From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: LDS: Nibley, genius or fool
Originator: root@mogate.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:37:58 GMT

<HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET> writes:
> Remember me from a year ago Glenn?  "I'm your worst
> nightmare!"
>
> Glenn would have us believe that Hugh Nibley is a fool.  Let us
> examine how qualified Glenn is to make such an assessment by
> comparing Glenn with Hugh Nibley:
>
> 1.  Hugh Nibley has a Ph.D. from Berkeley.
>    Where did Glenn get his Ph.D.?

When did education, degree, or place of learning become the determinant
of one's 'foolishness'?  My dictionary says:

  'Fool - A person lacking understanding,
          judgment, or common sense.'

> 2.  Hugh Nibley can read well over a dozen languages, including
> Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Arabic, German, French, Italian, Coptic,
> Ancient Egyptian, Aramaic, Syriac, and Old Norse.
>    How many languages does Glenn read?

If Nibley can read ancient Egyptian, why has the book of Abraham,
and the recently discovered papyrus caused him such trouble.  I
believe all respected Egyptologists are in agreement the papyrus
is a pagan funeral legend and there is no connection between it
and the _PoGP/Book of Abraham_.  Nibley discussed the papyri in
a series of articles appearing in _Improvement Era_ from January, 1968
concluding in May, 1970.  The 2 years worth of Nibley's *wisdom* amounted
to nothing more than twaddling.  In one of the articles, Nibley
seriously mistranslated the Egyptian and never noted the mistake in
the subsequent series.

In the May, 1968 issue of _Improvement Era_, Nibley states the
papyri 'has not raised a single new question, though, as we shall
see, it has solved some old ones.'  Just a few short weeks later,
Nibley said the papyrus 'raises alot of questions.  It doesnt answer
any questoins, unless were mind readers.' _Speech, UoU, May 20, 1968_

And then there was Nibley's professed ability to translate what he
thought were Egyptian characters, but in reality were the doodlings
of Mark Hoffman.

> 3.  When completed, the collected works of Hugh Nibley will
> consist of over 10,000 printed pages.  For a complete bibliography as
> of 1988 (he has written a great deal since them) see Louis Midgley,
> "Hugh Winder Nibley: Bibliography and Register" in John M.
> Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, eds, BY STUDY AND ALSO BY
> FAITH, Deseret Book, 1990).  (This bibliographic listing of Nibley's
> publications runs 86 pages.)
>    How many books or articles has Glenn published?

Quantity = Quality?  10,000 pages of what?

Nibley states in _No, Maam_ pg. 57-58, that Joseph Smith's teachings never
had to undergo any alterations.  On pg. 61-62 he states the gospel as the
Mormons know it has never been worked over, touched up, revised, or altered.

Apparently Nibley was too busy getting his Ph.D to look at the facts
concerning Smith's gospel.  Just for starters, why were _Lectures on Faith_
removed LDs *scripture* (D&C)?  Joseph Smith himself signed a statement which
was printed in the Preface of the 1835 Edition of BoC (D&C) which stated the
lectures were included because 'of their embracing the important doctrine of
salvation...'

Dee F. Green, in the summer, 1969 issue of _Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon
Thought_, condemned 2 volumes of Nibley's as being 'fraught with problems.'

In fact, after all of Nibley's vacillation on the Book of Abraham he stated
he would not be held responsible for anything he wrote more than 3 years
previous, and that nearly four fifths of everything he had put down had
changed. _Sunstone, 1979, p.49-51_

 [... ...]

> By the way, I gave this same address to Glenn a year ago.  Did
> he at that time write to FARMS and attempt to see the Mormon
> side of things?  He apparently finds it easier to denounce Mormon
> kiddy books (Glenn wrote: "I found another "cartoon" book called
> "The Book of Mormon on Trial" that anyone who has ever studied
> Mormonism to even the smallest degree could refute in his or her
> sleep.") as superficial, than to read and respond to academically
> complex articles and books written by Mormon scholars.  Does
> Glenn seriously want us to believe that the cartoon book he
> mentions is the height of Mormon scholarship?  If so, Glenn is
> woefully ignorant.

I have read some interesting, and on target, articles written by
Mormons.  These tend to be in _Dialouge_, or other more progressive
literature.  What I envariably find is that the Mormons I come in contact
with are embarrased by these sources and distance themselves from these
types of publications.  It has been my observation that most Mormons read
the 'cartoon' books, as the one mentioned above by Glenn, or the Farnsworth
volumes on BoM archaeology.

> William J. Hamblin

Mark
<my opinions are my own>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc