Hugh W. Nibley

You are currently browsing articles tagged Hugh W. Nibley.

Wadi Hammamat

Wadi Hammamat is the probable route taken by the Naqada II people who were the first to bring authentic Egyptian civilization to that land. Wadi Hammamat – translated the Valley of Many Baths – is of interest to students of the Book of Abraham which teaches that ancient Egypt was discovered by a woman:

The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden. When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it. Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal. (Abraham 1:23-25).

According to Dr. Hugh W. Nibley:

Matriarchal primacy in Egypt was traced by the Egyptians to a certain great Lady who came to the Nile Valley immediately after the flood and established herself and her sons as rulers in the land. Since this is the same story that is told in Abraham 1:21-27, it is fortunate that the Egyptian sources are both abundant and specific.1

Elise Baumgartel wrote:

Road in Wadi Hammamat We do not know where Nakada II people came from [but] we find their earliest remains in that part of Egypt where the Wadi Hammamat joins the Nile Valley. Koptos is situated at this junction, and at no great distance across the river are Nubet, the Capitol, and Diospolis Parva.2

Map of Wadi Hammamat

Below is a Google Map of the Wadi Hammamat which stretches from the Red Sea coastline at Quseir westward to the bend in the Nile river at Qift.

The wadi – which is an Arabic term for a valley or a dry riverbed – was used anciently as an important trade and mining road. As such, it led to the “oldest temple and the oldest settlement in Egypt”:

There existed in Egypt from prehistoric times a nome which bore the still obscure name of Kepti (Koptos). . . . [The name was] derived from [the] . . . pre-Misraim inhabitants who called their capital Kebti and the land and even their river by the same name.”3

In addition to being a major road to the Red Sea, the Wadi Hammamat served as a quarrying area for the Nile Valley. Wikipedia reports:

Ancient Egypt Detail of Wadi HammamatQuarrying expeditions to the Eastern Desert are recorded from the second millennia BCE, where the wadi has exposed Precambrian rocks of the Arabian-Nubian Shield. These include Basalts, schists, bekhen-stone (an especially prized green metagraywacke sandstone used for bowls, palettes, statues, and sarcophagi) and gold-containing quartz.4

Wadi Hammamat Links

Sobek the Crocodile God in the Wadi Hammamat The wadi has some spectacular rock art. For some fascinating pictures see Wadi Hammamat – The Road to the Sea by Yarko Kobylecky. See also Wadi Hammamat at Rock Art of the Eastern Desert.

For a tourist’s perspective, see Tour Egypt’s Ancient Rock Quarries: The Ravine of Inscriptions. Lastly, you may be interested in the Turin Papyrus, an ancient Egyptian map of the Wadi Hammamat created in 1160 BC and “generally considered the oldest surviving map of topographical interest from the ancient world.”5

Sources:

  1. Nibley, Hugh W. Gary Gillum, ed. Abraham in Egypt. 2nd Edition. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000. 466.
  2. Baumgartel, Elise J. The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1947. 44.; as quoted in Nibley, Hugh W. Gary Gillum, ed. Abraham in Egypt. 2nd Edition. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000. 537.
  3. Phythian-Adams, W. J. “Aiguptos: A Derivation and Some Suggestions”. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society. 2 (January 1922): 95-99. For a PDF of this journal see The Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society (1920-1948); as quoted in Nibley, Hugh W. Gary Gillum, ed. Abraham in Egypt. 2nd Edition. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000. 537.
  4. Wadi Hammamat”. Wikipedia. 22 December 2008.
  5. Ibid.

LDS Temples

This post – LDS Temples - is all about finding information about ancient and modern temples. A few weeks ago I saw Jeff Lindsay’s post The Mormon Temple Ceremony: What is the Most Helpful Thing for Members to Know Before They Go?, and thought it would be a good idea to create a list of links to blogs and sites that provide information not only about LDS temples, but temples in every age of the world.

