What do you think?
Rate this book
Leonard Arrington and the Writing of Mormon History
Copublished with the Tanner Trust Fund, J. Willard Marriott Library.
Leonard Arrington is considered by many the foremost twentieth-century historian of Mormonism. He played a key role in establishing the Western History Association and the Mormon History Association, and more than a half-century after its publication, his revised doctoral dissertation, Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints 1830-1900, remains a standard. But Arrington’s career was not without controversy. Gregory Prince takes an in-depth look at this respected historian and, in telling Arrington’s story, gives readers insight into the workings of the LDS Church in the late twentieth century.
In 1972, during a major reorganization of the LDS Church, Arrington was asked to serve as the official church historian, thereby becoming the first—and thus far the only—professional historian to hold that title. He immediately set out to professionalize the entire Church History Division and open its extensive archives to scholarly researching. While the output of and from that division moved Mormon studies to a new level, the shift of historiography from faith promotion ecclesiastical, to scholarly and professional research and analysis was unacceptable to a handful of powerful senior apostles. In 1980 the History Division was disassembled and moved to Brigham Young University. That led to a shift in the professionalization of the Church History Division and Archives and in Arrington’s career but not to a loss of his broad influence.
This biography is the first to draw upon the remarkable Arrington diaries (over 20,000 pages); it is supplemented by the author’s interviews of more than 100 people who knew or worked with Arrington. The book is of additional significance given continuing battles between the LDS Church and scholars, which frequently gains national attention because of excommunications of prominent intellectuals.
Leonard Arrington is considered by many the foremost twentieth-century historian of Mormonism. He played a key role in establishing the Western History Association and the Mormon History Association, and more than a half-century after its publication, his revised doctoral dissertation, Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints 1830-1900, remains a standard. But Arrington’s career was not without controversy. Gregory Prince takes an in-depth look at this respected historian and, in telling Arrington’s story, gives readers insight into the workings of the LDS Church in the late twentieth century.
In 1972, during a major reorganization of the LDS Church, Arrington was asked to serve as the official church historian, thereby becoming the first—and thus far the only—professional historian to hold that title. He immediately set out to professionalize the entire Church History Division and open its extensive archives to scholarly researching. While the output of and from that division moved Mormon studies to a new level, the shift of historiography from faith promotion ecclesiastical, to scholarly and professional research and analysis was unacceptable to a handful of powerful senior apostles. In 1980 the History Division was disassembled and moved to Brigham Young University. That led to a shift in the professionalization of the Church History Division and Archives and in Arrington’s career but not to a loss of his broad influence.
This biography is the first to draw upon the remarkable Arrington diaries (over 20,000 pages); it is supplemented by the author’s interviews of more than 100 people who knew or worked with Arrington. The book is of additional significance given continuing battles between the LDS Church and scholars, which frequently gains national attention because of excommunications of prominent intellectuals.
588 pages, Hardcover
Published May 30, 2016
33 people are currently reading
279 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
February 23, 2022
If you’ve ever brought up your Mormon faith (or ex-Mormon faith) to your therapist, you’re definitely in the camp of people that Greg Prince is healthy for.
Review for non-Mormons: FASCINATING look at the Mormons. You’ll roll your eyes more than once at those darn Mormons and their secretive patriarchy, but you’ll also hopefully be inspired by cool people like Leonard Arrington and other Mormon intellectuals who try to pierce the veil of secrecy.
Review for ex-Mormons: probably some catharsis here for you — assuming you, like many in my generation, felt fed up with the aforementioned secretive patriarchy
Review for active Mormons: I’m someone who has some definite quibbles with the secretive patriarchy but still chooses to put faith in ‘ole Jesus and my “organized religion” eggs in the Mormon basket. A book like this is both cathartic and very healthy — when the church does frustrating and hurtful things, it’s ultimately a HUMAN making the decision to be frustrating (and often that human’s name is Boyd. K. Packer or Ezra Taft Benson, lol. Sorry to any of their progeny reading this — I’m sure there were lots of great things about them, but it’s pretty impossible to argue that they didn’t hurt a lot of people. People are complex and the truth resists hagiography).
That understanding neither exonerates the Church from its bad decisions nor does it necessarily condemn it. All it means is that the Church is like EVERY OTHER ORGANIZATION ON EARTH — it makes myriad mistakes.
That healthy feeling actually motivates me to participate more. To study New Mormon History to LEARN about those mistakes, to apologize to people hurt by the mistakes, and to try to make LESS mistakes.
Review for non-Mormons: FASCINATING look at the Mormons. You’ll roll your eyes more than once at those darn Mormons and their secretive patriarchy, but you’ll also hopefully be inspired by cool people like Leonard Arrington and other Mormon intellectuals who try to pierce the veil of secrecy.
Review for ex-Mormons: probably some catharsis here for you — assuming you, like many in my generation, felt fed up with the aforementioned secretive patriarchy
Review for active Mormons: I’m someone who has some definite quibbles with the secretive patriarchy but still chooses to put faith in ‘ole Jesus and my “organized religion” eggs in the Mormon basket. A book like this is both cathartic and very healthy — when the church does frustrating and hurtful things, it’s ultimately a HUMAN making the decision to be frustrating (and often that human’s name is Boyd. K. Packer or Ezra Taft Benson, lol. Sorry to any of their progeny reading this — I’m sure there were lots of great things about them, but it’s pretty impossible to argue that they didn’t hurt a lot of people. People are complex and the truth resists hagiography).
That understanding neither exonerates the Church from its bad decisions nor does it necessarily condemn it. All it means is that the Church is like EVERY OTHER ORGANIZATION ON EARTH — it makes myriad mistakes.
That healthy feeling actually motivates me to participate more. To study New Mormon History to LEARN about those mistakes, to apologize to people hurt by the mistakes, and to try to make LESS mistakes.
February 17, 2018
This is the biography of an honest and academic Mormon man who was put in an impossible position and worked for what he believed was right. This biography is especially timely as the Church is going through a major transition with regards to its history, the internet.
Towards the end of the book this quote by respected church historian Richard Bushman shows this current issue.
“The day has passed when we can keep things private and to ourselves. With the Internet, with the widespread availability of all kinds of information on different aspects of Mormon history, we can’t hide it any longer. It’s there. We either have to deal with it, or be made fools of.”
In a way Arrington was working toward the remedy decades before the internet problem. The LDS church was going through major change as it put into effect correlation, which centralized the power and messaging to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve but also distributed responsibility outside of this core group. One of the recommendations for change was to put a professional historian in as the Church Historian, a position held by the quorum of the twelve for a century. Leonard Arrington, a forward thinking well respected LDS historian, was the man chosen for the job.
Greg Prince, just as he did with his biography of David O McKay, has done a phenomenal job of both covering the man as well as the main tension of his life, open and accurate history vs faithfulness to his church. The interesting part about this is that Arrington saw no tension and actually thought, in the end, they support each other.
“Leonard’s criticism consistently expressed such optimism, driven by his total conviction that telling the truth about Mormonism’s history would ultimately help the church.”
The real tension was not the idea of accurate history and supporting the church, but the attempt to promote this in a culture that saw such history as threatening. Oh man, it was painful to read through the struggles and opposition he faced until ultimately his department was scrapped and he was quietly moved from the Church History department to BYU.
At even the highest levels there were supporters like Howard Hunter, an apostle and former lawyer, who once took Arrington aside and said:
“Leonard, I want you to understand that while it is difficult for me to be at odds with certain of my brethren I am in complete agreement with your point of view and with your policies. I want you to know this so you will not feel you are alone in standing up against the views of some of the brethren.... I also agree completely that you must give a balanced view of our history. In the law it is not only unethical and immoral to misstate a fact; it is equally unethical and immoral to leave out a pertinent fact. We must surely be honest in our own history and we have nothing to fear from being honest and candid and pointing out some of the weaknesses and problems of some of the brethren. We must do it if our treatment is to be believed. I think you also ought to know that there are other brethren who agree with this.”
And there were persuasive and persistent detractors of Arrington’s approach such as Boyd K. Packer who “prior to the Mormon History Association’s annual conference, Boyd Packer, now advisor to the History Department, addressed all department employees at length, among other things telling them, ‘We are required to tell the truth but we are not required to tell the whole truth.’”
The tension ultimately ended in the dissolution of the History Department during Arrington’s tenure, often referred to as the “Camelot years.” The combination of open unbiased history and the perception that the messaging was approved of by prophetic church leadership whose overarching goal was to “spread the gospel” was too much to overcome. The choice was made to part ways.
The hush-hush and poorly handled transition became apparent when Leonard wrote that the then Director of the History Division “made his position clear by putting up a series of photos of Church Historians over the years. Mine was excluded, and his own was included.” In a way, the history was revised about the church history division. That is a painful irony.
I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the history of the LDS church and how our history is written. If you are like me, you will be both frustrated by a desire for openness but also gain a deep respect for those that are at the highest echelons of the Church and the tremendous responsibility and burden they have.
Towards the end of the book this quote by respected church historian Richard Bushman shows this current issue.
“The day has passed when we can keep things private and to ourselves. With the Internet, with the widespread availability of all kinds of information on different aspects of Mormon history, we can’t hide it any longer. It’s there. We either have to deal with it, or be made fools of.”
In a way Arrington was working toward the remedy decades before the internet problem. The LDS church was going through major change as it put into effect correlation, which centralized the power and messaging to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve but also distributed responsibility outside of this core group. One of the recommendations for change was to put a professional historian in as the Church Historian, a position held by the quorum of the twelve for a century. Leonard Arrington, a forward thinking well respected LDS historian, was the man chosen for the job.
Greg Prince, just as he did with his biography of David O McKay, has done a phenomenal job of both covering the man as well as the main tension of his life, open and accurate history vs faithfulness to his church. The interesting part about this is that Arrington saw no tension and actually thought, in the end, they support each other.
“Leonard’s criticism consistently expressed such optimism, driven by his total conviction that telling the truth about Mormonism’s history would ultimately help the church.”
The real tension was not the idea of accurate history and supporting the church, but the attempt to promote this in a culture that saw such history as threatening. Oh man, it was painful to read through the struggles and opposition he faced until ultimately his department was scrapped and he was quietly moved from the Church History department to BYU.
At even the highest levels there were supporters like Howard Hunter, an apostle and former lawyer, who once took Arrington aside and said:
“Leonard, I want you to understand that while it is difficult for me to be at odds with certain of my brethren I am in complete agreement with your point of view and with your policies. I want you to know this so you will not feel you are alone in standing up against the views of some of the brethren.... I also agree completely that you must give a balanced view of our history. In the law it is not only unethical and immoral to misstate a fact; it is equally unethical and immoral to leave out a pertinent fact. We must surely be honest in our own history and we have nothing to fear from being honest and candid and pointing out some of the weaknesses and problems of some of the brethren. We must do it if our treatment is to be believed. I think you also ought to know that there are other brethren who agree with this.”
And there were persuasive and persistent detractors of Arrington’s approach such as Boyd K. Packer who “prior to the Mormon History Association’s annual conference, Boyd Packer, now advisor to the History Department, addressed all department employees at length, among other things telling them, ‘We are required to tell the truth but we are not required to tell the whole truth.’”
The tension ultimately ended in the dissolution of the History Department during Arrington’s tenure, often referred to as the “Camelot years.” The combination of open unbiased history and the perception that the messaging was approved of by prophetic church leadership whose overarching goal was to “spread the gospel” was too much to overcome. The choice was made to part ways.
The hush-hush and poorly handled transition became apparent when Leonard wrote that the then Director of the History Division “made his position clear by putting up a series of photos of Church Historians over the years. Mine was excluded, and his own was included.” In a way, the history was revised about the church history division. That is a painful irony.
I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the history of the LDS church and how our history is written. If you are like me, you will be both frustrated by a desire for openness but also gain a deep respect for those that are at the highest echelons of the Church and the tremendous responsibility and burden they have.
March 15, 2018
Toward the end of the book the author gives the following quote from Leonard Arrington's autobiography:
"Speaking for myself and, I think, for most of the historians who have worked with me, some tension between our professional training and our religious commitments seems inevitable. Our testimonies tell us that the Lord is in this work, and for this we see abundant supporting evidence. But our historical training warns us that the accurate perception of spiritual phenomena is elusive -- not subject to unquestionable verification. We are tempted to wonder if our religious beliefs are intruding beyond their proper limits. Our faith tells us that there is moral meaning and spiritual significance in historical events. But we cannot be completely confident that any particular judgment or meaning or significance is unambiguously clear. If God's will cannot be wholly divorced from the actual course of history, neither can it be positively identified with it. Although we see evidence that God's love and power have frequently broken in upon the ordinary course of human affairs, our caution in declaring this is reinforced by our justifiable disapproval of chroniclers who take the easy way out and use divine miracles as a short-circuit of a causal explanation that is obviously, or at least defensibly, naturalistic. We must not use history as a storehouse from which deceptively simple moral lessons may be drawn at random."
Arrington is credited by many for being the father of the "new Mormon history", i.e. history including the inconvenient truths that always plague mortals. He was an advocate of telling not just the truth but all the truth and of balancing those truths appropriately.
"Speaking for myself and, I think, for most of the historians who have worked with me, some tension between our professional training and our religious commitments seems inevitable. Our testimonies tell us that the Lord is in this work, and for this we see abundant supporting evidence. But our historical training warns us that the accurate perception of spiritual phenomena is elusive -- not subject to unquestionable verification. We are tempted to wonder if our religious beliefs are intruding beyond their proper limits. Our faith tells us that there is moral meaning and spiritual significance in historical events. But we cannot be completely confident that any particular judgment or meaning or significance is unambiguously clear. If God's will cannot be wholly divorced from the actual course of history, neither can it be positively identified with it. Although we see evidence that God's love and power have frequently broken in upon the ordinary course of human affairs, our caution in declaring this is reinforced by our justifiable disapproval of chroniclers who take the easy way out and use divine miracles as a short-circuit of a causal explanation that is obviously, or at least defensibly, naturalistic. We must not use history as a storehouse from which deceptively simple moral lessons may be drawn at random."
Arrington is credited by many for being the father of the "new Mormon history", i.e. history including the inconvenient truths that always plague mortals. He was an advocate of telling not just the truth but all the truth and of balancing those truths appropriately.
August 25, 2019
I’ve been curious for some time about Leonard Arrington, and after seeing a link to an Ensign Article he wrote in the 1970’s, I decided to order this biography. I’m glad I did, because it is a fascinating read and very well researched.
Arrington was an optimistic, hard working historian devoted to his profession. Called to be church historian for the LDS Church, he developed an ambitious plan to publish various books covering different time periods of the church since the founding in 1830.
His attempts at writing accurate and honest history were met with fear by some in the leadership of the church, a fear that ultimately led them to disassemble the history division and cancel many of the contracts in place with authors writing the histories previously agreed upon.
In place of professional quality histories sponsored by the church, more simple and devotional type histories are what the general membership has been exposed to. These simple histories and anecdotes have left many ignorant of various aspects of church history. Instant access to the internet and information regarding history today has made for an interesting climate. Had Leonard Arringtons attempts to deal with our history been met with openness rather than fear makes me wonder how things could have played out differently.
Arrington was an optimistic, hard working historian devoted to his profession. Called to be church historian for the LDS Church, he developed an ambitious plan to publish various books covering different time periods of the church since the founding in 1830.
His attempts at writing accurate and honest history were met with fear by some in the leadership of the church, a fear that ultimately led them to disassemble the history division and cancel many of the contracts in place with authors writing the histories previously agreed upon.
In place of professional quality histories sponsored by the church, more simple and devotional type histories are what the general membership has been exposed to. These simple histories and anecdotes have left many ignorant of various aspects of church history. Instant access to the internet and information regarding history today has made for an interesting climate. Had Leonard Arringtons attempts to deal with our history been met with openness rather than fear makes me wonder how things could have played out differently.
December 7, 2025
Arrington’s prolific journaling and lifelong record-keeping provide for some juicy tidbits on the internal politics, bureaucracy, and tensions that arise from hiring / calling a professional historian to be the Church Historian—including tensions within the Quorum of the 12.
The book is a couple hundred pages longer than it needs to be. Still, might be the most interesting thing sold at Deseret Book.
The book is a couple hundred pages longer than it needs to be. Still, might be the most interesting thing sold at Deseret Book.
September 10, 2021
4.5 and such a powerful read! I love an honest conversation, and I felt that this book was one of those. Leonard is my grandfather and it was such a gift to glean from his endless stream of writings and interactions (accessed through Prince's interviews). There were times I found myself wanting something to be fleshed out more, only to continue reading and find what I was looking for. I appreciated the effort to portray the whole man from childhood to his mature years, from public school to academia, from chicken farms to WWII's European theater, from family homestead to professional spaces, from current events to the effects of history, it is an excellent telling.
This book is full of optimism, excitement, tragedy, tender family relationships, miracles, talents, decisions, honesty, unfairness, kindness and imperfections. It's real life. Leonard was a believer in "context." He believed "the corrective to bad information is good information." "To show the whole picture." So much of what we are enjoying today in view of Church history is the acceptance of this belief. He loved finding out "what they knew, what their lives were like, how they were trying to accomplish things or just get by."
Leonard was fiercely devoted to his faith. Even the dramatic difficulties that he faced in working as Church Historian, or the deep research he performed that sometimes uncovered less that complimentary events, having quite literally "seen it all," his feet were firmly planted on truth, and in that he found strength. I believe that Leonard's "being okay" with the history of his church being imperfect helped him view the imperfections he was facing as just a part of this messy work of mortality. Things weren't perfect in the history he was studying. Why would he expect it to be perfect in his dispensation? Time and time again, truth prevails. While he certainly wished others would have behaved differently, he didn't leave. He kept reading and writing. He kept seeing the good in people. He kept opening doors for others. He had the best laugh. And he gave his best to the very end, and I thank him for it. It is this strength to move forward and not "be defeated twice, once by circumstance and another by myself" that I am most proud of.
This book is full of optimism, excitement, tragedy, tender family relationships, miracles, talents, decisions, honesty, unfairness, kindness and imperfections. It's real life. Leonard was a believer in "context." He believed "the corrective to bad information is good information." "To show the whole picture." So much of what we are enjoying today in view of Church history is the acceptance of this belief. He loved finding out "what they knew, what their lives were like, how they were trying to accomplish things or just get by."
Leonard was fiercely devoted to his faith. Even the dramatic difficulties that he faced in working as Church Historian, or the deep research he performed that sometimes uncovered less that complimentary events, having quite literally "seen it all," his feet were firmly planted on truth, and in that he found strength. I believe that Leonard's "being okay" with the history of his church being imperfect helped him view the imperfections he was facing as just a part of this messy work of mortality. Things weren't perfect in the history he was studying. Why would he expect it to be perfect in his dispensation? Time and time again, truth prevails. While he certainly wished others would have behaved differently, he didn't leave. He kept reading and writing. He kept seeing the good in people. He kept opening doors for others. He had the best laugh. And he gave his best to the very end, and I thank him for it. It is this strength to move forward and not "be defeated twice, once by circumstance and another by myself" that I am most proud of.
March 2, 2018
I came to this biography as a fan of both the subject and the biographer. Even with such high expectations I found myself spell-bound, witnessing the collision of two inexorable forces in the 1970s and 80s: (1) the academic/secular pressure to bring scholarly tools and sensibilities to Mormon history, and (2) the ecclesiastical/hagiographical pressure to resist this secularization and to preserve sacred narratives that bolster faith and reinforce institutional truth claims. I learned that the discomfort with more candid, unexpurgated tellings of Mormon history was not universally shared by leaders in the LDS church. Some apostles believed that the general church membership could and should be entrusted to process the messier aspects of our history--even if that process required reconstructing long-cherished beliefs. Others--and its hard for me not to think of them as the antagonists in this story--believed that whenever Truth threatened Faith, it was Truth (and its promulgators) that should be suppressed.
Arrington's job/calling demanded an ultimately untenable task: promote scholarly history without challenging sacred narratives. He was asked to professionalize history, but not allowed to give scholars access to any sources that contradict or challenge faith-promoting versions of that history.
Arrington's family was wise to approach Prince with this biography. Just as he did with the David O. McKay biography, Prince presents a fully human portrait. Situating his subject in a fully realized context, Prince has neither an axe to grind, nor the timidity to avoid a matter-of-fact accounting of the messy cultural and interpersonal dynamics at play. There are no caricatures here, but each reader will bring his or her own sensibilities to this biography.
Arrington's job/calling demanded an ultimately untenable task: promote scholarly history without challenging sacred narratives. He was asked to professionalize history, but not allowed to give scholars access to any sources that contradict or challenge faith-promoting versions of that history.
Arrington's family was wise to approach Prince with this biography. Just as he did with the David O. McKay biography, Prince presents a fully human portrait. Situating his subject in a fully realized context, Prince has neither an axe to grind, nor the timidity to avoid a matter-of-fact accounting of the messy cultural and interpersonal dynamics at play. There are no caricatures here, but each reader will bring his or her own sensibilities to this biography.
February 13, 2018
Lotta thoughts here... not sure where to start...
I hope to qualify as an active and dedicated member of the LDS Church, however my preferred LDS books are frequently those that I cannot comfortably recommend to the vast majority of other congregants. Gregory Prince is now responsible for two of the best LDS history books written: "David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism," and now this.
In the LDS environment, we interact on a weekly basis with people of different backgrounds, working hand in hand with those who have a variety of eccentricities. Even in situations where we learn to look past what we define as "quirks," they still may cause the occasional wrinkle. In my personal sphere, I have seen this in varying degrees with a variety of callings filled by myself and others. This is not a bad thing; I agree with Eugene England and believe we develop "charity" when we choose to effectively serve and help others with whom we would never choose to interact when left to our own personal devices.
That said... at what point in LDS callings do we honestly believe that differences in personalities no longer exist? Do we assume that the more refined and spiritually-developed one becomes throughout their life, they no longer have quirks or wrinkles? And if we learn at lower levels of church service to interact with others whose personalities are significantly different than ours, what rationale leads us to assume it would be any different for church leaders at a higher level?
Leonard Arrington was specifically asked to restructure and improve the approach to LDS History. That, he did to the best of his capacity in a manner that he felt would improve the church's reputation as a transparent organization. The content of this book is priceless. I love seeing Leonard Arrington's role in opening up the church archives, planning for a vast history of the church to be written at a professional level (which was ultimately published through different companies, just not as the final "sanctioned" history originally planned out), and most especially the role he played in helping female employees in church administration develop their footing.
This is a 5-star book, and deserves the 5-star rating. I almost make it 4-stars, however, due to an issue I take with Mr. Prince's chosen narrative thread. 90% of the book is written in a way to make you feel that Leonard Arrington was never given opportunity to truly shine, that particular personalities in LDS leadership stifled his success However, a couple chapters before the end, Mr. Prince finally outlines what Leonard Arrington himself did to shoot himself in the foot. Trying to move too fast in revamping an organization that had approached history in a very conservative method for 130 years... not effectively getting everybody on the same page... etc. These observations are timeless for anybody in a professional role trying to make a difference, and suggest that had Arrington learned these leadership lessons previous to filling the position of Church Historian, he may have enjoyed significantly more success.
In the end, as evidenced today by the quality LDS history published through multiple outlets, Arrington's approach won.
I hope to qualify as an active and dedicated member of the LDS Church, however my preferred LDS books are frequently those that I cannot comfortably recommend to the vast majority of other congregants. Gregory Prince is now responsible for two of the best LDS history books written: "David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism," and now this.
In the LDS environment, we interact on a weekly basis with people of different backgrounds, working hand in hand with those who have a variety of eccentricities. Even in situations where we learn to look past what we define as "quirks," they still may cause the occasional wrinkle. In my personal sphere, I have seen this in varying degrees with a variety of callings filled by myself and others. This is not a bad thing; I agree with Eugene England and believe we develop "charity" when we choose to effectively serve and help others with whom we would never choose to interact when left to our own personal devices.
That said... at what point in LDS callings do we honestly believe that differences in personalities no longer exist? Do we assume that the more refined and spiritually-developed one becomes throughout their life, they no longer have quirks or wrinkles? And if we learn at lower levels of church service to interact with others whose personalities are significantly different than ours, what rationale leads us to assume it would be any different for church leaders at a higher level?
Leonard Arrington was specifically asked to restructure and improve the approach to LDS History. That, he did to the best of his capacity in a manner that he felt would improve the church's reputation as a transparent organization. The content of this book is priceless. I love seeing Leonard Arrington's role in opening up the church archives, planning for a vast history of the church to be written at a professional level (which was ultimately published through different companies, just not as the final "sanctioned" history originally planned out), and most especially the role he played in helping female employees in church administration develop their footing.
This is a 5-star book, and deserves the 5-star rating. I almost make it 4-stars, however, due to an issue I take with Mr. Prince's chosen narrative thread. 90% of the book is written in a way to make you feel that Leonard Arrington was never given opportunity to truly shine, that particular personalities in LDS leadership stifled his success However, a couple chapters before the end, Mr. Prince finally outlines what Leonard Arrington himself did to shoot himself in the foot. Trying to move too fast in revamping an organization that had approached history in a very conservative method for 130 years... not effectively getting everybody on the same page... etc. These observations are timeless for anybody in a professional role trying to make a difference, and suggest that had Arrington learned these leadership lessons previous to filling the position of Church Historian, he may have enjoyed significantly more success.
In the end, as evidenced today by the quality LDS history published through multiple outlets, Arrington's approach won.
October 8, 2017
Not a book for everyone but if you are ok with a slightly flawed historian who tried to bring LDS history to the light while fighting battles with a few apostles and church bureaucracy it’s a great book.
February 2, 2017
Excellent book! I truly enjoyed learning about the life of Leonard Arrington. I'll be honest, a few months ago I didn't know much about him or the role he played as historian for the LDS church back in the 70s-80s. I'm now grateful to know more about this man, who was a great mentor to many individuals. As he told a more open history, he laid a foundation and planted many seeds for future scholarship on LDS Church history, even amid the challenges he faced from some general authorities of his day.
This book covers an important part of Mormon history and how it is written. I recommend it to anyone interested in the topic.
This book covers an important part of Mormon history and how it is written. I recommend it to anyone interested in the topic.
January 17, 2020
Once again Greg Prince, author of David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism turns his astute historical eye to a biography of Leonard Arrington, who served as the official church historian of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 1972-1982.
I would have given this book five stars, but alas, Prince has peppered the biography with enough of his own commentary that I must take it down a peg. The section labeled "dramatis personae" was obviously heavy-handed, as if this were some morality play about the dangers of following religious zealots. That was the most obvious moment where Prince's hand was evident, but there were more subtle incidents throughout the book.
The years that Arrington presided over the church's history division were known for some time as the "camelot" years, years in which more professional historians worked there to move the writing of Mormon history from the previous polemics from both sides. Instead of either having LDS history that said that God was completely in control and the saints were all, well, saints, or that the LDS church was a fraud with no redeemable value, we got more nuanced and fair treatments of the subjects surrounding the history of the church.
This apparently did not sit well with some of the higher-ups in the LDS church hierarchy, and so eventually the entire division was basically mothballed and sent down to BYU. Those parts of the book were, frankly, infuriating to me. It's a bit of schadenfreude to have finished this book in 2020 when Arrington's approach to writing the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been completely vindicated and embraced by the church, with its sanction of the Joseph Smith Papers project, the publishing of an Oxford University Press book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre written by historians employed by the church, and the gospel topics essays being produced and seminary teachers in the church ordered to present them to their students, etc. Those who fought Arrington lost. Decisively. But in the meantime, there was obviously some friction. Prince comments on that friction too often, and while I enjoyed the feeling of schadenfreude in reading the book (since I agree with Arrington's and the current church leadership's approach to the so-called "difficult" issues in LDS church history), he did not need to comment so often to enhance it. A biography of Arrington that just simply displayed the facts with less commentary would have engendered the same reactions, and would have been a better book. The last few chapters of the book, in particular, became less biography of Arrington and more "Greg Prince's commentary on the intellectual history of the LDS church somewhat through the lens of Arrington's own thoughts on salient moments," and this book suffered because of it.
But these complaints aside, I still give the book four stars. It's a great read detailing some 20th century LDS church history, and we have so few books covering that time that this (with Prince's biography on President McKay) is one definitely worth reading, if you want to see how the "sausage is made" in governing the church. And, much like Arrington's and the current church's approach would have us realize, it was not all perfect people acting completely saintly all day every day. But the church moves forward anyway.
I would have given this book five stars, but alas, Prince has peppered the biography with enough of his own commentary that I must take it down a peg. The section labeled "dramatis personae" was obviously heavy-handed, as if this were some morality play about the dangers of following religious zealots. That was the most obvious moment where Prince's hand was evident, but there were more subtle incidents throughout the book.
The years that Arrington presided over the church's history division were known for some time as the "camelot" years, years in which more professional historians worked there to move the writing of Mormon history from the previous polemics from both sides. Instead of either having LDS history that said that God was completely in control and the saints were all, well, saints, or that the LDS church was a fraud with no redeemable value, we got more nuanced and fair treatments of the subjects surrounding the history of the church.
