S. Lloyd: "Arrington Was a Screw-up"

[_Mister Scratch]

The idea that the Church archives are more open and honest now is laughably and demonstrably false.

That depends. The Church, so far as I can tell, has always restricted archival material in some capacity. They did so in the past and they do so now. I'm currently discovering just how much and what.

The extent doesn't really matter. Under strict dictionary definitions, this constitutes "suppression." And, by the way, I would extend my initial observations to go well beyond just history. It seems that the LDS Church is highly interested in "suppressing" all kinds of information.

Whether or not he privately peddled the same BS is another story.

According to this family member, he didn't.

Which might be why people like Scott Lloyd would rather make a pre-emptive strike.

This is very tenuous.

It's quite simple to make accusations and insinuations like this online behind a fake name. This is not the kind of evidence I am looking for.

It's quite simple for Scott Lloyd to claim that the Church history department under Arrington was "not very well managed." It seems Brother Lloyd is peddling cheap gossip with zero sources. Sure, he claims that he "worked with the dept." for "two decades," but what does this mean, exactly? About as much as R. T. Hana's anecdotal evidence, I daresay. When finally called upon to render up a legitimate reference, Scott pulls up one of his own spin-doctored articles (which only certain folks can access!):

With its vast holdings, the department does not make everything available, and occasionally encounters criticism for the restrictions it does have. Yet the ethical considerations of privacy and confidentiality that govern department policies are in line with standards that are described in professional archival literature, Brother Turley said.
He described such considerations in volume 1 of The Journals of George Q. Cannon. These apply to "matters that are sacred, private or confidential. Matters of great sacredness deserve reverence. Divulging some kinds of information may violate principles of privacy, and persons who confess to religious leaders or communicate other information in a confidential setting expect that leaders will maintain their confidences."

What "professional archival literature"? What "department policies"? I.e, that no embarrassing facets of history should ever be released without first consulting either the Brethren and/or FARMS? My dear LOAP, as much as I'm glad to see you over here, you and your pal Scotty Dog need to re-open your dictionaries. The above fits, to a tee, the definition of "suppression." It may be morally/ethically justified, there may be a good reason for it, etc., etc., etc., but the fact remains---this is suppression of history.

And this, proffered as legit evidence, is a real howler:

Addendum: Here's another relevant Turley snippet I found in re-reading my 2002 article:

"It would be difficult for me to find a comparable private institution in terms of size that provides as much information about itself to the public," Brother Turley said.

LOL! Yeah, it's always nice when you respond to a CFR by providing a quote-within-a-quote that no one can back up or track down, particularly when that quote is coming from a top-drawer LDS lawyer-cum-apologist. Bravo, Scotty dog, bra-vo!

[Jersey Girl]

I believe that the Church's actions a few years ago show their true colors. On his death, Arrington donated his papers to USU. The Church took aggressive legal action to keep the papers from becoming public.

USU librarians were even pressured into letting Church representatives sort through and take documents that were considered to be potentially embarrasing to current Church leaders. The Salt Lake Tribune had ongoing articles detailing this saga.

[_moksha]

That anecdote seems to fly in the face of many other published statements Arrington made regarding his time in the archives, including the one quoted above.

You mean this part of the quote: The atmosphere was one of openness and trust. That policy has been abandoned.

[_Brackite]

Here is the URL Address to Page #26, of that Discussion Thread there:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 160&st=500


And here is Scotty Lloyd's comments about Arrington on Page #28, of the discussion thread there:

Again, my impression is that the archives were in some degree of disarray under Arrington's administration. (A gifted historian, apparently he was not as good an administrator.) Just my guess, but it probably took a year or two to get things on an even footing, before Turley was brought on as managing director. And it is my impression that openness has prevailed since Turley's tenure began. (Incidentally, his status has now been elevated to Assistant Church Historian under Elder Jensen.)

( http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 160&st=540 )

[_asbestosman]

With its vast holdings, the department does not make everything available, and occasionally encounters criticism for the restrictions it does have. Yet the ethical considerations of privacy and confidentiality that govern department policies are in line with standards that are described in professional archival literature, Brother Turley said.
He described such considerations in volume 1 of The Journals of George Q. Cannon. These apply to "matters that are sacred, private or confidential. Matters of great sacredness deserve reverence. Divulging some kinds of information may violate principles of privacy, and persons who confess to religious leaders or communicate other information in a confidential setting expect that leaders will maintain their confidences."

What "professional archival literature"? What "department policies"? I.e, that no embarrassing facets of history should ever be released without first consulting either the Brethren and/or FARMS? My dear LOAP, as much as I'm glad to see you over here, you and your pal Scotty Dog need to re-open your dictionaries. The above fits, to a tee, the definition of "suppression." It may be morally/ethically justified, there may be a good reason for it, etc., etc., etc., but the fact remains---this is suppression of history.

