Customer Reviews

An Approach to the Book of Mormon (Collected Works of Hugh Nibley)

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The book is typical Nibley, and that's as good as contemporary scholarship gets! He raises many upon many possible points upon which the Book of Mormon may be tested - and points out that the standard treatment is blatant mischaracterization and swift dismissal by critics, a treatment that Nibley has suffered from as well in at least one of the reviews this book, and others of his, have gotten. He points out that the simplistic ideas about the events described in the Book of Mormon that the critics and even LDS members have do not do justice to what the book actually says. He points out that time and again recent (within the last century) archaeological textual finds have vindicated the description of the ancient world which the Book of Mormon first set forth, in rich detail. It certainly does give the honest person much to think about!

This work is an eye opener to the wonders of ancient manuscript study. Dr. Nibley has shown through erudite research how one can truly provide authentic evidence for the Book of Mormon by paralleling it with ancient historical data unknown to any 19th century Westerner when the text first appeared. One is amazed at the bountiful truth which is received on the antiquity and authenticity of a text when a scholar pursues meticulous quests into the writings of the ancient world for answers. Truly, Nibley has given the world more logical defense for the Book of Mormon as another testament of Jesus Christ.

This powerfully insightful book was, and is, so enlightening that Joseph Fielding Smith (10th President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) himself said that it ought to be studied by all members of the Church. Indeed, it should!

It establishes, well beyond any shadow or shade of uncertainty, that the Book of Mormon, if not Divine Scripture, is at least a perfectly representative document of historical Middle East literature; strictly accurate in every respect, and fitting perfectly into the socio-political framework of 600 B.C.

Without embellishing or distorted the facts, Dr. Nibley presents all of the various aspects of life in the Middle East circa 600 B.C., according to the established findings of both Mormon and non-Mormon research. He then demonstrates how flawlessly the Book of Mormon squares with these facts.

And, indeed, the Book of Mormon has even the support of Holy Writ. Namely, the Bible, as he demonstrates in his chapter on Ezekiel's prophecy (Ezekiel 37:15-20). Ezekiel's "Stick of Joseph" is shown primarily to be the Book of Mormon, taken from the "hand of Ephraim"--Joseph Smith being a descendant of Ephraim--and joined together with the "Stick of Judah," the Bible.

Moreover, the Book of Mormon, Dr. Nibley proves, was not only a work of writing above and beyond anything Joseph Smith--who had no more than 3 years of public schooling to his credit--could have produced, it was above and beyond anything anyone could have produced in the early 19th century!

Dr. Nibley also furnishes examples of how the Book of Mormon sheds light on the tactics of humanists, skeptics, anti-religionists, and outspoken unbelievers in general. Reference is made, for instance, to the example of Korihor in Alma chapter 30; Korihor being a prime example of dogmatic humanism.

It is understood, of course, that the pugnacious anti-mormon rabble--as dogs by the wayside--persecute and revile Dr. Nibley, accusing him of partiality in research; of unjustifiable leanings toward the Mormon view of things; and of outright bias.

These claims of rancorous anti-mormon scandalmongers are, as with all of their other claims, pitifully groundless, having no more credibility than the accusations put forth in supermarket checkstand tabloids. One waits with interest but in vain to see even one example of where Nibley's scholarship falls shy of the mark. So, as usual, the anti-mormons produce what they produce best: claims without evidence.

I will add, somewhat, to the aforementioned statement of Joseph Fielding Smith, and say that all people ought to study "An Approach to the Book of Mormon"--not Church members only--if people can do so soft-heartedly, and with a searching mind.

As with any book that is written as a commentary or a study assistant, you should read the source of the commentary, The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. I find the informatin in Mr. Nibley's book very interesting. It opened up some thought processes that have enriched my study of The Book of Mormon. I would highly Recommend it to all who seek to enrich their own study of The Book of Mormon.

It is hard to believe that this was used as a manual for priesthood meetings! It is a wonderful book and helps anyone wishing to study the Book of Mormon to get a good perspective on what the book has to offer and how to approach it. This is not a text providing a narrative study of the Book of Mormon. Nor is it a book that tries to provide evidences of its truth.

Instead, Nibley writes for people who already have a testimony of its truth and provides an approach to help us deal with Lehi and his descendants as real people. He helps us see them in real and human settings rather than as stock characters in a set piece drama. We are taught about life in the desert. We explore what wilderness means. Nibley even talks about the implications of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were fairly new in the 1950s, and how they enrich the message of the Book of Mormon.

The author also talks about the fallen societies of the Book of Mormon and they ways in which trying to judge this gift and revelation from God by human standards of criticism is a dangerous path to follow. There is also a wonderful appendix about the way archaeological studies can mislead as much as they can inform and to warn the unwary. The book also has many helpful notes and an index.

Very much worth studying and re-reading.

Great book...highly recommended. It opened my eyes to how true the Book of Mormon is.

If you are a Mormon, I want you to know that I respect your open mindedness in reading my review. I also want you to know that I don't think the LDS Church is a cult; nor do I believe that Mormons worship the devil. Some of the finest people I have ever known have been Mormons.

Also, I realize that not all Mormons agree with Dr. Nibley's arguments. One good Mormon said:

"As a believing Mormon, I think that Mormons need to be willing to accept many significant limitations to Hugh Nibley's work. The plain fact is, much of it simply does not hold up to fair scholarly criticism. It would appear that Carrier has invested a great deal of effort on this issue, and that his comments are generally legitimate."

As for my views, I always ask myself if Mormons think about what Hugh Nibley is saying? On page 18, he says that having the actual gold plates for scientists to study would be "very disruptive and it would prove nothing."

