I didn’t know any of this until about ten years ago when I read one of Nibley’s early books and made some extremely critical comments to my mother about it. She just laughed and said my grandfather would have agreed with me and related the above.

Maybe he was different in his prime in the 50′s and 60′s in how he taught though.

However, McConkie didn’t seem to be able to overcome himself, his pride nor his prejudices, resulting in a plethora of opinionated misinterpretations and uninspired statements that still pollute his good work and unfortunately the minds of good LDS men and women all over the world.

Sadly, Manuel, I think that describes Nibley as well. I think McConkie produced some key theological works which are amazingly insightful – usually with the insights put in vague language in a fashion very similar to Nibley and with a very similar topic. Reread his New Testament Commentary realizing that, like Nibley, he is really speaking about the temple and rites of the temple in ways not openly spoken of in the 20th century. It “appears” to be a NT commentary but is loosely connected to it much like a lot of Nibley’s commentary is. (Think Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri)

While a lot of people oppose Nibley to McConkie what always stands out to me when I read them is how similiar they are in technique, style and focus. Yes Nibley is an ancient studies professor and McConkie a lawyer. But beyond how those disciplines lead them to comport themselves to the topic the parallels are really quite astounding. And frankly the weaknesses are pretty similar.

I’m with Kevin, though. Despite all of the very valid criticism of Nibley’s various works, I think one can hardly overestimate his impact on Mormon scholarship and I believe a lot of that impact was for the better. As a person, Nibley seems to have been a genuine disciple. I agree with the basic point of the post, but I still love Nibley. Oh, and one thing I rarely hear people complain about is that Nibley must be one of the worst teachers ever. So add that to the stuff in your pipe before you light up.

When it comes to his “scriptural exegesis,” I have little to say, that is not my cup of tea (though I troll around here anyways). I really could not say one way or the other. But I think that you are getting the the heart of the matter. As a figure in the history of Mormon intellectual thought, we should not discount his contributions. Yet, we should also move on.

The problem is that a lot of people pick up his works thinking it is all stuff that has stood the test of time whereas a lot simply has not. Ironically he’s at his strongest and most relevant on the more polemical political and moral works. (Even though there I often disagree with him more – I think he adopts a naive economic view for instance)

Yet a lot of these elements are just part and parcel of scholarly thinking. And in a way Nibley just introduced such things to LDS theology and scriptural exegesis. But the influence probably can’t be overstated. I also think he offers an interesting middle ground between those who tend to discount all scriptural history and those who adopt a naive literalism. Instead we have Nibley who adopts a quasi-literalism but sees it as reflecting the author’s limited perspective. While I think Nibley still overstated literalism, that move to perspectivism (rather than a God’s eye view) still offers the strongest basis for a more “conservative” approach to scripture. (i.e. that doesn’t attempt to just de-mythologize everything by treating it as fiction) This enabled Nibley to take seriously a lot without going too far the other direction.

I think that is the only basis for taking the scriptures seriously – especially theologically. Otherwise they simply lose a lot of their authority.