Professor Welch’s speech was inspired by Joseph Smith’s words penned at Liberty Jail, “Thy mind, o man, must stretch,” and structured around the principles of BYU’s Mission Statement (which you can read here).  The speech gave some very poignant examples of how BYU,  and, more broadly, how Mormonism itself, encourages and facilitates this vision of ever-expanding our mind — our knowledge, experiences, and capacities.

Before I begin, I’d like to share links to his speech so that you can see it for yourself here: http://www.byutv.org/watch/158-173, or listen to it in .mp3 format here: http://speeches.byu.edu/download.php/Welch_John_2011_05_17.mp3.

John Welch began his speech, after brief introductory comments and thank-yous, encouraging faculty and students to familiarize themselves with and follow the BYU Mission Statement.  He remarked,  “Take any line in it, and it will bless your intellectual life with perspective and purpose.” Various points of this statement would continue to inform his remarks.  He continued by citing Joseph Smith at Liberty Jail:

“The things of God are of deep import, and time and experience and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind, O Man [and we may add O Woman as well], if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost Heavens, and search into and contemplate the lowest considerations of the darkest abyss, and expand upon the broad considerations of eternal expanse; he must commune with God. How much more dignified and noble are the thoughts of God, than the vain imaginations of the human heart, none but fools, will trifle, with the souls of men.”

Welch finds great inspiration and vision in these words, emphasizing that they are a prophetic mandate “for a broad BYU education and a lifetime of learning.”  While the world may see “believers” as narrow-minded, naive, or as isolating themselves from rational thought, Welch explained that these characteristics were not part of Joseph Smith’s religion.

“There is nothing closed-minded about being a true Latter-day Saint. With the Holy Ghost, you will never get a ‘disk full’ warning. Every year, there have been new and amazing discoveries.”

Welch encouraged us to seek for more such discoveries, which often come as “flashes of inspiration, or as the Doctrine & Covenants says, ‘as moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’” How do we prepare ourselves for such discoveries?

“The first thing is to be looking, purposefully and constructively for something of value. The mind expands by recognition, or re-cognizing. Seeing in one thing something that is faintly reminiscent of something else, that is higher, deeper, or of greater substance, is the beginning of knowing and not just observing. Connecting, and seeing recurring patterns, such as those with which the gospel is replete, is the beginning of discernment and the development of potentially meaningful relationships.”

He illustrated this state of readiness to make deep connections with a great story about the different perspectives of Charlie Brown and Linus as they both lie on a hillside looking up at the clouds.

Lucy asks, “What do you see in these formations?” Linus says, “Well, those look like the map of British Honduras. That up there looks like the artist Thomas Eakins. And those clouds give the impression of the stoning of Stephen. Why, I can see the Apostle Paul standing there to one side.” Lucy says, “Very good,” and asks Charlie Brown, “What do you see?” He answers, “Well, I was going to say a ducky and a horsie, but I changed my mind.”

(For those of us who more often find ourselves in the position of Charlie Brown, Welch later returns, consolingly, to his plight, remarking that: “by the way, it’s alright, like Charlie Brown, to see a ducky and a horsie, if that’s what you honestly see”)

But this initial ray of light, the spark of illumining insight that comes to us, is “just the beginning of the discovery process.” Welch proceeds to explain that further “extensive reading, pondering, and lots of work” are required to reap further insights. “Indeed, most academic discoveries come after pouring over materials again and again. The mind expands by hard work over sustained stretches.” “There are no shortcuts to good scholarship.” As Joseph Smith stated, true knowledge comes from “time, experience, careful and ponderous thoughts.” We learn best by “strenuous effort.”

Welch commented that this is the Mormon way: “We do hard things.” Hard work, determination, diligence — these are necessary pre-requisites to the “a-ha moment.”

