How Wide The Divide?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Ray A

How Wide The Divide?

Post by _Ray A »

Between the revelatory "gnosis" of Joseph Smith, the "uneducated farm boy", and the modern "Church of the Scholars"?

Hugh Nibley: The Day of the Amateur

A boast of Latter-day Saints is that they have never been afflicted with a professional clergy. To this day, what most impresses outside observers is the fact that almost everything the Mormons do is undertaken on a nonprofessional basis -- and it is done pretty well at that. Only when they have brought in professional help have they come to grief. Professionalism is the child of the universities. Its modern rule began with the Sophists of old. Preceding the Sophists were those wise men called Sophoi, ancient traveling teachers who gave the modern world its moral and intellectual foundations. They were, to a man, amateurs.


Then the Sophists, imitation Sophoi, took over and professionalized everything to the highest degree. They were the great professors, and since they professed publicly and for a fee, Socrates, the champion of the independent mind and not one of the Sophists, advised students to examine every prospective teacher's credentials very carefully and critically before enrolling with him. That indiscretion cost Socrates his life, for the whole point of professionalism is that one's credentials should never be challenged.


Official credentials, a foolproof shield against criticism and scrutiny, were naturally coveted most by those who needed them most: it was the poorly qualified who clamored for the status symbol of the degree. As in the days of the Sophist schools, the great demand for this valuable commodity caused factories or this valuable commodity caused factories to spring up everywhere, competing for degree-seeking customers by making their product ever easier and cheaper to get. At the same time the degree became the object -- the sole object -- of "education." And when it reached that point, it was, of course, worth nothing.


Here they jealously perpetuated their own kind in office and shut out those talented students who might threaten their own supremacy in any way. The more intelligent students had always seen through professorial sham, but as the university population soared into the millions, the tension between the two mounted dangerously. It is no paradox that some of the most intelligent students at the best schools have been causing the most trouble. In fact, most students have been galled by the artificial restraint of professional status.


Okay, I'm putting my cards on the table, that this is where I agree with some of the criticisms Mister Scratch and Gadianton have given. Please note that I am not suggesting financial corruption. It's just that I can't reconcile Nibley's sentiments with all of the focus on degrees and the attainment of academic status as a "necessity" for attaining "credibility", or even a "proper understanding", in the field of Mormon studies. There are already amateurs in that field who are taken seriously, like Kerry Shirts, but while Mormons don't question his credibility, someone like beastie, just as one example, is asked, "what are your qualifications?" (At least by some, and for the record, as an initial critic of her website, I think she poses many unanswered questions that have direct implications for the belief that the Book of Mormon is historical.)

To be fair, the Tanners haven't been exempted from the "urge" to add "professor so-and-so" to anything they wish to be taken seriously, but this isn't by any means a phenomenon peculiar to them.

So what is the future of Mormonism? Will they trust the Prophets, or the Scholars?

>
>
>
>
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: How Wide The Divide?

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Help me understand this, Ray. Why does it appear that Dr. Nibley seems to be drawing focus away from professional scholarship and toward amateurs?

Do I misunderstand the thrust of the quotes you supplied?

I agree with your confusion in the way that beastie is treated vs the way Kerry is received by LDS.

beastie has one area of specialization.
Kerry has no area of specialization.

Of course, I think (as I'm sure that most would) the reception has to do with what side of the apologetic/critic fence one's position is based on.

No surprises there.

Certainly there are talented researchers who hold no degree's at all and who are not affiliated in any way with a professional discipline for the basis of their research.

As for who Mormon's will listen to, Prophets vs Scholars, I'm afraid that in the future, they'll have to listen to their own mind.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Ray A

Re: How Wide The Divide?

Post by _Ray A »

Jersey Girl wrote:Help me understand this, Ray. Why does it appear that Dr. Nibley seems to be drawing focus away from professional scholarship and toward amateurs?


Jersey Girl, Nibley has a reason for saying this. He often commented in "fields of expertise" in which he was not an expert. In those fields, he was as much an amateur as anyone else, but an "informed amateur".
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: How Wide The Divide?

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Ray A wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:Help me understand this, Ray. Why does it appear that Dr. Nibley seems to be drawing focus away from professional scholarship and toward amateurs?


Jersey Girl, Nibley has a reason for saying this. He often commented in "fields of expertise" in which he was not an expert. In those fields, he was as much an amateur as anyone else, but an "informed amateur".


So what you're saying is that in the above series of quotes, he's actually sanctioning his own amateur level occupation?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Ray A

Re: How Wide The Divide?

Post by _Ray A »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Of course, I think (as I'm sure that most would) the reception has to do with what side of the apologetic/critic fence one's position is based on.

No surprises there.


Which side of the "apologetic/critic fence" one is on may influence conclusions, but that's what we have to sort out, and decide. For example, "apologists" say that B.H.Roberts Studies of the Book of Mormon was only "devil's advocate" studies. I strongly disagree, and firmly believe he had some serious "cog.diss" about Book of Mormon historicity. But you'd have to read those studies to form your own conclusion.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: How Wide The Divide?

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Which side of the "apologetic/critic fence" one is on may influence conclusions, but that's what we have to sort out, and decide. For example, "apologists" say that B.H.Roberts Studies of the Book of Mormon was only "devil's advocate" studies. I strongly disagree, and firmly believe he had some serious "cog.diss" about Book of Mormon historicity. But you'd have to read those studies to form your own conclusion.


Well, I don't know that all of us are obligated to sort. My personal conclusion favors the Spalding/Rigdon theory however, I don't think it has any personal impact on me.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Ray A

Re: How Wide The Divide?

Post by _Ray A »

Jersey Girl wrote:So what you're saying is that in the above series of quotes, he's actually sanctioning his own amateur level occupation?


Nibley was not only a qualified and respected scholar (fluent in 11 languages). He can hardly be called "an amateur" in academia, and was familiar with "academic discourse" and the protocols of academia, but what he was pointing out is that even this isn't "necessary" for unravelling truth. The university is a modern institution, and what he argues is that it has come to place more emphasis on degrees than on truth. It isn't a "sanctioning" as much giving "the amateur" more "credibility leeway". In his case it was for apologetics, but I think his broader point has been lost on many. I don't think, though I could be wrong, that Nibley ever demanded to know a person's qualifications to take their arguments seriously.
_Ray A

Re: How Wide The Divide?

Post by _Ray A »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Well, I don't know that all of us are obligated to sort. My personal conclusion favors the Spalding/Rigdon theory however, I don't think it has any personal impact on me.


It doesn't on me, either, because I think it's a dud.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: How Wide The Divide?

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Ray A wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
Well, I don't know that all of us are obligated to sort. My personal conclusion favors the Spalding/Rigdon theory however, I don't think it has any personal impact on me.


It doesn't on me, either, because I think it's a dud.


You think the S/R theory is a dud?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Ray A

Re: How Wide The Divide?

Post by _Ray A »

Jersey Girl wrote:You think the S/R theory is a dud?


I think it's an attempt to "explain" the production of the Book of Mormon while ignoring inconvenient facts from first-hand witnesses.
Post Reply