Bill Hamblin Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 I've decided to reread Nibley's CWHN in chronological order. I'm working through the material slowly, and I'm sure it will take a number of years--assuming I don't run out of steam. I'm blogging a bit on my observations of what Nibley is about, if anyone is interested in following along. My link
facie ad faciem Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 Awesome! I've been on somewhat of a Nibley binge the past few months, listening to any recordings of talks, lectures, etc. by or about him that I can get a hold of online or through iTunes.I'll be following along.
Magyar Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 I will follow as well. He was a fascinating man who would be the first to admit he didn't know everything and could come to wrong conclusions.In fact, 20 years ago this week he annoyed the heck out of me with a diatribe presentation at BYU against the Gulf War, which I walked out on. But I love him anyway.
Mike Reed Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 Speaking of Hugh Nibley, Bill..."[T]he knowledge and use of metal plates for the keeping of important records is beginning to emerge as a general practice throughout the ancient world. It will not be long before men forget that in Joseph Smith's day the prophet was mocked and derided for his description of the plates more than anything else." Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, 107. You have quoted Nibley's above remark in a couple works you have written while arguing in favor of the assumed proposition that Joseph's contemporaries almost universally rejected the notion of ancient metal records. Although Joseph's contemporaries indeed mocked and derided him for the plates, these criticisms appear to fall under two general categories: 1) The "gold" plates were associated with the Smith family's treasure seeking activities; and 2) The dimensions and weight of the plates did not seem to add up. Contrary to what Hugh Nibley and others like yourself have asserted/implied, these criticisms overwhelmingly (or is it "underwhelmingly"?) had nothing to do with rejecting the notion that ancient metal records existed in antiquity. I am aware of only one exception from Joseph's contemporaries: LaRoy Sunderland, in his pamphlet Mormonism Exposed and Refuted (Piercy & Reed Printers, New York, 1838). All other criticisms I have found denying the existence of ancient metal records postdate Joseph's death. And if I remember correctly, the earliest you cite is 1857. Am I correct in my assessment? Do you know of any other exception from "Joseph Smith's day"? Your feedback will be much appreciated. Thank you for your time.
Mike Reed Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Speaking of Hugh Nibley, Bill..."[T]he knowledge and use of metal plates for the keeping of important records is beginning to emerge as a general practice throughout the ancient world. It will not be long before men forget that in Joseph Smith's day the prophet was mocked and derided for his description of the plates more than anything else." Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, 107. You have quoted Nibley's above remark in a couple works you have written while arguing in favor of the assumed proposition that Joseph's contemporaries almost universally rejected the notion of ancient metal records. Although Joseph's contemporaries indeed mocked and derided him for the plates, these criticisms appear to fall under two general categories: 1) The "gold" plates were associated with the Smith family's treasure seeking activities; and 2) The dimensions and weight of the plates did not seem to add up. Contrary to what Hugh Nibley and others like yourself have asserted/implied, these criticisms overwhelmingly (or is it "underwhelmingly"?) had nothing to do with rejecting the notion that ancient metal records existed in antiquity. I am aware of only one exception from Joseph's contemporaries: LaRoy Sunderland, in his pamphlet Mormonism Exposed and Refuted (Piercy & Reed Printers, New York, 1838). All other criticisms I have found denying the existence of ancient metal records postdate Joseph's death. And if I remember correctly, the earliest you cite is 1857. Am I correct in my assessment? Do you know of any other exception from "Joseph Smith's day"? Your feedback will be much appreciated. Thank you for your time.
Mike Reed Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 I also emailed my question above to your FARMS colleagues Matthew Roper and John Tvedtnes several days ago. Still waiting to hear back from them too.
Bill Hamblin Posted February 20, 2011 Author Posted February 20, 2011 Somebody should tell Mike I put him on my ignore list. Sorry.
Calm Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 Somebody should tell Mike I put him on my ignore list. Sorry.Mike, apparently Bill has you on his ignore list. Sorry.
Mike Reed Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Mike, apparently Bill has you on his ignore list. Sorry.Ah. Thanks Cal. Good to know. Maybe I will have better luck with Tvedtnes or Roper. Still waiting for a response from them.
Mike Reed Posted February 26, 2011 Posted February 26, 2011 Mike, apparently Bill has you on his ignore list. Sorry.Seems I am on John Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper's ignore list too.
Bill Hamblin Posted February 27, 2011 Author Posted February 27, 2011 New Reading Nibley on my blog. My link
Bill Hamblin Posted March 6, 2011 Author Posted March 6, 2011 New "Reading Nibley" on my blog. My link
Bill Hamblin Posted March 11, 2011 Author Posted March 11, 2011 More "Reading Nibley" on my blog:http://hamblinofjerusalem.wordpress.com/I'm going to stop posting updates here. Those interested can subscribe on the blog.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.