Hugh Nibley’s Perspective on Historical Sciences and Mormonism

Editor's note: This is number 35 in a series of posts by Dennis Horne, sharing quotes from his book, Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluating Doctrinal Truth. You can read the introductory post here. The first part of each post is a new introduction, placing the quotes in context with contemporary issues. The quotes that then follow are from the Determining Doctrine book, which contains many quotes that are not readily available elsewhere or are exclusive to the book.

            Former (deceased) BYU Professor Hugh W. Nibley was asked to contribute to a 1965 Instructor magazine series of articles called “I Believe” on science and religion. To make a long story short, his contribution was not published (but was decades later included in the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley.) After the piece was rejected, he sent a follow-up letter to the editor, complaining about the rejection and further justifying his reasoning and arguments—all to no avail. Nibley was not used to having his articles rejected by any publication and for a Mormon periodical to do so was extra annoying to him.

            Be that as it may, his thoughts on the subject, while being a little dated as far as current scientific thought is concerned, still offer some salient points to ponder about the uses and abuses some people make of science—especially anti-Mormons and atheists. Nibley’s basic arguments are as cogent and relevant today as they were when he first wrote them in 1965. We should always remember that the historical sciences are not exact sciences and that insofar as they are used or manipulated to weaken faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ, they or their purveyors are suspect. All the answers simply aren’t in and pointing fingers of scorn and mockery at people of faith doesn’t alter that reality.

            From Determining Doctrine:

Hugh Nibley, Archaeology and Our Religion:

Mormon Book Bits #17: B. H. Roberts, Seventy’s Course in Theology, 5 Vols

Editor's note: This is # 17 in a series of posts by Dennis Horne about collectible books. The introduction is here.

Introducing this collectable set, Truman G. Madsen wrote of B. H. Roberts:

“During these same years (1907 through 1919) Roberts wrote, compiled and published four of his five manuals or course books titled Seventy's Course in Theology.

“These volumes represent the constant intrepid upreach of Roberts toward making the standard, the maturity, and the effectiveness of the quorums of seventy equal to their scriptural role. His heavy writing is symbolic of a crusade in his life. It was stepped up as he increased in sensitivity. He could never shirk his calling over a period of nearly forty-three years (from the time he was called as a President of the Seventy until his death in 1933). These challenging lessons ranged from an outline history of the seventy and an overview of the scriptures to a history of the major priesthood dispensations and the Mormon doctrine of deity, the atonement of Jesus Christ, and divine immanence and the Holy Ghost. They blend Roberts's double talent as historian and doctrinal expositor. During this period, attendance increased in the seventies quorums to 60 percent, and elders in the Church became eager to be called into the quorums of seventy” (Truman G. Madsen, Defender of the Faith, 298-99).

            Incidentally, certain of Roberts’s doctrinal thinking as set forth in these books did not go unchallenged. Elder Bruce R. McConkie, specifically, pointed out in some detail what he felt to be error in Roberts’s writings on preexistent intelligences. Elder Roberts wrote:

Approaching Science and Philosophy

Editor's note: This is number 34 in a series of posts by Dennis Horne, sharing quotes from his book, Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluating Doctrinal Truth. You can read the introductory post here. The first part of each post is a new introduction, placing the quotes in context with contemporary issues. The quotes that then follow are from the Determining Doctrine book, which contains many quotes that are not readily available elsewhere or are exclusive to the book.

            While science has done a tremendous, almost unquantifiable amount of good in the world, it has also been used by some as a tool to do great harm to religious faith. False or weak religion will usually not stand up very well against solid, demonstrated science. Further, the weaker and less testable/demonstrable historical sciences are often the main culprits used against both true and false religion. Scientific “evidence” can be a tricky thing.

            One blogger, holding a somewhat influential academic position, who must have thought he was somehow helping, wrote this paragraph which is devoid of truth: “This . . . doesn’t mean that we should let our beliefs about what’s true govern our methodologies and conclusions. Religious conviction is and should always remain a personal, sacred, ineffable matter, which we should avoid reducing to some kind of self-constructed truth paradigm within which to fit the evidence. This, to my thinking, is completely wrong headed. To me this backwards approach only leads to strange mental gymnastics, feigned certitude, premature (and mostly false) conclusions, selective evidence, and a veneer of disingenuousness—not a real, lasting help to most members with serious doubts and questions.”

            Firstly, the only thing that will ever really help people with “serious doubts” is for them to work and strive with all their might, mind, and strength, until they prevail upon the Lord to give them personal revelation. Then the doubt is gone and with it the philosophies of men they have been clinging to.

If the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are true, and they are because God says they are, then if there is “evidence” saying otherwise, it is not the scriptures—the word of God—that is suspect, it is the evidence. How often have critics used supposed scientific evidence or reputations or authorities to seek to weaken faith in these scriptural books? Do we therefore cast the books aside as the devil would have us do? We do not force round evidence to fit a square hole, but we are patient and work until we find true and verifiable square evidence, which may not come in this life despite all our work.

Mormon Book Bits #16: Duane S. Crowther, Prophecy—Key to the Future & The Prophecies of Joseph Smith

Editor's note: This is # 16 in a series of posts by Dennis Horne about collectible books. The introduction is here.

            In the 1960s Duane Crowther published (through Bookcraft) his expanded BYU master’s thesis as Prophecy—Key to the Future. The work included fairly specific designations of time periods and sequential events that he believed were associated with the future and the second coming; even a chart on the end-sheets laying it out. This book sold phenomenally well, instantly placing Crowther at the pinnacle of the world of LDS doctrinal writing. His second book on the prophecies of Joseph Smith also enjoyed considerable success. This sales windfall allowed him to establish his own publishing concern, Horizon Publishers & Distributors, a modestly successful company (eventually combined with CFI and then dissolved) located in Bountiful, Utah. At one point he was enabled to say, with Cleon Skousen, that they were the only two authors in Mormonism able to make a living solely on the strength of their literary works.

            Because the books sold so well they began to have a substantial influence on the doctrinal thinking of Church members—who asked for and received counsel from Church leaders on how to view such writings.

One caution on the subject of prophecy came in general conference from President Harold B. Lee, some ten years after Prophecy—Key to the Future came from the press:

“One more matter: There are among us many loose writings predicting the calamities which are about to overtake us. Some of these have been publicized as though they were necessary to wake up the world to the horrors about to overtake us. Many of these are from sources upon which there cannot be unquestioned reliance.

“Are you priesthood bearers aware of the fact that we need no such publications to be forewarned, if we were only conversant with what the scriptures have already spoken to us in plainness?

Joseph Smith, Palatiah Brown, and Doctrinal Speculation

Editor's note: This is number 33 in a series of posts by Dennis Horne, sharing quotes from his book, Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluating Doctrinal Truth. You can read the introductory post here. The first part of each post is a new introduction, placing the quotes in context with contemporary issues. The quotes that then follow are from the Determining Doctrine book, which contains many quotes that are not readily available elsewhere or are exclusive to the book.

Pelatiah Brown was a contemporary of Joseph Smith’s and a doctrinal speculator. His experience with preaching about the beasts mentioned in the book of Revelation and the Prophet’s forgiving comments regarding those public speculations have become perhaps the foremost excuse used by some liberals and dissidents for proclaiming or teaching unapproved, unorthodox, and false doctrine. Because of this, the incident is recounted here in full, followed by comment on it from some modern Church leaders and scholars. Also given is an official doctrinal directive from Joseph Smith in which he did not display such an abundance of toleration toward the teaching of false or suspect/speculative doctrine as some people have used the Pelatiah Brown incident to justify. From Determining Doctrine:

Joseph Smith:

            The subject I intend to speak upon this morning is one that I have seldom touched upon since I commenced my ministry in the Church. It is a subject of great speculation, as well amongst the elders of this Church, as amongst the divines of the day: it is in relation to the beasts spoken of by John the Revelator. I have seldom spoken from the revelations; but as my subject is a constant source of speculation amongst the elders, causing a division of sentiment and opinion in relation to it, I now do it in order that division and difference of opinion may be done away with, and not that correct knowledge on the subject is so much needed at the present time.

