Customer Reviews

Adventures of a Church Historian

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

I am glad Leonard Arrington shared his life with us in this very informative book. It helped me understand the reality behind many of the rumors that have grown up around books like "The Story of the Latter-day Saints", "The Mormon Experience", and "Brigham Young: American Moses". I am also glad to know about the other wonderful books and articles he and his team put together over the years.

He had a difficult assignment in being directly affiliated with the Church and yet being tasked with producing professional history. For the Church, the hand of God is a reality in all things. But that kind of explanation doesn't hold any water in the halls of academe. This required a special person to be able to walk that very thin line (since it was indeed the Church Leaders who gave him this almost self-contradictory assignment).

It was inevitable that there would be some who would take exception to this or that and at times there was more than exception taken. Arrington put it well on page 144 "... trying to do a job under conflicting instructions or pressures, was like a mouse crossing the floor where elephants are dancing." I love this image and understand exactly what he means.

And there is a glorious chapter giving the background on the 1978 revelation on the priesthood. Just terrific insights and enriching information.

I do wish, however, he had taken a few pages showing examples of historical writing that did go beyond fair professionalism and into being against the Church. Clearly this writing does exist and probably did at least as much to undermine the purposes for which his office was originally set up as the complaints of the literalists.

This was a very enjoyable read and the background it provides makes it very worthwhile.

The real meat in this work is how Arrington interacted with the hierarchy of the Mormon Church. He has some interesting anecdotes, and the story of his demotion is very interesting.

I, however, find somewhere in excess of 30% of the book is "I wrote ____ book, and got these reviews and was helped by [long list of names], and it sold __ copies, and it took __ length of time..."

However, these statistics are in convenient contiguous paragraphs and are easy to skim over.

Here is an honest appraisal of some difficult situations faced by a hard-working scholar whose motives and work product were not always correctly perceived and appropriately recognized. This is not a true biography but is more of an examination of Arrington's experiences as the Historian of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which to any student of Church History are fascinating in their own right--the historian himself became part of Church history.

The task of updating the approach of an organization that is purposely designed to remain immune to short-term change (indeed, to this reviewer, divinely designed to that purpose...) is by definition impossible for any one man who does not have direct and recognized executive authority. Nevertheless, such was the task appointed to Leonard Arrington. By all appearances, he did a wonderful job and his example of dedication and fidelity should serve as a lesson to those who cannot understand the worthiness of a personal sacrifice to a greater goal when efforts are not immediately rewarded, indeed, often opposed--whether rightly or wrongfully so. Though one can sense his bewilderment regarding certain decisions, Dr. Arrington never doubts the ability and right of the decision makers to act as they did and takes pains to demonstrate the validity of opposing views.

Sure, Dr. Arrington encountered more than his fair share of needless difficulty from the very organization to which he devoted his life, but what I chose to take from this work was how in the end, everything worked out--not in the way that Dr. Arrington had originally hoped, but in a way that he came to recognize was appropriate and right.

Full disclosure: I obtained both my undergraduate and graduate degrees from BYU and am well aware of the continuous debates regarding academic freedom. I recognize and appreciate that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders have not only an interest but a responsibility for the manner whereby the story of the Church is told. No Church Leader should ever be faulted for the manner in which they strive to protect the faith of members, for they understand quite well that opposing points of view exist--they just don't feel the need to give those views "equal time."

Yet, I remain fascinated by the manner in which even the most intractable policy debates ultimately find resolution, a process that can take years and the efforts of many. Dr. Arrington's book provides necessary and valuable evidence that a complex problem will be resolved at the appropriate time. Retrospective analysis shows the perfect timing of President Kimball's revelation on the Priesthood; likewise, Dr. Arrington's life and work demonstrate that the "problem" of the various approaches to LDS Church History will likewise be shown to be merely a temporary result of an imperfect understanding. Dr. Arrington's life and this book show that the Church and its members have a continually evolving ability to produce valuable and important scholarship. As the members of the Church mature and become increasingly educated their faith in the Church and its history becomes stronger; the world should ask why. Dr. Arrington's life and work provides an excellent example that the truth can withstand (and will reward) all inquiry.

Definitely a unique person and a unique story. And there are a couple of chapters that are real page-turners.

Arrington addresses some of the difficulties of writing religious history, while maintaining historical integrity. Although the book is more of an autobiography than a focus on writing religious history.

There are many sidebars. Meaning, when he introduces new people, he devotes 2-3 pages addressing their personal history. This got monotonous, especially considering the volume of new people who were not important to the story. Possibly only 1/3 of the book is really about the complexities of writing religious history and dealing with religious authority figures.
Nevertheless, those portions are interesting.

Arrington was obviously devoted both to his faith and to his profession. He constantly addresses that he never saw a conflict with the two. An interesting perspective.

This is an excellent book about the pleasures and travails of being a church historian by a man who occupied the post for a decade. Leonard Arrington (1917-99),and the team that worked under him for a decade starting in 1972, produced some great pieces of work but unfortunately fell foul of three powerful church figures (Ezra Taft Benson, Mark Petersen and Boyd Packer) who wanted faithful history written rather than the attempt at historical realism that could assist in building the reputation of the Church in the discipline of history. There is of course a role for both types.
Although Arrington was a faithful servant of the LDS (and he has been the only non-General Authority appointed to the post) he simply was not interested in writing 'puff pieces' but rather real history to explain the remarkable history of the Saints-and only the brain-dead could fail to appreciate the grandeur of Mormon history (and I write as a non-Mormon).The church president of the time, Joseph Fielding Smith and Apostle Howard Hunter (later president), recognised the need to establish a professional history division but the wisdom of these two leaders in appointing Arrington, with Davis Bitton as his deputy, was quickly attacked by the three other church heavyweights mentioned above.
When the fine work 'The Story of the Latter-day Saints' (1976) was produced by James Allen and Glen Leonard, both of whom were in the history department during the 'Camelot' era,the big three, who disliked what they considered as the absence of inspiration,the humanisation of the prophets and terms like 'communitarian' that accurately described the cooperative economics of the Saints, became trenchant internal critics. Arrington does not whinge about this and he details Elder Packer's concerns with the publication 'Letters of Brigham Young' fairly but the tensions between Apostles Hunter and Packer are evident as were the concerns of Arrington(see p.119).
Essentially by writing about the foibles or humanity of leaders Arrington and Co incurred the ire of Packer who subscribes more to the 'great man version' of history including a positive faith building role rather than a dissection and analysis of leaders as mere men.
Readers can judge for themselves the merits and demerits of this work, and the others mentioned, but I think it is fair to say that Arrington deserved a lot better reward for his work-and that includes recognising his decade as church historian by placing his photo amongst others who have held the post.
For this Australian reviewer I can only say that I really appreciate the works of Arrington, Bitton, Allen,Leonard etc whose works have given me a finer appreciation of a once 'peculiar people,' and church, now very much mainstream and worthy of respect and affection for some of the principled stands they have taken in defence of family values.
I wish I had met Leonard Arrington during his lifetime but I give warning to his former colleagues, messrs Allen and Leonard, that if I ever make it to Utah I intend to look them up and I thank these historians for increasing my knowledge of Mormons and helping to assist me when teaching, on the opening of the American West, to Aussie history students.
This final book of Arrington's is a great read and highly recommended for all those interested in Mormon history and the profession generally. Camelot endures!

Leonard Arrington (1917-1999) was the founder of the Mormon History Association, and was the Church Historian from 1972-1982 (when the Church transferred his History Division to BYU in 1982, bringing the era of open Church Archives to a close). This book had been projected to be the first of a series of 16 volumes of "New Mormon History"; unfortunately, the Church shut this project down, and this was the only volume released.

He writes in the Introduction to this 1998 book, "This is not an autobiography, a personal life that begins with birth and proceeds to the date of writing without omitting significant events and influences. It is a memoir---a rehearsal of a portion of my life that was particularly intense and meaningful."

Here are some quotations from the book (from the 249-page edition):

"A major goal of the (Mormon History Association), agreed upon by all, was to include Reorganized LDS members, non-Mormons, lapsed Mormons, and persons who were not professional historians." (Pg. 59)
"As a counter to the development of these publications, overwhelmingly positive toward the church, other publications stemmed from 'career apostates' Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner, a couple who have devoted their lives to 'exposing' and trying to destroy Mormonism... The character of the Tanners' writing is suggested by the obtrusive underlining, large capitals, and large capitals with underlining. There are consistent sharp attacks on Joseph Smith and other church leaders... Tanner publications assume the worst possible motives of church leaders and judged Mormon beliefs ... in contrast to the normative Christianity that early Mormons rejected... The Tanners and others like them have forced the church to face up to 'problems' in our history... but they have also created myths that historians and truth-seekers may never be able to destroy." (Pg. 63-64)
"The negative results of these unfortunate permissions began to surface through the anti-Mormon underground shortly after our employment, and, although the work had been done months before we were employed, their sensational disclosures were blamed on us and our policy of increased openness. Despite our explanations, in the minds of distrustful hardliners we were responsible for the leaks and exposures. In any case there was a demand for greater control over the access to materials." (Pg. 101)
"The Lord may have felt that by 1978 the Latter-day Saints were fully prepared to accept blacks as leaders and prophets. To say this another way, the Lord's refusal to grant the priesthood to blacks earlier may have had as much to do with white members being unprepared to accept those of African descent as with any supposed divine judgment on blacks." (Pg. 182)
"When first (G. Homer) Durham proposed that our History Division be disbanded... They moved our trimmed-down division to Brigham Young University, where we would be less tied to the church and the Archives and still be in a position to write sound history. Although I had been warned of this possibility as early as 1978, this action was taken without consulting me... For a day or two I seriously considered resigning and going to the University of Utah or to Utah State University. But I decided to remain with the staff." (Pg. 214-215)
"Thirteen years have passed since those cold-blooded murders (by Mark Hofmann) and the public knowledge of unsettling forgeries. Because I was Church Historian when the earliest Hofmann 'discoveries' were brought to light, I would like to say that during that time, I developed enormous confidence in the honesty, integrity, and faithfulness of LDS historians. Unlike certain other interests, LDS historians did not sensationalize, did not jump into new interpretations, and did not alter their balanced, honest, and faithful approaches to LDS history... Our principal plea was for honesty and openness to verified evidences." (Pg. 223)

I know that many will be most interested in the account of Prof. Arrington's dealings with the leadership of the Church and of how that impacted his historiographical work (not always in positive ways).

I was most fascinated, though, by his chapter on the 1978 priesthood revelation, where he draws on his close interactions with church leaders to relate fascinating, faith-promoting, and even moving details about that important event.