Hugh W. Nibley on Chapel Mormonism: An Analysis

[Guest]

FARMS 20, Volume 2, contains some information I'm afraid I passed over too lightly the first time I read it. As if he were here with us, to contribute to an ongoing discussion on apologist attitudes toward Chapel Mormons, the greatest apologist of all time and likely the founder of Internet Mormonism, Nibley, offers the following insights:

He then outlined "four obvious ways of meeting the challenge[s] of the learned world": "We can ignore them," which is sometimes a good idea, or "we can run away from them" by addressing only our own people as we sell what amounts to feel-good mock wisdom for applause and even real money. Or "we can agree with the world. This has always been the standard procedure with our Mormon intellectuals" (p. 131)—that is, those I call cultural Mormons. The fourth way is to "meet the opposition on their own grounds, publishing in their journals" (p. 132).

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=729

Honestly friends, has this paragraph been taken up by the apologists and ratified as doctrine? One wonders how the apologists can rest at night in their condemnation of Dr. Shades Internet/Chapel Mormon spectrum when they've carved the above sentiments from Nibley in stone.

Nibley's subtlety is amazing:

Chapel Mormons

1) "We can ignore them" [challenges]

This is the typical Chapel Mormon stance, and the apologetic complacency with this is captured in Midgley's approving, "Which is sometimes a Good idea". Note that Ray A. put it like this: "As long as "Chapel Mormons" follow like sheep there isn't a problem."

2)"we can run away from them" [challenges]

And Midgley affirms the anger towards the Chapel Mormons who dare "run away" by "..addressing only our own people as we sell what amounts to feel-good mock wisdom for applause and even real money."

The plot behind the book reviews of Chapel Mormon publications is transparent now.

Liberal Mormons

1) "we can agree with the world. This has always been the standard procedure with our Mormon intellectuals"

A category that is absent from Shades's analysis, as they are out of the scope of TBMs. So Nibley and the apologists call "cultural Mormons" what I think of as liberal believers like Cinepro, Rollo etc..

Internet Mormons

1) "meet the opposition on their own grounds, publishing in their journals"

This is a bit cryptic, but refers to the apologists by the process of elimination. One wonders what kind of secret apologetic warfare the apologists have engaged in by "putting on the clothes of Laban" and deceiving the enemy. Perhaps Skinny-L is the repository of these battle plans.

I'm open to ideas on what is meant here. Publishing in Dialogue? Maybe. I also wondered if this might refer to a lower layer of apologetics, such as Gee's general Egyptology scholarship paid for by the MI that isn't apologetic outright, but seeks to lay a base groundwork that can later be drawn on for gospel insights or even outright apologetics.

At any rate, a fascinating glimpse into the divisions within Mormonism that essentially set up the same boundaries as Dr. Shades, but from the perspective of an apologist.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
"putting on the clothes of Laban"
...

Not the best possible example, perhaps -- but the first that came
to mind --

By the Hands of Mormons?


UD

[_Kishkumen]

I am most interested in what happened to the plan of publishing in the journals of the opposition. That quickly became "publish in journals we control that look as respectable as those of the opposition."

[_Ray A]

I'm open to ideas on what is meant here. Publishing in Dialogue? Maybe.

This article originally appeared in Dialogue in 1978 (interesting choice of readership):

Hugh Nibley, Zeal Without Knowledge. (pdf) (emphasis mine):

"The human brain depends for its normal
alertness, reliability and efficiency on a continuous flow of information about the world. . . . the brain craves for information as the body craves for food." (9) "Both individuals and societies can
become insane without sufficient stimulus." (10) If the mind is denied functioning to capacity, it will take terrible revenge. The penalty we pay for starving our minds is a phenomenon that is only
too conspicuous at the BYU: Aristotle pointed out long ago that a shortage of knowledge is an intolerable state and so the mind will do anything to escape it; in particular, it will invent
knowledge if it has to. Experimenters have found that "lack of information quickly breeds insecurity in a situation where any information is regarded as better than none." (11) In that
atmosphere, false information flourishes and subjects in tests are "eager to listen to and believe any sort of preposterous nonsense.''

---

This illustrates another point--that knowledge can be heady stuff. It easily leads to an excess of zeal--to illusions of grandeur and a desire to impress others and achieve eminence. The
university is nothing more nor less than a place to show off: if it ceased to be that, it would cease to exist.

---

Our search for knowledge should be ceaseless, which means that it is open-ended, never resting on laurels, degrees, or past achievements. "If we get puffed up by thinking that we have much
knowledge, we are apt to get a contentious spirit," and what is the cure? "Correct knowledge is necessary to cast out that spirit."

---

But, he asks, "why be so certain that you
comprehend the things of God, when all things with you are so uncertain?" (27) True knowledge never shuts the door on more knowledge, but zeal often does. One thinks of the dictum: "We are
not seeking for truth at the BYU; we have the truth!" So did Adam and Abraham have the truth, far greater and more truth than what we have, and yet the particular genius of each was that he
was constantly "seeking for greater light and knowledge."

---

We think it more commendable to get up at 5:00 a.m. to write a bad book than to get up at nine o'clock to write a good one--that is pure zeal that tends to breed a race of insufferable, self-righteous prigs and barren minds. One has only to consider the present outpouring of "inspirational" books in the Church which bring little new in the way of knowledge: truisms, and platitudes, kitsch, and
cliches have become our everyday diet. The Prophet would never settle for that. "I advise you to go on to perfection and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of Godliness . . . . It has
always been my province to dig up hidden mysteries, new things, for my hearers." (40) It actually happens at the BYU, and that not rarely, that students come to a teacher, usually at the beginning
of a term, with the sincere request that he refrain from teaching them anything new. They have no desire, they explain, to hear what they do not know already! I cannot imagine that happening at
any other school, but maybe it does. Unless we go on to other new things, we are stifling our powers.

I think Nibley was initially open to the "Dialogue types", that is liberal thinking Mormons, but eventually he ceased to publish there, as did many others who felt it had gone "apostate". That is, it actually took Nibley's suggestions seriously, to go beyond "kitsch, platitudes and cliches". The truth, apparently, was taking them down roads they didn't want to venture. So they left that to the "apostates" and "liberals".

[_Dr. Shades]

Thanks, Gadianton, for bringing that to our attention and kindly adding your thoughts as well. Very interesting stuff.

One wonders how the apologists can rest at night in their condemnation of Dr. Shades Internet/Chapel Mormon spectrum when they've carved the above sentiments from Nibley in stone. . . At any rate, a fascinating glimpse into the divisions within Mormonism that essentially set up the same boundaries as Dr. Shades, but from the perspective of an apologist.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: It never ceases to amaze me how Mopologists will vehemently deny any Internet/Chapel dichotomy when they hear it from me, but when they hear it from one of their own, they consider it nothing less than self-evident.

I am most interested in what happened to the plan of publishing in the journals of the opposition.

Hah! You know what? I thought the exact same thing when I read that.

One has only to consider the present outpouring of "inspirational" books in the Church which bring little new in the way of knowledge: truisms, and platitudes, kitsch, and cliches have become our everyday diet.

I think Nibley may have been projecting a little. When a book sits on the shelves, he probably believed that the author's (failed) intent was, like him, to bring something new in the way of knowledge. He may not have considered that the only intent of a great majority of such Deseret Book authors was merely to ca$h in on the gospel.

It actually happens at the BYU, and that not rarely, that students come to a teacher, usually at the beginning of a term, with the sincere request that he refrain from teaching them anything new.

That's utterly unfathomable to me. I'm not sure I believe it, frankly. What's the point of coming to college for any reason other than to learn new things?

If Nibley wasn't deceased, I'd have to "CFR" on that one.

[_Ray A]

It actually happens at the BYU, and that not rarely, that students come to a teacher, usually at the beginning of a term, with the sincere request that he refrain from teaching them anything new.

That's utterly unfathomable to me. I'm not sure I believe it, frankly. What's the point of coming to college for any reason other than to learn new things?

If Nibley wasn't deceased, I'd have to "CFR" on that one.

He's talking about Gospel related subjects, not general academia. All of the preceding statements make that clear. I think he felt that the religious studies curriculum should have gone further than "kitsch" and "platitudes". He's talking about going beyond that and "digging up mysteries", exploring new avenues of interpretation. For a better context, see Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless. I take it that his sometime two hour talks on the temple were not greeted with much enthusiasm.

[_Dr. Shades]

He's talking about Gospel related subjects, not general academia. All of the preceding statements make that clear.

Oh, okay. }whew{ Thanks for clarifying that.

I think he felt that the religious studies curriculum should have gone further than "kitsch" and "platitudes". He's talking about going beyond that and "digging up mysteries", exploring new avenues of interpretation.

I don't see anything wrong with going that route, either. I can, however, believe that students requested that he not do so, since I myself viewed that mindset firsthand in the M.T.C.

[_Gadianton]

Some great comments here. UDale, your example may be one of the best. Another example might be that "Abraham Traditions" book. I think Reverand Kishkumen is right though, if this is what Nibley meant, then apologetics has failed, and I need to revise my other post to reflect this.

Ray and Shades have a good discussion going on what Nibley meant by learning "new things". At face value, I think Nibley is wrong. I have never, for instance, seen a BYU student or missionary offended or unintrested in W. Cleon Skousen's "A Personal Search for the Meaning of the Atonement". I have never seen a student offended by a discussion on the Last Days or the return of Christ. I can think off the top of my head though two clear occasions where many students were offended by new things a BYU teacher was teaching.

exhibit a)

One of my professors at BYU, a teacher who knew Hugh Nibley and had taught at least one class with him in the past, taught our class that the Book of Job is a farce and unbelievable. He said regarding the conversation between Jesus and Satan, "We're all adults here, come on, I just don't buy it". A number of students were infuriated, and his teacher review per his comments to me later took a big hit.

exhibit b)

Another professor I had was big on promoting what is now, many years later, the subject of the upcoming SMPT Conference, the gospel as "pluralistic". he taught that Muhammad, and many other figures from other religions, were all true prophets. The class became outraged, hands went up for clarification, and he had no trouble at all saying that the supernatural experiences they claimed really did happen and they were true prophets, in their time, just as Joseph Smith was in ours. There are "uh"s and "no"s heard thoughout the class, these students were not happy about this new teaching.

[_Doctor Scratch]

This is very thought-provoking. Like the Reverend, I too am intrigued by the so-called "4th Scenario." It *is* quite cryptic, and one does indeed wonder what Midgley meant, exactly.

I'm open to ideas on what is meant here. Publishing in Dialogue? Maybe. I also wondered if this might refer to a lower layer of apologetics, such as Gee's general Egyptology scholarship paid for by the MI that isn't apologetic outright, but seeks to lay a base groundwork that can later be drawn on for gospel insights or even outright apologetics.

Well, I think that's exactly it. My guess as to what happened goes like this: during the whole "Ziggurat" period of Mopologetic history, the Church demanded that FARMS be linked up with BYU. The apologists would have preferred to carry on with their SOP, bile-infused, attack-dog-style apologetics, but the Church knew better. The Brethren essentially told the apologists that they would need to tone down their violent ways, and that they would need to undergird their apologetics with "bonafide" scholarship. By doing "legit" work---such as Gee's Egyptology, or DCP's METI project, or the Dead Sea Scrolls stuff---and by subtly connecting it with apologetics, then apologetics will begin to seem more credible. Thus, I think this is what is meant by "meeting critics on their own ground": the apologists will show that they are capable scholars in the fields of history, Arab studies, Egyptology, and so on---even publishing in the top journals---and this will help lend credence to their apologetic work. This has been their answer to critics for years. Whenever some apologist's argument is challenged (and the intellectual work thereof), the apologists will say, "Well, the degree-granting people at Yale University certainly thought so-and-so was a perfectly capable thinker and scholar." This is one of the more diabolical facets of contemporary, DCP-led apologetics, in my opinion.

But there is another aspect to all of this, and I think it is properly summed up in the anecdote about Midgley going to the Tanners' bookstore. Basically, I think that the "4th Scenario" is a defense of the attitude where apologists viciously and aggressively confront critics in very pushy and personal ways. Again: think of Midgley's assault on S. Tanner, or Bill Hamblin's RfM tirade; or DCP's harrassment via email of countless Church critics. These apologists seek out these nasty confrontations and try to needle critics into making emotional reactions, which are then posted onto SHIELDS. (This also helps explain why S. Barker was so bent out of shape over Dr. Shades's inquiries.)

In any case, I'm grateful to Dean Robbers for bringing forth this stimulating and provocative analysis. It really helps to shed light on this peculiar, mysterious phenomenon.

[_Ray A]

At face value, I think Nibley is wrong. I have never, for instance, seen a BYU student or missionary offended or unintrested in W. Cleon Skousen's "A Personal Search for the Meaning of the Atonement". I have never seen a student offended by a discussion on the Last Days or the return of Christ. I can think off the top of my head though two clear occasions where many students were offended by new things a BYU teacher was teaching.

Some points here (I'm tired and this may be my only post today). Skousen was more of a showman and populariser, not a scholar. Those old enough may remember Nibley's Ensign series "The Return of the Book of Enoch" (1975). It's fairly heavy reading with the usual trademark esoteric footnotes, hundreds of them, many in German. His essays "The Expanding Gospel", and "Treasures in the Heavens" (Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless) also show a marked difference in their approaches. Skousen's books are, by comparison, easy reading.

My guess is if you ask members of the Church (I'm not sure about now) who Cleon Skousen is, and who Hugh Nibley is, Skousen would be much more easily recognised. His books were also in a sense the sort of "platitudes" Nibley talked about, hence their popularity with the members, also Deseret, and formerly Bookcraft. When I joined the Church, just about everyone knew who Cleon Skousen was. One of my mission presidents even handed out Cleon Skousen tapes. Nibley was "too deep" for most, hence I can easily understand the attitude of students at BYU. Not that I think that Nibley was on to much with his "parallelomania". But he was an eccentric who had some important things to say, especially when criticising the Church and the Brethren in diplomatic, and sometimes not so diplomatic ways.

What is missing from all this is that we still haven't seen a late 20th century, early 21st century B.H. Roberts, who stands out more than both of them. The unfortunate truth is that, today, when someone stands up and proclaims, "how shall we escape these difficulties?", the reply is "what difficulties?". That should encapsulate what I'm trying to say. This was the reaction to Roberts, and it is still the reaction of the Brethren today. Ther are no difficulties, at least none that will be publicly admitted. The Church has undergone a huge shift from openness to defensiveness, at all costs, and in doing so it has alienated many seekers of truth.

I'm not suggesting that the truth will save Mormonism. It will likely lose more members. And that's the Catch 22. The Mexican stand off. The Church will not consider for one minute the possibility that the Book of Mormon might not be history (which Roberts most certainly did). Its whole foundation is built upon this belief. So "apologetics" is like the Trojan Horse. The Brethren speak, the apologists defend, and The Mighty Ship Zion sails on. "If it will not help our cause, we don't want to know about it." It's sort of like the Titanic going full steam ahead, in spite of serious warnings of icebergs ahead. This was no accident, it was sheer stupidity and a lack of judgement and foresight. It's something like ignoring the warning B.H. Roberts gave some 80 years ago.