            It is not very essential for the elders to have knowledge in relation to the meaning of beasts, and heads and horns, and other figures made use of in the revelations; still, it may be necessary, to prevent contention and division and do away with suspense. If we get puffed up by thinking that we have much knowledge, we are apt to get a contentious spirit, and correct knowledge is necessary to cast out that spirit.

            The evil of being puffed up with correct (though useless) knowledge is not so great as the evil of contention. Knowledge does away with darkness, suspense and doubt; for these cannot exist where knowledge is.

            There is no pain so awful as that of suspense. This is the punishment of the wicked; their doubt, anxiety and suspense cause weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Mormon Book Bits #15: Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness

Editor's note: This is # 15 in a series of posts by Dennis Horne about collectible books. The introduction is here.

From the first biography of Spencer W. Kimball:

In 1969, just before October Conference, Spencer W. Kimball's book The Miracle of Forgiveness was published. The author meant it as a call to repentance and a guide on the road back from sin.

For years he had said he intended to write no book, that there were books enough by others who had more talent. And for fifteen years he stuck by that resolve, despite the urgings of many who wanted him to write. Numerous addresses at general conference and at BYU had been reprinted, sometimes in thousands of copies, but they had been written as speeches and not as books.

The experience which impelled him finally to write a book was the day-by-day counseling of people in trouble, the week-by-week interviewing of members being considered for responsible Church positions, the interviewing of missionaries as he toured the missions.

He often carried home more weight than he could shoulder and tossed sleepless with what he had heard. It seemed that no sin or human weakness existed which had not affected some or many of those he consoled or challenged….

All these experiences with people in great need of repentance and forgiveness led ultimately to a book. He had started with jotting down scriptures for people to study, then he developed some lists for recurring problems. By 1959 he had finally decided that there was need in the Church for "an extensive treatise on repentance." He spent untold hours over the next ten years, primarily during the time in the summer and at Christmas when the General Authorities had no regular assignments and were expected to rest. He never stinted his regular work to write; writing was an extra.

He soon found he had too much material, enough for two volumes. He liked to vacation where he could spread out his papers over several tables. After seven years he had all the chapters roughed out, but the manuscript was still unwieldy.

History of the term “Standard Works”

Editor's note: This is number 32 in a series of posts by Dennis Horne, sharing quotes from his book, Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluating Doctrinal Truth. You can read the introductory post here. The first part of each post is a new introduction, placing the quotes in context with contemporary issues. The quotes that then follow are from the Determining Doctrine book, which contains many quotes that are not readily available elsewhere or are exclusive to the book.

Both the term “standard works” and its meaning have evolved and solidified over many years of Church history. It began in the latter half of the 1800s as a loose term that implied that the fundamental doctrines of the Church were to be found in and measured by the books written for the information, edification, and direction of the Church, especially containing the revelations of its leaders, but also accounts of their lives and sermons. By around 1900, because of the influence of Elder James E. Talmage and President Joseph F. Smith, the different parts of the term began to solidify into one definite meaning. Early variations included “doctrinal standards,” “church works,” “standards of the Church,” “standard church books,” and “standard church works,” but today is almost exclusively given as “standard works.” This term has now come to signify the source of near absolute doctrinal measurement and authority in the Church and is only applied to four books of written and canonized revelations (or scripture): The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

In fact, today the word “scriptures” is often to be heard or used more than the term “standard works.” While this is not overly concerning, it does tend to blur the line between spoken/verbal/oral scripture, which is given forth every time a righteous person speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost, and the canonized and binding scriptures, which constitute the four books of Latter-day Saints scripture.

Even though the Bible and the Book of Mormon have not been formally sustained in General Conference by the membership assembled, they are formally stated to be the word of God in the Articles of Faith (which have been sustained by the Church) and are so fundamental as to be beyond question books of the scriptural canon. Further, because a book was referred to or designated as a “standard work” in the 1800s, does not make it so now. Certainly no one should regard the Journal of Discourses as canonized scripture.

From Determining Doctrine: