Adventures of a Church Historian
Adventures of a Church Historian
Author:
Leonard J. Arrington
Publisher:
University of Illinois Press
Date of Publication:
1998
ISBN:
0252023811
Rating:
8
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.
Review:
Should be required reading for Mormons!!
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.
