Approaching Zion by Hugh Nibley


Connie
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 4 months later...

I try to avoid anything written by Hugh Nibley, his methodology was questionable at best. I find his work as a whole to be unreliable and unhelpful. Waste of time IMO.

I find his works to be very difficult to read but he is one of the greatest scholars of our time.

He is also the only person that I know that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have asked to give them a lecture. Let alone a church topic. This was done on the fourth floor of the SLC Temple. Parts of his lecture has been repeated by General authorities in Conference.

Also when President Hinckley started building all of those temples the Church went to Nibley to find out what exactly needed to be in a temple.

He still has a strong following of scholars, like Truman G Madsen. And I would take Madsen's opinion of a Gospel Scholar in our church over most people's.

I have read everything that I could of Nibley's and am always impressed.

Be forewarned though. Alot of people don't like him. As President Hinckley said, He is probably the greatest critic of the Church. However he does this in a non accusing fashion which helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find his works to be very difficult to read but he is one of the greatest scholars of our time.

Most LDS scholars don't take his work very seriously today, and his work is largely unknown outside the church. His methodology is outdated at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst. I think BYU professor / FARMS contributor Kent P. Jackson best summed up Nibley's work in his BYU Studies review of Collected Works of Hugh Nibley. He points out that:

1. "In most of the articles Nibley shows a tendency to gather sources from a variety of cultures all over the ancient world, lump them all together, and then pick and choose the bits and pieces he wants. By selectively including what suits his presuppositions and ignoring what does not, he is able to manufacture an ancient system of religion that is remarkably similar in many ways to our own--precisely what he sets out to demonstrate in the first place."

2. "Nibley often uses his secondary sources the same way he uses his primary sources--taking phrases out of context to establish points with which those whom he quotes would likely not agree."

3. "Several of the articles lack sufficient documentation and some lack it altogether".

4. "Nibley's wit has made him one of the most sought-after speakers in the Church. But I am dismayed to find in this collection several passages in which his satire tends toward sarcasm and name-calling, which have no place in serious scholarship".

Hugh Nibley reviewed by a BYU religious professor * Mormonismus(Mormonen)-Online

Douglas F. Salmon in Dialogue seems to agree:

"The number of parallels that Nibley has been able to uncover from amazingly disparate and arcane sources is truly staggering. Unfortunately, there seems to be a neglect of any methodological reflection or articulation in this endeavor".

Hugh Nibley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think Hugh Nibley's popularity in the church is best summed up in BYU:A House of Faith, by Bergera and Priddis, pg 362:

"As a former BYU history professor observered in 1984, '[Nibley] has been a security blanket for Latter-day Saints to whom dissonance is intolerable....His contribution to dissonance management is not so much what he has written, but that he has written. After knowing Hugh Nibley for forty years, I am of the opinion that he has been playing games with his readers all along....Relatively few Latter-day Saints read the Nibley books that they give one another, or the copiously annotated articles that he has contributed to church publications. It is enough for most of us that they are there.'"

He is also the only person that I know that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have asked to give them a lecture. Let alone a church topic. This was done on the fourth floor of the SLC Temple. Parts of his lecture has been repeated by General authorities in Conference.

Hugh Nibley duped a lot of people in his day. The First Presidency was obviously no exception.

Also when President Hinckley started building all of those temples the Church went to Nibley to find out what exactly needed to be in a temple.

??

One would think that would've been pretty well established well before Hinckley's time.

He still has a strong following of scholars, like Truman G Madsen. And I would take Madsen's opinion of a Gospel Scholar in our church over most people's.

Not really. Also Truman G. Madsen and Hugh Nibley were contemporaries, both from the old-school methodology of finding parallels where they didn't exist to prove a point. I like Truman G. Madsen, but that doesn't mean that I'm impressed by Nibley's questionable, less-than-vigorous approach to LDS scholarship.

I have read everything that I could of Nibley's and am always impressed.

The only thing that impresses me (and not necessarily in a positive way) is the extent to which he went to "prove" parallels where there were none.

Be forewarned though. Alot of people don't like him. As President Hinckley said, He is probably the greatest critic of the Church. However he does this in a non accusing fashion which helps.

Well Nibley sometimes criticized Mormon culture as "kitschy", and as a Democrat was critical of Republican policies, but he was never critical of the church itself. In fact he was one of its foremost apologists. His entire body of work is devoted to "proving" the church is true. I don't know how Hinckley could honestly call him "the greatest critic of the church" when virtually everything he wrote was in defense / support of it.

If anyone doesn't "like" him, it is probably due to his flawed methodology and intellectually dishonest approach. He was an apologist first and foremost, not a scholar. Which might be fine for some people, but I prefer my church scholarship a little more rigorous.

Edited by Barter_Town
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Approaching Zion is a collection of some of his best stuff, and probably some of the easiest reading from him. Great insights in to money that seems rather prophetic of our current economic situation. As you can see, his name stirs-up a lot of conjecture among self titled intellectuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read much of Hugh Nibley's stuff. Mostly I've seen him in BYU programming. Listening to him can be difficult, but only because he has such a vast wealth of intelligence and tries to express it in such compressed periods of time. It's kind of like hooking a talking doll up to a car battery. I think I'd greatly benefit from reading what the man had to say rather than hearing it.

I hear that's just the way the man was, that he was just driven to learn and study like that, and it comes out in how he tries to teach, very rapidly.

I read and enjoyed his critique on Fawn Brodie's anti-Mormon book, which reminds me; I've never heard of Hugh Nibley described as a critic of the Church until now. I've heard him called an LDS apologist, but never a critic.

Could it be that maybe he didn't shy away from things that tend to challenge the faith of weaker people? I've heard B.H. Roberts was like that. Is that the case?

Of course, in the end, all that really matters is our testimony, and if we have one, unanswered questions can wait. If we don't have one, the answers don't matter anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think BYU professor / FARMS contributor Kent P. Jackson best summed up Nibley's work in his BYU Studies review of Collected Works of Hugh Nibley. He points out that:

1. "In most of the articles Nibley shows a tendency to gather sources from a variety of cultures all over the ancient world, lump them all together, and then pick and choose the bits and pieces he wants. By selectively including what suits his presuppositions and ignoring what does not, he is able to manufacture an ancient system of religion that is remarkably similar in many ways to our own--precisely what he sets out to demonstrate in the first place."

2. "Nibley often uses his secondary sources the same way he uses his primary sources--taking phrases out of context to establish points with which those whom he quotes would likely not agree."

3. "Several of the articles lack sufficient documentation and some lack it altogether".

4. "Nibley's wit has made him one of the most sought-after speakers in the Church. But I am dismayed to find in this collection several passages in which his satire tends toward sarcasm and name-calling, which have no place in serious scholarship".

Nothing against Jackson but I would like to point out 2 things.

First I have not followed him that much but it I am sure he has not done as much research as Nibley. All of his contemporaries that knew him talk of the massive amount of books that he read in his lifetime. Most of these were not in English but were from cultures all over the ancient world. That is why we like to read what he wrote. He was fluent in at least 16 languages, and some were root languages which meant that he could understand several. Nibley read more in one of those 16 languages than most of us will ever read in the English language in our entire lifetime. On top of this Nibley had the intellect to understand more of what he read than very few others.

Also the amount of scholarly work Nibley has had published is far greater than Jackson. Obviously this leaves him open to more criticism than Jackson. That is why Farms was created in the first place. To publish Nibley's work.

My second point is this. I have never heard of the First Presidency requesting Jackson to prepare a talk on any subject, and then deliver it to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on the fourth floor of the SLC Temple. When this happens let me know and I will reconsider his criticism of Nibley. Until then I will continue to believe that Gordon B Hinckley was and is a true prophet of God and was not duped in one of the holiest places on Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First I have not followed him that much but it I am sure he has not done as much research as Nibley.

Well I think it's more a question of the quality, rather than quantity, of his scholarship. And it isn't just Jackson who has this opinion, it's pretty much the entire current LDS scholar / historian community.

All of his contemporaries that knew him talk of the massive amount of books that he read in his lifetime.

I'm sure he did. If you want an apologist perspective, I'm sure you'll enjoy Nibley just fine. If you want something a little more objective, you are better served looking elsewhere.

