Talk:Hugh Nibley

message: Excuse my personal note here: When I was still at BYU in the early 90s, I saw Nibley shuffling around the Lee Library a couple of times wearing a cardigan and sorting through 3x5 cards. If I remember well, the "Daily Universe" printed an interview where he stated he was currently teaching himself sanskrit.  One of my roommates took one of his Book of Mormon classes...quite a trip...his class lectures went everywhere...forget about taking notes. He is one of a kind, a true gem. —B|Talk 02:50, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
:When we lived in Utah, while my wife and I were at BYU, he lived in our ward. He never seemed to comment in sunday school except to share his testimony and short personal experiences to build faith. Never a long answer to doctrinal questions. He once said that he didn't comment or correct the teaching because he had plenty learn, and that many times you can learn from the intent of the teacher more than the doctrinal aspects. Whenever I went to his office (he shared with Wilf Griggs a teacher of mine that I became pretty close to) it was a mess.
I'm not sure where this should go but here looked good. [User talk:StuntManMike2|Talk] I attended BYU during the early 80s and had a religion class from Hugh Nibley.  He was the classic old professor stereotype.  The first day of class he came in the classroom and approached the lectern.  With head down he started reading and speaking from his note books regarding research he was currently involved with.  He never looked up at the class.  This went on for several more lectures before someone got his attention and asked if we would have any tests or finals in this class.  He answered briefly as if annoyed and continued on with his discourse for the day.  We had one assignment which was a final paper we had to write, “The Seven Dispensations of Man”.  It was a very enjoyable class.  Not much discussion if any that I remember.
His spouse, Phyllis Draper Nibley, passed on February 25, 2022, aged 95. https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/deseretnews/name/phyllis-nibley-obituary?id=33558113  — Preceding unsigned comment added by StuntManMike2 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Recollections

message: :Still unsure on the columbia university reference. I could have sworn I had a reference for it, but can't find it. perhaps I'll delete it? -Visorstuff 14:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote about reading all the books is vaguely familiar to me. Maybe give it some time. —B|Talk 15:57, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks 128.187.227.93 for the correction to content and your edits - we knew something wasn't quite accurate - but based on various notes we compiled various places, we couldn't confirm. 
By the way, I've found a paper I've been looking for online - http://www.apologeticsindex.org/cpoint10-2.html - regarding Nibley's scholarship. -Visorstuff 20:21, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Excellent link Visorstuff! I would add to what the article concludes that not only have evangelicals failed to address the growing body of quality work by Mormon scholars on religious topics, but all Christian denominations in general have failed to address this growing body of work...all this despite the great body of work Mormon scholars have devoted to demonstrate their points whether in regards to post-apostolic fathers and Hellenized Christianity or what light the Dead Sea Scrolls or pseudepigrapha shine on parallels to early Christianity and Mormonism. —B|Talk 00:44, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Nice stuff. It's funny to see how few counter-apologetics exist in the face of all this evidence. Bruce 03:34, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Columbia University? and counter apologists

message: The manuscript for One Eternal Round was handed off to FARMS during BYU's Fall 2002 semester; I was in Stephen Ricks's NES 345 class at the time, and he reported that his wife had gone to the Nibley home to collect it. Regrettably I can't remember the date, but it was after early September and before mid-December. Probably that's specific enough, anyway. eritain 06:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: One Eternal Round

message: We need to be careful in using the term "Latter Day Saints" to refer to "Latter-day Saints."  The hyphenated, lower-case D church is the church most of you are familiar with, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The no-hyphen, capital D church is the pre Salt Lake church, which nowadays is synonymous with the polygamists out in the desert.  Hugh Nibley was always a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and was never a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  We don't want some internal wikipedia link to associate him with the wrong church. -Colin 26 Jun 2005
This is a false distinction.  Polygamy remained official doctrine and practice through the settlement in Utah until the last years of the nineteenth century, when the Supreme Court of the United States decisively upheld the law against the practice.  Since then polygamy has been official doctrine but not official practice.  The church headquartered in Salt Lake City can show continuity of leadership and of membership with the church that migrated from Iowa. J S Ayer 18:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment doesnt' make sense in the context of this talk page. There are at least two churches that claim the same name: the Church of JEsus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and one that hyphenates it - all claiming to be the legitimate successor of the Church Joseph Smith set up. Historians at large call the Mormonism movement "the Latter Day Saint movement" - as the hyphen was added to the LDS Church's name after the Utah-Illinois exodus (its a british spelling) and the original spelling in early editions of the D&C were non-hyphenated. So Hugh Nibley was a Latter-day saint. Colin's statement above is correct - the hyphenated name did not exist until after the Saints got to Utah. The Church may be the same, but the punctuation is different. I disagree with colin that the capital D is associated with polygamists - as the Strangites in Wisconson and Cutlerites both used this name at one point or still do. Anyway -this is all irrelevant to the page at hand, other than Nibley would be considered both a Latter Day Saint (as part of the broader movement) and a Latter-day Saint - part of the Church. -Visorstuff 18:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Latter-day vs. Latter Day

message: An anon editor User:67.186.207.85 keeps deleting (cenoring?) statements supporting Hugh Nibley being respected outside of the Mormonism community. Specifically the following:
:"Nibley was praised by non-LDS historians and researchers for his ability to draw upon historical sources to give evidences for Latter-day Saint beliefs. In one study the authors argued—due to Nibley's reliability and celebrated scholarship—that most of Nibley's work is reliable, encouraging anti-Mormon writers to assess and counter Nibley's research, rather than dismissing it. ." 
It is obvious that the editor either does not agree with the statement (doesn't like it) or has not examined it. Part of the paper on a "anti-cultist" site states: 
:"In light of the respect Nibley has earned in the non-LDS scholarly world it is more amazing that counter-cultists can so glibly dismiss his work. For many years Nibley may have been conservative Mormonism's only reputable scholar. However, due to Nibley's influence as a motivating professor, today there are many more. During the years Nibley taught at BYU several LDS students followed his example by going on to earn the degrees necessary to gain a hearing in the academic community."
Other accomplishements and widely read research include: 
* A sabbatical from BYU at Berkeley, where he taught on rhetoric, Coptic and Egyptian
* A sabbatical at the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago to study and teach Egyptian
* He taught the classics at Claremont College in California
* Because of his anthropoligical work it was requested for him to serve in military intelligence in World War II, and was heavily involved in the D-Day invasion of Normandy. 
* Awards including: Distinguished Service Award in 1979, an honorary doctorate in 1983 and the Exemplary Manhood Award in 1991.
* An article called "The Rise of Rhetoric, The Decline of Everything Else."
*"Many of his more important essays first appeared in academic journals such as the Revue de Qumran, Vigilae Christianae, Church History, and the Jewish Quarterly Review."
* "Nibley has also received praise from non-LDS scholars such as Jacob Neusner, James Charlesworth, Cyrus Gordon, Raphael Patai and Jacob Milgrom."
*"The former dean of the Harvard Divinity School, George MacRae, once lamented while hearing him lecture, "It is obscene for a man to know that much!"
* he was known in utah as a democrat, an outspoken staunch environmentalist, one of the few in the world who could speak 13 languages
He authored more than 260 books and articles on a variety of Mormon and Non-Mormon topics. 
For more details, start with a Google search or see
 and the book "Hugh Nibley: A Consecrated Life"
It is weird for someone to say Nibley was not respected outside of Mormonism. Yes, it was a large chunk of his life (and what he is best known for) - particularly from the 1970s until his death, but he accomplished a great deal in the 40s, 50s and 60s outside of Mormonism. It is interesting that the 20-something crowd and early 30-something crowd do not know him like those who are older, as they haven't seen him in action as others. It is an important point for this article, unless the anon has info to back up this deletion/censorship, that doesn't fit his world view of mormonism. -Visorstuff 19:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I once worked with a woman who was dating a famous egyptology professor at UC Berkeley.  I asked him once what he thought of Hugh Nibley.  He said basically that everything Hugh Nibley wrote was more of less academically perfect, but to accept that aloud was to accept Nibley's conclusions of the church being true, and he wasn't willing to do that, so he just quit reading his books.  But he was well aware of each book as it came out, and owned a great deal of them.  --Mrcolj 19:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nibley unknown outside of Mormonism 

message: In the section about his daughter's book, it quotes from a Mr. Kent P. Jackson. Jackson did indeed criticize Nibley's footnotes, but in his review of Martha Beck's Book, he explicitly states that while he found Nibley's footnotes to be somewhat sloppy, they in no way measured up to the level on inaccuracy that Martha claimed. Jackson's Review of "Leaving the Saints"
Also, Mr. Gregory Taggart wrote a review of her book and looked into Nibley's footnotes. His conclusiong was that 87% of his footnotes were accurate, 8% had typographical errors, and 5% were wrong in some way or another. Taggart's Review. See page 18 of the review. That is quite a far strech from Martha's claims that at best 10% of his footnotes were accurate.
Also, In Taggart's review, he CONCLUSIVELY proves many of the recollections of incidents and other information in Martha's book wrong. See the bottom of page 5 to the top of page 14 for specific examples of where Martha gave severe twistings of the truth and at times just outright lied. Martha often gave very twisted versions of events that unfortunately for her were documented and shown to have occurred quite differently. I am going to modify the statement concerning Jackson to reflect his official statement, and I will also add a link to taggart's review showing that Martha's book is an unreliable source. Jerubaal 23:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote accusations made by Martha Nibley Beck