Sealing Room in the Manti LDS Temple This list will change over time so feel free to bookmark this page and if you have any suggestions and/or good sources of information on this topic, please leave a comment and we’ll add new sites to the list of links below:

  • Heavenly Ascents - David J. Larsen’s illuminating and scholarly approach to the temple roots of early Christian beliefs.
  • The House of the Lord – Authoritative – albeit few – talks about the temple maintained by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
  • LDS Church Temples – A site which contains up-to-date information about all LDS Temples – those operating and under construction – by Rick Satterfield.
  • LDS Temples - About.com’s resource center maintained by the ever capable Rachel Woods.
  • Mormon Monastery – A quiet place to study and learn about temples which is run by a humble monk.
  • Mormon Mysticism – A blog by David Littlefield about “Mormonism, the Temple, Mormon Mysticism, Jewish Mysticism, and the meaning of life.”
  • Mormon Temple Ceremony – Answers to basic questions about LDS teachings concerning the temple.
  • Mormon Temple Origins – Jeff Lindsay’s lengthy treatise and links to other sources of information about the apparent origins of Mormon temple worship.
  • Mormon Temples – A site maintained by Light Planet with links to additional sources of information about the rites of the temple.
  • Ritmeyer Archaeological Design – Leen Ritmeyer’s blog about The Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
  • The Temple Institute – A Jewish site dedicated to “rekindle the flame of the Holy Temple in the hearts of mankind through education” and to rebuild the “Holy Temple of G-d on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem.”
  • Temple Studies Group – A site created by Margaret Barker and friends “to convene symposia on Temple themes.”
  • Temple Study - Bryce Haymond’s spectacular blog dedicated to LDS scholar Dr. Hugh W. Nibley who seemed to have a special calling to teach us about the temple.
  • Things Unutterable – William J. Hamblin’s occasional musings on ancient temples, celestial ascent and deification.
  •  
    LDS Temples Backgrounder

    As mentioned in a previous post, the basis of every temple ordinance and covenant is the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Russell M. Nelson stated:

    The temple is the house of the Lord. The basis for every temple ordinance and covenant—the heart of the plan of salvation—is the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Every activity, every lesson, all we do in the Church, point to the Lord and His holy house. Our efforts to proclaim the gospel, perfect the Saints, and redeem the dead all lead to the temple. Each holy temple stands as a symbol of our membership in the Church, as a sign of our faith in life after death, and as a sacred step toward eternal glory for us and our families.1

    Dr. Hugh W. Nibley once wrote:

    It is an eloquent commentary on the bankruptcy of the modern mind, as Giorgio de Santillana points out, that we can find so little purpose or meaning in the magnificent and peculiar structures erected by the ancients with such immense skill and obvious zeal and dedication. These great edifices are found throughout the entire world and seem to represent a common tradition; and if they do, then we have surely lost our way.2

    Hopefully, this page - and the information listed under the temple endowmenttemple, and endowment tags - can act as a resource for those searching for information about LDS Temples.

    Sources:

    1. Nelson, Russell M. “Personal Preparation for Temple Blessings”. May 2001. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 16 December 2008.
    2. Nibley, Hugh W. “Ancient Temples: What Do They Signify?”. September 1972. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 18 December 2008. For a review of this article, see Nibley on Book of Mormon Geography.

    In general, Dr. Hugh W. Nibley wrote very little about the geography of the Book of Mormon. And I suppose with good reason. In 1890, George Q. Cannon wrote:

    Book of Mormon Limited Geography ModelThere is a tendency, strongly manifested . . . among some of the brethren, to study the geography of the Book of Mormon. . . . We are greatly pleased to notice the . . . interest taken by the Saints in this holy book. . . . But valuable as is the Book of Mormon both in doctrine and history, yet it is possible to put this sacred volume to uses for which it was never intended, uses which are detrimental rather than advantageous to the cause of truth, and consequently to the work of the Lord. . . . The First Presidency has often been asked to prepare some suggestive map illustrative of Nephite geography, but have never consented to do so. Nor are we acquainted with any of the Twelve Apostles who would undertake such a task. The reason is, that without further information they are not prepared even to suggest. The word of the Lord or the translation of other ancient records is required to clear up many points now so obscure.1

