Why Mormons Should Not Be Afraid Of Mormon Studies

[Bernard Gui]

Bear in mind that Walters was very suspicious of the motivations and moral fiber of the Mormons in such touchy matters. I knew him personally over many years, and he had blind spots which led him to question (just as the Tanners regularly did) the probity and ethics of the Mormons. When he and Fred found that 1826 Bill of Costs, they frankly suspected that it could just disappear if they were unable to copy and preserve it. Wrong yes, but certainly understandable.

How long did Walters keep the document? Did he intend to return it, or did he return it

because the theft had been discovered? Has it been examined and has it been confirmed that

nothing was altered? Odd that he would be suspicious of the moral fiber of Mormons while

stealing an historical legal document from a government institution.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

Bear in mind that Walters was very suspicious of the motivations and moral fiber of the Mormons in such touchy matters.

I got that from Larry Porter's essay. Reportedly, when Walters took the documents to a local library for photocopying and was asked by the librarian if was he going to return them, he replied that if he did, the Mormons would destroy them. Like Bernard Gui, I find that ironic, given his own misdeed committed so shortly before. I can only guess that he figured since he so easily walked away with them, Larry Porter or some other Mormon could do likewise.

One might reasonably wonder about the limits of such a person's own situational ethics, driven perhaps by his low regard for the scruples of the Mormons.

I knew him personally over many years, and he had blind spots which led him to question (just as the Tanners regularly did) the probity and ethics of the Mormons. When he and Fred found that 1826 Bill of Costs, they frankly suspected that it could just disappear if they were unable to copy and preserve it. Wrong yes, but certainly understandable.

Porter seemed quite confident that Walters need only have drawn the attention of county officials to the condition of the documents and their historical import to have them moved to the safety of a vault.

We are now in an era of openness on historical documents that was unheard of in earlier times. It is a breath of fresh air, and we should not take it for granted.

To the extent this is true, I believe it is largely due to advanced technology and better methods of conserving, sharing and safeguarding documents and artifacts.

That is certainly the case with the Church and its state-of-the-art Church History Library dedicated a couple of years ago.

Even today, though, it is considered unacceptable to simply make off with holdings from a repository, even if it is with the pretext of conserving them.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

I got that from Larry Porter's essay. Reportedly, when Walters took the documents to a local library for photocopying and was asked by the librarian if was he going to return them, he replied that if he did, the Mormons would destroy them. Like Bernard Gui, I find that ironic, given his own misdeed committed so shortly before. I can only guess that he figured since he so easily walked away with them, Larry Porter or some other Mormon could do likewise.

One might reasonably wonder about the limits of such a person's own situational ethics, driven perhaps by his low regard for the scruples of the Mormons.

Porter seemed quite confident that Walters need only have drawn the attention of county officials to the condition of the documents and their historical import to have them moved to the safety of a vault.

To the extent this is true, I believe it is largely due to advanced technology and better methods of conserving, sharing and safeguarding documents and artifacts.

That is certainly the case with the Church and its state-of-the-art Church History Library dedicated a couple of years ago.

Even today, though, it is considered unacceptable to simply make off with holdings from a repository, even if it is with the pretext of conserving them.

You are confusing now with the past. Hugh Nibley once donated the diary of his greatgrandfather Alexander Neibaur to the Church Archives. Later, when he requested to see it, he was rejected. This was back in the day when paranoia and non-professionals ruled At the Archives.

When Hugh would go to SLC to do research on Brigham Young, they would let him see the originals, but he had to take notes in Gregg Shorthand in order to get them safely out of the Library (they checked his notes!).

Wes Walters also encountered such paranoid behavior at the Archives and enjoyed telling stories about it.

Archives personnel were not always very sharp in understanding what was going on around them. For example, one researcher stole a microfilm roll with early Church documents. That researcher was a close associate of the late Jerald Tanner. When Jerald found out that he had stolen the roll, Jerald immediately took it and went down to the Archives, walked into the boss's office and put it on his desk and walked out without a word. Next thing you know, that head of the Archives is claiming that Jerald Tanner stole a microfilm roll. That sort of ignorance dominated the Archives.

