Who is The Next Uber-Intellectual LDS Writer?

[jlf9999]

Our church has been blessed with a few super bright very accomplished intellectuals who read widely and have been recognized. But since the death of Hugh Nibley, can we say we have a current one? There are many bright people who are experts in their field but do we have one as widely regarded as Nibley or B. H. Roberts was in his day?

[Elphaba]

Our church has been blessed with a few super bright very accomplished intellectuals who read widely and have been recognized. But since the death of Hugh Nibley, can we say we have a current one? There are many bright people who are experts in their field but do we have one as widely regarded as Nibley or B. H. Roberts was in his day?

What do you mean by "read widely"? Are you saying Nibley read a lot or that a lot of people read him? If it's the first, I would agree. If it's the latter, then I would disagree in that his only audience, for the most part, was a LDS one and in the field of scholarly works, that's just a drop in the bucket.

The same holds true for being "recognized." Very few people outside of the Church would have any idea who Nibley was, both in his day and in ours. But within the Church he was, of course, highly recognized and beloved by the members. I have seen a number of criticisms of his work over the past five years, particularly that he was careless in some of the connections he made. I have no idea if that is true or not, as I read these criticisms on other websites in forums similar to this one, as opposed to an actual scholarly analysis of his work, and therefore am not convinced one way or the other.

There have been many accomplished Mormon intellectuals since Nibley's days. I've only read the works of the historians, the most recent being the scholar Richard Bushman. His phenomenal book, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling is only four years old, and it's hard for me to imagine someone topping it.

But toppings usually do happen and it will be interesting to see who does it.

Elphaba

[miztrniceguy]

I would say it's my wife. But what she writes most LDS would not read, as it's romance. Her 3rd book, Magdalene, comes out 1 week from today. Yes, release date is on Easter. It's about a Mormon bishop and a former prostitute.

[pam]

Of course you would. Nice way to plug your wife. :)

[miztrniceguy]

JLF asked, I gave my opinion.

[pam]

haha a very biased one at that. But that's okay. Plus I think the question was more about intellectual writers and not so much the romantic type writers.

Edited April 17, 2011 by pam

[pam]

Robert Millet would be one that I would consider.

[jlf9999]

Robert Millet would be one that I would consider.

I like Millet too. However I wonder how many readers outside the church read his specialist works. Nibley on the other hand was read by a wider readership than the commenter above seems to believe. I don't say everyone agreed with him because of widespread anti-Mormon bias. That doesn't mean he wasn't read by others though.

Anti-Mormon bias does taint other people's thinking when it comes to religious works but it doesn't diminish the work. - just the objectivity of the bigot.

[pam]

Perhaps because some would have considered Nibley a bit more controversial? Things that are more controversial attract a wider range of readers.

[rameumptom]

The difference is that in Nibley's day, he was pretty much the only one in the field(s). Today, we have many authors in many different fields to choose from. So I don't think we'll ever see just one stand out quite like Hugh Nibley again. While he knew many languages and wrote on ancient and modern themes (Brother Brigham speaks to the Saints, Approaching Zion), most scholars today tend to specialize more.

[jennvan]

What about Skousen? He is widely read both in and out of the church. Anyone like him coming around?

[lizzy16]

I would say it's my wife. But what she writes most LDS would not read, as it's romance. Her 3rd book, Magdalene, comes out 1 week from today. Yes, release date is on Easter. It's about a Mormon bishop and a former prostitute.

Are you serious?

[Elphaba]

Nibley on the other hand was read by a wider readership than the commenter above seems to believe I don't say everyone agreed with him because of widespread anti-Mormon bias. That doesn't mean he wasn't read by others though.

I didn't say he wasn't read by others. You had said "read widely," which I took to mean what it usually means when no audience is specified: read widely by the public at large. Obviously, such was not the case for Nibley.

It's true he was read by others in his field, but even then, I don't think it was enough to have been considered "read widely," but I could be wrong about that.

Additionally, I didn't respond to it in my last post, but you also included B.H. Roberts as widely regarded in his day. Again, people outside the faith knew of him and his work, but not enough of the public at large knew who he was for him to be considered widely regarded by it, in his day or otherwise.

Perhaps you can give a few examples of "read widely" and "widely regarded" so I can better understand what you mean.

Anti-Mormon bias does taint other people's thinking when it comes to religious works but it doesn't diminish the work. - just the objectivity of the bigot.

Was that in response to my comments?

Elphaba

Edited April 18, 2011 by Elphaba
deleted redundant words

[miztrniceguy]

Are you serious?

About which part?

[rameumptom]

What about Skousen? He is widely read both in and out of the church. Anyone like him coming around?

Skousen is no longer with us, so probably wouldn't count. While widely read, he was rather sloppy in many of his writings. Most LDS scholars do not consider him a scholar in the realm of Nibley, etc. Widely read? Only because Glenn Beck resurrected one of his books.

His son, Royal, is a scholar. He has had the training and experience, especially with his research on the original Book of Mormon manuscript. However, Royal isn't widely read in Mormon circles, so probably would not count.

[lizzy16]

About which part?

you're wife, who I'm assuming is a member, is writing about a bishop and a prostitute? I guess to me it seems a little out there? or something.....

[pam]

Before we start to get all judgmental..let's stick with the OP. The OP is asking about intellectual writers.

[Elphaba]

What about Skousen? He is widely read both in and out of the church. Anyone like him coming around?

If his/her subject is American history, I certainly hope not.

Elphaba

[mikbone]

Im not sure if we are going to have one.

In the past a scholar had to have a great grasp on the doctrine and incredible memory of scriptures in which to compose their work.

Now any Tom, **** or Harry can use a simple computer search function to come up with a multitude of information. Just try to imagine the work that McConkie did putting together Mormon Doctrine without a computer to search the scriptures.

The team that is putting together the Joseph Smith Papers are doing an incredibly awesome and schollarly job.

[jlf9999]

I didn't say he wasn't read by others. You had said "read widely," which I took to mean what it usually means when no audience is specified: read widely by the public at large. Obviously, such was not the case for Nibley.

It's true he was read by others in his field, but even then, I don't think it was enough to have been considered "read widely," but I could be wrong about that.

Additionally, I didn't respond to it in my last post, but you also included B.H. Roberts as widely regarded in his day. Again, people outside the faith knew of him and his work, but not enough of the public at large knew who he was for him to be considered widely regarded by it, in his day or otherwise.

Perhaps you can give a few examples of "read widely" and "widely regarded" so I can better understand what you mean.

Was that in response to my comments?

Elphaba

Read widely was not meant to mean the public at large. Nibley was read by other scholars around the world. However there were and are some who because of their anti-Mormon bias would never think of reading any book written by a Mormon. I used bigot because such people are intolerant and hateful towards others.

[Elphaba]

Read widely was not meant to mean the public at large. Nibley was read by other scholars around the world.

Thank you for your clarification. I agree Nibley had a good reputation amongst the non-LDS scholars who knew his work.

However there were and are some who because of their anti-Mormon bias would never think of reading any book written by a Mormon. I used bigot because such people are intolerant and hateful towards others.

Do you have any present-day examples of this happening? It's my impression most LDS scholars are well-respected in their respective fields, sometimes specifically because Mormons have a reputation for honesty. But I admit I haven't looked at it from your perspective before.

Elphaba

[miztrniceguy]

Before we start to get all judgmental..let's stick with the OP. The OP is asking about intellectual writers.

Although my comment was meant tongue in cheek, my wife is extremely intellectual.

As to the story, it's actually an allegory of the atonement. Hence, the title playing upon the myths that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. Also the reason the release date is Easter. It is romantic fiction. It seems you missed the "FORMER PROSTITUTE" part so let me emphasize that part. Does not the atonement apply to someone with that type of past?

[pam]

Although my comment was meant tongue in cheek, my wife is extremely intellectual.

I'm not saying that she isn't. Perhaps the better word would have been to use scholarly. The OP was referring to writers such as Skousen etc who wrote on doctrines of the church. I don't believe he was referring to fiction writers with a LDS undertone or background.

[sixpacktr]

I tend to agree with one of the posters that stated we may never see another one like Nibley. However, now there are several 'think tanks' so to speak that address many issues, like FARMS (I know it has changed its name, I just can't think of it at this time of night) and others that post articles on a wide range of topics. I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing.

[volgadon]

Nibley on the other hand was read by a wider readership than the commenter above seems to believe. I don't say everyone agreed with him because of widespread anti-Mormon bias.

Nibley was a mixed bag. Some of his work was superb, such as his essay on Christian envy of the temple.

In the introduction to section 1 of the third volume of his "The Wisdom of the Zohar", Isaiah Tishby wrote "These two tendencies: the positing of a Temple in the upper world, and interpretation of the Tabernacle, the Temple, and all their related equipment as symbols of cosmic and supernatural phenomena, are developed and expanded much further in rabbinic aggadah[3] and Christian theology[4]."

Footnote number four references H. Nibley, "Christian Envy of the Temple."

"The Wisdom of the Zohar" is an important work in the study of Jewish mysticism, and won Tishby the Bialik and Nordau Prizes.

On the other hand, Nibley's essays on Jaredites as steppe nomads are plagued by severe methodological flaws and other errors, such as the validity of a comparison between Eurasian steppe nomads, an equestrian society in a different geographic area, and ancient Mesopotamian culture, which was decidedly not equestrian.

I sat down in Deseret Books and read the chapter on the Sefer Yetzirah in "One Eternal Round." In one sitting I spotted dozens of errors.

The idea critcism of Nibley is motivated by anti-Mormonism reminds me of a Jewish comedian telling the story of how his family gathered to watch a game with the first Jewish quarterback. His uncle started yelling at the TV, "How dare he! He tackled him! That anti-Semitic @*&$#! tackled him!"