I wonder why the church didn't choose to suppress the embarassing chastizement of William E. McLellin for adultery found in D&C 66:10.

[_solomarineris]

I've heard from a member of Arrington's own family who since his death has left the LDS Church that Leonard Arrington had great difficulty with things to which he was exposed as Church Historian, and was troubled by the Church's policy regarding access to documents.

That's completely anecdotal, for whatever it's worth.

That anecdote seems to fly in the face of many other published statements Arrington made regarding his time in the archives, including the one quoted above.

Forgive me if I'm presumptuous, I take it you're the same"LifeOnaPlate" as the guy on MAD board.
If so, welcome to a civilized discussion, without the fear of censorship (I am sticking my neck for Dr.Shadez).
Why don't you guys come here for free (civilized) discussion w'out the fear of Sword of Democles falling on
your words.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

This is a spin-off from the "Does the Church Suppress History?" thread. Anyone who has followed the MAD counterpart to this knows that the chief whiner-defender over there is the perpetually limp-wristed Scott Lloyd. He is so out of control, angry, and desperate to "defend" the LDS Church against accusations of secrecy, history-spinning, and whatever else, that he is now besmirching the career of Leonard Arrington, the legendary LDS historian who was best known for "opening up" Church archives and overseeing the so-called "Camelot Era" of LDS history. Check out Lloyd's cheapshot post:

for what it's worth

“Coming to Terms with Mormon History—An Interview with Leonard Arrington”
Dialogue Vol. 22, Number 4, Winter, 1989, pp. 39-54
[pg. 53]
Dialogue: What do you think is the biggest difficulty facing Mormon historians in the 1980s and 1990s?

Arrington: The biggest difficulty is gaining unrestricted access to the wealth of material in the Church Archives. While I was in the Church Historian’s Office (1972-82), we were able to make nearly everything available to scholars, both Mormon and non-Mormon, and that policy had a very positive influence on the image of the Church and its history. The atmosphere was one of openness and trust.
That policy has been abandoned. Permitting scholars to use materials only on a selective and restrictive basis gives the impression that the Church is hiding something. As one who had access to everything for years, I can say this policy represents excessive caution. Virtually everything in the Archives is positive and faith promoting. Denying access only keeps Church members and historians from reading uplifting, faith-promoting materials.

Dialogue: You found very little that would be embarrassing?

Arrington: Very little, and embarrassing only if it’s taken out of context. Some day, I trust, Church officials will come to understand that.

Arrington's comments are very outdated. Things changed dramatically after Richard Turley Jr. came on board as managing director of the Church Historical Department (now the Family and Church History Department) back in 1986. If anything, there's even greater openness today with Elder Marlin K. Jensen as Church Historian/Recorder.

I have some acquaintance with this, as I have covered the Historical Department for the past couple of decades.

The impression I get is that part of the reason for the restrictiveness just after Arrington departed is that the department had not been very well managed during his tenure in terms of cataloging and protection of valuable documents.

As Pahoran has pointed out, departmental policies today are in line with archival standards in the profession.

(emphasis added)

Ah, okay! So now we'll blame Leonard Arrington for the Church's knee-jerk fears about its own history. I assume by "protection of valuable documents" that Lloyd means "only let friendly scholars view certain materials." And come on: Does anyone really think that Richard Turley, author of Victims is a better historian and scholar than Arrington or any of the other "Camelot" historians? As for this bit referencing Pahoran: I'm going to have to call "BS" on this. Can anyone, anyone at all, tell us why the William Clayton collection is off limits? Hmmm?

Scott has always been a 'boob' when it comes to LDS Church history. He writes for the Church News, so that's to be expected (recently several pieces of his in the Church News have dealt with history, and were consistent with the typical 'whitewash' employed by the Morg). And, pray tell, what does "well managed" and "protection of valuable documents" have to do with whether the Church is 'open' about its history? Nothing, in my opinion. Moreover, as someone already pointed out, look at the background of the two guys Scott endorses: Richard Turley and Marlin Jensen -- both are lawyers by trade, not historians (and Turley is the son of an emeritus GA). In contrast, Arrington was a trained and experienced historian. Scott is an uber-TBM hack, and his comments on MADB reflect that.

[_beastie]

I wonder why the church didn't choose to suppress the embarassing chastizement of William E. McLellin for adultery found in D&C 66:10.

The church is willing to allow for embarrassing information as long as it's not something that could make one question the validity of the whole ball of wax.

[_Trevor]

What did it take to get the William E. M'Lellin journal out into the open? Anyone recall?

[_Trevor]

Oh, and when do you think that the minutes of the meetings of the Council of the Fifty will see the light of day?