Prove nothing? It would prove they really existed. What is more strange is that Nibley then fills his book with citations about actual ancient biblical writings that are in museums today, such as the copper scroll in Jerusalem containing the Book of Isaiah. Why then not a single Book of Mormon plate?

Incredibly, Nibley goes on to say of the modern paper edition of the Book of Mormon that it is "a far more miraculous object than any gold plates would be." Really? Anyone who accepts this reasoning is not thinking, but such hyperbolic flights are the hallmark of Nibley's writing (see my other reviews of his books).

On page 370 of Nibley's book, he writes that, "In the Nephites we have a small and mobile population, living in quickly-built wooden cities, their most ambitious structures being fortifications of earth and timbers occasionally reinforced with stones."

Doesn't the Book of Mormon mention some 38 cities by name? Doesn't the Book of Mormon say that the Nephites built a temple "like unto Solomons?" They were also settled enough to have a money system. So what Nibley is saying doesn't even apply to the claims of the Book of Mormon.

When you think about the phrase "quickly-built wooden cities," it is quite humorous. Nibley is trying to make them quickly disappearing! But such ruins (including garbage heaps) are a heaven for archaeologists.

Also, in several places, Nibley misquotes and misrepresents his sources. On page 371, for example, he says that "English archaeologists are always confusing Neolithic, British, Roman, Saxon, and Norman ruins."

His source (Curwen, Neolithic Camps) says, "It is extremely difficult to eradicate erroneous popular beliefs." His other source (Crawford, "Barrows") says "Castle Mounds are often mistaken for barrows." In other words, it is not "English archaeologists," but the public that mistakes these ruins. Another of Nibley's sources ("Prehistoric Fortifications in Bavaria," by Wagner) says that extensive study has "enabled us to distinguish between Pre-Roman, Roman, and post-Roman remains."

Also, all these scholars give long lists of what was found in these ruins. Having used archaeology when it suited him, Nibley ends his book with an attack on archaeology. His section headings are a confession that he has failed to prove anything. They include "Limitations of Archaeology," "A Disappointing Picture," and incredibly the "Scarcity of Stone." Nibley should have taken one of the highly advertized "Book of Mormon Lands" tours and see all the stone ruins of the ancient world.

What Nibley is doing is rattling on and speaking without authority on the subject, desperately trying to account for the lack of archaeological evidence in support of the Book of Mormon. He also uses a lot of emotional hyperbole. On a single page (p. 23), for example, Nibley uses the following phrases--"remarkable vindication," "striking hints," "odd coincidences," "astonishing parallels," and "perfectly familiar." To the educated but uniformed reader, it sounds like something has been prove.

Nibley was a master at word games (pages 232-233). He takes a word, or the root of a word, then traces it back to the beginning of time--but carefully ignoring the Bible. There is no method to this false reasoning. Nibley allows himself to choose words here and there over thousands of years out of dozens of cultures.

Anything, of course, can be proved with such a method, including that the novel "Manuscript Found" is an ancient document. Spaulding's novel is full of words that could be traced back thousands of years. Nibley, of course, does not note this fact.

Here is another bogus claim by Dr. Nibley--see "Since Cumorah" (page 171):
"We have discussed elsewhere the surprising presence in the pages of the Book of Mormon of a full-blown Qasida or primitive desert poem, recited under exactly the proper circumstances and in exactly the proper form by Father Lehi."

Nibley's reference is to his own book, "An Approach to the Book of Mormon" (page 225-228).

Nibley is just engaging in hyperbole. His hyperventilating of the content of a couple verses in First Nephi does not justify such statements--a "full-blown Qasida." Please. Give your readers a break.

Here are the lines (and he only gives one example) that Nibley quotes from the Book of Mormon:

"O that thou mightiest be like unto this valley, firm and steadfast.
And immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord!"

Then Nibley lists his version of the elements of a Qasida. Note his first item.

A song inspired by the sight of water gushing from a spring or running down a valley. So that's how Nibley gets "water" into the Book of Mormon lines. He can't find the word "water," so he plays with "valley" to fit his rule for a "full-blown Qasida."

If Nibley's readers would slow down and not be intimidated by such words as "Qasida," they would soon begin to see all kinds of flaws in his logic.

And again, not that there is no "water" in the one Book of Mormon example that he quotes! Nibley is simply doing is throwing around scholarly terms that are not justified by his citation. His purpose is to make educated Mormons feel good about subjects that they know little about. Such "scholarship" is something that Mormons, themselves, should denounce, rather than waiting for outsiders to do it.

Another example appears on page 233. Nibley takes the name "Korihor" in the Book of Mormon and notes all kinds of connections with the ancient past, but he does not even mention the similar names in the Bible--"Kohath," "Korah," and "Korahite."

Linquistic Acrobatics!

And what about the roots of those words? Nibley says nothing about them. Robert Wauchope in "Lost Tribes and Sunken Continents: Myth and Method in the Study of the American Indians" called such word games "linguistic acrobatics." Lost Tribes and Sunken Continents Myth Method in the

See my reviews of the following books by Professor Nibley. Click here: Lehi in the Desert, the World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites (Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol 5) Since Cumorah: The Book of Mormon in the modern world

Also see my reviews of "Critiquing the Critics," by Hartt Wixom, "Rough Stone Rolling," by Richard Bushman, and "By the Hand of Mormon," by Terryl L. Givens. Click here: Critiquing the Critics of Joseph Smith Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion

Your comments--positive or negative--are appreciated. Mormons can praise Nibley till the cows come home, but that will not change the fact that he misrepresented his sources.

The great question (and the one that Nibley did not answer) is where are all those Book of Mormon plates today?