I literally ran into him a couple of years later in downtown Salt Lake City. I had driven up there to go to Pres Kimball’s viewing, and as I walked back to my car, I nearly knocked over an old man, who, because of his worn and mismatched clothes, I believed at first was homeless. It was only when he looked up at me as we made the awkward apologies for the near miss that I realized it was my old professor, Bro Nibley.

Thomas,

As a fellow biz owner, I’m curious about how Nibley’s ideas have changed how you run your business?

On one point, I should clarify. You say, “This matter of ‘dissident’ must be properly defined and understood.” Indeed. I certainly don’t mean the word as any kind of pejorative. Instead I’m using it here to point out that Hugh Nibley violates current Mormon stereotypes about those who criticize the highest leaders of the church. In fact, many dissidents violate those stereotypes, and criticism has never been the same as evil-speaking. One can be a dissident in the sense of expressing serious dissent with a policy — or even the overall direction of church leadership, as in the leaders vs. managers speech! — without being disaffected; Nibley reminds us of that, but it’s a lesson we should apply to others, as well.

Brother Hugh is one of my dearest friends. His last words to me a very short time prior to his passing in his front room upon his sick bed were to the effect “Remember, we will still be friends”. I don’t quite know how to articulate the overwhelming feelings that come to mind and heart as I read and ponder the comments posted. I feel that the subjects at hand cover such a vast array of our faith that it may not be possible to satisfy the desire to expound and reason them out fully or in any significant degree here on this board. I am certain that Brother Hugh is interested in this post and from where he is is fully aware of its contents.

Here are some of my thoughts, please bear with me as I tend to get going and do not do too well with grammar, the spirit flows quicker than my ability to organize it according to the preference of the nobles and when I go back to rewrite much of that inspiration is tainted: Hugh Nibley’s prime directive was and is Truth. The heart of all his efforts were fundamentally directed to that end. The comment regarding the Church not mentioning his passing in conference is nullified by the fact that at his funeral were Elder Jeffery Holland and Dallin Oaks along with several other general authorities including Merrill Bateman. They were not there because they had to be and their talks expressing a great veneration for his works were plainly evident. Upon the subject that eludes to Brother Hugh being disaffected in any degree regarding the Church is absolute conjecture. This matter of “dissident” must be properly defined and understood. In my opinion the Truth is never a form of dissent but really a matter of milk and meat. I recommend we all read “Adventures of a Church Historian” by Leonard Arrington, in it the battle of Management VS. Inspiration proves to be the main theme. No one that I intimately know including a great many of our dear brethren leading the Church were so committed to the spirit of the Truth. The power of his words only resonate Truth with Truth, intelligence cleaving unto intelligence. I am not advocating that he is great in and of himself, he would be the first to admit himself “less than the dust of the earth”. He loved to be proven wrong about something because that to him meant that he could at last be corrected for the sake of truth. (Being liberated from a lie, “The truth shall set you free”) Brigham Young said that we ought to love the truth because there is no error in it – this is the heart of Brother Hugh’s mission. It is a prophetic mission I firmly believe. He told it how it is and did not reserve! Hugh’s famous comments regarding “Graduating in the robes of Satan’s priesthood” was not a joke. As I see it, Man has not power to intellectualize the gospel but only prove himself (individually) that he is worthy to progress into higher and higher realms of understanding or light and truth – until the perfect day as we learn in the D&C. Our agency is the only real asset we posses and as Hugh said the best we can do with it here in our mortal probation (even to the envy of Angels) is to “Forgive and Repent.”

About Hugh being disaffected with the church leaders: The Brethren have their stewardship and stand accountable to it just as you stand accountable for your stewardships. Hugh recognized that and devoted himself to the mission that Heavenly Father ordained him to perform. He called a spade a spade. Elder Packard once told us that the Church leadership wags the tail of the dog but the Church membership wags the Dog.

As I see it, each of us must come to the place where we are in harmony with the eternal unchangeable principle that Truth is the ultimate end and that never the means to obtain it is justified by such else freedom and progression are ever stalled. Satan has not intelligence but superior knowledge in effect he chose not to graduate the 3rd grade where we using our agency can cleave unto intelligence or the Glory of God and progress as long as we so desire. Why do you think humility is the only grounds upon which we have right to qualify for true advancement? There are two intelligences, the one greater than the other and I God am more intelligent than them all”. Without a higher intelligence we cannot be corrected (changed) and taught or added upon. The more you learn is ever the more you come to realize that you don’t know and how insignificant you ever stand before God. Grace for Grace, Line upon Line – even God himself followed this pattern and his Father and His ever into the eternities of the past of no beginning. We must ever realize that the concepts of Freedom and Security are opposed at their very root! Our only hope to truly become great and one with God is to enter into his holy way which is and always has been and ever will be reverence, humility and obedience.

Re: #35 — Probably the best example I can think of how one can successfully criticize and change traditional Church views if one comes from a proven stance of faith is the increasing broad acceptance of the FARMS promoted limited geography model of the BoM.

To stick to the theme of this post, it might be noteworthy that Hugh Nibley himself published more than once in Dialogue.