Exerting “endless energy spinning one’s wheels” is not the type of hard work that Welch envisions — we need to be asking the right type of questions and looking “outside the box” for the answers. We have to expect that the answer is out there and trust God that he will guide us in the right direction.  He explains:

To expand our understanding, we must formulate more precise, potentially answerable questions, and then keep searching, believing that an answer is out there somewhere, giving the scriptures credence, suspending judgment, giving God the benefit of the doubt, praying every day for his guidance, trusting that he knows the answer, that it can somehow make sense, and not presuming that the answer must necessarily come out “your way.” What we are looking for is frequently going to be found outside of the box. Sometimes the answer is “none of the above,” or “all of the above.”

An important aspect of this search for truth is believing that the truth exists. “How can one logically pursue something that one assumes does not exist?” He cites former BYU Academic Vice President Robert K. Thomas as saying, “Skeptics, by definition, cannot affirm anything—even their own skepticism.” Welch, therefore, believes that it is preferable to begin your search by “assuming the correctness of a text, the truthfulness of a proposition, or the wisdom of an instruction given by one in authority.”

But isn’t this approach contrary to the basic principles of the scientific method? Don’t we propose a hypothesis and then attempt to falsify it? Yes, but, as Welch rightly points out,  “the hypothesis is not considered false before it has been found to have failed. There is something wrong—as much in academic halls as in courtrooms—about assuming something or someone to be guilty until proven innocent.”

This was a key insight that I drew from Welch’s speech: we don’t need to approach our research, including (and especially, I would say) religious scholarship, from the assumption of its falsehood (which seems to be the norm for many fields, including biblical studies, today).  He suggested that “the astonishing momentum that has developed in Mormon studies” in recent times can be seen to have received its impetus from Hugh Nibley’s willingness to search through historical evidence with the assumption that LDS claims were true, rather than commencing from the assumption of their falsehood. “It was Leibniz who insisted that one cannot adequately understand the meaning of a proposition without assuming its truth,” he added, quoting BYU philosophy professor Terry Warner.

When confronted with difficult questions regarding Mormonism, or “interesting anomalies” as he referred to them, Welch’s instinct is to expect that these are “often clues of something going on below the surface” and expect that a helpful answer will be found. He gave examples of how he has been guided, often to unexpected places, to find amazing answers to questions that have come up during, for instance, his reading of the Book of Mormon.  If we are attentive to the Spirit and have an open and searching mind, we will be guided to the answers.

In a similar manner, we can be directed to notice sublime connections that we had never before seen, including in texts that we have read countless times before.  Welch recounted one such experience while reading the “hardly ever mentioned parable” of the two sons in Matthew 21.  I’ll share the story in his own words:

After Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the Chief Priests approached him, in the Temple, and demanded: “By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?” Jesus answered by telling a story about a certain man who had two sons. When asked to go down and work in the vineyard, the first son, initially refused, but then he went, while the other initially said yes but then does not go, or so it seems. This parable may be useful in parenting, and it can be read at that level; but remember, that’s not what Jesus was asked about. With the question of authority in mind, as I read this parable in the Greek, something jumped off the page at me. Think about it: When did a certain father have two sons, one who went and the other who did not? When did the first (the firstborn) say, “ou thelo,” which in Greek means “I will it not,” or “I’d rather not” or “it is not my will.” As the Greek continues, that son reconciled himself (not repented himself) and went. In contrast, the “other” (the heteros) son simply said, “Ego,” meaning “I.” But “I what”? Readers must fill in this blank. In this verse, the word “go” in the King James Version is italicized because it has only been implied there. One might as well supply other words: “I . . . will have it my way,” or “I . . . will get the glory.” In any event, this egotistic son did not go. As Latter-day Saints, we can easily but unexpectedly see at this deeper level how this unassuming little parable answers the all-important questions about Jesus’ authority. He received it from the Father in the council in heaven when he was commissioned to go down and do, not his will, but the will of the Father.

Professor Welch noted that our belief that God has revealed and will yet reveal things to his people means that we will likely approach and find things different from the rest of the world.  This is to be expected.  I sympathize with this sentiment and would suggest that this should not be a source of embarrassment for us as Latter-day Saints, but that we should be ready and willing to defend our unique views.  A young person embarking on a course of biblical studies in a non-LDS environment will quickly become aware that the world doesn’t share our interpretation of, for example, the words of Isaiah, Daniel, or the Book of Revelation, to mention only a few.  This contrast in perspectives between what one has been taught to understand and what their new esteemed mentors are presenting can cause feelings of doubt, confusion, or shame.  In light of such situations (he doesn’t use my specific example), Welch explains:

There will always be worldly things that will make it difficult to be a Latter-day Saint, by making some Mormon beliefs objectionable, frustrating, or awkward. And we won’t always have all the answers to these difficulties, certainly not the moment they first arise. But this too invites further stretching and expansion. Our ongoing task as Latter-day Saints is to locate defensible answers that are also consistent with our scriptures, doctrines, and assumptions, and to understand how opposing views often depend principally upon other fundamentally different assumptions.

This is an important lesson for LDS students (whether in formal education or not) to remember.  The world is bound to have different answers because the world is often asking different questions and approaching them from a substantially different paradigm or world-view.  This doesn’t mean that we have to discount or ignore the views of others and the potentially valuable insights that they can teach us.  As Welch notes, the  “BYU Mission Statement speaks of the pursuit of ‘all’ truth,” an endeavor which has been fundamental to Mormonism from its foundation.  He astutely states:

Our desire is for further light and understanding, to circumscribe all truth. To me, Mormonism thrives because it welcomes the idea that the world is fundamentally pluralistic by nature. Over and over, the Mormon world view relishes multiplicity. Words found traditionally only in the singular are boldly spoken of as plurals in Mormon doctrine: we speak of priesthoods, intelligences, noble and great ones, two creations, worlds without number, continuing revelations, scriptures, covenants, degrees of glory, eternal lives, saviors on Mt. Zion, and even gods. Joseph Smith spoke of there being many kingdoms and that “unto every kingdom is given [its own] law,” and “all truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it.” To me, such statements of cosmological relativities unleash and transfigure the concepts of natural law and eternal truths.

Joseph was light years ahead of his time with these notions. For Joseph, it was all about the Big Picture.  All truth was part of one big Whole and could be fit together like scattered pieces of a grand puzzle.  Welch noted how the rest of the world took a century to catch up with such expansive ideas.

For example, I am fascinated by the implications of Gödel’s 1931 incompleteness theorem, which demonstrates that a system can be either complete or consistent but not both. Thus, systematic theologies or rational philosophies may well be internally consistent, but they do so at the expense of completeness. Sets and abstractions may be helpful, but they are simply extractions of selected elements of otherwise messy realities. Mormon thought, in contrast, privileges fullness, abundance, completeness, and all that the Father has, even if that means that Mormon life becomes joyously overloaded or torn by competing pressures that pull, stretch, and expand us in many ways. This may produce episodes of cognitive dissonance, social quandaries, mystery and uncertainty, but if forced to choose, Mormon thought will always prefer openness over closedness, boldly inviting further growth, progression, and fortunately for us in academia, further questions…

… Because we know that there must be an opposition in all things, LDS thought often harmonizes traditional paradoxes. The world has fought wars over whether we are saved by faith or works. We peacefully say, “both.” People argue over whether we come to know by study or faith. We confidently say, “both.” “Each of us must accommodate the mixture of reason and revelation in our lives. The gospel not only permits it but requires it,” President Packer has said. In the same way, Mormon thought brings together both rights and duties.

When it comes to the instruction of young minds, abundant blessings of knowledge are inseparably connected to certain academic responsibilities, as well. As Joseph Smith said, “none but fools will trifle with the souls” of others. “Yet, as Stanford President Donald Kennedy wrote in 1997, ‘The responsibility of the professoriate is a difficult subject about which surprisingly little has been said,’ and that serious defect still remains inexcusably unaddressed.”

Dr. Welch explained that BYU Studies, for example, has, in fact, a written code that “draws on scriptural mandates, hoping to encourage among LDS scholars such things as unity (‘if ye are not one, ye are not mine’); charity, (for, if we have not charity, we are nothing); edification (‘the goal is to be spiritually and intellectually upbuilding’), and honesty and integrity (for, accuracy and reliability are the essence of scholarship).”