Most of these were not in English but were from cultures all over the ancient world. That is why we like to read what he wrote.

Well that's the sort of mythology around him, anyway. A lot of scholars have since found that he made up a lot of stuff. Most of his writing is a bunch of fluff.

He was fluent in at least 16 languages, and some were root languages which meant that he could understand several. Nibley read more in one of those 16 languages than most of us will ever read in the English language in our entire lifetime.

Again, that's the mythology he built around himself. He didn't submit his work to peer review, so he's largely unknown outside of the church. Even LDS scholars question the value of his work. Most people don't even read his books. Everyone outside the scholarly community just takes his word for it. Which is fine, if that's what you want. He was an apologist first and foremost.

On top of this Nibley had the intellect to understand more of what he read than very few others.

Actually, many people have found that his methodology was flawed.

Also the amount of scholarly work Nibley has had published is far greater than Jackson.

Again, it's the quality of that scholarship that is in question. Nibley was the church's greatest apologist, it was his life's work, why wouldn't he publish a voluminous amount of writing?

Obviously this leaves him open to more criticism than Jackson. That is why Farms was created in the first place. To publish Nibley's work.

Well as you can see, some FARMS scholars have since questioned the value of his work.

My second point is this. I have never heard of the First Presidency requesting Jackson to prepare a talk on any subject, and then deliver it to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on the fourth floor of the SLC Temple.

This doesn't really mean anything. The church subsidizes FARMS. Obviously the First Presidency will support anything that defends the faith. They like to hear anything that supports what they say.

I guess you have to ask yourself, why would a prophet (and apostles) need to be lectured by an apologist?

When this happens let me know and I will reconsider his criticism of Nibley.

Like I said, if your approach to LDS history and doctrine is of the "faith first" variety, I'm sure Nibley will suit you just fine. If you want something a little more objective, there are better places to look.

Until then I will continue to believe that Gordon B Hinckley was and is a true prophet of God and was not duped in one of the holiest places on Earth.

Well it wouldn't be the first time Hinckley was duped. Have a look into the Mark Hofman affair:

Mark William Hofmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read very little Nibley, but from what I've read Jackson appears to be spot-on.

I like the idea of the GAs hearing a variety of perspectives about a variety of topics; so I'm no more bothered by their listening to Nibley lecture than I am by their attending a private screening of Amazing Grace from Larry H. Miller.

Oh, and by the way--a couple of years ago, for a Client Crisis Management course in law school, I did a research paper about the Church's public relations efforts during the Mark Hofmann affair. During the course of that research I went into LDS Archives and read every single news release, Ensign article, and Church News story from the period during which Hofmann's documents were coming out. The Church did buy (or broker the purchase of) a lot of his stuff; but its pronouncements on the validity of those documents were a lot more circumspect than some would have you believe. Turley's Victims is also a must-read for anyone who hopes to discourse intelligibly on Mark Hofmann.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think it's more a question of the quality, rather than quantity, of his scholarship. And it isn't just Jackson who has this opinion, it's pretty much the entire current LDS scholar / historian community.

I'm sure he did. If you want an apologist perspective, I'm sure you'll enjoy Nibley just fine. If you want something a little more objective, you are better served looking elsewhere.

Well that's the sort of mythology around him, anyway. A lot of scholars have since found that he made up a lot of stuff. Most of his writing is a bunch of fluff.

Again, that's the mythology he built around himself. He didn't submit his work to peer review, so he's largely unknown outside of the church. Even LDS scholars question the value of his work. Most people don't even read his books. Everyone outside the scholarly community just takes his word for it. Which is fine, if that's what you want. He was an apologist first and foremost.

Actually, many people have found that his methodology was flawed.

Again, it's the quality of that scholarship that is in question. Nibley was the church's greatest apologist, it was his life's work, why wouldn't he publish a voluminous amount of writing?

Well as you can see, some FARMS scholars have since questioned the value of his work.

This doesn't really mean anything. The church subsidizes FARMS. Obviously the First Presidency will support anything that defends the faith. They like to hear anything that supports what they say.

I guess you have to ask yourself, why would a prophet (and apostles) need to be lectured by an apologist?

Like I said, if your approach to LDS history and doctrine is of the "faith first" variety, I'm sure Nibley will suit you just fine. If you want something a little more objective, there are better places to look.

Well it wouldn't be the first time Hinckley was duped. Have a look into the Mark Hofman affair:

Mark William Hofmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not going to argue. Obviously your opinion differs from mine. However there is one thing that I think everyone has to agree on about Nibley. He had the intellect to go into any field that he wanted. After finishing graduate school his work was being published on a regular basis. However within a short time he took a job at BYU working for peanuts at the request of an Apostle. He continued in the capacity until he retired shortly before his death. Unlike many members who become scholars his testimony cannot be questioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a shout out to any and all who have read this book. I am looking for thoughts, opinions, insights, comments or whatever else went through your minds as you read this book.

Thanks!

I consider this advance reading material and requires return to the material to contemplate on what material is presented and how it is presented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not going to argue. Obviously your opinion differs from mine. However there is one thing that I think everyone has to agree on about Nibley. He had the intellect to go into any field that he wanted. After finishing graduate school his work was being published on a regular basis. However within a short time he took a job at BYU working for peanuts at the request of an Apostle. He continued in the capacity until he retired shortly before his death. Unlike many members who become scholars his testimony cannot be questioned.

Concur...only few people I am aware of had an opportunity to view the afterlife in clarity and lived to talk about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hugh had a new death experience where he had the opportunity to visit one of the cities across the veil and prior to leaving, ask the ministering spirit if he could have five-minutes in the cities library. Not going into greater detail, he could describe everything within the city, the light tunnel, and how we learn there verses here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However there is one thing that I think everyone has to agree on about Nibley. He had the intellect to go into any field that he wanted.

Maybe so, which is all the more tragic that he chose to waste it in common apologetics.

Sorry, but I have to question the intellectual honesty of someone who proclaimed Mark Hofmann's forgery of the Anthon transcript as authentic. Any other scholar of ancient manuscripts would have known it was a fraud within minutes. The fact the Nibley hailed it as "absolutely translatable" and "as good a test as we'll ever get of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon" seriously undermines his credibility and objectivity as a scholar. Like I said, he was an apologist first and foremost.

Edited by Barter_Town
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Church did buy (or broker the purchase of) a lot of his stuff; but its pronouncements on the validity of those documents were a lot more circumspect than some would have you believe.

Well given the embarrassing nature of these documents (had they been authentic), I would expect the church to have said as little as possible. They certainly paid a good amount of money to acquire them, though.

Turley's Victims is also a must-read for anyone who hopes to discourse intelligibly on Mark Hofmann.

Turley's book seems to be the least reputable of the books on the Hofmann case, given its apologetic tone and constant diversions into defending the LDS faith as a whole. It is basically the church's side of the story, and as such, does not take the most balanced approach. Did you read the more evenhanded "Salamander" or "The Poet and the Murderer"? Or, "The Mormon Murders"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Well given the embarrassing nature of these documents (had they been authentic), I would expect the church to have said as little as possible. They certainly paid a good amount of money to acquire them, though.

Turley's book seems to be the least reputable of the books on the Hofmann case, given its apologetic tone and constant diversions into defending the LDS faith as a whole. It is basically the church's side of the story, and as such, does not take the most balanced approach. Did you read the more evenhanded "Salamander" or "The Poet and the Murderer"? Or, "The Mormon Murders"?

What tripe. And you call Nibley biased. Please.

I noticed you didn't mention Kent Jackson's essay in "By Study and Also By Faith, the two volumes of essays in honor of Nibley. I also noticed that will all of your bluster, you haven't offered much in the way of direct evidence of your claims against Nibley--you know, actually taking on his work without reference drawing on the one essay by Kent Jackson--who, by the way, also wrote an essay in defense of Nibley from his daughter's awful book.

I repeat, what tripe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nibley's methodology was NOT flawed. That is simply silly. He used the exact same methodology as all scholars in his day used, and are *still* using. It is sour grapes to say otherwise. I have several HUNDRED of his sources, and Nibley was not intellectually dishonest. That is a lie. Sure he made mistakes, but intellectually dishonest he absolutely was not such.

And his peers absolutely respected him. At his 85th birthday the Festschrift for him had numerous non-LD scholars who were thrilled to participate in celebrating his life, James H. Charlesworth, Frank Moore Cross, Jr., Jacob Neusner, Cyrus Gordon, Jacob Milgrom, Raphael Patai, etc.

Did everyone agree with him? Heavens no, I still don't in some areas, but to then say he is intellectually dishonest and not respected? Good grief, that is blatantly false.

I have read absolutely *everything* the man ever published (and some he didn't too), several times, and I have always found him stimulating and exciting interesting and informative reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barter town:

Sorry, but I have to question the intellectual honesty of someone who proclaimed Mark Hofmann's forgery of the Anthon transcript as authentic. Any other scholar of ancient manuscripts would have known it was a fraud within minutes. The fact the Nibley hailed it as "absolutely translatable" and "as good a test as we'll ever get of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon" seriously undermines his credibility and objectivity as a scholar. Like I said, he was an apologist first and foremost.

Kerry:

Your bias gives you away. There were a LOT of people both LDS and non-LDS who were taken in by Hofman, but is this proof of "intellectual dishonesty"?! And I have never read or seen where Nibley says about the Hofman forgeries what you attribute to him saying. So you have a source I can read that from? Thank you. If it's the Tanners or Wesley Walters, or other blatant anti-Mormons, don't bother. Their own biases have destroyed them, as has their own intellectual dishonesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a Guy:

I've read very little Nibley, but from what I've read Jackson appears to be spot-on.

Kerry:

I have read absolutely ***EVERYTHING*** Nibley published, numerous times over, and I think Jackson is wrong, and professionally jealous. Nothing he writes has near the caliber and quality of Nibley's materials. Jackson shot himself in the foot with his obviously jealous response to Nibley's materials. Why take Jackson's uninformed opinions about Nibley instead of say, Jack Welch's or Daniel C. Peterson's, or Neal A. Maxwell's, or John Gee's, or Michael Dennis Rhodes, or William Hamblin's, or David B. Honey's, or Gordon C. Thommason's opinions into account?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barter Town:

Well as you can see, some FARMS scholars have since questioned the value of his work.

Kerry:

Is that why they actually put together the *ENTIRE* collected works of Hugh Nibley (19 vols thus far), and CONTINUE to lecture in the FARMS lectures THIS ENTIRE MONTH OF MARCH 2010 about his great insights, abilities, talents, phenomenal knowledge, incredible work? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA! Dude you are losing credibility very FAST with uninformed comments like this. Man get serious or shut up already.

Show me just ONE of the scholars who have contributed to the FAMRS Hugh Nibley collection prject who says what you attribute to them, JUST NAME *****ONE***** is all I am asking. I know all of them, and am in communication with all of them, so I actually do know better than this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's fascinating that Jackson cannot figure out Nibley's context, and so says there is no methodology or context, yet Nibley himself explained that context. It suggests that Jackson didn't have the intellectual capacity for comprehending Nibley. It's like a flea taking on the blue whale giant of pretending he comprehends the giant.

Nibley said many times, and even in his famous interview with Louis Midgley (who knew Nibley far better and more intimately than Jackson) he explained his methodology as patternism, exactly as tyhe Cambridge scholars looked at things. Jackson couldn't comprehend it because he only dealt in mostly LDS literature while Nibley mastered (with over 13 languages none the less!) the world's views as well. Jackson is way out of his league trying to critique something he himself is incapable of bringing forth. One only has to read *anything* from Jackson's pen, and compare it with Nibley's writings to see the flea and the blue whale in intellectual stature, ability and power. Jackson's fluff and pablum of repeating the same old, same old for decades obviously cannot fathom the cosmological scope of Nibley's godly comprehension.

And besides.....for critics against Nibley who pretend they love and accept what Jackson wrote as being accurate and true of Nibley, does that mean you accept what else Jackson has written about Mormonism and the Gospel? No? Then why accept his meager offering against Nibley, unless it suits your purposes? But then again, you are more than welcome to welcome the flea. The blue whale has not been injured, not even in the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share