The World and the Prophets

The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley #3

by Hugh Nibley

In this collection of essays, first broadcast on radio in 1954, Nibley responds to those who challenge the right of members of the LDS church to call themselves Christians. He points out identities of doctrines, practices, and institutions between Latter-day Saint Christians and the early Christians. And he describes how Christ's church changed from an organization with inspired prophets into a thoroughly different institution built upon the learning of men.

Genres: Religion, Lds, Nonfiction, History, Mormonism, Church, Spirituality

281 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1954

About the author

Hugh Winder Nibley was one of Mormonism's most celebrated scholars. Nibley is notable for his extensive research and publication on ancient languages and culture, his vigorous defense of doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and for frankly discussing what he saw as the shortcomings of the LDS people and culture.

A prolific author and professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University, he was fluent in over ten languages, including Classical Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Egyptian, Coptic, Arabic, German, French, English, and Spanish languages. He also studied Dutch and Russian during World War II.

In addition to his efforts as a scholar, Nibley was well known for writings and lectures on LDS scripture and doctrinal topics, many of which were published in LDS Church magazines. His book “An Approach to the Book of Mormon” was used as a lesson manual for the LDS Church in 1957.

Reviews

[thethousanderclub · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although not as doctrinally provocative or illuminating as Temple and Cosmos or Enoch the Prophet, The World and the Prophets is a fascinating commentary on the intersection between the role of prophets and the world that so often ignores them. As would be expected, Nibley's keen and pithy insights are bounteous in this volume. His intellect and spiritual conviction are a unique blend of wisdom, and I'm still not aware of his equal among Latter-day Saint scholars and thinkers.

Of most interest to me in this volume was the detailing of how the Christian world has sought to grapple with the loss of prophets and apostles. Anyone familiar with contemporary Christianity is probably familiar with the perfunctory arguments about the needless nature of those holy callings. With the Bible in hand, what more direction can or ought to be received from God? But what is the origination of these arguments? And what were the reasons given in the earliest days of apostasy? Nibley looks at several of the most influential Christian thinkers in the centuries after Christ's death and presents a convincing argument that the Christian world didn't conquer paganism and sophistry but acquiesced to many of its tenets.

Reading The World and the Prophets has re-ignited my interest in the Reformation. William Tyndale has long been an admired historical figure, and I would love to take a deeper dive into the world he struggled against. What led to the need for a Reformation in the first place? Furthermore, if the Reformation didn't fully purge the Christian world of its corrupted doctrines, which it clearly didn't, what building blocks did it lay for the Restoration? In all of this one sees the acute need for prophets and apostles. Where are we if there is none among us who can say with authority "I see God" and "I hear His voice." A bold claim—obviously—but one made with prophetic authority in these latter-days.

When compared against the other volumes from Nibley, this one didn't strike with the same force and energy as some of his others, but it's definitely better than some, such as Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints. I'm grateful for this volume because it has reignited my interest in the Reformation. There is more to be learned there. The thinking and arguments of the past are very much with us today, and those ideas influence us far beyond our theology. The World and the Prophets does a wonderful job of peeling back the curtain on theological debates which have burdened mankind for centuries.

https://thethousanderclub.blogspot.com/

[Jeanne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nibley uses extensive ancient documents/writing to prove that the foundations of Christian doctrine shifted from prophetic revelation to human reason.

Today’s scholars know that Christian doctrine was crafted and warped by Greek philosophy, and then taught to be the true doctrine. Greek philosophy was no substitute for pure revelation from God. But the philosophers, including Saint Augustine tried to fix Christianity so it wouldn’t seem so backward to the other non-believer philosophers.

Some quotes from the book:

Even if the scriptures were inerrant, where is the inerrant interpreter? There isn’t one which is why there are so many Christian denominations. Revelation from God is needed to interpret the scriptures.

Modern Christian scholars recognize that today’s Christianity is built on Aristotle.

The words of a leading Protestant theologian are strangely reminiscent of Hilary: “The Bible has to be interpreted from its own centre. It is not concentric with Aristotle, as Roman theology posits, nor with modern rationalism, as theological liberalism has assumed. … It … authenticates itself … to the man who comes in faith and prays for the inward witness of the Holy Spirit.”51 (Emily Blackman, “The Task of Exegesis,” in Davies & Daube, 25)

The old double-talk again: it authenticates itself, but it does not authenticate itself-a higher authority is needed, “the inward witness of the Holy Spirit.” Why not break down and call it revelation?

Today there is cautious but unmistakable edging toward an acceptance of the long-forbidden idea of modern revelation. This has followed upon a growing realization that the Bible alone is not enough.

Even when they preach repentance and thunder words of warning, the prophets bring nothing but good news. In every age joy is the keynote of their message: “Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord” (Zechariah 2:10). Like the angels, the prophets bring glad tidings of great joy, the assurance that our Redeemer lives and that he has come to earth and taken upon himself the task of atoning for our inadequacy.

In the boundless jubilation that comes like a vast sigh of relief with that assurance, all other cares and worries shrivel to insignificance. As we all know, the word gospel comes from the classic evangelium, “the joyful news,” “the glad tidings.” In his darkest hour the Lord told the Apostles, “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). Then he left them to tread the winepress alone, to do the work that no one else could do.

We are commanded to be joyful because he has borne our sorrows. He was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief so that we need not be. Our own sins and limitations are the things that make us sad. He had no sins and limitations; he was not sad for his sake, but wholly for ours. Only one could suffer for others who did not deserve to suffer for himself. If we remain gloomy after what he did for us, it is because we do not accept what he did for us. If we suffer, we deserve to suffer because there is no need for it if we only believe in him.

——

Let us consider briefly a few steps that led to the formulation of the Nicene Creed.

It all began when Bishop Alexander of Alexandria “one day in a meeting of his presbyters and the rest of the clergy under him, theologized in a rather showy way (philtimoteron) on the subject of the Holy Trinity, philosophizing to the effect that in a triad was really a monad. Arius, one of the presbyters under his authority and a man not unskilled in dialectic give and take, … took the extreme opposite position just to show how much smarter he was (out of philoneikias) … and replied bitingly to the things the Bishop had said.” Socrates, the historian, concludes a summary of Arius' speech on this occasion by saying, “Constructing his syllogism by this novel reasoning, he attracted everybody's attention, and with a small spark lit a mighty blaze.”[1] … The bishop, philosophizing in a showy way, not seeking truth but just being smart, using technical terms-triad and monad-unknown to the scripture, is refuted by a clergyman carefully trained in that dialectic art which the early Fathers so abhorred.…

In the end, the emperor had to summon, as we all know, the great Council of Nicaea. While the gathering body of churchmen was waiting for the latecomers to arrive, some interesting preliminary discussions were held. These illustrate perfectly the spirit of the whole thing. We are told that a large number of laymen were there, experts in the art of dialectic, entering enthusiastically into the discussions on every side. “Meanwhile, not long before the general assembly was to take place, certain dialecticians were addressing the multitude and showing off in controversy. Great crowds being attracted by the pleasure of hearing them, one of the confessors, a layman with a clear head, stood up and rebuked the dialecticians and said to them that Christ and the Apostles did not give to us the dialectical art nor empty tricks, but straightforward knowledge preserved by faith and good works. When he said this, all those present were flabbergasted, and then agreed. And the dialecticians, hearing straight talk, became a good deal more sober and contained. Thus was abated the uproar which dialectic had stirred up.”[3] There were still clear heads in the church, but they did not belong to the men who were about to make the creed. …

Let us skip to the closing speech of the mightiest of councils. It was delivered, fittingly, by the emperor, “who was first to bear witness to the correctness of the creed,” according to Eusebius in a letter to his own flock, " … and he urged everyone to come to the same opinion and sign the statement of dogmas and to agree with each other by signing a statement to which but a single term had been added-the word, homoousion.” The emperor then proceeded to explain with much technical language that word (which had been agreed on in committee) and the final verdict that the thing was really incomprehensible. “So in such a manner,” Eusebius concludes, “our most wise and most devout (eusebes, blessed) Emperor philosophized; and the Bishops by way of explaining the homoousios prepared the following statement.”[4]

In the statement that follows occurs an interesting admission: “We are well aware that the Bishops and writers of ancient times when discussing the theology of the Father and the Son never used the word homoousios.” To allay the doubts of his flock Eusebius hastens to assure them that “the faith here promulgated … we all agreed upon, not without careful examination and according to opinions presented and agreed upon in carefully stated logismoi, and in the presence of the most devout Emperor.” In other words, the committee had worked hard. All the trouble has been caused, according to this document “by the use of certain expressions not found in the Scripture. … Since the divinely inspired Scriptures never use such terms as ‘out of nothing,' or ‘that existed which at one time did not exist,' and such like terms; for it did not seem proper (eulogon) to say and teach such things, … never in times before have we thought it proper to use these terms.”[5] The letter then proceeds to authorize the use of those very terms which it acknowledges to be unknown to the early Christians. … We left the word logismoi untranslated above, because Paul uses the very same word in 2 Corinthians 10:4-5 when he says that revealed knowledge, the Gnosis, invalidates or confounds all logismoi, that is, calculations of men. Now Eusebius takes comfort in the thought that the Nicene Creed is made up of carefully worded logismoi. You see how the foundations of doctrine had shifted from prophetic revelation to human reason.

----
Augustine changed the doctrine of Christianity:

Augustine … never came around to accepting on the one hand the naive beliefs with which he charged the Christians, nor on the other hand did he ever swerve in his allegiance to the Platonists. According to Professor Grabmann, the whole explanation of Augustine's “tremendous influence on the scholasticism and mysticism of the Middle Ages” lay in the single fact of his being “the greatest Christian Neoplatonist,” whose life's work was “the christianizing of Neoplatonism.”[10]

-----
An eminent Protestant divine declares today: “I boldly assert, therefore, that God does not speak today because of the supreme character of His revelation of Himself made once for all in His Christ. … We must … recognize His voice in his final written Word.”

Those who maintain with Irenaeus, that the Bible speaks its own message clearly, directly, and unequivocally to all, soon discover themselves in wild disagreement as to what it says. … Vincent of Lerinum, author of the famous Vincentian canon, notes that “although the canon of the Scripture is complete, ‘and of itself is sufficient and more than sufficient for all things,' yet tradition is needed for a proper understanding of the Scripture.”[35] Already we are questioning the vaunted self-sufficiency of the holy page to convey its own message; yet the churchmen dare not change their position, lest they lower the bars to revelation. But how can they presume to add their comments and explanations to the Bible, supplying that information without which, they assure us, the holy Word cannot be understood, and at the same time insist that they are adding nothing, but simply letting the book speak for itself? … They are not letting the evidence alone at all; they are officiously helping it to say the things they think it should say.

[Max Evans · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is probably my second favorite book of the Nibley series. It's a fascinating book about early Christianity and the Mormon perspective. I've heard people complain that Nibley's interests were to wide spread and that he didn't specialize in one area. I've also heard people say that this is the area that he should have specialized in. While I think it would have been awesome if he had, I think that he saw himself as a trailblazer and went wherever the Spirit led him to trail blaze.

This book was a series a lectures that he gave on radio. You can get podcasts of the lectures and they're excellent. In fact they're about the only recordings of Nibley that I've ever been able to follow. The radio people probably forced him to slow down and stay on point. I one time got to listen to my hero give a lecture in real life and it was hard to stay with him. He talked really fast and would wonder. I much prefer his books to his lectures except in the case of these podcasts.