For about a decade, Leonard Arrington was the Church Historian. Then somebody got mad and kicked him out and reversed nearly everything he had done to professionalize the Archives. In addition, he was a non-person, who had never been the "Church Historian." Today, of course, he is once more remembered officially as the Church Historian during that period.

That kind of paranoia and secrecy made the depredations of Mark Hofmann possible and created a lot of misunderstanding. Worst of all, as we can see with the Joseph Smith Papers Project, it wasn't even necessary.

[volgadon]

You are confusing now with the past. Hugh Nibley once donated the diary of his greatgrandfather Alexander Neibaur to the Church Archives. Later, when he requested to see it, he was rejected. This was back in the day when paranoia and non-professionals ruled At the Archives.

When Hugh would go to SLC to do research on Brigham Young, they would let him see the originals, but he had to take notes in Gregg Shorthand in order to get them safely out of the Library (they checked his notes!).

Wes Walters also encountered such paranoid behavior at the Archives and enjoyed telling stories about it.

Archives personnel were not always very sharp in understanding what was going on around them. For example, one researcher stole a microfilm roll with early Church documents. That researcher was a close associate of the late Jerald Tanner. When Jerald found out that he had stolen the roll, Jerald immediately took it and went down to the Archives, walked into the boss's office and put it on his desk and walked out without a word. Next thing you know, that head of the Archives is claiming that Jerald Tanner stole a microfilm roll. That sort of ignorance dominated the Archives.

For about a decade, Leonard Arrington was the Church Historian. Then somebody got mad and kicked him out and reversed nearly everything he had done to professionalize the Archives. In addition, he was a non-person, who had never been the "Church Historian." Today, of course, he is once more remembered officially as the Church Historian during that period.

That kind of paranoia and secrecy made the depredations of Mark Hofmann possible and created a lot of misunderstanding. Worst of all, as we can see with the Joseph Smith Papers Project, it wasn't even necessary.

Love that story about Hugh Nibley. Wow.

Anyway, this reminds me that an annotated edition of Leonard Arrington's diaries is in the works, which is exciting.

[Scott Lloyd]

You are confusing now with the past. Hugh Nibley once donated the diary of his greatgrandfather Alexander Neibaur to the Church Archives. Later, when he requested to see it, he was rejected. This was back in the day when paranoia and non-professionals ruled At the Archives.

When Hugh would go to SLC to do research on Brigham Young, they would let him see the originals, but he had to take notes in Gregg Shorthand in order to get them safely out of the Library (they checked his notes!).

Wes Walters also encountered such paranoid behavior at the Archives and enjoyed telling stories about it.

Archives personnel were not always very sharp in understanding what was going on around them. For example, one researcher stole a microfilm roll with early Church documents. That researcher was a close associate of the late Jerald Tanner. When Jerald found out that he had stolen the roll, Jerald immediately took it and went down to the Archives, walked into the boss's office and put it on his desk and walked out without a word. Next thing you know, that head of the Archives is claiming that Jerald Tanner stole a microfilm roll. That sort of ignorance dominated the Archives.

For about a decade, Leonard Arrington was the Church Historian. Then somebody got mad and kicked him out and reversed nearly everything he had done to professionalize the Archives. In addition, he was a non-person, who had never been the "Church Historian." Today, of course, he is once more remembered officially as the Church Historian during that period.

That kind of paranoia and secrecy made the depredations of Mark Hofmann possible and created a lot of misunderstanding. Worst of all, as we can see with the Joseph Smith Papers Project, it wasn't even necessary.

The account I've heard differs somewhat from your narrative.

Arrington may have improved conditions at the archives from how they were before, but as I understand it, they were not optimum, even under Arrington.

