21 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Is it Possible to be Both an Honest Member of the Latter-day Saints and an Honest Historian?, December 27, 2005
This review is from: Adventures of a Church Historian (Hardcover)
That is a question that has many people puzzled in the first part of the twenty-first century. Leonard J. Arrington sought to walk a tightrope between his personal faith and his commitment to the discipline of history throughout his life, and did so with style and grace and verve and served as a model for all to follow. His autobiography, "Adventures of a Church Historian," is a careful, powerful statement of both his personal faith in the God of the Mormon Church that he served his entire life and his commitment to intellectual honesty about the church's past. It is a welcome addition to the literature of Mormonism and an object lesson in the difficulties inherent in being faithful both to God and to scholarship.
This book is first an explanation and defense of the "new Mormon History." Unfortunately, there is no real consensus on what this term means. Arrington believed that it represented a fundamental shift away from the use of history for polemical purposes, in either attacks on or defenses of the Mormon movement, something that had dominated historical writing in earlier generations. He sought to move beyond the assumptions of faith to embrace a larger understanding and in the process a larger faith. In so doing, he believed, historians could do their work fully aware that their faith was personal rather than historical.
This approach has created problems for historians who are seeking to discover the church's past, and Arrington came to fully appreciate it. From almost the beginning of what has been called the "new Mormon history." of which Arrington was one of the founders and intellectual leaders, a debate has been raging in Mormon intellectual (and in some not so intellectual) circles about the nature of Mormon history. Richard L. Bushman's 1969 article, "Faithful History," represents one position in this debate, arguing the necessity of viewing the history of Mormonism through the lens of faith. On another side is the position of D. Michael Quinn, who argues for a more secular and critical approach to Mormon historical inquiry. Arrington took a middle ground. He asserted throughout a lifetime that there was essentially no reason why a believing Latter-day Saint could not undertake historical study that sought functional objectivity. He made it his life's work, and that is the story that he tells in "Adventures of a Church Historian."
I would assert that the tensions inherent in this history essentially revolve around Mormonism's longstanding merger of history and theology and the inevitable problem of historical interpretation not always matching previous faith perceptions. When historians have found that Mormon historical evolution has not been nearly so cut and dried as the faith story suggests, it has the potential of creating a theological crisis of conscience in thinking Mormons.
Arrington sought to hold the tension in creative balance and was a superb practitioner of a middle ground in historical inquiry. He wrote many books and articles and will be especially remembered for two pioneering books. The first is "Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of Latter-Day Saints, 1830-1900" (University of North Carolina Press, 1958, and many reprints to the present), his dissertation and a major benchmark in the historiography of Mormonism. The second is his massive "Brigham Young: American Moses" (hardcover from Alfred A. Knopf, 1985; paperback from University of Illinois Press, 1986). In between these two important books, he published much, and his overarching history of the church, "The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints" (Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), written with Davis Bitton, is just about as path-breaking as these two other works.
But scholarship was far from the only thing that set Arrington apart from his colleagues. He was an organizer, mentor, entrepreneur, and ringmaster for a renaissance in Mormon historical studies during the 1960s and 1970s. He was a chief instigator and first president of the Mormon Historian Association when it was founded in 1966, and LDS Church Historian between 1972 and 1982. During that period, Arrington opened the LDS archives, built relations with professional and other religious historical groups, sponsored myriad research projects, and welcomed into a community of scholars a diverse array of people interested in the history of the Latter-day Saint faith community. Many people have commented on the "esprit de corps" and common purpose that Arrington helped to forge at gatherings of organizations oriented toward Mormon history that was refreshing. Davis Bitton, one of Arrington's associates in the LDS Historical Department, designated the decade between 1972 and 1982 when Arrington led the Mormon historical world a golden age, "a brief period of excitement and optimism--that someone has likened to Camelot" (Davis Bitton, "Ten Years in Camelot: A Personal Memoir," "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought" 16 (Autumn 1983): 9-20, quote from p. 9). I agree!
