A Zealous Argument Against Over-Zealousness
It is one thing to want. It is another thing entirely to achieve. The defining feature of genius is not zeal alone, though the heights of great men reached and kept were never realized without the fuel of desire, but rather understanding and mastery of great truth is the element that separates the wanna-bes and the Einstein’s of any given field. The stereotypical doomsday naysayer is as much religious zealot as any Martin Luther, John Calvin, or Joseph Smith. The difference however, resides in Hugh Nibley’s admonition for an acquisition of knowledge to match desire. In his essay Zeal Without Knowledge Nibley explores the relationship between the two, and how the inevitability of thought allows every individual to shape their own very personalized world. Through his extensive use of referencing, satire and didacticism, rhetorical questions, and metaphor he is able to successfully convince and motivate his pious Mormon audience not only to expand their own world, but to do so in a correct manner, according to “real intelligence and solid knowledge.”
A great strength of Nibley’s argument comes from his reference of numerous theologians, scholars, and prophets. By quoting the likes of Nigel Calder, N. S. Southerland, William James, Aristotle, Joseph Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Brigham Young, and Moroni he is able to lend his voice to a chorus of others who make the point for him, and the diversity of these sources provides authority and perspective to the case for knowledge. The first instance of referencing occurs in the opening paragraph with Nibley’s quotation of Calder asserting “[that]… the mind attends to one thing at a time.” This sets up his premise that because “you can only think of one thing at a time,” the very act of thinking is a resource that must be allotted carefully and wisely. Nibley subsequently shows his audience that this “crippling limitation” is a fundamental element of the “test of [our] real character, making this life a time of testing and probation,” and that to waste time and thought is a sin. In quoting Calder and others and referencing scriptures such as 2 Nephi 9:27 and Mormon 9:28 Nibley is able to shape his foundational opening argument, establish its validity, and transition to the subject of zeal without knowledge.
Another example of referencing occurs when Nibley alludes to the over-zealousness that characterized the early Saints of Kirtland and quotes from The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that describe how the Prophet Joseph, in speaking to the Relief Society, “commended them for their zeal, but said sometimes their zeal was not according to knowledge.” This lies at the heart of Nibley’s admonition, provides a parallel for modern times that he sets against the behavior of today’s Mormon, and helps him to illustrate how “zeal makes us loyal and unflinching,” but in the end “the principle of knowledge is the principle of salvation.” In addition this also points to Nibley’s masterful reference of stories that provide stark examples of men such as Oliver Cowdery, Mr. Olney, and the modern and ancient Israelite who let their zeal outpace their knowledge, who “’[look] beyond the mark’ and [fall] on their faces,” and who are all very persuasive in what not to do.
Although much of Nibley’s argument is built on references that speak both for themselves and for him, the true convincing power of his case for knowledge comes from his didacticism and use of satire. The prime example of this is his constant mention of some of the beliefs and mind-sets of BYU students and graduates. After persuading his audience of the importance of “real intelligence and solid knowledge,” Nibley proceeds to expose several different weaknesses of character that have developed in these individuals, such as the answer book attitude, the abolishing of the Graduate Record Examination, and the avoidance of “serious [spiritual] matters” in the classroom setting. He satirizes these attitudes, and makes the argument just personal enough to truly motivate his audience to change. This is especially obvious when he describes those who claim to “understand the scriptures by pure revelation” and thus “[don’t] need to toil at Greek or Hebrew as the Prophet and Brethren did in the School of the Prophets.” The absurdity of such an attitude acts as an example of how many in ranks of modern Mormonism choose to operate by zeal alone, and he makes clear “where that philosophy came from” and what consequences await these individuals whose minds have been decoyed by the devil.
Nibley’s didacticism constantly bleeds through the page. His essay is meant to be largely instructive, and one example of this instruction is when he mentions that “we must know what we are doing, understand the problem, live with it, [and] lay a proper foundation.” He presents this formula as one for meriting the “revelation to assist us, and give us knowledge of the things of God.” Two halves of the motivation process are pointing out the problem and outlining a solution. By satirizing the problem of over-zealousness and providing the reader with the “shoulds” and “musts” that relate to the pursuit of zeal with knowledge Nibley effectively motivates his audience to “seek the knowledge [God] wants us to seek.”
Beyond satire and didacticism Hugh Nibley utilizes rhetorical questions to highlight several of his points and to further personalize and simplify his argument for the rise of over-zealousness and the need to temper that rise with knowledge. One example of this is when he asks: “why do people feel guilty about TV?” Not only is this question effective for its modern appeal to a very relatable phenomenon, but the question itself allows Nibley to further clarify that because man is so limited in his thoughts he cannot afford to waste time on the “vain and trifling.” The example of watching television also serves to highlight the trap of a failure to expand, or to “advance in knowledge,” and how a man “cannot expand the boundaries of [his mind] unless [he] first reach those boundaries, which means exerting… to the absolute limit.”
Another instance of Nibley’s use of rhetorical questions comes when, in his closing argument, he asks “don’t you trust the Lord?” This question strikes at the heart of every member of his Latter-Day Saint audience, and further personalizes his point. This concluding inquiry is masterful for its representation of Nibley’s over-arching caution for a proper use of thought to seek after knowledge. In providing the answer to this question he says “If you do, he will give you the guidance of the Holy Spirit and you will not end up doing the things that he has expressly commanded us not to do.” It is his ultimate solution, for in trusting the Lord his reader is able to merit the spirit of revelation, of knowledge, and is therefore better equipped to direct zeal properly, and avoid the traps of ignorance and contraction.
One final tool Nibley utilizes to clarify his argument for the reader is his use of metaphor. For example, in describing Zeal he defines it “as the engine that drives the whole vehicle: without it we would get nowhere.” Like his use of rhetorical questions, this and other metaphors serve to simplify the relationship between zeal and knowledge. Through his comparison of the two to a car the audience is better able to understand the importance of both despite their different functions. Nibley qualifies this assertion and adds an air of caution by stating that “without clutch, throttle, brakes, and steering wheel, [the] mighty engine becomes an instrument of destruction, and the more powerful the motor, the more disastrous the inevitable crack-up if the proper knowledge is lacking.” This leaves no doubt as to the importance of zeal but also the need for knowledge, and having established this fact Nibley is later able to expound upon this issue and build upon the readers understanding of the subject.
The path to genius is twofold, for it is one thing to want, and another thing entirely to know. In order to advance and to expand beyond religious zealot and into the realm of the great, of the Calvins, Luthers, and Smiths, one must have both. This is Hugh Nibley’s point in Zeal Without Knowledge. This is what a person must have in order to avoid living a life of smoke and mirrors, and such knowledge, fueled by zeal, is what allows man to truly expand his world and draw near to God.
Works Cited.
Nibley, Hugh. “Zeal Without Knowledge.” Readings for Intensive Writers. 5th ed. Comp. Susen Jorgenesn. Provo: BYU Academic Publishing, 2007. 207-218. Print.
Good job this is really well written! There were some places that I felt l needed commas, so maybe read over it again and look for places you missed them. And every time you site another work or the title of this article, make sure you use quotations or whatever it needs, I noticed that you left them out. Also, in some of the paragraphs, but mainly the third, the quotes got a little confusing because you didn't really explain them. Lastly, maybe explain what didacticism is because I didn't know what it was- but maybe that's just me. But it might be helpful to explain briefly what that means. But you did great it's very readable and a thorough analysis. Good job! :)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jennie. The quotes were a little confusing because it was hard to tell where they started and ended. Like she said, it might be good to define didacticism. Finally, this could just be me, but I found the first few sentences of your opening paragraph to be a little hard to read so it might not be bad to simplify it, but again, that might just be me.
ReplyDeleteGreat job with your analysis! I enjoyed reading it.
I agree with everything Bergen and Jennie said. There were quite a few places that needed commas, it would be a good idea to define didacticism, and it would help to be a little more clear with your quotes. Also, to go along with what Bergen said, it wouldn't hurt to simplify a few things. Other than that, I was very impressed with your paper. It was very well written and you had a clear understanding of the article and interpreted it well. Good job!
ReplyDeleteI think that defining didacticism possibly at the beginning of your paper would be super helpful. There are a couple of grammatical things that could be changed, and I think the flow of your paper will be a lot better once those commas are added. Other than that I thought you had a great analysis. Good job!
ReplyDelete--Jamie Smith
I think that there might be to much being said in your introduction before the thesis. It might be better if it were a bit more concise.
ReplyDeleteThis paper is very well written thank you!
And yes, please define didacticism :)
I loved this article. I wish I got to right on it, but well done.
ReplyDeleteDo a grammar read through... but otherwise i really enjoyed your essay.
ReplyDeleteProps to you, m'dear! This paper is very well-written. I especially liked your organization-- it was very well-structured without seeming annoyingly cookie-cutter-ish. You have great transitions, as well. Word.
ReplyDeleteI would re-check some of your grammar, but besides that I like the word choice. I really liked the article, and I enjoyed your analysis of it.
ReplyDeleteNice, just a small thing, in the thesis you refer to the author as "he" I would actually mention his name. Good job though, very well written
ReplyDeleteBrilliant, Alex! I love your use of diction as you present your paper. Some grammar is messed up though, so fix that up and you'll have a bang-up paper.
ReplyDeleteReally good paper, with fantastic ideas. I would recommend you read over it again, just to fix up the sentence fluency and other little mistakes you may get docked on and that detract from your great ideas.After that your paper will be really good! Good job!
ReplyDelete