Furthermore, our duty in teaching others requires us to “charitably putting other people ahead of one’s own self-interests” as President Monson has so often taught us. “Our minds stretch the farthest when they are pure and actively concerned about the welfare of others.” We should be willing to listen to others and learn from them, including gaining insights from those of other belief systems and cultures.  He cites George Handley, an associate editor of BYU Studies, as stating: “My discovery has been ‘that listening carefully to other voices and other cultures doesn’t have to involve sacrificing our values,” but rather helps me to understand better my own Mormonness.  Learning from others does not necessarily entail giving up our own unique beliefs.  As Brigham Young declared to outgoing missionaries: “Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, . . . or the Church of Rome, . . . it is the [duty] of the Elders of this Church . . . to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation, to the Gospel we preach, to mechanism of every kind, to the sciences, and to philosophy, wherever it may be found . . . and bring it to Zion.”

Welch shared how he has had the opportunity to experience the benefits of this mandate in his own search for truth: “Indeed, it was from a Catholic Jesuit that I first learned about chiasmus; and from a Jewish barrister that I learned about the ancient legal difference between thieves and robbers. And, by the way, both of those scholars were genuinely glad to see in the Book of Mormon these things that they had found in Hebraic settings.”

He explained that our theology and our experiences working in church councils and presidencies help prepare us to reach out and collaborate with others in academic settings as well.  To this point, he shared some interesting thoughts:

Among the best memories of my academic life are many team efforts, such as Macmillans’s Encyclopedia of Mormonism with Dan Ludlow’s team of eight hundred contributors. I am now thrilled to be working on the Legal Team of the vital Joseph Smith Papers project. We now know that Joseph was distracted by over 200 lawsuits in his lifetime, and their documentary records are astonishingly more complex than any one person can sort out. Two or three lawsuits are usually enough to overwhelm most men, but Joseph succeeded by working collaboratively and expansively with numerous associates, including the Holy Ghost as his regular companion.

Welch emphasized the fact that we, as Mormons, are in a wonderful position to be able to contribute to many fields because of our expansive perspective and propensity to cooperate and support.  He made an effective analogy between BYU basketball star Jimmer Fredette and Joseph Smith regarding the ability to hit “intellectual long-shots.”

As mediators between competing views, we can offer alternative solutions. And we need not be reluctant. We have all been electrified this season by Jimmer’s incredible, dramatic long-shots. The sign I liked the best was “Jimmer’s in range when he steps off the bus.” Mormon thought is also capable of hitting a stunning array of intellectual long-shots, doing things that traditional Western thinkers have said cannot be done. Everywhere you turn, Joseph’s words hit the mark. He was in range every time he opened his mouth.

Joseph’s religion has stood the test of time and continues to gain admirers from outside its ranks.  Welch shared:

In a book now at press with Oxford, Stephen Webb, a non-LDS professor of religion, writes of Mormonism: “No other religious movement lies so close to traditional Christianity . . . . Mormon theology is Christology unbound. . . . Of all the branches of Christianity, Mormonism is the most imaginative, and if nothing else, its intellectual audacity should make it the most exciting conversational partner for traditional Christians for the twenty-first century.”

I appreciated Professor Welch’s strong and unwavering testimony.  He is, to me, a shining example of what a Gospel scholar should, and potentially can be. His demeanor, prolific writings, admiration among peers, and faithfulness to the Church demonstrate how one can be both a rigorous scholar and also a sincere believer.  His concluding remarks:

We need not be ashamed of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith was truly a prophet. The scriptures are true and in them we find our way. The expansiveness of the truth invites us to venture forward, as high, and as deep, and as broad as our minds may go. Thy mind, O man, must stretch. Indeed, it can and will stretch, if you will lead a soul (including your own) unto salvation and will commune with God, that our joy may be full and abundant, in time and all eternity…

The symposium was very well put together and everyone, both the speakers and attendees, were very well taken care of (we’re talking lots of free food, free drawings for awesome publications, no entrance fee — it doesn’t get much better than this as far as these types of conferences go)!  LDS author Matthew Brown was largely responsible for putting the event together and he did an incredible job of making it a very enlightening and worthwhile experience for everyone involved.  A big thanks to him, his wife, and also to Jeffrey Bradshaw for making this event more than worth it for me to go from Scotland to Provo to be a part of it.  I also want to thank my wife and kids for letting me go and my parents virtually killing the fatted calf for their prodigal son’s return (albeit knowing it would be very short-lived).

There was a wonderful array of different speakers presenting, touching on a wide variety of topics related to “LDS History, Scripture, and Belief.” The speakers and their topics were:

• Kurt Graham
  “The Future of the Church History Museum”
• Ugo A. Perego
  “Is Decrypting the Genetic Legacy of America’s Indigenous Populations Key to the Historicity of the Book of Mormon?”
• David J. Larsen
  “The Psalms as a Key to Understanding the Rituals of the First Temple”
• Jeffrey M. Bradshaw
  “‘Standing in the Holy Place’: Ancient and Modern Reverberations of an Enigmatic New Testament Prophecy”
• Mark Alan Wright
  “Nephite Daykeepers: Ritual Specialists in the Book of Mormon”
• David M. Calabro
  “Body Symbolism in Latter-day Saint Scripture”
• Larry E. Morris
  “‘Such a Godless Place Would be Difficult to Imagine’: The Historical Setting for the Arrival of the First Mormon Missionaries in Missouri”
• Matthew B. Brown
  “Cube, Gate and Measuring Tools: A Biblical Pattern”

You can see a brief overview of how the proceedings went by checking out the official website of the Expound Symposium at www.expoundlds.com.  There are some photos up of presenters and guests as well as comments from some of the attendees.

Also, some of the papers from the symposium are beginning to be posted on the site.  So far only Jeffrey Bradshaw’s (excellent) paper is up.  To read this powerful and enlightening presentation, see here.  I plan to send them mine as soon as possible.  I hope to see more of the papers posted there as well, as there were many that were very interesting.

After the symposium ended we all went to Magleby’s in Provo for the Speakers Dinner which was covered by the symposium organizers.  It was great to be able to sit down and talk with some of the other presenters.  I had the opportunity to get to know Matthew Brown, David Calabro, Ugo Perego, Mark Wright, and others a bit better.  I also got to meet Louis Midgley and George Mitton from the FARMS (now Mormon Studies) Review and many others.  I won’t try to name more names, but I was very happy to see many friends that I know from different settings, including LDS bloggers, BYU faculty, and others.

I hope to post my own paper here on Heavenly Ascents soon, and plan to post some notes I took on some of the other presentations as well. I’ve been a bit slow in catching up with everything since I got back from Utah last Wednesday — that’s why it’s taking me so long to get these things together.  But do plan to hear more details regarding the symposium in the near future!

I posted (a couple of weeks back now) some material over at The Millennial Star about the reforms of King Josiah and the Deuteronomists and how these reforms may have affected the theological themes found in the Old Testament we read today.  This post is based on material I posted here on Heavenly Ascents a couple of years ago, but I think it’s still worth sharing. You can see it here: http://www.millennialstar.org/the-deuteronomists-and-the-suppression-of-ancient-truths/

I was recently invited to be a contributor at Reviews of Biblical and Early Christian Studies (rbecs.wordpress.com). This website is run by Dan Batovici, PhD student here at the University of St Andrews, and a few other postgrad students at Cambridge and Durham universities. The main purpose of the site is to provide reviews of the latest publications in the fields of Biblical Studies and Early Christian Studies and also to give reports on important seminar presentations given at the respective universities.  I am honored to be able to contribute to this very helpful site.  You can see my first post here. I give a report of Dr Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer’s seminar paper on “The Geographical and Theological Location of Isaiah 40-55″.

Dan and I, along with Beth Tracy and other colleagues here at the University of St Andrews, are organizing a graduate conference that will be taking place in June, entitled “The 1st St Andrews Graduate Conference for Biblical and Early Christian Studies: Authoritative Texts and Reception History.” I will be presenting a paper on the early Christian interpretation of older Melchizedek traditions. You can read more about the conference here.

I will be presenting a paper on May 14th at the first annual EXPOUND Symposium in Provo, Utah. The topic of my presentation will be “The Psalms as a Key to Understanding the Rituals of the First Temple”. I am very excited to be back in Provo, home of Brigham Young University, my undergraduate alma mater.

Finally, just a further note regarding the metal plates discovery that I’ve featured recently here on Heavenly Ascents. A number of people have written to me asking about my personal opinion regarding this find, which some have noticed I haven’t been especially explicit about in my blog posts.  Personally, I feel it’s much too early for me to form any real opinion on the matter. There are a number of people and organizations that are currently trying to analyze the plates and we just can’t know until more tests have been completed and publicized.  I have heard from many sources that I consider to be reliable (some I’ve mentioned in previous posts) that the opinion of most authorities is negative regarding their authenticity.  It seems that the Israeli Antiquities Authority sees them as forgeries.  A reader, Warren Aston, forwarded me an email from a top LDS expert in the field (Dr. Jeff Chadwick, who is currently at the BYU Jerusalem Center) who is doubtful regarding their authenticity as well and advises against making or believing any of the popular claims about them, especially their connections to the early Christian community or to anything temple-related.  So, in light of these problems with our current lack of certainty regarding the origin and authenticity of the metal plates, I agree that we should be cautious about what we believe to be the significance of this find. We’ll just have to wait and see what the final determination of the experts is and then we can form some more educated opinions.

He has some great insights on verse 3, focusing on eternal life and knowledge.

His work on verse 4 is excellent as well, looking at the concept of glory.

To conclude my notes from SBL, I want to present the material I took down from the two “Latter-day Saints and the Bible” sessions that were held Monday and Tuesday mornings. Because I want to share my notes on these in greater detail, this will be divided into two posts.  The theme was the same for both sessions: the legacy of Hugh W. Nibley.  Most of the presentations from both sessions focused on the work of renowned LDS scholar and Brigham Young University professor Hugh Nibley and how his research has influenced the succeeding generation of LDS scholars and students.   There were some insightful presentations given and survival of Nibley’s legacy among current and future scholars seemed well assured.

Session 1

The first session was presided over by John Welch, BYU Professor of Law and religious scholar. I will present a summary of my notes from each of the speakers.  As always, I am responsible for the content of these notes — they may not reflect fully and/or accurately what the speakers actually said.

Click on the link below for my notes:

Margaret Barker, Old Testament Scholar and Co-Founder of the Temple Studies Group

Unfortunately, Margaret Barker was not able to attend the conference, so her paper was read by Gaye Strathearn of BYU. You can read the full text of Barker’s paper here:

“‘Christian Envy of the Temple’ Revisiting Nibley’s Landmark Paper After 50 Years”

—————————–

John F. Hall, BYU Professor of Classics and Ancient History — “When the Lights Went Out: Hugh Nibley on the Passing of the Primitive Church”

John Hall was a student of Hugh Nibley at BYU. Nibley taught much on early Christianity — he mined extensively the Patrilogia, early Christian literature.

Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity, published as one of the “Collected Works of Hugh Nibley”, was put together by Welch and Hall from what they learned in Nibley’s classes. Nibley had taught a class early on about the office of bishop in early Christianity.

Nibley was influenced greatly by Joseph Smith. He understood well the transformation of primitive church — “the apostasy.”

In The World and the Prophets, Nibley emphasized the difference between sophic and mantic knowledge — in ancient times, there was the understanding that knowledge must come from revelation.

In 2 Thess. 2:3, the Greek text speeks of an apostasia — the KJV translates this as “falling away.”

The Apostasy is usually defined as starting from the death of the Apostles and progressing to the time of Constantine. The negative influence of Greek Platonism is usually claimed as the main culprit – it is argued that the learned bishops were responsible for falling away. Nibley had a much deeper understanding regarding what happened. He argued that the philosophical movement was too late to have been the main cause. Apostasia should be understood to mean “to rebel.” Rebellion is set in a moment of time rather than over centuries. Nibley saw evidence for a time period in the 2nd century known as the “great gap” when this would have occurred.

In this period, Christian groups “fractionated” into multiple groups from one pristine Christianity. There was a notable 2nd century rejection of 1st century teachings and apostolic authority.  In the end, “Orthodox” Christianity triumphed over other factions.

The principle by which we can understand this process is “Dispensationism” — that there is an ongoing cycle in which the world experiences a period of revealed truth, then rejection of that truth, and then eventually a restoration of the revealed truth.

Margaret Barker has spoken of the rejection of First Temple truths, which were later to be restored in Christianity. Christianity was a new, second Israel — a new dispensation. Nibley’s thought puts early Christianity into this milieu.

The Christian historian Eusebius presents a view of Orthodox Christianity as a progressive development of doctrine from its simple beginnings to its full bloom in the 4th century. Bart Ehrman rejects this idea — he emphasizes the early doctrinal divisions in Christianity. Nibley would have seen this as evidence of the severance and fractionation in the 2nd century.

Nibley preceded by a half century these modern ideas.  He published his article ”Passing of the Primitive Church” in vol. 30 of the journal Church History, in 1961. He argued that Jesus himself insisted that the light would be taken away. Early Christian writers knew that this was happening.

Some of the evidences that Nibley brings up to demonstrate this:

1. Declarations of early Christians regarding what they knew was to happen

2. Their strange behavior in light of these expectations

3. Doubts and denials of later church leaders

Nibley rejects the argument used by the Orthodox Church that because it had divine authority it could make whatever changes were necessary. The earliest Christians knew that the Church was meant to fail and that their victory would be on the other side of the veil and at the Second Coming. The following early Christian ideas reflect this view:

1. Rejection motif — Christ said that his teachings would be received by only a few; the apostles would also be rejected and persecuted.

2. Fractionation (not Nibley’s term) — rise in divisions rose as doctrines were changed to try to accommodate the world.

3. Doctrines were to be changed — perversion of some and cessation of teaching other doctrines; beliefs seen as unacceptable to their neighbors were modified.

4. Refusal to reject changes in doctrine

5. No original expectation of church’s survival — there was only expectation of the end time — limited proselyting by early Christians

6. Public relations — the mission of the Church was to save from perishing those who had known Christ — no concern to make new converts –world’s worst public relations

7. Purpose of church — gather and save the faithful, not convert — no missionary organization

8. No societal involvement — no real estate holdings — letters to “sojourning church in…”

9. Erudition became substituted for inspiration — loss of spiritual gifts

10. Rhetorical efforts to explain away the church’s demise and support the idea of its survival — early Christians claim to be surprised by the survival of the church

The Great Gap — an ominous gap — the church that emerged afterwards was much different — a break in the continuity of the early Church. By noting recent research on these topics, we can see that Nibley’s work remains valid and fresh.

————————————-

Laurence Paul Hemming, Research Fellow at Lancaster University, Co-Founder of the Temple Studies Group (also a Catholic deacon) — “Hugh Nibley and Attestations of Missing Traditions: The Lost 40 Days”

There is a flair and wit to Nibley’s interpretation. Those new to his work find as much between the lines as in what he has to say.

Theology is reflection on the lived experience of faith — but we are rationalists to our core and want to explore the psychology of religion. We ask ourselves: “How does religion match up to what we know to be true?”  This is the trend today.

The law of prayer should determine the law of belief — what is prayed determines what is to be believed — what is to be believed is based in the apostolic teaching tranferred through rites.

Nibley was both liberated by his scholarship and limited by his assumptions.

Nibley’s paper on the 40 Day literature – Nibley notes that those who acknowledge the 40 day ministry are at a loss to explain it. The teachings were not meant to become popular — it is described as very secret — the last and highest revelation.

The apostles had information that we do not have — there are things that have been lost.  It was an unwritten tradition. Scholars claim that it must not have been of much importance.

There is evidence for a lost oral tradition — a tradition of understanding concerning Melchizedek that was neglected.

The idea that Christian liturgy came from the synagogue is not true — it comes from the temple. There are important relics of what is missing and lost.

It is interesting to note that what I know of LDS temple tradition is very similar to Orthodox liturgical traditions.

The “lived experience of faith” — an investigation of how we must fulfill our faith in God.

What is practiced through priesthood is temple worship. The temple liturgy is the ritual, sacramental life of Eden and approach to and indwelling of the Holy of Holies. Adam was promised that he would be a god — not right now but after many years — this is found in pseudepigraphical texts such as the Testament of Adam. Adam’s work in Eden is clearly the work of the temple — Adam was the first priest, in Eden.

When Adam fell, he fell to the level of the animal, but God allowed him to rise and stand on his feet and work to produce his bread.

I [L. Hemming] have learned to unlock the secrets of my own liturgy through my experiences with Latter-day Saints. Catholic liturgy is preserved as a practice, but not as doctrine — it is retained only as a set of rituals.

Lent, the succession of five Sundays before Easter, was meant to be a 40 day fast — but this is a para-liturgical tradition — a popular tradition attached to a 40-day idea. This was supposed to be a tradition of fasting before baptism.

The number 40 is repeated as a theme in Christianity. The key 40 day period commemorated is between the Sunday of Easter to the celebration of the Ascension. Recall the Book of the Cave of Treasures — the Church is identified with Eden — not the institution, but the ritual, the sacraments — this is when one is to learn how to be unified with Christ. Nibley was aware of the importance of this tradition. This is the preparation for Pentecost. We see in Psalm 68 the Lord enthroned on Sinai; a depiction of Yahweh in His temple. We can see here a ritual re-enactment of the meaning of the Creation.

We should also note the 40 days period between Christmas and the  feast of the presentation of Christ at the temple, Candlemas (Feb 2). On Epiphany, January 6,  we celebrate the visit of Magi, representing the epiphany/theophany/manifestation of Christ to the world.  Epiphany is associated with both the birth and the baptism of Jesus, and also the marriage at Cana. The baptism of Jesus is when he was declared to be the begotten Son of God.

In this 40 day period, we have Jesus taking upon himself the priesthood, being recognized as Son of God and as Melchizedek priest by the Magi. The Psalms (2, 110, etc.) are an essential part of this liturgy. Christ takes possession of Holy of Holies. This is likely key to understanding the 40 day ministry. Christianity is a temple tradition.

—————————–

Marco Frenschkowski, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz — “Hugh Nibley and German Biblical Exegesis”

(Unfortunately, my computer’s battery gave out during this presentation, so I had to continue with hand-written notes after missing parts from the middle-section– thus, my notes do not reflect Professor Frenchowski’s full paper)

He is a pastor of a mainstream Protestant Church in Germany and is the only one that he knows of that owns all of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley! He finds reading Nibley strangely rewording. Nibley is an important contributor to inter-religious dialogue and understanding. His errors does not reduce his ability to keep you spellbound.

He doesn’t believe in what Nibley thinks he is doing, but appreciates still what he does do.

For example, Nibley argues: Could a poor farm boy have developed such an amazing work as the Book of Mormon? The answer is yes. This causes us to reflect on all of the marvelous works of literature produced by young, unlearned boys (gives examples of this, and further examples of what Nibley tried to argue).

Nibley wants to convince us of the things he stands for, but foremost he himself wants to know.

We honor Nibley when we contradict him.

There is a danger of looking for evidence wherever it can be found. But then we should be better at looking, like Nibley, at the whole wide field of culture, language, and life behind the texts. Nibley shows that apologetics can be not only erudite but sophisticated and entertaining.  Nibley had no hidden agenda, but was very up-front in his writing. We can say that apologetics is always for the believers, to show them that their beliefs are rational.

Nibley succeeded in bringing Book of Mormon studies to the level of Biblical studies. Nibley knew even the obscure German scholars as well.

Concerning the Book of Mormon, Moses, and Abraham — he (Frenchowski) compares these to other 19th century religious inventions, such as Acts 29, the Book of Jasher, and others. These are modern apocrypha that are comparable to Joseph Smith’s writings, although there are differences.

While we recognize that Nibley had shortcomings, we also recognize that so do we.