Everyone who has worked in Mormon history for any length of time has many Leonard Arrington stories. I first met him when he visited my undergraduate school, Graceland College in Lamoni, Iowa, to give a lecture in the mid-1970s. I later got to know him better when I visited the LDS Historical Department to undertake research for my M.A. thesis in the spring of 1977. He was helpful and jovial and collegial and encouraging of a young scholar not of his religious tradition. We constantly renewed our friendship until his death in 1998. I would see him periodically and he always reminded my of a happy elf; he was short and stocky and always had a smile on his face and an encouraging word. And I wasn't special; he treated everyone the same way! I truly miss Leonard Arrington's dynamic and positive presence in Mormon history circles.
"Adventures of a Church Historian" captures the essence of this great man's unique warmth and style. It highlights his quest for truth and understanding and his fostering of a truly remarkable historical effort among Mormon historians in the heyday of the "new Mormon history." But like all climactic experiences, this one did not last, and Arrington traces the problems and demise of his brand of historical inquiry as well. He describes problems internal to the Mormon hierarchy over the work of his Historical Department, telling of people who questioned an approach that did not explicitly seek to defend the faith, and the numerous instances in which he or his colleagues found themselves in trouble over some historical interpretation.
A very public statement of these tensions came in 1981 when LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer even invoked an espousal of the progress of Mormonism as a religion as the primary purpose of historical investigation, telling church educators that "Your objective should be that they [those who study Mormon history] will see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now" (Boyd K. Packer, "`The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect'," "Brigham Young University Studies" 21 Summer 1981): 261-78, quote from p. 262). With such a perspective, church-mandated progressive interpretations of the Mormon past could not be easily overcome and Arrington soon found himself ousted as Church Historian and he and his associates were shipped off to Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. Arrington tells this story with dignity and grace, still supportive of the church's leadership despites their heavy-handed actions. Later, some historians and other scholars would be excommunicated, including such Arrington colleagues as D. Michael Quinn, who has done path-breaking work in several areas of church history. It is a sad tale that Arrington puts the best possible face on in this autobiography, but it is clear he resents at least some of what happened to him and the cause of Mormon history.
There is no question that I also resent it, and wish it had been otherwise. Like Arrington, I believe the church and its membership has nothing to fear from the honest exploration of its past. Indeed, I believe the membership would benefit from an understanding that not all issues in the past were black and white, that every one from the founding prophet to the rank and file membership struggled with their faith and sometimes made poor decisions, and that on occasion some people acted inappropriately. Overall, however, I think most individuals associated with Mormonism throughout its history are a lot like Arrington, honest and forthright and trying to live their lives in the best possible way within the context of their faith, struggling and sometimes failing but overall offering a positive force for good in the world. More than anything else taught me in this wonderful book, and by the life of Leonard Arrington, I take this lesson to heart.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
29 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Great Book by a Great Man, August 10, 2000
This review is from: Adventures of a Church Historian (Hardcover)
Leonard Arrington was the official historian of the LDS church from 1972 to 1982, and the unofficial father of the "New Mormon History", an intellectual movement devoted to the writing of faithful yet honest versions of the Mormon past. He was a down-to-earth, humorous farm boy who became recognized as one of America's greatest historians. His humble, faithful, fun-loving, yet rigorous and candid spirit are alive in the pages of these memoirs. Arrington writes forthrightly about his deeply personal spiritual experiences and his encounters with those who opposed any "perestroika" in the writing of LDS history. He remained faithful right up to his death in 1999. One of his favorite stories was of the old Mormon Bishop Edwin Wooley, who once got in trouble with Brigham Young. Brigham told Wooley, "Now I suppose you will go off and apostatize." Woolley replied, "I might if this were your church, but it's just as much mine as yours." Arrington and his associates helped kindle the light of my faith when I was a kid, and for that I will be eternally grateful.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
22 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Should be required reading for Mormons!!, October 9, 2003
This review is from: Adventures of a Church Historian (Hardcover)
Summary:
The book is an autobiography of Leonard Arrington who was primarily a historian, but also an economist. Along with serving as Church Historian during the mid 1970s, Arrington was also highly influential in the creation and perpetuation of several early organizations interested in the scholarly study of Mormonism, including Dialogue and the Mormon History Association.
The book focuses on Arrington's scholarly work and his time spent as Church Historian, but also incorporates brief sketches of his family life and some of the things he did outside of work - though they are mostly Church related.
Comments:
This book is a fascinating look inside the Mormon Church, specifically its Salt Lake based hierarchy and their policies concerning history and scholarly analysis of Mormonism. For the most part the book is well-written. The biggest problem on this front is that the book could have used at least one more editorial pass as there are numerous typos and even one section where Arrington describes an event in almost identical fashion within three paragraphs (p. 87 "After the session where we were sustained, many friends and former associates came up to congratulate us and shake our hands..." repeated on p. 88).
There are only two other critiques I would level at the book. First, the book jumps around quite a bit, from his academics to his family and back again, sometimes from paragraph to paragraph. I understand the difficulty in trying to report both dimensions of one's life in a coherent picture, but it made for difficult reading at times. Second, there are several points when the normally lucid writing turns into a bibliography. This probably would have been better presented as a chronological bibliography in the back of the book to which the author could have periodically referred as he covered that period. Though these things are a bit distracting and can even make for dissonant and boring reading at times, the majority of the book is not in this vein.
As for positive elements of the book, there are three quick ones that should be noted. First, the book can serve as a primer for a novice of Mormon history. There are numerous allusions to fascinating periods in Mormon history, but they are brief. It will whet the appetite, but does not satisfy; for that you need to read the author's other books (and those of D. Michael Quinn, among others). Also, Arrington has a sense of humor. Though it is a bit spread out, he can be very funny and even a bit satirical. You may have to look closely if you are not familiar with Mormon intellectuals and the `New Mormon History', but the humor is there nonetheless. Finally, there are pictures! I love pictures. They help the people come to life. There aren't many and they aren't in color, but there are a few.
There were several other things that I really liked about this book. First, it shows that you can intellectually and intelligently examine Mormonism and remain a Mormon (even though I didn't choose that route). I think a lot of people are afraid to do this because of the fear of apostasy (my route), but I don't claim to know even a hundredth of what Arrington learned during the course of his life about Mormonism and he remained a faithful member. I would think this book could function to encourage more Mormons to seriously study their religious history and beliefs so as to be more tolerant of differences of opinion and other religions. This is part of the reason why I would recommend this book for every Mormon.
I also found Arrington's subtle critiques of the Mormon hierarchy to be about as kind as you can possibly be while still recognizing the rampant anti-scientism many of them espouse. Arrington does his best to justify the behaviors of some of the leaders of the Church and is very fair in balancing the ignorance of some (Packer), with the enlightened thinking of others (Kimball). One point I found particularly interesting here was the positive depiction of Bruce R. McConkie, who is rather notorious for encouraging orthodox Mormon views, but apparently was wholly accepting of the work Arrington was trying to do. Point for McConkie!
Overall, as noted before, I think every Mormon and scholar of Mormonism should read this book. It is a marvelous contrast of two opposing forces: (1) the faith-affirming approach of Mormonism in particular and religion in general that does not always advocate fair and objective scholarship, and (2) the attempt at objective and unbiased scholarship of the modern secular academy. Leonard Arrington apparently found a way to walk a very fine line between the two and, frankly, I applaud his success. However, I recognize that the line is very fine and can understand why more people don't walk it (myself included). Nevertheless, this book can serve as a model for how that line can be negotiated and I would highly recommend it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