This apparently did not sit well with some of the higher-ups in the LDS church hierarchy, and so eventually the entire division was basically mothballed and sent down to BYU. Those parts of the book were, frankly, infuriating to me. It's a bit of schadenfreude to have finished this book in 2020 when Arrington's approach to writing the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been completely vindicated and embraced by the church, with its sanction of the Joseph Smith Papers project, the publishing of an Oxford University Press book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre written by historians employed by the church, and the gospel topics essays being produced and seminary teachers in the church ordered to present them to their students, etc. Those who fought Arrington lost. Decisively. But in the meantime, there was obviously some friction. Prince comments on that friction too often, and while I enjoyed the feeling of schadenfreude in reading the book (since I agree with Arrington's and the current church leadership's approach to the so-called "difficult" issues in LDS church history), he did not need to comment so often to enhance it. A biography of Arrington that just simply displayed the facts with less commentary would have engendered the same reactions, and would have been a better book. The last few chapters of the book, in particular, became less biography of Arrington and more "Greg Prince's commentary on the intellectual history of the LDS church somewhat through the lens of Arrington's own thoughts on salient moments," and this book suffered because of it.
But these complaints aside, I still give the book four stars. It's a great read detailing some 20th century LDS church history, and we have so few books covering that time that this (with Prince's biography on President McKay) is one definitely worth reading, if you want to see how the "sausage is made" in governing the church. And, much like Arrington's and the current church's approach would have us realize, it was not all perfect people acting completely saintly all day every day. But the church moves forward anyway.
June 13, 2022
Honesty requires effort. Unqualified opinions are an easy way to avoid truth.
From the author Gregory Prince: “In order to appreciate fully the long-term effect of Leonard’s franchise , it is useful to employ the metaphor of the construction of the Salt Lake Temple… the approach of federal troops and the ensuing “Utah War” (against one of the twin pillars of barbarism: polygamy) resulted in a decision by church leaders to cover completely the emerging foundation of the temple so that if the army invaded Salt Lake Valley, it would have no indication of where the temple was being constructed. The foundation remained covered for several years after the war, at which time it was uncovered and the magnificent temple was built upon it.”
This metaphor appears to be more and more accurate as time goes on.
I especially like the above quote as it captures the struggle of the dismantling of the church’s once authorized history department, only to be buried and rise again decades later in perhaps a way that even Arrington never imagined possible. What’s easy to see is how unjust that was. What’s hard to see is how independence from the church was the most appropriate way for it to happen. It’s far more nuanced than most of us want to make it out to be.
Leonard Arrington and the Writing of Mormon History would top my list of must read books about Mormondom.
Gregory Prince would top my list of responsible authors of Mormon history and does a wonderful job portraying history as it is: messy, complicated and full of substance.
I was six years late to this party but my experience was the same as if I was right on time.
From the author Gregory Prince: “In order to appreciate fully the long-term effect of Leonard’s franchise , it is useful to employ the metaphor of the construction of the Salt Lake Temple… the approach of federal troops and the ensuing “Utah War” (against one of the twin pillars of barbarism: polygamy) resulted in a decision by church leaders to cover completely the emerging foundation of the temple so that if the army invaded Salt Lake Valley, it would have no indication of where the temple was being constructed. The foundation remained covered for several years after the war, at which time it was uncovered and the magnificent temple was built upon it.”
This metaphor appears to be more and more accurate as time goes on.
I especially like the above quote as it captures the struggle of the dismantling of the church’s once authorized history department, only to be buried and rise again decades later in perhaps a way that even Arrington never imagined possible. What’s easy to see is how unjust that was. What’s hard to see is how independence from the church was the most appropriate way for it to happen. It’s far more nuanced than most of us want to make it out to be.
Leonard Arrington and the Writing of Mormon History would top my list of must read books about Mormondom.
Gregory Prince would top my list of responsible authors of Mormon history and does a wonderful job portraying history as it is: messy, complicated and full of substance.
I was six years late to this party but my experience was the same as if I was right on time.
December 25, 2018
Required reading for those who want to understand the sweep of modern Latter-day Saint history from 1970s to the era preceding the Joseph Smith Papers Project, this book is an impressive biography of an economist who grow into his role as the most influential modern historian of the church, particularly with his book “Great Basin Kingdom.” Leonard J. Arrington optimistically built a strong professional writing team under the direction of apostle Howard W. Hunter, professionalizing the church archives and the writing of church history. He helped establish what came to be known as the “Camelot” years that led to more candid assessments of the contributions of the church and its prophets than did previous church historians. Concerns about the candor of such historians motivated apostles Ezra Taft Benson, Mark E. Petersen, and Boyd K. Packer to find a non-church-affiliated publisher for the church’s partially completed sesquicentennial history. The authors were compensated for their time and allowed to shop their manuscripts to other publishers, resulting in such groundbreaking books as Richard Lyman Bushman’s “Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling.” Arrington was personally saddened to be released as church historian and to have his research team somewhat sidelined from church headquarters in Salt Lake City to the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute at Brigham Young University.
March 19, 2025
Maybe more of a 4.5 star, but I went ahead and rounded up.
This isn't the most exciting book, as it's the biography of a fairly academic guy who didn't move and shake the world. But it is the most important book on Mormon historiography out there. Leonard Arrington, for someone who just wanted to write history, ended up in a toxic spiral of bad historiography. He was hired by the Mormon leadership to write history that could be "faith-promoting" but that wouldn't soft-peddle the unsavory parts of Church history. The leadership who backed Arrington hoped that this would be a good way to introduce Church membership to their history. But other Church leaders wanted to expunge any mention of the more disturbing parts of Church history and basically sabotaged his department and his access to the archives. The last chapter of the book is the most interesting, because Prince gets into some of the ways Arrington himself failed to address the institutional problems sabotaging him. Ultimately, Arrington was right--the Church has restored its history department and has professional historians writing the kinds of books Arrington envisioned.
