DiscussMormonism.com

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:

Scott Lloyd wrote:

LifeOnaPlate wrote: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Arrington's comments are very outdated.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?

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.

the road to hana wrote: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.

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.

and we ALL know that people's private and public statements are ALWAYS consistent with one another.

Frankly, anyone who claims that everything in the archives is positive and faith promoting is b***s******g. Whether or not he privately peddled the same BS is another story. But that doesn't change the fact that it is indisputably BS. Even if you are a believer, you have to admit there is stuff in there that is not "faith promoting".

Heh. Think about it. Someone starts reading about Joseph Smith' polyandry and exclaims: MY, but that was faith promoting!!!

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. Their further intent is show in Turley himself. He was a lawyer not a historian when he took over the department. He has since then published some marginal pieces, but I would not be surprised if they were ghost written. The idea that the Church archives are more open and honest now is laughably and demonstrably false.

Arrington's body of work speaks for itself. His writings demonstrate a sensitivity to the material intermixed with his commitment to honest history. To attack such a man demonstrates much more about the character of the speaker than any perceived flaw in Arrington.

beastie wrote: 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.

beastie wrote:and we ALL know that people's private and public statements are ALWAYS consistent with one another.

No, we all don't. I know you're being facetious here, but the published comments are numerous and in a variety of places. This anecdote is hardly ready to be compared to them. You already know that, though.

Frankly, anyone who claims that everything in the archives is positive and faith promoting is b***s******g. Whether or not he privately peddled the same BS is another story. But that doesn't change the fact that it is indisputably BS. Even if you are a believer, you have to admit there is stuff in there that is not "faith promoting".

I don't have a problem with that. Different things promote different faith in different ways.

John Larsen wrote: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.

Is there a place I can read more about that situation?

Their further intent is show in Turley himself. He was a lawyer not a historian when he took over the department. He has since then published some marginal pieces, but I would not be surprised if they were ghost written.

Victims was a ghost write?

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.

Arrington's body of work speaks for itself. His writings demonstrate a sensitivity to the material intermixed with his commitment to honest history. To attack such a man demonstrates much more about the character of the speaker than any perceived flaw in Arrington.

I've read quite a bit of Arrington. As far as "honest" history is concerned, there are people that would accuse Arrington of not living up to that standard. I think he was generally a very good historian, I'm grateful for his work in that area, for certain. Honest history may be a more tenuous concept than can be covered here.

the road to hana wrote:

beastie wrote: 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.

LifeOnaPlate wrote:
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.

I admit to it being anecdotal, which is why I characterized it as such.

I know the person in question to be an immediate family member of Leonard Arrington. Even if that person came here publicly and posted, their veracity would be questioned, because Arrington is himself now dead and can't refute any family member's claims.

LifeOnaPlate wrote:

John Larsen wrote: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.

Is there a place I can read more about that situation?

Check newspaper archives.

LifeOnaPlate wrote:

John Larsen wrote:Their further intent is show in Turley himself. He was a lawyer not a historian when he took over the department. He has since then published some marginal pieces, but I would not be surprised if they were ghost written.

Victims was a ghost write?

Could be. I don't know that anyone would claim it, it wasn't very good. Why do I say that? He left out undisputed material facts that reflected poorly on the church. If you read that book, you will only get half of the picture.

LifeOnaPlate wrote:

John Larsen wrote: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.

When you get all caught up, let me know and we can talk about it. The question remains, why does the True Church need to restrict access to any material, especially to legitimate scholars?

LifeOnaPlate wrote:

John Larsen wrote:Arrington's body of work speaks for itself. His writings demonstrate a sensitivity to the material intermixed with his commitment to honest history. To attack such a man demonstrates much more about the character of the speaker than any perceived flaw in Arrington.

I've read quite a bit of Arrington. As far as "honest" history is concerned, there are people that would accuse Arrington of not living up to that standard. I think he was generally a very good historian, I'm grateful for his work in that area, for certain. Honest history may be a more tenuous concept than can be covered here.

Please give me an example of Arrington's dishonest in his work. I have never heard of such an accusation.

John Larsen wrote:Check newspaper archives.

OK, that's relatively vague. If you don't have any specific sources I am currently doing other projects and don't feel the need right now to research further yet.

John Larsen wrote:Could be. I don't know that anyone would claim it, it wasn't very good. Why do I say that? He left out undisputed material facts that reflected poorly on the church. If you read that book, you will only get half of the picture.

Can you list some better sources? Is there a review of Turley's book that points out the material facts he left out?

John Larsen wrote:When you get all caught up, let me know and we can talk about it. The question remains, why does the True Church need to restrict access to any material, especially to legitimate scholars?

I've seen a few good reasons. I've discussed elsewhere the use of historical sources.

John Larsen wrote:Please give me an example of Arrington's dishonest in his work. I have never heard of such an accusation.

Arrington has been criticized for some of his books on being much too "partisan" for the Church. (One such book he edited called Presidents of the Church.) He was also criticized by some church leaders, basically for being a historian. I have disagreed with many assessments accusing him of shoddy work, but on the other hand in my reading of some of his books (his very good Brigham Young biography, for example) I've noticed a few slip ups. He discusses some reactions to his work in Adventures of a Church Historian.