[Keith · Rating 5 out of 5]

“As surely as the words of a prophet are written down in books, they become the object of specialist study. Once the true prophet has been duly rejected and passed to his reward, swarms of experts descend upon his words to begin the learned business of exegesis. The words of the dead prophets become the peculiar possession of armies of specially trained and carefully conditioned scholars. In a very old text, Peter is reported as saying in a letter to James regarding the use of his own writings in the church: “They think they are able to interpret my own words better than I can, telling their hearers that they are conveying my very thoughts to them, while the fact is that such things never entered my mind. If they take such outrageous liberties while I am alive, what will they do after I am gone!”’* Much later, Clement of Alexandria expressed much the same sentiment.* You see the point: The scholar and learned divine must necessarily get their knowledge from the written word, and then trouble begins. The prophet, on the other hand, who may well be illiterate, gets his knowledge by direct intercourse with heaven. The orientation of the two is entirely different.”
(The World and the Prophets, Hugh Nibley, 1987, page 28)

[David Hibberd · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an intriguing book looking at how the early Christian church changed after the death of the apostles. Hugh Nibley learned Greek, Hebrew, and Latin to help him as he investigated writings from the early history of Christ's church to modern times.
Many of these early writers could see how the church was changing and wanted to do things to make it right, but they recognized that the true way to correct these errors was to have a prophet at the head of the church.
There are 26 pages of references in seven different languages.
The message of the book is that prophets are a fundamental part of Christ's true church.

[Spencer Willardson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was excellent. Lots of work about the writings of the early church and how they changed over time. The need for prophets and revelation clearly expounded. Great writing. Nibley at his best.

[Ryan Thalman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent set of arguments outlining the purpose of prophets and how they stand in operation to modern philosophy and the vain arguments of men.

[Jerimiah Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read making a very solid case for a Christian Apostasy following Christ’s accent. The Great Apostasy by Talamage should have been retired after this was written.

[Terry Earley · Rating 4 out of 5]

By describing early, biblical prophets from the Bible and what documents are available from the early church, Nibley makes a strong case that prophets are witnesses, and not necessarily highly educated and polished professors, orators, philosophers, or even apologists.

Because they had seen with their own eyes, they put the early philosphers and their schools to shame. They were not part of the debates. They stated their message simply and clearly -and therefore often paid with their lives.

That was the fate of Joseph Smith in our day. One of my favorite books.

[Claudia · Rating 5 out of 5]

- I must add - this book opens up amazing understandings of the Temple and "The philosophies of men mingled with scripture."
Hugh Nibley has an amazing intellect; I am so grateful to read and learn from him. This is an amazing read. It makes me truly wonder how any religious scholar can seriously consider any choice but the truth that is so clearly before us.

My testimony of the restored gospel continues to be strengthened. The more I learn the more awed I am to be one of the few of the many billions of children to ever live to have the truth in my life.

[Jake · Rating 1 out of 5]

Although Nibley has a great sense of humor, and is extremely well-read in a number of languages, when he starts talking about proof for Mormon scripture he uses shoddy scholarship.

To understand Nibley's approach to scholarship, see:
Salmon, Douglas F. "Parallelomania and the Study of Latter-day Scripture: Confirmation, Coincidence, or the Collective Subconscious? Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 33, no. 2 (Summer 2000): 129-156.

[Doris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unfortunately, I didn't write this review before starting the next book, and that's all I seem to remember in detail now. Still, I know that I was fascinated by this book, as I have been by the other Nibley books I have read. The treatment of prophets through the history of the world was very interesting, and I feel even more fortunate to know that there is a living prophet today.

[Joe Atwood · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed it, but for most readers that depends on whether you've read other volumes first or after this--a few other books cover much of the same ground. I do love this comparison, and for interested readers, though this is in a bit of a different vein, this book would go well with Abraham Heschel or William James.

[Scott Jensen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Book in a nutshell: Time vindicates the prophets - not just one or two, but all of them. Yes, even the Mormon ones like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

[Purple Wimple]

classic Hugh Nibley-- concise, provocative.

[Margie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nibley bends over backwards in his research to help the reader understand that God works through prophets and that it is ridiculous to think otherwise.

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is what got me into Nibley. Of all the great ideas I can come up with, chances are Nibley already did it.

[David Harris · Rating 4 out of 5]

So far more compelling than the last Nibley book and still full of great insights on human nature and our relationship to God through his prophets

[Todd · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read it.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

From radio talks given in the

[Makana Limary · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book, like the others in the collection, bring a whole new insight into religion and the world

[Jeff Crosby]

Transferred marked passages to ebook. Because of the way I read and use my LDS library I have elected to not rate these books.