    In 1993, the First Presidency wrote:

    The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.2

    A few weeks ago, a member in our congregation told me about a DVD he recently viewed and was excited to share it with me (see DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography). When he first told me about the DVD, the first thought I had in my mind was an article by Dr. Nibley entitled Ancient Temples: What Do They Signify? in the September 1972 Ensign. Here are a few excerpts that may (or may not) pertain to the ongoing question about the locale of the Book of Mormon:

    Citchen Itza What most impressed me last summer on my first and only expedition to Central America was the complete lack of definite information about anything. Never was so little known about so much. We knew ahead of time that of the knowledge of the ancient cultures there wasn’t much to be expected, but we were quite unprepared for the poverty of information that confronted us on the guided tours of ruins, museums, and lecture halls. It was not that our gracious guides knew less than they should. It is just a fact of life that no one knows much at all about these oft-photographed and much-talked-about ruins.

    In the almost complete absence of written records, one must be permitted to guess, because there is nothing else to do; and when guessing is the only method of determination, one man’s skill is almost as good as another’s. An informed guess is a contradiction of terms, so our initial shock of nondiscovery was tempered by a warm glow of complacency on finding that the rankest amateur in our party was able to pontificate on the identity and nature of most objects as well as anybody else.

    One would suppose it to be a relatively easy thing to decide whether a given structure had served as a hospital, a monastery, a palace, a storeroom, a barracks, a temple, a tomb, or an office. But it is not easy at all, with everything stripped completely bare and all the interiors looking just alike. Usually, we do not even know who the builders were or what their names were or where they came from.

    Stock phrases, such as, “We know as little about the history of the Mixtecs as we do about the Zapotecs,” may confirm a scientist’s integrity, but they hardly establish him as an authority. Admission of ignorance, though a constant refrain in guidebooks and articles, is really no substitute for knowledge. This writer is as ill-equipped as any ten-year-old to write about the people of ancient America, because he has never seen their records—but then who has?

    The vast archives of the Old World civilizations that bring their identities and their histories to life simply do not exist for the New World, and so all we can do as we sit drinking lemonade in the shade is to gaze and emote and speculate and rest our weary feet.

    There are two things, however, about ancient American ruins upon which everyone seems to agree: (1) the reliefs that adorn the walls of some of these structures with ritual games, sacrifices, processions, audiences, and well-known religious symbols leave little doubt that they were designed to be the scenes of religious activities; (2) some of these religious structures were laid out to harmonize with the structure and motion of the cosmos itself, as witness the perfectly straight axial ways that point directly to the place of the rising and setting sun at solstices and equinoxes or the total of 364 steps and 52 slabs to a side that adorn the great pyramid of Chichén Itzá.

    It is an eloquent commentary on the bankruptcy of the modern mind, as Giorio de Santillana points out, that we can find so little purpose or meaning in the magnificent and peculiar structures erected by the ancients with such immense skill and obvious zeal and dedication. These great edifices are found throughout the entire world and seem to represent a common tradition; and if they do, then we have surely lost our way.

    Counterparts to the great ritual complexes of Central America once dotted the entire eastern United States, the most notable being the Hopewell culture centering in Ohio and spreading out for hundreds of miles along the entire length of the Mississippi River. These are now believed to be definitely related to corresponding centers in Mesoamerica.3

    Dr. Nibley went on to explain that all over the Old World and New, these ancient structures or temples functioned as “powerhouses” that attest to “the fading or fictive nature of the vaunted powers from on high.” In fact, it is likely these magnificent structures were just counterfeits built near the end of each respective civilization.

    One thing that leads us to suspect that most of the great powerhouses whose traces still remain were never anything more than pompous imitations or replicas is their sheer magnificence. The archaeologist finds virtually nothing of the remains of the primitive Christian church until the fourth century, because the true church was not interested in buildings and deliberately avoided the acquisition of lands and edifices that might bind it and its interests to this world.

