Adventures of a Church Historian

by Leonard J. Arrington

Adventures of a Church Historian details how Leonard J. Arrington opened up archival resources and presided, for a time, over an unprecedented era of enlightenment as he and those working under his aegis produced path-breaking works of Mormon scholarship. Arrington was the first professional historian and the first noncentral authority to serve as church historian of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a position he held from 1972 to 1982.

Genres: Religion, Mormonism, Nonfiction, History, Lds, Biography, Memoir

272 pages, Hardcover

First published May 1, 1998

About the author

The first professionally trained official LDS Church Historian.

Reviews

[Susan Arrington Madsen · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating, honest account of the experiences of the first professionally trained Church Historian to occupy that office for the Mormon Church, 1972-82. The account is that of a man born and raised on a farm in Twin Falls, Idaho, who rose to be the most prolific historian in the history of the Mormon Church. He was a mentor to 2-3 generations of up and coming scholars who sought to write honest and faithful history. He loved his work and was proud of the enormous amount of history written by his hand-picked staff of researchers/writers.

Not everyone sees eye-to-eye when it comes to the writing of any church's history, which always has it's bumps and curves to navigate and Arrington was as skilled as anyone who ever occupied that office in putting it all into perspective. Arrington changed forever (for the better) the writing of the history of the Latter-day Saints. The chapter on the 1978 revelation received by President Spencer W. Kimball enabling every worthy male to receive the Holy Priesthood is worth the book in and of itself. The up and coming generation have no idea what a glorious and welcomed event that was in our lives!

This great man is my father, and he is sorely missed. But thank heavens that along with the other 26 books he wrote, he wrote his own autobiography before he passed away in 1999. A word to the wise--write your own personal history while you can--no matter your age. You can always update it. Your children and your children's children will thank you.

[Aaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an amazing book that details the history of the LDS Church History Dept from 1972-1982. Due to a feeling of openness and high productivity among the historians in the dept, these years are called "The Camelot Years" among local historians. Arrington, the first non-general authority/apostle called to the position, has had an everlasting effect on Mormon history.

It's very clear from the out-set that Arrington was a good, honest, well-intentioned man. He gives an interesting history of his life in North Carolina as a graduate student, his time in the military during World War II, and his years as a Utah State University professor. The chapters of his time in Logan were of special interest to me because of my time as a student there. It's clear that Logan and Cache Valley meant a great deal to Arrington.

In 1972 on the behest of N. Eldon Tanner, Arrington was called as Church Historian. He equipped a team of LDS historians who became legends--James B. Allen, Glen Leonard, Carol Madsen, D. Michael Quinn, Thomas Alexander, Ron Esplin, Bitton, and Dean May are just a few names who dot the landscape of the book. (I also found out from the book that one of my favorite professors at Weber State University, Gene Sessions worked for Arrington.) Under the guidance of Arrington, the All-Star Team of historians starts to produce many legendary pieces of work that will have an everlasting and good effect on the genre. It's clear that these are a group of professionals intent on doing the best they know how.

I'm happy that Arrington documented the conflict that took place between the Twelve and the history dept. He did it in an honest, discreet, and kind way. As detailed in other reviews, the intellectual vs. faith conflict is intense. Arrington lays out a logical, honest, and good defense of why the Church needs to write a good, faithful, and responsible history. He looks at Mormon History as a painting full of thousands of brush strokes that complete a beautiful picture. Sometimes there is a flawed brush stroke, but it shouldn't scare us to report on it. In the words of McConkie, "The Church shouldn't be afraid of its history." I agree.

As reported in other reviews, a few in the twelve did not like what the department did. Despite the best efforts, Arrington is constantly bombarded from these members. It starts a conflict between a few members of the leadership of the Church and intellectuals that continues to this day--but definitely reached its climax in the Early 90's. This isn't a Tell-All or an expose. Arrington does an excellent job in being critical and honest in his assessment of the conflict, without being demeaning and disrespectful, when he easily could have been. I won't lend my criticism to these members in the Twelve. I will say this--I gained a new respect for N. Eldon Tanner, President Kimball, President Hunter, Joseph Anderson (who is someone I really would have liked to have known), and Bruce R. McConkie. I don't blame the others for having the views on history that they do--I just disagree with it.

In the end, the history dept.headed by Arrington is eased out of the Church program and moved to BYU. Still, the work that Arrington did for the Church is priceless. With the advent of the internet, the Church has been open to tons of criticisms concerning its history. I'm always surprised that in order to counter these arguments, the Church relies on the works of Arrington and his team. Without a doubt, there was a reason why Arrington became the historian at the time he did. Arrington was a man ahead of his time--and I and many members are grateful for the work he did.

