowly reveals itself as fantasy. Good Lord, grown men relying so much on stuff Nibley said 50 years go, stuff that isn't really that original if you look beyond the confines of the Church. I guess the biggest surprise to me in your post and Scratch's recent one is that these two old-school apologists are so filled with the fire of defense for the Kingdom. We haven't heard a whole lot from them in years, it seems to me. Why don't they register here and debate Doctor Scratch? Old inspiration from Nibley, old conflicts from apostates in vogue a couple decades ago or more, where are the battle lines today?

I think Nibley is considered the golden age of Mormon apologetics. The reason: pre-internet. Nibley's BS flourished in a context in which it, for the most part, was not seriously challenged. Nibley's flock was populated mainly with budding BYU students, raised in TBM homes but now at university beginning to inquire for themselves. His vast body of knowledge was impressive to undergraduates, particularly freshman and sophomores fresh back from their missions.

DCP, Gee and Hambone wanted to follow in Nibley's path, but have found that it has been washed away. Blogs that do not allow comments to the contrary of what they post reminds them of the environment in which Nibley could thrive, the salad days of Mormon apologetics--days when the apologist hardly ever had to field a challenge.

"Don't post on my blog. I shall not be challenged. I am entitled to Nibley's mantle."

[_Chap]

"Don't post on my blog. I shall not be challenged. I am entitled to Nibley's mantle."

This move to the unchallenged blog by apologists is an interesting example of a phenomenon akin to evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

Those apologists who engage directly with critics on the internet generally end up looking foolish, as well as (it seems) drawing the unfavorable attention of the Brethren. The only way to survive is to grow a protective membrane that keeps the critics out.

But can a completely encysted entity reproduce its kind? That does not seem to be happening.

[_Blixa]

To me, this world built around Nibley is just so weird. I get it but I don't, I mean, I too, was taken by Nibley for several years. Well, I think Nibley's anger is far different than the typical apologist's, but at any rate, you start leaving the teen years and Nibley's idealism slowly reveals itself as fantasy. Good Lord, grown men relying so much on stuff Nibley said 50 years go, stuff that isn't really that original if you look beyond the confines of the Church. I guess the biggest surprise to me in your post and Scratch's recent one is that these two old-school apologists are so filled with the fire of defense for the Kingdom. We haven't heard a whole lot from them in years, it seems to me. Why don't they register here and debate Doctor Scratch? Old inspiration from Nibley, old conflicts from apostates in vogue a couple decades ago or more, where are the battle lines today?

I think Nibley is considered the golden age of Mormon apologetics. The reason: pre-internet. Nibley's BS flourished in a context in which it, for the most part, was not seriously challenged. Nibley's flock was populated mainly with budding BYU students, raised in TBM homes but now at university beginning to inquire for themselves. His vast body of knowledge was impressive to undergraduates, particularly freshman and sophomores fresh back from their missions.

DCP, Gee and Hambone wanted to follow in Nibley's path, but have found that it has been washed away. Blogs that do not allow comments to the contrary of what they post reminds them of the environment in which Nibley could thrive, the salad days of Mormon apologetics--days when the apologist hardly ever had to field a challenge.

"Don't post on my blog. I shall not be challenged. I am entitled to Nibley's mantle."

Even so, and despite big problems in Nibley's own apologetics, the man represented an entire set of ideals missing in or even repugnant to most of the contemporary mopologetic coterie. Imagine Nibley reading some of the FOXnews shilling on DCP's blog, for instance. Or Gee's anti-intellectualism here.

[_sock puppet]

To me, this world built around Nibley is just so weird. I get it but I don't, I mean, I too, was taken by Nibley for several years. Well, I think Nibley's anger is far different than the typical apologist's, but at any rate, you start leaving the teen years and Nibley's idealism slowly reveals itself as fantasy. Good Lord, grown men relying so much on stuff Nibley said 50 years go, stuff that isn't really that original if you look beyond the confines of the Church. I guess the biggest surprise to me in your post and Scratch's recent one is that these two old-school apologists are so filled with the fire of defense for the Kingdom. We haven't heard a whole lot from them in years, it seems to me. Why don't they register here and debate Doctor Scratch? Old inspiration from Nibley, old conflicts from apostates in vogue a couple decades ago or more, where are the battle lines today?

I think Nibley is considered the golden age of Mormon apologetics. The reason: pre-internet. Nibley's BS flourished in a context in which it, for the most part, was not seriously challenged. Nibley's flock was populated mainly with budding BYU students, raised in TBM homes but now at university beginning to inquire for themselves. His vast body of knowledge was impressive to undergraduates, particularly freshman and sophomores fresh back from their missions.

DCP, Gee and Hambone wanted to follow in Nibley's path, but have found that it has been washed away. Blogs that do not allow comments to the contrary of what they post reminds them of the environment in which Nibley could thrive, the salad days of Mormon apologetics--days when the apologist hardly ever had to field a challenge.

"Don't post on my blog. I shall not be challenged. I am entitled to Nibley's mantle."

Even so, and despite big problems in Nibley's own apologetics, the man represented an entire set of ideals missing in or even repugnant to most of the contemporary mopologetic coterie. Imagine Nibley reading some of the FOXnews shilling on DCP's blog, for instance. Or Gee's anti-intellectualism here.

It's easier to hold ideals when cocooned than when not. Nibley could take the 'higher road' in his pontification than the FARMS bunch because Nibley did not face the onslaught of the information age in as full a bloom as it has been in the last 15 years.

[_Blixa]

It's easier to hold ideals when cocooned than when not. Nibley could take the 'higher road' in his pontification than the FARMS bunch because Nibley did not face the onslaught of the information age in as full a bloom as it has been in the last 15 years.

I was more referring to Nibley's embrace of a very different set of political and moral ideals and understanding of the importance of intellectual work, than his apologia. Nibley was cut from very different cloth than these men, who have absolutely no love for, or perhaps understanding of, intellectual work itself.

None of this has to do with the information age and its impact on apologetics. Nibley's own apologetics were as problematic as any. But, he also represented a set of principles dedicated to the welfare of all humanity; of course this produced conflicts, contradictions and ruptures in his work, as well.

It is the absence of this larger morality that I find distressing in those who claim his mantle.

[_Gadianton]

Even so, and despite big problems in Nibley's own apologetics, the man represented an entire set of ideals missing in or even repugnant to most of the contemporary mopologetic coterie. Imagine Nibley reading some of the FOXnews shilling on DCP's blog, for instance. Or Gee's anti-intellectualism here.

Oh absolutely. That Nibley was an avowed socialist already made him an uncomfortable father figure for the right-wing think tank of mopologetics. He was a contrarian and a loner, bitter, and difficult, but he was this way when it came to Carl Sagan, Fawn Brodie, or Church leadership. He wasn't the type to gang up with similarly bitter countrymen and create a personal war with critics.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

John Gee's Blog of Lamentations

What a great name for a blog. I hope Gee snaps it up.

[_Gadianton]

In his latest blog post, Gee interprets this scripture:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. (Matthew 22:35-38).

Clearly serving God with our minds is a commandment and failure to use the minds that God gave us is a sin. That seems the proper starting point.

Regardless of whether he is thinking of apologetics, isn't his interpretation a bit of a stretch?

[_MCB]

Gad said:

Regardless of whether he is thinking of apologetics, isn't his interpretation a bit of a stretch?

It is a bit of a stretch to interpret that scripture that way. There are others that more solidly substantiate that conclusion, however. I don't feel like looking them up at this minute.

As for application of that idea to Mormonism, it is definitely a way out. Only time will tell.

[_Hermes]

Nibley made us (the third generation of Mormon apologists), and he made us heretics and apostates, mostly. The allure of thinking is pretty strong. Once you start, it is awfully hard to put the cat back in the bag.