This isn't the most exciting book, as it's the biography of a fairly academic guy who didn't move and shake the world. But it is the most important book on Mormon historiography out there. Leonard Arrington, for someone who just wanted to write history, ended up in a toxic spiral of bad historiography. He was hired by the Mormon leadership to write history that could be "faith-promoting" but that wouldn't soft-peddle the unsavory parts of Church history. The leadership who backed Arrington hoped that this would be a good way to introduce Church membership to their history. But other Church leaders wanted to expunge any mention of the more disturbing parts of Church history and basically sabotaged his department and his access to the archives. The last chapter of the book is the most interesting, because Prince gets into some of the ways Arrington himself failed to address the institutional problems sabotaging him. Ultimately, Arrington was right--the Church has restored its history department and has professional historians writing the kinds of books Arrington envisioned.
May 18, 2017
Not every student of history deserves their own biography. Not that historians aren’t worthy of the examined life. It’s just that their influence on society tends to be indirect and few are the readers that appreciate their contributions.
Leonard Arrington is an exception. He was the first and only professional academic to formally occupy the office of Church Historian for the Mormon Church. His biographer, Gregory Prince, has done a commendable job telling the story of how this remarkable man was able to be true to his craft while at the same time being true to his faith. In the end it cost Arrington a great deal and the story isn’t without its human failings – either on the part of Arrington or the men that directed him. It is, however, a story of a man and a church seeking to straddle the often ambivalent needs of faith and historic truth. It is an important work and I hope Prince continues his insightful approach to Mormon history, now with two significant books behind him.
Leonard Arrington is an exception. He was the first and only professional academic to formally occupy the office of Church Historian for the Mormon Church. His biographer, Gregory Prince, has done a commendable job telling the story of how this remarkable man was able to be true to his craft while at the same time being true to his faith. In the end it cost Arrington a great deal and the story isn’t without its human failings – either on the part of Arrington or the men that directed him. It is, however, a story of a man and a church seeking to straddle the often ambivalent needs of faith and historic truth. It is an important work and I hope Prince continues his insightful approach to Mormon history, now with two significant books behind him.
July 12, 2024
Well done, Mr. Prince.
I had always had questions about the Church's presentation of its history. But I never knew where to look. This book started me on my journey, which is still a journey in progress. I've learned a lot, and while I accept a prophet as being called to lead the church with revelation for the church, I also developed along the way the firm conviction that I am endowed with the right, the responsibility, and obligation to think about what church leaders say to determine for myself whether it be right or wrong. Mormon culture should not have a place in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but the culture is such that it is so, so, often not safe to express one's views or questions that may disturb the orthodox views of another. Arrington's concern was about the preservation of truth, even inconvenient truth. I personally admire that.
I had always had questions about the Church's presentation of its history. But I never knew where to look. This book started me on my journey, which is still a journey in progress. I've learned a lot, and while I accept a prophet as being called to lead the church with revelation for the church, I also developed along the way the firm conviction that I am endowed with the right, the responsibility, and obligation to think about what church leaders say to determine for myself whether it be right or wrong. Mormon culture should not have a place in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but the culture is such that it is so, so, often not safe to express one's views or questions that may disturb the orthodox views of another. Arrington's concern was about the preservation of truth, even inconvenient truth. I personally admire that.
February 22, 2019
Very interesting read. Plenty of frustration associated with how the LDS church dealt, and deals, with its history. Honesty back then would have saved many people today from the tremendous cognitive dissonance many of us struggle with!
Favorite quote in the book is from Boyd Packer: “We are required to tell the truth but we are not required to tell the whole truth.”
Total gut punch! Enjoy! ;-)
Favorite quote in the book is from Boyd Packer: “We are required to tell the truth but we are not required to tell the whole truth.”
Total gut punch! Enjoy! ;-)
July 31, 2023
A well-written, well-researched, and engaging book about an interesting man and some interesting 20th century history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Raises some really interesting questions about the purposes of church history and the ways it can/should be written. It also pulls back the curtain and gives a little insight into some of the goings-ons at church headquarters which I found really fascinating.
October 12, 2018
A very dense history of Leonard Arrington and his journey with the church and trying to compile its history. I really liked his idea that history shouldn’t be feared, it should be known. This book painted a picture of regular men leading a church and the rival between church leadership and scholars. Interesting read.
December 6, 2017
Fascinating. It took me a while to get through this, but partly that was because I wanted to digest it as I went. This is an interesting look into a slice of Mormon history. I didn't know much about Arrington before and am now very impressed with what he was able to accomplish.
July 6, 2017
An incredible biography of an incredible man. Full review at: https://theluckynone.wordpress.com/20...
May 10, 2018
This is a must read for anyone interested in the changes in the presentation in LDS history. It covers key events in modern LDS history as well with more of an insider's point of view.
December 10, 2018
Wow - this is one truly revealing look into the inner workings of Mormonism during the latter half of the 20th century. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in that subject matter.
February 1, 2020
Very interesting if you are into Mormon history and some big events about opening up that history in the 1980's.
August 22, 2017
Wow, how to write a review for this book? I will probably add to the review over time, as there are so many nuggets in this book that I will use in my teaching and writing over the course of my career. This book was just simply amazing. Gregory Prince nailed it, I love the way he writes biographies. He has to be my favorite biographer of all time.
Add to this that Leonard "Jimmie" Arrington had such a rich life, filled with all kinds of challenges, and this makes for my kind of book. Simply brilliant.
Add to this that Leonard "Jimmie" Arrington had such a rich life, filled with all kinds of challenges, and this makes for my kind of book. Simply brilliant.
March 8, 2017
The book to read to see how far the Church has come in writing its history, and how Leonard Arrington, Church historian, was foundational in that change. In the past, and even today among many Church members, Church history has been apologetic in nature. Don't ask difficult questions, just use it to strengthen faith if you're going to talk history. This attitude is perhaps summed up best in the words of Boyd K. Packer: "It may be true, but it isn't always useful."