message: At present "Enoch" links to a disambiguation page. We're not supposed to do that if this is meant to link to Enoch (ancestor of Noah). Someone should fix the link so it's piped. If not go to the dab page, find the right article and link it. Either that or remove the link entirely. --Steven J. Anderson 05:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enoch 

message: The proposed target for the merge was changed, and this discussion was subsequently moved, so I am archiving this discussion.  See Talk:Linguistics and the Book of Mormon#Egyptian Names Merge Proposal.  --Descartes1979 (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Well cited"? - the whole article is just a rehash of a single chapter in one of Hugh Nibley's books.  If we keep this article, what stops us from creating a "Latin names in the Book of Mormon" article, or a "Swahili names found in Shakespeare" article?  It seems rather spurious.  I will look up WP policies later today when I have time, because I would wager that this article would fall under some category that would suggest it should be removed. --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry Daz - but I believe that "actual irrefutable facts" is a gross misstatement, but perhaps you can point me to them.  Your comments are very POV.  Also remember that per Wikipedia guidance, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and as such "there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page."  I am also a little offended that you are calling me a religious bigot, ignorant, and prejudiced.  Can't we elevate this discussion above petty name calling?  --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal 

message: I reverted a couple of cite requests by User:MacRusgail - primarily due to my personal preferences.  "Cite" templates don't, in my opinion, point out the editor's concerns about the section.  Rather than using the generic template, I would like to know things like: 
"Do you believe this sentence/section..." 
:to be inaccurate?
:exaggerates?
:displays a POV?
:portrays a minority opinion?
:requires a contrasting perspective?
:other?
Providing this type of information to other editors helps us improve the paragraph, and so, the encyclopedia.  The template request just asks for any source for the opinion/assertion - no matter how accurate, extreme or POV.   So, MacRusgail, what are your concerns about the paragraph and how can we all work together to address them?  Best wishes.  WBardwin (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has improved since I last looked at it (a long time ago), but I think the archeological side could be balanced with more criticism from non-LDS linguists and archaeologists, some of whom have disagreed with him. There was also an exchange of sorts between him and Fawn Brodie.--MacRusgail (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite request

message: Nomination for the most biased article on Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.168.34 (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded.  Why don't they just marry him?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.123.22.29 (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad article 

message: This is part of what became issue 5 above, which I have been waiting for Adjwilley to get back on. The sentence I want to insert is: “The allegations gained widespread publicity and caused consternation within the LDS community.” (I am leaving discussion of any illustrative quote for later.) I don’t see how you can seriously object to that given what the sources say and I can’t see that you have addressed any particular objection to that sentence in the previous lengthy discussion (other than to the word "revelations" which I have now changed). 92.25.24.99 (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I could live with something like that. I would drop "widespread" (which is rather vague) and use something like "national", and use a word like "received" instead of "gained". ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. I have added that with your amendments. We are making progress. So now please go to the next issue below. 92.24.81.124 (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wide-spread publicity and LDS reaction

message: Now to issue 4 continuing the discussion from above. I hope this will also be easy to resolves. Many of the sources, including Nibley’s own biographer, go into considerable detail about the ritual aspect. I am not suggesting we do that, but merely that we insert the single word “ritual” to succinctly summarize that. Again, I don’t see how you can seriously object. 92.24.81.124 (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nibley's son-in-law in his biography discussed the whole ritual abuse claims hysteria of the late-1980s and the early 1990s but he never suggested that the accusations against Nibley specifically were in any way of ritual abuse.  Nothing really suggests the claim is the abuse was in any way ritual, and actually nothing suggests it ever existed outside of Beck's mind, so I do not think it merits any more coverage than it gets, and even have doubts it merits as much coverage as it has recived.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The "ritual" aspect of the child sexual abuse allegation

message: I'm sorry but I think that it is incorrect (and slightly disingenuous) to link to the exact same article merely printed in different newspaper when providing citations. Having different headlines is not sufficient difference, especially when the herald article says at the top that it is a reprint from an article written TR Reid from the Washington Post. With the exception of one or two paragraphs, they are word for word the same. Also, we already have cites to two other Utah papers, one more than is necessary IMO. Per the guidance of WP:OVERCITE, I think we should remove both the duplicate and redundant WaPo article (in fact I'll do that right now and one of the other Utah paper refs - personally I favor keeping the Trib article since it isn't just a reprint of an AP article. Is there a reason why we need multiple cites? The only reason to keep a ref is if it provides a unique function or significant information that the others do not. Thoughts? --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not reinserted the “duplicate” reference that you have now removed twice, as I don’t want to engage in this kind of useless edit warring. But if you read the discussion above you will see why it might be relevant that the article was re-printed on the front page of a Utah newspaper. (In fact, such a source was expressly called for by a previous contributor.) You will also note that there is an ongoing debate about numerous aspects of the contents of the section dealing with the child sex abuse allegation. Removing any further references before we know what precise facts need to be supported by the sources would therefore be premature. On re-reading the Salt Lake Tribune article, that turns out to focus rather heavily on the denials, including Nibley’s personal denial. I have therefore now moved this reference to support that instead (replacing the otherwise re-used NY Times one). I have bundled the remaining three to avoid any unsightly citation clutter. I hope that takes care of your concerns. 92.24.81.124 (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate references

message: No LDS sources were shown to support a "consternation" view.  Such wording needlessly postpones the much more important individual and familial response to the allegations.  The allegation section should be titly worded.  I even have doubts it is worth noting it recived "national attention", but I think that is enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costernation in LDS community 

message: Article reads: Nibley's viewpoints marked him as atypical of Mormon stereotypes. Are these codified somewhere? I know LDS folks in both political parties as well as independents, and don't what party they were in in Nibley's day. I don't know any that don't believe in conservation. IF we can't codify what these are, this sentence should be removed as unverifiable. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDS Stereotypes? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hugh Nibley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071215111831/http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu:80/publications/nibleyfamilystatement.php to http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/nibleyfamilystatement.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Hugh Nibley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081010034241/http://speeches.byu.edu:80/reader/reader.php?id=2553 to http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=2553
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've been adding biographical information to this page and I'm checking the sources in the scholarship section. I noticed that this issue of the Salt Lake City Messenger is cited. I read the article and I'm not sure if it's a reliable source. I know that the Salt Lake City Messenger in general is anti-Mormon (so it's not neutral). The article by Ronald V. Huggins mentions specific issues with Nibley's work. What do you think? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to include it, since there was a response in The FARMS Review of Books (also a non-neutral source). I specified the venue of publication to help readers be aware of their contexts. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salt Lake City Messenger as source? 

message: Hello, I am returning to editing this page. I had a colleague peer-review the page for me off-wiki. She recommended diversifying my biographical sources, fixing links in the sources, expanding the personal life section, adding more info on Nibley folklore, more details about his non-LDS writings, and adding more context to the Nibley criticisms. Regarding the criticism section, I will try to find sources to describe Nibley's fans, for lack of a better term. To understand the backlash to any fandom, one must understand the original fandom. Please let me know if you have suggestions for sources or other ideas about how to improve the page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting more edits 

message: what is the argument for using Peterson? We can't use him as a primary source because the information about his father-in-law is unduly self serving and it can't be used as a secondary source because Peterson is not independent of Nibley (he is his son-in-law). What are you seeing that would allow us to use this source? Note that the only way you're going to get Peterson in there is if you have an actual WP:RS which talks about Peterson's view. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If Petersen's assessment appeared on twitter or his personal blog or some other self-published source, I would agree with your arguments for the removal of the long-standing Petersen statement and citation. However, WP:SPS does not apply here. The source for Petersen's statement is a book review that appears the Journal of Mormon History, which is a reliable, independent, academic journal. The journal satisfies the criteria of WP:RS - what makes you think this journal does not qualify as a reliable source? Given that his assessment does appear in a RS and does not violate SPS, the long-standing statement and citation should be re-included. I fear that we are going to disagree on the interpretation and application of WP policy on this and so it would probably be good to get a third/outside opinion. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats moot if Petersen isn't also independent of the subject, both author and publisher count and both need to pass. He is a SME, which would allow his use for stuff which isn't unduly self serving... So we could use him for non-controversial information but not to comment on sexual assault allegations by his sister-in-law against his father-in-law. Note that we don't use the daughter directly either, only what the sources say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am inclined to agree with FyzixFighter's assessment of the source's reliability. I think the point about Journal of Mormon History's status as an academic journal with a review process, including editorial review for book reviews, is significant for how to assess the source's reliability and leaves me agreeing that citing the book review is appropriate for this Wikipedia page. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The publisher hasn't been questioned, only the author has been. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peterson