It was Richard E. Turley Jr., who is now the Assistant Church Historian and, for many years prior to that, was managing director of the Church History Department, who revolutionized the cataloging, procedures, and general professionalism of the department. Many people laud Elder Marlin K. Jensen, immediate past Church Historian, for the contributions he made, and deservedly so, but it should be recognized that he built on the work that had already been accomplished under Richard Turley. The new day that you herald in document accessibility and professionalism of the archives is largely due to Turley.

Your assertion that Arrington was kicked out and then the professionalism he accomplished was reversed does not comport with reality as I understand it. Things may have languished for an interim period, but if so, it was very brief. And as a journalist, I have been observing the Church History Department since 1985, which was not long before Turley came on board as assistant managing director and shortly thereafter managing director.

Moreover, you may recall that the Hofmann saga came to a head just before then. And Arrington's transfer was in 1982, so part of that occurred under his watch.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

I knew Arrington personally although not well. I also took classes from him in my field of study. I'd say he was not much of an administrator but more of a researcher. My impression was that he didn't quite meet the expectations of what the Church wanted out of a Church Historian, which was that he manage and organize the resources rather than publish from them. The D&C mandate is to store and keep them as a witness to future generations, not necessarily publish them. Arrington was more interested in sponsoring publishing projects, and I think the Book on Bishop Bunker sort of set teeth on edge.

Richard Turley is a cousin of mine and I have a credit in his recent book. He is a former tax lawyer with a supreme gift for organization. I worked as a lawyer for the Family History Department when Elder Jensen was in charge, but Richard Turley ran the operations. I found that access to the archives was a lot smoother and easier during the Turley administration, and my access became the same kind of access I had at the Huntington and the Bancroft during the same period of time. The archivists I know -- one a former missionary buddy from my mission -- are not publishers or interpreters of Church doctrine, but archivists and thus meet the D&C mandate.

I've read Arrington's biography. He was a terribly nice guy but I could tell that he didn't want to leave the Archives. Well, they have certainly vastly improved since then.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

Richard Turley is a cousin of mine

If you are related to Theodore Turley, we are related as well.

[Robert F. Smith]

The account I've heard differs somewhat from your narrative.

Arrington may have improved conditions at the archives from how they were before, but as I understand it, they were not optimum, even under Arrington.

It was Richard E. Turley Jr., who is now the Assistant Church Historian and, for many years prior to that, was managing director of the Church History Department, who revolutionized the cataloging, procedures, and general professionalism of the department. Many people laud Elder Marlin K. Jensen, immediate past Church Historian, for the contributions he made, and deservedly so, but it should be recognized that he built on the work that had already been accomplished under Richard Turley. The new day that you herald in document accessibility and professionalism of the archives is largely due to Turley.

Your assertion that Arrington was kicked out and then the professionalism he accomplished was reversed does not comport with reality as I understand it. Things may have languished for an interim period, but if so, it was very brief. And as a journalist, I have been observing the Church History Department since 1985, which was not long before Turley came on board as assistant managing director and shortly thereafter managing director.

Moreover, you may recall that the Hofmann saga came to a head just before then. And Arrington's transfer was in 1982, so part of that occurred under his watch.

What you and Bob Crockett say is certainly true. However, most of that is post-Arrington. Organizing the Archives did not come easy, and the paranoia did dominate even during the Arrington "Spring." Few trained archivists were available to deal with Hofmann's forgeries. Indeed, it is embarrassing to admit that I was as ignorant and unprepared for the forgeries as anyone else. A trained cadre of specialists might have scotched the Hofmann debacle and even have saved some lives.

Anyhow, one found historians being taken from BYU to SLC to work for a time, and then sent packing back to BYU. The notion that real historiography, warts & all, could be inspiring and worthwhile for the Church had not yet sunk in. There is less fear now. Even anti-Mormon researchers are now welcome at the Church History Library (I'm thinking of people previously banned).