In another note of interest, while attending the Arrington Conference last Autumn, I heard that a biography of Arrington is being written by Gregory Prince. I can't wait to read it.

[J · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars. Good and informative - an honest/humble story of his experiences as the first professionally trained historian to be the official Church Historian for the LDS Church ('72-'82). I would have liked even more insight into what his experiences were like (interactions, conversations, key meetings, etc) and less emphasis on the details of his group's books/publications. The book has both but I was far more captivated with the former. Most importantly I acquired more insight into the friction that can occur between "scholarly" historical writing and "faith-oriented" historical writing. Professional historians prefer the former and church leaders prefer the latter. Arrington was in the middle of it all. Overall my admiration for him grew and I found it inspiring as he continually reiterated his faith and devotion for the church, despite challenges with people or politics. Recommend for those looking for perspective on the church's efforts with history.

[Jaren · Rating 3 out of 5]

Arrington was an exemplary scholar and historian, and considering the ups and downs the Mormon church has experienced regarding historical openness, I frequently want to grant the man hero status. He is not, however, an exemplary writer.
I quite enjoyed his memoir, but I can't help thinking his many notable experiences deserved being told by a more skillful writer. Notwithstanding the book's literary shortcomings, most Mormons would enjoy the read, while being simultaneously surprised--not always pleasantly--at the many controversies to which the author had a rare front row seat.

[Quinn Lavender · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've been trying to track down a copy of this for a while. This book did not disappoint. Yes, there were some rather dry passages about all the papers (so many papers!) Mr. Arrington published over his career. This was a small price to pay to hear about the inner workings of the Church of Jesus Christ's history department. I loved hearing the frankness with which the author addressed his dual mandate to tell the church's history (warts and all) and at the same time build the faith of those who may read his works. At times it must have seemed like an impossible task. I really appreciate the author's insight into the relationships at play between the history department, the First Presidency and Apostles of the church. It is okay to see that these are all, at the end of the day: people with opinions, flaws and strengths. Mr. Arrington walks this delicately such that no one is portrayed in a particularly negative (or positive way). I just really appreciate the openness with which this book was written. This has not always been the case where church history is concerned.

[Tyler · Rating 4 out of 5]

And interesting memoir about a fascinating period in church history. It was very interesting getting a little bit of a sneak-peek behind the curtains into some of the goings on at church headquarters during the time period covered in this book. It was also a bit sad to read about some the miscommunication, misunderstandings, human foibles, and squabbles that came up. It was also interesting reading about how different general authorities had different points of view on the purposes and uses of church history and how it should be written, how it should be used to advance the work of the church, etc.

I enjoyed reading this book.

[Shayne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Uplifting and well presented, this book defends the historian's craft and explains some of the challenges and rewards of practicing it in such close association with the organization under study.

[Rob · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely loved it!

[Rex · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book contains an interesting account of the development of the Church History department of the LDS church. Specifically, Arrington's autobiographical perspective largely centers on his experience as the LDS "Church Historian” during the 1970’s.

Arrington was a Utah State University professor with a background in economics and history prior to his tenure in the church history department. He recounts the church’s desire to ensure that its history is professionally recorded. He also describes the tensions that (inevitably) ensued from pursuing an “official” history of the church.

Certainly, the historical work accomplished during his tenure was remarkable. Arrington explains in detail some of these efforts. The “sources” section at the end of the book demonstrates the success of their labors.

At Arrington’s suggestion, the “Church History Department” was formed to reflect the fact that church history is not the sole prerogative of the “Church Historian” but is a collective effort with many contributing members.

Of course, writing church history in an official capacity had unique challenges that Arrington acknowledges throughout. The following particularly indicates sources of tension:

“Was the primary purpose of [religious:] history to be faith-promoting? Should it ignore or leave out items that did not fit the purpose? Should the less than admirable activities of religious leaders be mentioned? What reliance should be placed on interested testimony? Should the archives of churches be open to research? What does one do when anecdotes purveyed by earlier historians, especially if they filled a moral and faith-promoting purpose, lack credence in the light of later examination or contradictory evidence?” (There are many more of these questions that he raises).

Not all the General Authorities (or historians either, for that matter) agreed on each of these questions, which often frustrated Arrington. Eventually the church realized that writing church history is better accomplished in an academic setting where the church does not necessarily label a work as “official.” This led to a transfer of the Church History Department to BYU.

Undoubtedly, Arrington and his coworkers were attempting a difficult balancing act. Historians face a difficult task of not only retelling the factual past, but also providing us with a sense of the context in which the events occurred. “The problem,” as Arrington notes, “is that facts never speak for themselves. Chronicles and testimonies and stories mean different things to different people.”

Successful religious historians writing for a broad audience face the difficult task of acknowledging cultural circumstances that may have contributed to an event, without presupposing the absence of the spiritual or the supernatural. Often, acknowledgment of cultural elements that may have contributed to an event leads to protest from sincere believers who insist that the only relevant explanations are spiritual in nature. Conversely, others cringe at any suggestion of divine intervention.

In general, I came away feeling that Arrington was a good man who made significant contributions to improve the professionalism in LDS Church history. Arrington’s philosophy of writing religious history was unquestionably courageous. But, I felt he might have been overly ambitious in his vision of the role of the church history department. An “official history” might erroneously suggest that history should be interpreted in only one way. The movement of the church history department from Church headquarters to BYU was a wise decision from my perspective.

Of additional interest is a short segment of Arrington's life prior to his call as church historian that outlines the development of student wards at Utah State University and his involvement in it.

In short, it’s not a must-read, but it is a good book.

[Marci · Rating 4 out of 5]

I could hardly put this book down, even though parts of it were a bit dry for my taste. I found it compelling reading to see how the logistics played out when Leonard Arrington became the Church Historian for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 1972-1982 and almost immediately ran into trouble with senior Church leaders who opposed his methods, his views, and his work. Arrington writes carefully--he perfectly balances candor with respect, honesty with support even for those with whom he disagrees. The historical works he was in charge of producing are still among the most valuable done in decades. This book is not an expose but not a cover-up either. It will best please historians who are sympathetic to the LDS Church and its leaders, but it will not please those who want the Church leaders to be perfect, because they are not and never were, and yet it is clear Arrington still supports them. I really liked the book and agree with Arrington's position very strongly: I'm for open and complete history, and I am also supportive of LDS Church leaders.

[Becca · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved reading about my grandfather in his own words. He loved words, both recording his own and listening/reading those from other souls. If you read any chapter in this book, go for Chapter 11: The Long-Promised Day. In it, you will find one of the most detailed accounts of the events surrounding the revelation on June 9, 1978 "when all worthy males might be granted the priesthood." He movingly describes his own, joyful reaction to what they had been praying for. Then, as Church Historian, he "sought to learn the particulars and record them in my private diary." What he found is a treasure. Enjoy!

[Tim Malone · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book. I wish I still had it. Unfortunately, I loaned it to someone who used to work for Leonard Arrington and never got it back after he passed away. It's now a collector's item worth hundreds of dollars. I've looked high and low for a replacement. Leonard Arrington presided over a unique period in our church's history in which he advanced the principles of professional research over the need to keep some things secret. That didn't last long. It was the golden era in church history research. He was not the same man after his office was moved to BYU then disbanded. Sad.

[Jake · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the story of a man who both went against the flow and remained devout in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Arrington is one of the great figures in Mormon scholarship because he achieved mainstream academic respect. Dispensing with the religious implications, it is also a very interesting story of a man who figured out how to be a great historian. I recommend this book as must-read for anyone into Mormon studies.

[Amber · Rating 2 out of 5]

After getting through the first hundred pages of this book I was finally able to enjoy a little of it. The majority however was very dry and boring. I wanted to read of his experiences, but he adds way too much information that is irrelevant, like places he visited, or backgrounds of random people he worked with. It truly is more of a history than a narrative with a point, but it was interesting information to learn overall. I must admit that I skimmed a lot of it...

[Mike Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Arrington is perhaps the most under-appreciated person in Mormon history. We have him to thank for so much of the real scholarship on Mormonism now available. I have a great deal of respect for Arrington and this book does a good job of detailing the tight rope he constantly had to walk in doing his job as a scholar but not drawing too much ire from the Mormon hierarchy.

[Mees · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting look at what it means to have been Church Historian during Camelot. Arrington writes well but is always respectful - not an easy task, given the events of his tenure as Church Historian. It gave me a better understanding of how history is perceived within the LDS Church.

[Corey Astill · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book contains some good stories and a few good nuggets. That said, he indulges a good bit in--what I consider tedious--minutiae about his various offices and their day-to-day activities. I found myself skimming often.

[Joe Spencer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting, but not that interesting.

[Rae · Rating 4 out of 5]

Memoirs of Leonard Arrington's tenure as Church Historian. The author is honest and forthright and generally favorable toward the Church. A great read.

[Megan · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is dry and seems like a justification of the life of a presumptious man. There is very little meat in this book other than what might be useful to his family.