aussieguy55 Posted September 28, 2018 Posted September 28, 2018 Nibley makes a frank comment about his own work and the also on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=828253 SL: Looking back at your career, important work that you've what is the most written, either article or book, or what do you feel the proudest about? HN: The ones I'm the proudest about are those, the classical, the Greco-Roman studies. I've tried so hard to get the F.A.R.M.S. people to print them, instead of the garbage they've been getting out of mine. I don't like the stuff they've been printing. SL: Don't they plan to reprint everything? HN: Which is absurd, because there's bad stuff as well as good stuff. It makes me so angry. They should not reprint everything. SL: But no one knows what's good and what's bad, except you, and you don't have the time. "One of Larson’s questions was: „Do you think there is any kind of a legitimate place for a more modern view of The Book of Mormon that places the value in these characterizations [sc. of personages in the Book of Mormon] and the moral principles in the book, but lacking any historical"? Nibley answered: „Oh, they do that all the time, of course. I know General Authorities who do that, have done that – they’re not living now – who have done that very thing.“ But he refused to give a name, only adding: „a very high General Authority“. I wonder if this was Hugh B Brown.
Benjamin Seeker Posted September 29, 2018 Posted September 29, 2018 David O McKay. Apparently, there was a rumor that was passed around about this in the past. Greg Prince has said that Nibley told him this about McKay off the record when Prince interviewed Nibley for his book on McKay. 1
mfbukowski Posted September 29, 2018 Posted September 29, 2018 Pre 1990 there was a statement made in the presentation of the endowment which said something along the lines of "The story of the man and woman is strictly figurative". I know those are not the correct words but-- words to that effect. 3
strappinglad Posted September 29, 2018 Posted September 29, 2018 19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Pre 1990 there was a statement made in the presentation of the endowment which said something along the lines of "The story of the man and woman is strictly figurative". I know those are not the correct words but-- words to that effect. True. I think it referred to the creation story of Adam and Eve specifically. Personally I agree with Brigham's ' transplant ' ideas . 2
mfbukowski Posted September 29, 2018 Posted September 29, 2018 19 minutes ago, strappinglad said: True. I think it referred to the creation story of Adam and Eve specifically. Personally I agree with Brigham's ' transplant ' ideas . Yes, it was about Adam & Eve. 1
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted September 29, 2018 Popular Post Posted September 29, 2018 (edited) 15 hours ago, aussieguy55 said: Nibley makes a frank comment about his own work and the also on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=828253 SL: Looking back at your career, important work that you've what is the most written, either article or book, or what do you feel the proudest about? HN: The ones I'm the proudest about are those, the classical, the Greco-Roman studies. I've tried so hard to get the F.A.R.M.S. people to print them, instead of the garbage they've been getting out of mine. I don't like the stuff they've been printing. SL: Don't they plan to reprint everything? HN: Which is absurd, because there's bad stuff as well as good stuff. It makes me so angry. They should not reprint everything. SL: But no one knows what's good and what's bad, except you, and you don't have the time. ................................. That is typical of Nibley's self-deprecating and ascerbic wit. I still recall the day in 1974 when I visited Prof Nibley in his office in the old Joseph Smith Bldg at BYU. I told him that I was there to prepare a full bibliography for a Festschrift in his honor (edited by Jack Welch). Hugh responded immediately, "Silliest thing I've ever heard!!" Then he promptly made room for me at a desk in his office, and supplied me with the material with which to begin the bibliography. He was humble, kind, and considerate. Always. It was apparent to me then that most people did not understand Nibley -- neither his scholarship, nor his personal views on a whole range of issues. Late in life, Fawn Brodie read Hugh's personal essay on his intellectual history. She realized at once that she had completely misunderstood him, and regretted that she hadn't gotten to know him.. Edited September 29, 2018 by Robert F. Smith 5
aussieguy55 Posted October 1, 2018 Author Posted October 1, 2018 Who profited from the publication of his works?. He did not seem happy with this as he seemed feel that such publication would not show work of a good standard(nor revised and checked).
Kevin Christensen Posted October 1, 2018 Posted October 1, 2018 On 9/28/2018 at 6:51 PM, aussieguy55 said: Nibley makes a frank comment about his own work and the also on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=828253 SL: Looking back at your career, important work that you've what is the most written, either article or book, or what do you feel the proudest about? HN: The ones I'm the proudest about are those, the classical, the Greco-Roman studies. I've tried so hard to get the F.A.R.M.S. people to print them, instead of the garbage they've been getting out of mine. I don't like the stuff they've been printing. SL: Don't they plan to reprint everything? HN: Which is absurd, because there's bad stuff as well as good stuff. It makes me so angry. They should not reprint everything. SL: But no one knows what's good and what's bad, except you, and you don't have the time. "One of Larson’s questions was: „Do you think there is any kind of a legitimate place for a more modern view of The Book of Mormon that places the value in these characterizations [sc. of personages in the Book of Mormon] and the moral principles in the book, but lacking any historical"? Nibley answered: „Oh, they do that all the time, of course. I know General Authorities who do that, have done that – they’re not living now – who have done that very thing.“ But he refused to give a name, only adding: „a very high General Authority“. I wonder if this was Hugh B Brown. Unlikely IMHO, since Brown's once famous "Profile of a Prophet" talk (which became a Missionary pamphlet) was based in Nibley's Lehi in the Desert. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 1
Kevin Christensen Posted October 1, 2018 Posted October 1, 2018 (edited) The whole interview is quite interesting and revealing. It dates to when Nibley was 80, so about 13 years before he died, so around 1991. I quite like the exchange towards the end where Larsen tries to insist that the Book of Mormon is not history because of the doxology in the Lord's prayer. (Larsen has a chapter in Metcalfe's New Approaches making his case that there is no evidence supporting 3 Nephi 11-28 as a historical account) For him, that detail in one verse is, apparently game over, check and mate, all you need to know, all the balance scale requires for a full and final decision, and Nibley does not agree. And I have to consider just how much else there is to consider in 3 Nephi that Larsen, despite his skills and interests, has not discovered. In particular, Jack Welch's stuff on 3 Nephi and the Temple. (Welch responded directly to Larsen in a detailed essay in RBBM 6, and much of his subsequent work on 3 Nephi and the Sermon on the Mount compared to the temple goes way beyond what he had there.) Nibley mentions aspects of the Book of Moses ( published in Enoch the Prophet), particularly the Mahujah story. Notice that this kind of thing makes to impact whatsoever on Larsen, who specialized in New Testament Greek. What does not emerge from his specialty and his chosen approach does not weigh in the balance. In the final chapter of the Improvement Era series on Abraham, Nibley talked about preferring the Big Picture rather than the little picture that comes through narrow focus and tight specialization. [Edited to add] I also love the discussion starting on page 46 in the pdf, page 41 internal numbering, about the human tendency to want other people to repent. "We never repent because we have a nice substitute for repentance, that's the witch hunt, you see..." He goes on, much in the manner of Rene Girard on the scapegoat, on how the Nephites are told that the Lamanites are not and never will be the real problem. It's whether the Nephites will repent. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited October 1, 2018 by Kevin Christensen 1
Recommended Posts