Nibley's Leaders to Managers: The Fatal Shift

[Sleeping in EQ]

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/disp...scripts&id=125

[Solon]

An interesting talk, and I appreciate the sentiment. Nearly every component of society could use more leaders and fewer managers.

Nevertheless, I found his historical examples to be inaccurate and misleading.

For example, Plato’s Protagoras does not open with “the Sophists . . . making a big thing of their special manner of dress and delivery,” but with Socrates talking about how the wisest man is the most handsome man – precisely the opposite of Nibley’s criticism of obsession with appearances.

In addition, the Archilochus “ode” Nibley alludes to (fr. 58) is non-existent (let alone "famous"). The closest I could find was a fragment in which the poet prefers a leader who sets his feet firmly instead of one who looks good. (fr. 113).

I find this over and over in Nibley's works. While I recognize that Nibley wrote in a time where citation was a much looser affair, I find his ancient scholarship to be downright inaccurate. I appreciate his thoughts, but sweeping statements like “What took place in the Greco-Roman as in the Christian world was that fatal shift from leadership to management that marks the decline and fall of civilizations” are hyperbolic and simplistic.

So, while I appreciate Nibley's thoughts on leaders and managers, his arrogance or negligence in the way he treats his historical sources really kills the buzz for me.

Again, thanks to SEIQ for posting this.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

An interesting talk, and I appreciate the sentiment. Nearly every component of society could use more leaders and fewer managers.

Nevertheless, I found his historical examples to be inaccurate and misleading.

For example, Plato’s Protagoras does not open with “the Sophists . . . making a big thing of their special manner of dress and delivery,” but with Socrates talking about how the wisest man is the most handsome man – precisely the opposite of Nibley’s criticism of obsession with appearances.

In addition, the Archilochus “ode” Nibley alludes to (fr. 58) is non-existent (let alone "famous"). The closest I could find was a fragment in which the poet prefers a leader who sets his feet firmly instead of one who looks good. (fr. 113).

I find this over and over in Nibley's works. While I recognize that Nibley wrote in a time where citation was a much looser affair, I find his ancient scholarship to be downright inaccurate. I appreciate his thoughts, but sweeping statements like “What took place in the Greco-Roman as in the Christian world was that fatal shift from leadership to management that marks the decline and fall of civilizations” are hyperbolic and simplistic.

So, while I appreciate Nibley's thoughts on leaders and managers, his arrogance or negligence in the way he treats his historical sources really kills the buzz for me.

Again, thanks to SEIQ for posting this.

I wonder why Nibley acted that way. I suppose the lack of peer review impeded his work. If there had been more vigorous peer review in his day, he'd and we'd be better off. I do like some of his LDS social thought, even though it is quite socialist. But he has a genuine, humane way of looking at the world, not the bureaucratic populist rhetoric espoused by politicians.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I wonder why Nibley acted that way. I suppose the lack of peer review impeded his work. If there had been more vigorous peer review in his day, he'd and we'd be better off. I do like some of his LDS social thought, even though it is quite socialist. But he has a genuine, humane way of looking at the world, not the bureaucratic populist rhetoric espoused by politicians.

I agree. His best stuff (IMO) are his essays published in Approaching Zion, where he was able to rely on personal interpretations of scripture, philosophy, doctrine, etc. He has some really good insights; I just don't trust his history.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

I agree. His best stuff (IMO) are his essays published in Approaching Zion, where he was able to rely on personal interpretations of scripture, philosophy, doctrine, etc. He has some really good insights; I just don't trust his history.

When I first read them, I didn't know not to trust it, because I just didn't know enough.

Approaching Zion is good and, even though we may question his intrepretations of the ancient temples, I like his interpretations and insights in the temple books.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I like his interpretations and insights in the temple books.

Me too. I don't buy it all, but it's definitely a lot of food for thought. If there's anything in the LDS church with ancient roots, it's the temple stuff. But that's another topic for another thread.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by Solon

Me too. I don't buy it all, but it's definitely a lot of food for thought. If there's anything in the LDS church with ancient roots, it's the temple stuff. But that's another topic for another thread.

So the Masons got it right?

Nibley was paid to be an apologist. That makes him a little loose with the facts.

[All-American]

Nibley was loose with the facts because he was unchallenged, by and large. Very few had the capacity or the desire to call his stuff into question.

Being loose with some facts, especially when they aren't the primary focus of the study at hand, doesn't seem to be a problem that is pecluliarly Nibley-esque, or even a problem of his time period. That's the one of the problems I find with history. The thing that has amazed me most in my history studies is how subjective the studies really are. It seems at times almost as imprecise a science as outright fiction.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by All-American

Nibley was loose with the facts because he was unchallenged, by and large. Very few had the capacity or the desire to call his stuff into question.

Being loose with some facts, especially when they aren't the primary focus of the study at hand, doesn't seem to be a problem that is pecluliarly Nibley-esque, or even a problem of his time period. That's the one of the problems I find with history. The thing that has amazed me most in my history studies is how subjective the studies really are. It seems at times almost as imprecise a science as outright fiction.

I agree that history is a subjective field - that's why I prefer to consider it part of the humanities - but ancient history is a different bird from more modern periods. Generally, our "primary" sources are really "secondary." Sure, we have inscriptions and coins, but few letters and documents have survived - none really outside of Egypt. All we have are Thucydides' or Herodotus' versions of events . . . if we are going to throw them out as inaccurate or too subjective, we essentially have nothing left.

So, I agree with your subjectivity observation, but I tend towards a harsher judgment against Nibley. Interpretation is always debatable; fabricating sources isn't. This talk was from 1983 - hardly a lifetime ago.

I just wish the LDS wouldn't lionize him so.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Solon

I agree that history is a subjective field - that's why I prefer to consider it part of the humanities - but ancient history is a different bird from more modern periods. Generally, our "primary" sources are really "secondary." Sure, we have inscriptions and coins, but few letters and documents have survived - none really outside of Egypt. All we have are Thucydides' or Herodotus' versions of events . . . if we are going to throw them out as inaccurate or too subjective, we essentially have nothing left.

So, I agree with your subjectivity observation, but I tend towards a harsher judgment against Nibley. Interpretation is always debatable; fabricating sources isn't. This talk was from 1983 - hardly a lifetime ago.

I just wish the LDS wouldn't lionize him so.

The stuff going on in 1983 still goes on in 2007. Like I said, I'm always surprised with how sketchy some of the stuff that I read can get. If I am less harsh in judging Nibley, it is because 1), the historical bits are not the main focus of this address anyway; and 2), Nibley is one of the big reasons scholasticism at BYU has progressed to the point that BYU grads are able to recognize errors in his methods.

"Condemn me not because of mine imperfection . . . but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."