    Adena Hopewell Site Map The Book of Mormon is a history of a related primitive church, and one may well ask what kind of remains the Nephites would leave us from their more virtuous days. A closer approximation to the Book of Mormon picture of Nephite culture is seen in the earth and palisade structures of the Hopewell and Adena culture areas than in the later stately piles of stone in Mesoamerica.

    C. Northcote Parkinson has demonstrated with withering insight how throughout history really ornate, tasteless, and pompous building programs have tended to come as the aftermath of civilization. After the vital powers are spent, then is the time for the super-buildings, the piling of stone upon stone for monuments of staggering mass and proportion. It was after the disciples of the early church decided to give up waiting for the Messiah and to go out for satisfaction here and now that the Christians of the fourth century took to staging festivals and erecting monuments in the grand manner, covering the whole Near East with structures of theatrical magnificence and questionable taste.

    Dr. Nibley compared the building program of the Nephite church to the present LDS Church building program:

    How unlike the building program of the Church today which can barely erect enough of our very functional, almost plain chapels to keep abreast of the growing needs of the Latter-day Saints.

    Though such piles as the great pyramid-temple of Chichén Itzá yield to few buildings in the world in beauty of proportion and grandeur of conception, there is something disturbing about most of these overpowering ruins. Writers describing them through the years have ever confessed to feelings of sadness and oppression as they contemplate the moldy magnificence—the futility of it all: “They have all gone away from the house on the hill,” and today we don’t even know who they were.

    Amid the ruins of the New World, as in Rome, we feel something of both the greatness and the misery, the genuine aspiration and the dull oppression, the idealism and the arrogance imposed by the heavy hand of priestcraft and kingcraft, and we wonder how the ruins of our own super buildings will look someday.

    The great monuments do not represent what the Nephites stood for; rather, they stand for what their descendants, “mixed with the blood of their brethren,” descended to. But seen in the newer and wider perspective of comparative religious studies, they suggest to us not only the vanity of mankind and the futility of man’s unaided efforts, but also something nobler; the constant search of men to recapture a time when the powers of heaven were truly at the disposal of a righteous people.

    Dr. Nibley’s article was in the back of my mind yesterday as I watched Rod Meldrum’s presentation about DNA and Book of Mormon geography. While I do not agree with a number of Mr. Meldrum’s assertions, I love the way he approached the subject as simply a student of the Book of Mormon and as a sincere seeker of truth.

    After watching the DVD, I then went on the Internet and searched for additional information. Unfortunately, I was disappointed to find the “charged” public exchange A Faulty Apologetic for the Book of Mormon on the FAIR blog that occurred earlier this year.

    But after reading through the whole exchange and other related material, I began to ponder about the role of scholarship in informing faith. For example, where does scholarship end and where does faith and the prompting of the Spirit begin in the divine process we call revelation?

    What are your thoughts and experiences concerning this issue?

    Sources:

    1. Cannon, George Q. “Editorial Thoughts: The Book of Mormon Geography”. The Juvenile Instructor. 1 January 1890: 25:18–19.
    2. Correspondence from Michael Watson, Office of the First Presidency, 23 April 1993 as cited in Hamblin, William J. “Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon”. Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. 1993: 2:161-197.
    3. Nibley, Hugh W. “Ancient Temples: What Do They Signify?“. September 1972. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 1 December 2008.

    Yesterday, I read Bryce’s post A Prophet Declares “Redistribution of Wealth” is Socialism. If you read through the comments to that post, you may have noticed it generated quite a debate that eventually ended with ad hominems and a closure of comments.

    Despite the fact that this debate once again reminded me of Hegelian dialectic that has come to dominate political discourse in our society, a number of comments were made about what Nibley supposedly believed, taught, and wrote concerning the redistribution of wealth. So today I thought I would go back and check what Nibley actually had to say about the matter.

    Dr. Nibley summed up the problem of the “redistribution of wealth” after quoting Sir Thomas More’s Utopia. He summarized More’s beliefs in this way:

    He points out that laws limiting ownership, sumptuary laws, laws against corruption in government, and so on - none of these will cure the fatal disease as long as we have private property, which indeed is the disease.1

    GM Factory Redistribution of Wealth and Private Property

    If private property is in fact the disease which is core to the issue of the redistribution of wealth, what is private property? In the same volume, Dr. Nibley gave this insightful commentary:

    The words property and private have the same root (prop = priv by Grimm’s Law) and emphasize the same thing - that which is the most intimate and personal part of an individual. The Oxford English Dictionary specifies “privatus–peculiar to oneself . . . that belongs to or is the property of a particular individual; belonging to oneself, one’s own.” And “proprius–own, proper, . . . property, the holding of something as one’s own.” Both definitions fall back on Old English agen (German eigen), “expressing tenderness or affection . . . in superlative, very own.” Webster has “Latin privatus apart from the state . . . of or belonging to one-self, . . . single, private, set apart for himself.” What is privatum or proprium is therefore peculiar to one person alone (not a corporation). It is something that I could not do without, under any social or economic system, and that would have little interest for anyone else, such as my clothes, shoes, books, notes, bedding, glasses, teeth, comb, and so on. Because they are personal and indispensable to me and of no value to anyone else, they must be inalienable to me, for there is great danger if they fall into the hands of another. The bully on the block who grabs another boy’s glasses can get him to do almost anything to get them back, because he must have them, and the bully knows it. The mill-owner who threatened to withhold lunch from the workers could always get them to work on his terms, claiming their lunches as his private property to dispose of as he chose.2

    In other words, “these two totally different views of private property” are in stark contrast with each other.

    Read the rest of this entry »

    1. Nibley, Hugh W. “The Utopians”. Approaching Zion. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1989. 501.
    2. Nibley, Hugh W. “Work We Must But the Lunch is Free”. Approaching Zion. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1989. 221.

    Having Place

    Last week, I posted Kerry’s video concerning Enoch’s transformation into a celestial being. Although there were a number of fascinating concepts which Kerry presented that caught my attention, the idea that Enoch was “installed on the throne of glory” reminded me of some things Hugh Nibley taught.

    High priest at the golden incense altar

    One of these is the concept of having place. In the Book of Mormon Nephi promised Zoram that if he would remain with Nephi and go down into the wilderness, Zoram would “have place with us” (1 Nephi 4:34). After an exchange of oaths (1 Nephi 4:35), they departed into the wilderness and journeyed to Lehi’s tent. Concerning these events, Nibley wrote:

    The first thing a suppliant does seeking “place” with a tribe is to “put up his tent near that of his protector, take a woolen string from his head and lay it around the neck of his new patron, saying, `I seek protection with thee, O So-and-so.’ ” To this the answer is: “Be welcome to my authority! We receive all of you but what is bad. Our place is now your place.” From that moment the newcomer is under the full protection of the sheikh and “has place” with the tribe. The immemorial greeting of welcome to those accepted as guests in any tent is Ahlan wa-Sahlan wa-Marhaban: in which ahlan means either a family or (as in Hebrew) a tent, sahlan a smooth place to sit down, and marhaban the courteous moving aside of the people in the tent so as to make room for one more. The emphasis is all on “having place with us.”1

    Nibley goes on to explain that councils were often held in tents and that shortly after he pitched his tent, and once Nephi returned with Zoram, Lehi built an altar and with his family “did offer sacrifice and burnt offerings unto the Lord; and they gave thanks unto the God of Israel” (1 Nephi 5:9].

    In Teachings of the Book of Mormon2 Nibley also discussed the concept of having place. Drawing upon the apparent ritual backdrop of Alma 5, he pointed out that “the opposite of oneness” or “being embraced and taken into the family” is described in Alma 5:24-25 where it states:

    Behold, my brethren, do ye suppose that such an one can have a place to sit down in the kingdom of God, with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob, and also all the holy prophets, whose garments are cleansed and are spotless, pure and white? I say unto you, Nay; except ye make our Creator a liar from the beginning, or suppose that he is a liar from the beginning, ye cannot suppose that such can have place in the kingdom of heaven; but they shall be cast out for they are the children of the kingdom of the devil (Alma 5:24-25; emphasis added).

    Nibley also went on to state that reconciliation and atonement are also implied with having place:

    But this is very important to be reconciled. Reconciliation is coming back. These words from the Latin that begin with re always imply going back to a former state, returning home again. And, of course, the Hebrew word for it is teshûvah and then yeshîvah. The teshûvah is return home; the yeshîva is sit down when you get home. We repeatedly have the formula in the Book of Mormon, “Will you have place with us?” Come in and have place to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.3

    Remember, you’re invited to go into the tent and sit down—have place with us. What he’s talking about is the old Mosaic law, which was abolished after Lehi left Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed. It was never the same after that. These people were familiar with the old custom—that going in and sitting down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is very important. That’s the yeshiva, which is the atonement. Yeshiva means “sitting down.” This is a very important part of the atonement, talking about the Day of Atonement or Yom Kippur. This is the way it’s given in Deuteronomy. The Lord parts the veil of the tent, which is the kippur, the covering, and he says he’s ready now to converse with Moses. Moses is supposed to come in. After they have conversed and [he has] passed the test, then he comes in and sits down. But the sitting down is very important. That’s the yeshiva, and yashav. Yashav means to settle down in a place permanently, and yeshiva means to take a seat by somebody.4

    When I first viewed Kerry’s video, I immediately thought about this concept of having place and Enoch being invited to sit on a “throne of glory.”

    Sources:

    1. Nibley, Hugh. An Approach to the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988. 243-244.
    2. Nibley, Hugh. Teachings of the Book of Mormon - Semester 1. Provo, Utah: The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1990. 253.
    3. Nibley, Hugh. Teachings of the Book of Mormon - Semester 1. Provo, Utah: The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1990. 393.
    4. Nibley, Hugh. Teachings of the Book of Mormon - Semester 3. Provo, Utah: The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1990. 214.

    Cosmology is the “study of the universe…and humanity’s place in it.” In the fourth century, early Christianity was stripped of anything resembling “cosmism”. As part of the “restitution of all things”, Joseph Smith restored this lost construct anew (Acts 3:19-21).

    Concerning this, ancient studies scholar Dr. Hugh W. Nibley wrote:

    Flammarion Woodcut - 1888A good example of a teaching propounded in early Christian and Jewish documents, a teaching we’ve been forced to accept against our will, is cosmism. Cosmism was an idea always present in these early sources, and it made them rather offensive. It is the hallmark of early Christianity, of what Jerome calls primitive Christianity–the kind he didn’t like. He said the church had to get rid of it. “I will admit this is the teaching of the early church,” he confessed, but “it’s rather embarrassing to us. We’ve outgrown that. We’re much too intelligent for this sort of thing now.” The doctrine accepted in early Christianity was the literal interpretation of things, which Carl Schmidt, the greatest documents student of the last century, has labeled cosmism. The idea is that somehow or other the physical cosmos is involved in the plan of salvation. It has been there all the time, and because we are living in it, we are part of it.1

    As Christianity has been deeschatologized and demythologized in our own day, so in the fourth century it was thoroughly dematerialized, and ever since then anything smacking of “cosmism,” that is, tending to associate religion with the physical universe in any way, has been instantly condemned by Christian and Jewish clergy alike as paganism and blasphemy. Joseph Smith was taken to task for the crude literalism of his religion–not only talking with angels like regular people, but giving God the aspect attributed to him by the primitive prophets of Israel, and, strangest of all, unhesitatingly bringing other worlds and universes into the picture. Well, some of the early Christian and Jewish writers did the same thing; this weakness in them has been explained away as a Gnostic aberration, and yet today there is a marked tendency in all the churches to support the usual bloodless abstractions and stereotyped moral sermons with a touch of apocalyptic realism, which indeed now supplies the main appeal of some of the most sensationally successful evangelists.2

    Sources:

    1. Nibley, Hugh W. “Unrolling the Scrolls - Some Forgotten Witnesses.” Old Testament and Related Studies. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1986. 122-123.
    2. Nibley, Hugh W. “Treasures in the Heavens.” Old Testament and Related Studies. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1986. 171.