In an age of the Internet, this attitude is no longer possible, and we've had to mature as a Church and confront our history. This has been seen very visibly recently in the publication of essays on LDS.org including topics such as polygamy and blacks and the Priesthood, as well as the publication of the Joseph Smith papers. It is true that this has been uncomfortable for some to confront, but it is necessary. Opposition in all things, right?
Leonard's view was "The truth and nothing but the truth is good enough for my Church." In the past, there were two extremes in Mormon history: this-is-the-one-true-Church apologetics on the one hand and polemical attacks. Leonard made possible history that tells it as it is, but in a way that doesn't seek to attack: critical loyalty and loyal criticism.
In an age of the Internet, this attitude is no longer possible, and we've had to mature as a Church and confront our history. This has been seen very visibly recently in the publication of essays on LDS.org including topics such as polygamy and blacks and the Priesthood, as well as the publication of the Joseph Smith papers. It is true that this has been uncomfortable for some to confront, but it is necessary. Opposition in all things, right?
Leonard's view was "The truth and nothing but the truth is good enough for my Church." In the past, there were two extremes in Mormon history: this-is-the-one-true-Church apologetics on the one hand and polemical attacks. Leonard made possible history that tells it as it is, but in a way that doesn't seek to attack: critical loyalty and loyal criticism.
December 29, 2016
Prince is a scientific researcher, and at times, he allows some data to masquerade as valuable information (this work could have been 200 pages shorter). That said, while it doesn't quite reach the bar he set with his McKay book, this is still an excellent biography about a very interesting and compelling figure in Church History.
In the face of a Church bureaucracy, and orthodoxy, that refused to see anything but a literal interpretation of scripture and apologetic presentation of history as acceptable paths; Leonard was a powerful trailblazer.
In his personal beliefs, he had the ability to see truth as being both symbolic and literal, and to understand that one kind of truth did not work against the other. In fact, he took the next step by realizing that both kinds of truths are essential to the development of a balanced and mature faith.
In his professional life (part of which encompassed over a decade as Church Historian), he consistently contended that skeptical and critical methods of historical research and writing are not incompatible with the maintenance of a firm testimony of the gospel. That Mormonism, which is uniquely attached to its own history, would be strengthened, and not weakened by rigorous and honest investigation of the historical record. Simply put (by Leonard), "God does not need our lies."
Nearly two decades after Arrington's death, his dedicated approach to telling the truth in publications (as an issue of personal integrity) continues to remain a powerful foundation for current historians to build. As the internet forces full transparency as an issue of necessity, Leonard's life and approach to his work provides a powerful lens through which very useful and pragmatic lessons can be drawn for those both inside and out of modern-day Mormonism
In the face of a Church bureaucracy, and orthodoxy, that refused to see anything but a literal interpretation of scripture and apologetic presentation of history as acceptable paths; Leonard was a powerful trailblazer.
In his personal beliefs, he had the ability to see truth as being both symbolic and literal, and to understand that one kind of truth did not work against the other. In fact, he took the next step by realizing that both kinds of truths are essential to the development of a balanced and mature faith.
In his professional life (part of which encompassed over a decade as Church Historian), he consistently contended that skeptical and critical methods of historical research and writing are not incompatible with the maintenance of a firm testimony of the gospel. That Mormonism, which is uniquely attached to its own history, would be strengthened, and not weakened by rigorous and honest investigation of the historical record. Simply put (by Leonard), "God does not need our lies."
Nearly two decades after Arrington's death, his dedicated approach to telling the truth in publications (as an issue of personal integrity) continues to remain a powerful foundation for current historians to build. As the internet forces full transparency as an issue of necessity, Leonard's life and approach to his work provides a powerful lens through which very useful and pragmatic lessons can be drawn for those both inside and out of modern-day Mormonism
December 13, 2016
Fascinating! Prince does a wonderful job at summarizing not only Arrington’s interesting life, but pulling you behind the scenes of the LDS church bureaucracy in the process. Arrington, the only professionally trained historian to hold the office of LDS Church Historian, was ahead of his time in propounding honest Mormon history. He believed that history could be told while retaining academic integrity and spiritual faith. There are many interesting examples given that show how the top religious leaders of the LDS church were split on Arrington’s optimistic approach. Unfortunately for him, those antagonistic towards a “full truth” history won out, pushing him out of office prematurely. Fortunately for us, Prince was able to sift through hundreds of thousands of pages of source material to pull out fascinating meetings, interviews, journal entries, and more, rebuilding Arrington’s life as though we were watching it firsthand. I recommend this book to anyone interested in Mormon history, seeing how the LDS church can work “behind the scenes,” or interested in the general development of the Church administration of the mid to late 20th century.
March 2, 2021
An enormously comprehensive book on an underrated figure in the history of the Mormon Church. It contains gems on church history that are not found elsewhere, which I greatly appreciated. However, the lengthy book becomes exhaustive at times. At those moments I would simply skim until something interesting caught my eye again, and it usually didn't take too much skimming.
November 20, 2016
Greg Prince's books are reliably researched and reliably large. For every journal entry revealing a delicious tidbit, there are two or three paragraphs I wish he had omitted. I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with the points Prince develops because he overwhelms the reader with data. I really like Arrington; I met him once shortly before his death at BYU during a conference on the Brigham Young manuals printed by the Mormon Church.
That said, this biography demonstrated both how supportive a mentor he was, and how naive he was in terms of both power dynamics and religious symbolism. When I read that Arrington took comfort in Santayana's metaphorical approach to religion early in his life, and yet was disturbed by challenges to the historicity of the Book of Mormon late in life, I scratched my head. Wouldn't the literal Book of Mormon narrative be the first thing a thinking Mormon liberated by Santayana's thoughts give up?
That said, this biography demonstrated both how supportive a mentor he was, and how naive he was in terms of both power dynamics and religious symbolism. When I read that Arrington took comfort in Santayana's metaphorical approach to religion early in his life, and yet was disturbed by challenges to the historicity of the Book of Mormon late in life, I scratched my head. Wouldn't the literal Book of Mormon narrative be the first thing a thinking Mormon liberated by Santayana's thoughts give up?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews