What do you think?
Rate this book
Reflections of a Mormon Historian: Leonard J. Arrington on the New Mormon History
Conflict between matters of faith and historical truth has been a conundrum at the heart of doing and telling the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as the Mormon Church). Some of the best essays on that topic were written by Leonard J. Arrington, perhaps the best-known member of the group of professionals who founded the New Mormon History of the late twentieth century. Now, Arrington’s essay on history and the Mormons are collected in a single source work.
Arrington rose to prominence during the so-called "�flowering of Mormon history.” In a precedent-breaking move, he was made Church Historian in January 1972, the first professional historian to serve in the position.
His ideas, as expressed in the essays collected here, helped to determine how Mormon history was written during the last part of the twentieth century. Arrington sought a middle way between the extremes of defending or attacking faith claims—two forces that drove most nineteenth-century and even much twentieth-century writing on the Mormons. He not only adopted a neutral stance in his writing as LDS Historian, his name became connected inseparably with the New Mormon History because of his personality and the quality of his work.
The fourteen essays offered here are autobiographical, reflective, analytical, personal, and prophetic. Together, they constitute an illuminating study of the challenges faced by all who study history and face the conflicts its telling involves.
Supplementing the essays are a biographical sketch by historian Ronald W. Walker, a chronology of Arrington’s life, and a detailed bibliography of his published works and speeches, prepared by David J. Whittaker. A personal tribute to Arrington is given by his daughter, historian Susan Arrington Madsen.
The book has a bibliography and index. It is bound in rust linen cloth, has a foil stamped spine and a full-color dust jacket.
Arrington rose to prominence during the so-called "�flowering of Mormon history.” In a precedent-breaking move, he was made Church Historian in January 1972, the first professional historian to serve in the position.
His ideas, as expressed in the essays collected here, helped to determine how Mormon history was written during the last part of the twentieth century. Arrington sought a middle way between the extremes of defending or attacking faith claims—two forces that drove most nineteenth-century and even much twentieth-century writing on the Mormons. He not only adopted a neutral stance in his writing as LDS Historian, his name became connected inseparably with the New Mormon History because of his personality and the quality of his work.
The fourteen essays offered here are autobiographical, reflective, analytical, personal, and prophetic. Together, they constitute an illuminating study of the challenges faced by all who study history and face the conflicts its telling involves.
Supplementing the essays are a biographical sketch by historian Ronald W. Walker, a chronology of Arrington’s life, and a detailed bibliography of his published works and speeches, prepared by David J. Whittaker. A personal tribute to Arrington is given by his daughter, historian Susan Arrington Madsen.
The book has a bibliography and index. It is bound in rust linen cloth, has a foil stamped spine and a full-color dust jacket.
372 pages, Hardcover
First published November 15, 2006
About the author
Leonard J. Arrington
94 books11 followersThe first professionally trained official LDS Church Historian.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
October 20, 2026
THE FORMER ‘CHURCH HISTORIAN’ FOR TEN YEARS REPORTS ON CRITICISM, ACCOMPLISHMENTS, ETC.
Leonard James Arrington (1917-1999) was the Church Historian from 1972-1982, and the Director of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Church History from 1982-1986; he was also the founder of the Mormon History Association. (Reportedly, he was removed from his post as Church Historian for being too ‘frank/honest’ in his accounts of history.)
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1998 book, “Latter-day Saint prophets and other leaders … were great men and women who were close to God, but they were also human beings... Lorenzo Snow, president of the church from 1898-1901, said of Joseph Smith, ‘I saw Joseph Smith … do things which I did not approve of; and yet… I thanked God that He would put upon a man who had these imperfections the power and authority which He placed upon him… for I knew that I myself had weakness…’
"In a church that continues to expand its membership and embrace new cultures and worldwide concerns, the tensions of writing religious history continue. In this memoir I have tried to recount my experiences and impressions at the time they occurred, without subsequent editorial intervention… This is not an autobiography… It is a memoir---a rehearsal of a portion of my life that was particularly intense and meaningful.” (Pg . 4-5)
He says of his 1957 book, ‘Great Basin Kingdom,’ that it “was praised by colleagues, American historians, American sociologists, and other… The local reception of the book was especially interesting. A. William Lund and the Church Historian’s Office viewed the book as a secular treatment with naturalistic explanations of the people and the times. It did not follow traditional Mormon history, which is typically sprinkled with supernatural explanations. Although I received complimentary letters from leaders such as John A. Widtsoe … and even Ezra Taft Benson, Lund decided if it wasn’t pro-Mormon it must be anti, so he put a little letter ‘a’ on the index card for the book… That label remained until I was appointed church historian in 1972… President Harold B. Lee assured me that the book was the finest historical work since B.H. Roberts’s ‘Comprehensive History.’” (Pg. 34)
He reports, “some Latter-day Saints were less than enthusiastic about my writings and speeches. Ernest Wilkinson, president of BYU… wished to employ me… When he presented the matter to religion faculty members, they dissented… the spokesman for the religion faculty insisted that I … gave undue emphasis to naturalistic explanations, and had a more flexible interpretation of ‘revelation’ than the orthodox one.” (Pg. 41)
In 1965, “a group of us decided to … discuss the formation of a Mormon History Association… Our association agreed to support ‘Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought’ that was being launched by an LDS group at Stanford… A major goal of the association… was to included Reorganized LDS members, non-Mormons, lapsed Mormons, and persons who were not professional historians.” (Pg. 58-59) “Two years later a group of young Mormon intellectuals founded [the journal] Sunstone, which also featured Mormon history.” (Pg. 63)
He continues, “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… In 1959 they began a lifetime of publishing anti-Mormon tracts … and books, with the intention of embarrassing the church by showing the inconsistencies and changes in Mormonism since the early days… The character of the Tanners’ writing is suggested by the obtrusive underlining, large capitals, and large capitals with underlining… The Tanners’ work---and that of a few others---sometimes created doubts in the minds of church members and provided ammunition for anti-Mormons generally… Their caustic interpretation of Mormon history was both beguiling and deceptive. Misled by their out-of-context quotations, some Mormon readers saw all unapproved church history as an enemy. This made the independent historian’s work suspect.” (Pg. 63)
He goes on, “To defend against the distorted depiction of Mormonism, constructive historians had to develop a fuller picture that also showed that the historical understanding of such conservative works as Joseph Field Smith’s ‘Essentials in Church History’ was incomplete and out of date. This in turn led some officials to charge historians with disloyalty and irreverence… Mormon historians used the work of the Tanners as a reason to restrict access to vital Mormon records, leaving responsible historians with limited access… The solution to … one-sided views by the Tanners… is not to deny that their view has ANY basis, but to show the whole picture… to show that their view is misleading. The church’s history may not have been unblemished, but it has survived and flourished because its members understand that any ‘error’ is a minor brush stroke in a very large painting… 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. There is a danger in… being so zealous in protecting the Saints from new views that free inquiry is stifled.” (Pg. 63-64)
He recounts, “With the written authorization of the First Presidency, our History Division proceeded to work out arrangements … for publication of some of the books we were authorized to write: the heritage Series, the sesquicentennial history, and the one-volume history of the church… Despite the approvals, those who distrusted the new ‘hot shot’ historians… [were] opposed to the new ‘openness’… [and] began to throw up roadblocks… As our historians began to make heavy use of holdings once restricted to use by general authorities, resentment followed… approval had been granted to several persons who did subsequent damage to the church… The negative results of these unfortunate permissions began to surface through the anti-Mormon underground… [and] their sensational disclosures were blamed on us and our policy of increased openness… there was a demand for greater control over the access to materials.” (Pg. 100-101)
He continues, “Two events showed that we were being watched. The first was a campaign waged by an employee of our library who had misgivings about our ‘taking over’ historical research… he submitted to two members of the Twelve, on a regular basis, pages from articles and books we published with ‘controversial’ statements underlined in yellow… A second instructive episode occurred in … 1973… one of our young historians had published … [an] article [in which] he details the low level of priesthood activity in the early years of the century… [Some of the Twelve] asked whether articles using such materials were approved by the History Division.” (Pg. 101-102)
He summarizes, “Whatever our role as church historians, many persons expected us to … convey new understandings of our history. Some of the material we developed… might be interpreted by traditionalists as negative… I suppose we were trying to bridge the gap between pietistic history and professional history.” (Pg. 104)
He notes, “Under the superb editorship of Dean Jessee, 95 letters to [Brigham’s 13 sons between 1854 and 1877] were published by Deseret Books in 1974.” (Pg. 115) “Three days after the appearance of ‘Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons,’ we were given a copy of a … letter from Boyd K. Packer to the First Presidency… [suggesting] the book was good… but it would have been better if we had not volunteered the information about certain Brigham Young family foibles.” (Pg. 119)
He reports, “By 1976 more than two years of effort were culminating in the publication of ‘Story of the Latter-day Saints.’ … Historians were particularly complimentary… The first intimation of conflict that would … cast its shadow into the future of the writing of Mormon history was a report from a friend that ‘one or two of the Quorum of the Twelve’ did not like ‘the absence of inspiration---descriptions of occurrences… without attributing their cause solely to God or to His direction and inspiration.’ … Soon the book was up for a full-scale review by the Twelve and the First Presidency.” (Pg. 142-143)
A critique of the book was made by two non-historians, who recommended “All of our history publications should be routed through the Correlation Committee to ensure that they were doctrinally and historically accurate and had the right tone and impact.” (Pg. 145) Arrington wrote in his diary, “Shall I retain the job of Church Historian (assuming they don’t release me) and try to write history that will be approved by the Correlation? Or shall I resign and continue to write ‘real history’? … can I retain my integrity and my reputation… with the ‘intelligentsia’ of the Church and remain on the job under conditions that will almost certainly be imposed upon me?” (Pg 146)
He explains, “In 1976… some young Latter-day Saint intellectuals founded ‘Sunstone,’ an independent quarterly journal that dealt with the modern problems of Mormonism in a less scholarly atmosphere than that supplied by ‘Dialogue’ and ‘BYU Studies.’ … Sunstone editors sought to explore the interplay between the human and the divine, a difficult task, something we historians were very aware of. Many of our historians, including myself, published in Sunstone, something we were later admonished to discontinue.” (Pg. 153-154)
He notes that “An amazing number of people were reading ‘Nightfall at Nauvoo’ (1971) by Sanuel W. Taylor, an experienced Mormon novelist… The popularity of ‘Nightfall at Nauvoo’ suggests how starved members of the church were for dramatically written historical material, and their curiosity to know ‘the real story’ of what took place. Clearly, many members were not buying the time-worn ‘seminary version’ of church history.” (Pg. 163-164)
He says of the 1978 removal of the ban of Blacks from holding the priesthood, “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… The Lord may have felt that the continuation of the exclusionist doctrine might lead the Saints to take measures that violated people’s civil rights. The Lord may have used this means of reminding the Saints that we were all the Lord’s children and that he was displeased with those who acted otherwise.” (Pg. 182-183)
He reports that [G. Homer] Durham, managing director of the Historical Department, “worked out [a]... plan with Gordon B. Hinckley, one of the Historical Department advisors. 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.’ (Pg. 214) [But] “The positive aspects of the move were that we would … be responsible to academic administrators rather than ecclesiastical officials who seemed to be more intent on protecting records than in writing documented history.” (Pg. 215)
He also addresses the murders and other criminal activity of Mark Hoffmann: “13 years have passed since those cold-blooded murders and the public knowledge of unsettling forgeries. Because I was church historian when the earliest Hoffmann ‘discoveries’ were brought to light, I would like to say that … I developed enormous confidence in the honesty, integrity, and faithfulness of LDS historians… Our principal plea was for honesty and openness to verified evidences.” (Pg. 223)
This informative book will be of great interest to anyone studying LDS history.
Leonard James Arrington (1917-1999) was the Church Historian from 1972-1982, and the Director of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Church History from 1982-1986; he was also the founder of the Mormon History Association. (Reportedly, he was removed from his post as Church Historian for being too ‘frank/honest’ in his accounts of history.)
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1998 book, “Latter-day Saint prophets and other leaders … were great men and women who were close to God, but they were also human beings... Lorenzo Snow, president of the church from 1898-1901, said of Joseph Smith, ‘I saw Joseph Smith … do things which I did not approve of; and yet… I thanked God that He would put upon a man who had these imperfections the power and authority which He placed upon him… for I knew that I myself had weakness…’
"In a church that continues to expand its membership and embrace new cultures and worldwide concerns, the tensions of writing religious history continue. In this memoir I have tried to recount my experiences and impressions at the time they occurred, without subsequent editorial intervention… This is not an autobiography… It is a memoir---a rehearsal of a portion of my life that was particularly intense and meaningful.” (Pg . 4-5)
He says of his 1957 book, ‘Great Basin Kingdom,’ that it “was praised by colleagues, American historians, American sociologists, and other… The local reception of the book was especially interesting. A. William Lund and the Church Historian’s Office viewed the book as a secular treatment with naturalistic explanations of the people and the times. It did not follow traditional Mormon history, which is typically sprinkled with supernatural explanations. Although I received complimentary letters from leaders such as John A. Widtsoe … and even Ezra Taft Benson, Lund decided if it wasn’t pro-Mormon it must be anti, so he put a little letter ‘a’ on the index card for the book… That label remained until I was appointed church historian in 1972… President Harold B. Lee assured me that the book was the finest historical work since B.H. Roberts’s ‘Comprehensive History.’” (Pg. 34)
He reports, “some Latter-day Saints were less than enthusiastic about my writings and speeches. Ernest Wilkinson, president of BYU… wished to employ me… When he presented the matter to religion faculty members, they dissented… the spokesman for the religion faculty insisted that I … gave undue emphasis to naturalistic explanations, and had a more flexible interpretation of ‘revelation’ than the orthodox one.” (Pg. 41)
In 1965, “a group of us decided to … discuss the formation of a Mormon History Association… Our association agreed to support ‘Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought’ that was being launched by an LDS group at Stanford… A major goal of the association… was to included Reorganized LDS members, non-Mormons, lapsed Mormons, and persons who were not professional historians.” (Pg. 58-59) “Two years later a group of young Mormon intellectuals founded [the journal] Sunstone, which also featured Mormon history.” (Pg. 63)
He continues, “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… In 1959 they began a lifetime of publishing anti-Mormon tracts … and books, with the intention of embarrassing the church by showing the inconsistencies and changes in Mormonism since the early days… The character of the Tanners’ writing is suggested by the obtrusive underlining, large capitals, and large capitals with underlining… The Tanners’ work---and that of a few others---sometimes created doubts in the minds of church members and provided ammunition for anti-Mormons generally… Their caustic interpretation of Mormon history was both beguiling and deceptive. Misled by their out-of-context quotations, some Mormon readers saw all unapproved church history as an enemy. This made the independent historian’s work suspect.” (Pg. 63)
He goes on, “To defend against the distorted depiction of Mormonism, constructive historians had to develop a fuller picture that also showed that the historical understanding of such conservative works as Joseph Field Smith’s ‘Essentials in Church History’ was incomplete and out of date. This in turn led some officials to charge historians with disloyalty and irreverence… Mormon historians used the work of the Tanners as a reason to restrict access to vital Mormon records, leaving responsible historians with limited access… The solution to … one-sided views by the Tanners… is not to deny that their view has ANY basis, but to show the whole picture… to show that their view is misleading. The church’s history may not have been unblemished, but it has survived and flourished because its members understand that any ‘error’ is a minor brush stroke in a very large painting… 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. There is a danger in… being so zealous in protecting the Saints from new views that free inquiry is stifled.” (Pg. 63-64)
He recounts, “With the written authorization of the First Presidency, our History Division proceeded to work out arrangements … for publication of some of the books we were authorized to write: the heritage Series, the sesquicentennial history, and the one-volume history of the church… Despite the approvals, those who distrusted the new ‘hot shot’ historians… [were] opposed to the new ‘openness’… [and] began to throw up roadblocks… As our historians began to make heavy use of holdings once restricted to use by general authorities, resentment followed… approval had been granted to several persons who did subsequent damage to the church… The negative results of these unfortunate permissions began to surface through the anti-Mormon underground… [and] their sensational disclosures were blamed on us and our policy of increased openness… there was a demand for greater control over the access to materials.” (Pg. 100-101)
He continues, “Two events showed that we were being watched. The first was a campaign waged by an employee of our library who had misgivings about our ‘taking over’ historical research… he submitted to two members of the Twelve, on a regular basis, pages from articles and books we published with ‘controversial’ statements underlined in yellow… A second instructive episode occurred in … 1973… one of our young historians had published … [an] article [in which] he details the low level of priesthood activity in the early years of the century… [Some of the Twelve] asked whether articles using such materials were approved by the History Division.” (Pg. 101-102)
He summarizes, “Whatever our role as church historians, many persons expected us to … convey new understandings of our history. Some of the material we developed… might be interpreted by traditionalists as negative… I suppose we were trying to bridge the gap between pietistic history and professional history.” (Pg. 104)
He notes, “Under the superb editorship of Dean Jessee, 95 letters to [Brigham’s 13 sons between 1854 and 1877] were published by Deseret Books in 1974.” (Pg. 115) “Three days after the appearance of ‘Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons,’ we were given a copy of a … letter from Boyd K. Packer to the First Presidency… [suggesting] the book was good… but it would have been better if we had not volunteered the information about certain Brigham Young family foibles.” (Pg. 119)
He reports, “By 1976 more than two years of effort were culminating in the publication of ‘Story of the Latter-day Saints.’ … Historians were particularly complimentary… The first intimation of conflict that would … cast its shadow into the future of the writing of Mormon history was a report from a friend that ‘one or two of the Quorum of the Twelve’ did not like ‘the absence of inspiration---descriptions of occurrences… without attributing their cause solely to God or to His direction and inspiration.’ … Soon the book was up for a full-scale review by the Twelve and the First Presidency.” (Pg. 142-143)
A critique of the book was made by two non-historians, who recommended “All of our history publications should be routed through the Correlation Committee to ensure that they were doctrinally and historically accurate and had the right tone and impact.” (Pg. 145) Arrington wrote in his diary, “Shall I retain the job of Church Historian (assuming they don’t release me) and try to write history that will be approved by the Correlation? Or shall I resign and continue to write ‘real history’? … can I retain my integrity and my reputation… with the ‘intelligentsia’ of the Church and remain on the job under conditions that will almost certainly be imposed upon me?” (Pg 146)
He explains, “In 1976… some young Latter-day Saint intellectuals founded ‘Sunstone,’ an independent quarterly journal that dealt with the modern problems of Mormonism in a less scholarly atmosphere than that supplied by ‘Dialogue’ and ‘BYU Studies.’ … Sunstone editors sought to explore the interplay between the human and the divine, a difficult task, something we historians were very aware of. Many of our historians, including myself, published in Sunstone, something we were later admonished to discontinue.” (Pg. 153-154)
He notes that “An amazing number of people were reading ‘Nightfall at Nauvoo’ (1971) by Sanuel W. Taylor, an experienced Mormon novelist… The popularity of ‘Nightfall at Nauvoo’ suggests how starved members of the church were for dramatically written historical material, and their curiosity to know ‘the real story’ of what took place. Clearly, many members were not buying the time-worn ‘seminary version’ of church history.” (Pg. 163-164)
He says of the 1978 removal of the ban of Blacks from holding the priesthood, “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… The Lord may have felt that the continuation of the exclusionist doctrine might lead the Saints to take measures that violated people’s civil rights. The Lord may have used this means of reminding the Saints that we were all the Lord’s children and that he was displeased with those who acted otherwise.” (Pg. 182-183)
He reports that [G. Homer] Durham, managing director of the Historical Department, “worked out [a]... plan with Gordon B. Hinckley, one of the Historical Department advisors. 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.’ (Pg. 214) [But] “The positive aspects of the move were that we would … be responsible to academic administrators rather than ecclesiastical officials who seemed to be more intent on protecting records than in writing documented history.” (Pg. 215)
He also addresses the murders and other criminal activity of Mark Hoffmann: “13 years have passed since those cold-blooded murders and the public knowledge of unsettling forgeries. Because I was church historian when the earliest Hoffmann ‘discoveries’ were brought to light, I would like to say that … I developed enormous confidence in the honesty, integrity, and faithfulness of LDS historians… Our principal plea was for honesty and openness to verified evidences.” (Pg. 223)
This informative book will be of great interest to anyone studying LDS history.
February 26, 2016
A brilliant book, one that inspires one to seek for truth and joy even when the truth might be hard to take.
July 25, 2018
Biographical essays on the most influential modern historian in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews