New Arrington Biography Makes Shocking Admission

[Johnnie Cake]

In the new Greg Prince Biography on  Leonard Arrington, Prince chronicle's Arrington's view that the church was guilty of "sequestering" (his words not mine) damaging church history.  Arrington also felt the need to keep 2 copies of his personal diary out of fear that it too might be "Sequestered" if it fell into the hands of the church.  This is in part his motivation for leaving his vast collection of personal papers to Utah State University instead of the church.  Many will recall the public fight by the church to acquire those personal papers rather than have them be donated to USU.  In short, Arrington didn't trust the church nor its history department..

I bring this up here because as someone whom some might call a church critic, I find this a shocking confirmation of what critics have long believed....that the church is guilty of hiding and sequestering the difficult aspects of its history and now we have confirmation.  While some apologists will brush this off as..."nothing to see here folks, move along type news"...fresh in my mind are many of these same apologist denying that the church hides or has hidden any of its history.  Well now there is confirmation that it did and has.

To his credit, Arrington tried to change this corporate policy by opening up the windows of the church history department to let the fresh air in...and was fired for doing so... 

Edited June 10, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Kevin Christensen]

Ever hear of the Joseph Smith Papers Project?  Shocking, isn't it? 

I've always felt that my relationship with the institutional arms of the church has been much improved when I've seen that the Greek Ekklesia means simply an assembly of people, and recognized that people come in all shapes and sizes and varieties of temperament and different outlooks as well as from different times and places.  It saves me from being scandalized and from overgeneralizing about the whole from the actions of individuals. 

And here is Arrington speaking for himself on his beliefs.

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2620/leonard-j-arrington

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[JAHS]

16 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I find this a shocking confirmation of what critics have long believed....that the church is guilty of hiding and sequestering the difficult aspects of its history and now we have confirmation.

Not so shocking. I think most people knew this; the question was, why were they doing this?  Now with the release of the Joseph Smith papers and the recent Gospel Topics articles, I think those questions regarding polygamy and blacks and the priesthood for exmple have been answered; at least as much as is possible. But they bring up more questions for which we may never know the answers.

New biography tells all about a forthright Mormon historian, Leonard Arrington, who told all

[Johnnie Cake]

6 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Ever hear of the Joseph Smith Papers Project?  Shocking, isn't it? 

I've always felt that my relationship with the institutional arms of the church has been much improved when I've seen that the Greek Ekklesia means simply an assembly of people, and recognized that people come in all shapes and sizes and varieties of temperament and different outlooks as well as from different times and places.  It saves me from being scandalized and from overgeneralizing about the whole from the actions of individuals. 

And here is Arrington speaking for himself on his beliefs.

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2620/leonard-j-arrington

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I'm on record as applauding the new openness at the church history department with its Joseph Smith Papers Project. Much has changed since Arrington lost his job for wanting to do what the church has felt the need to do today. Arrington believed that the church should air its dirty laundry and let the chips fall where they may.  The churches new more open policy is a vindication of his everts to do so...yet I don't hear any one apologizing for what they did to him? 

[Johnnie Cake]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Not so shocking. I think most people knew this; the question was, why were they doing this?  Now with the release of the Joseph Smith papers and the recent Gospel Topics articles, I think those questions regarding polygamy and blacks and the priesthood for exmple have been answered; at least as much as is possible. But they bring up more questions for which we may never know the answers.

New biography tells all about a forthright Mormon historian, Leonard Arrington, who told all

Thanks for sharing the link.  I was unaware that the press had picked this up.

Arrington's Truth:

Quote

"The attempt to suppress problems and difficulties, the attempt to intimidate people who raise problems or express doubts or seek to reconcile difficult facts, is both ineffective and futile," Arrington wrote to his children. "It leads to suspicion, mistrust, the condescending slanting of data."

The more Mormons "deny or appear to deny certain demonstrable 'facts,' " he told them, "the more we must ourselves harbor serious doubts and have something to hide."

 

I couldn't agree more...

[The Nehor]

56 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

...yet I don't hear any one apologizing for what they did to him? 

You can do it if you like.

[Kevin Christensen]

Interesting that Arrington has a reputation as a historian, rather than, say, scandal monger, a tabloid gossip, a yellow press muckraker, or a propagandist. There are some obvious reasons why that is the case and potential lessons to learn for those who care to know.

One of the things that happens in history is that paradigms of how to do history and for whom, undergoes change.  A specific kind of change.  Paradigm change.  I frequently refer to Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  And so the model of how to do Mormon history changed.  And sociologically proceeded along the lines that Kuhn describes in his book.  For me that's not scandalous.  That's life in changing human societies.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm on record as applauding the new openness at the church history department with its Joseph Smith Papers Project. 

And yet here you are, harping on the Church despite its improvements (" the church is guilty...").

There has been quite a bit of discussion for some years now about the Church's "new openness," discussions with necessarily require a concession that "the Church" (or, more particularly, some of its leaders and employees in positions of authority) was in years past less open, and perhaps even "secretive" in some respects.  So this "shocking admission" isn't really very "shocking."  But it is apparently an opportunity to bash the Church.  

Quote

Much has changed since Arrington lost his job for wanting to do what the church has felt the need to do today.

And yet here you are, harping on the Church despite its improvements.

I think this article about the Church and its increasing openness about its history to be interesting:

Quote

In the late 1970s LDS leaders limited access to church records, prompting charges that they were discouraging unauthorized accounts of church history. "Some authorities apparently preferred that we have no history except that kept by public-relations writers," wrote Leonard J. Arrington, the then director of the church's historical department.

The reins are looser now. The church is likely always to be more comfortable with orthodoxy than with inquiry, and this year's celebrations won't bring the unsolicited airing of dirty laundry (a church-sponsored art exhibit about Smith made no mention of his polygamy, for example). But there is no longer the sense that documents are being squirreled away. LDS historian Richard Bushman, professor emeritus of history at Columbia University and author of the new biography "Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling," recently gave two lectures in which he tackled some of the more difficult elements of Smith's life in front of audiences that included high-ranking LDS leaders. "I ran the risk of making them bridle at me," he says. "But they liked the talks. And that leads me to believe that we don't have to bury our stuff anymore. We're able to deal with the problems and accept them."

"The reins are looser now."  And this article was written in 2005.  And in the intervening 11 years the Church has made even more significant efforts to be more open regarding its history.  

And yet here you are, harping on the Church despite its improvements.

Quote

Arrington believed that the church should air its dirty laundry and let the chips fall where they may.  The churches new more open policy is a vindication of his everts to do so...yet I don't hear any one apologizing for what they did to him? 

Leonard Arrington died in 1999 (in full fellowship in and devoted to the church all the way, as I understand).  To whom do you imagine an apology is owed?  To you?

I'm rather interested, in a "rubbernecking at a car crash" kind of way, in this fixation that so many critics have for the LDS Church to apologize for . . . well, pretty much everything.  That is one of the most obvious perks of neverending faultfinding: you'll always succeed at it.  You can always find something to complain about.  Something to criticize.  Something about which to demand an "apology."  And yet I really doubt that the litany of apologies demanded by our critics would do a scintilla of good.  Our critics would, I think, A) ignore the apology, B) ignore actual and/or attempted improvements made by the Church, C) repeat ad nauseam the criticisms relating to the issues complained about, D) use the apology as a brickbat with which to attack the Church and its truth claims, and/or E) some combination of the above.

Blech.  What a depressing, dark thing it must be to be obsessed with criticizing and finding fault with the LDS Church.  What a bleak, negative outlook it must create.  I won't pretend that the Church is without flaw, or that it does not need to improve.  Of course it does.  But the Church is a beautiful thing.  I see much good in it.  I admire its members who devote so much selfless service to others.  And more to the point, I see people providing this selfless service for weeks and months and years on ends because they believe in the truth claims of the Church, and because they have received a spiritual witness about such things.  Of course, this only leaves further opportunity for our critics to calumniate and demean us: We're stupid.  We're dishonest.  We're deceived.  We're weak.  We only stay in the church and devote ourselves to it due to social pressures.  Again, this is the really pernicious thing about faultfinding: you'll always succeed at it.  Always.

I am very pleased that the Church has been more open with its history and with the difficult aspects of it.  The Church is improving and progressing in many ways.  I believe it will continue to do so.  I also believe that our critics will pretty much disregard such things, and will continue to find fault, to vilify, to foment discord against the Church from without (and, sadly, from within as well).  All this is, I think, part of the Plan.  "For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things."  (2 Nephi 2:11).  Elder Oaks recently had some interesting things to say about this:

Quote

The Church in its divine mission and we in our personal lives seem to face increasing opposition today. Perhaps as the Church grows in strength and we members grow in faith and obedience, Satan increases the strength of his opposition so we will continue to have “opposition in all things.”

Some of this opposition even comes from Church members. Some who use personal reasoning or wisdom to resist prophetic direction give themselves a label borrowed from elected bodies—“the loyal opposition.” However appropriate for a democracy, there is no warrant for this concept in the government of God’s kingdom, where questions are honored but opposition is not (see Matthew 26:24).

As another example, there are many things in our early Church history, such as what Joseph Smith did or did not do in every circumstance, that some use as a basis for opposition. To all I say, exercise faith and put reliance on the Savior’s teaching that we should “know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). The Church is making great efforts to be transparent with the records we have, but after all we can publish, our members are sometimes left with basic questions that cannot be resolved by study. That is the Church history version of “opposition in all things.” Some things can be learned only by faith (see D&C 88:118). Our ultimate reliance must be on faith in the witness we have received from the Holy Ghost.

Or, as Hugh Nibley more succinctly put it: “We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes.”

So I concede that we need anti-Mormons and their efforts against us.  But that does not stop me from feeling badly for them and the dark, mean-spirited faultfinding outlook that infects so many of them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Thanks for sharing the link.  I was unaware that the press had picked this up.

Arrington's Truth:

 

I couldn't agree more...

I like that quote a lot and appreciate it being shared. I am glad the church is making progress in broadening exposure to its history. I'm sure Arrington would approve. 

[Johnnie Cake]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Leonard Arrington died in 1999 (in full fellowship in and devoted to the church all the way, as I understand).  To whom do you imagine an apology is owed?  To you?

Thanks,

-Smac

I know that the church doesn't apologize... Fair enough.  What I found of particular interest in this revelation was that here we had on record a man in a position to know state that the church did in fact hide and sequester its troubled history.  How many times have we heard on this

and other boards apologists and believers claim other wise?  So yes if you'd like to apologize to me I'll kindly accept your apology

Edited June 10, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[bcuzbcuz]

50 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You can do it if you like.

Not half cute enough.

[HappyJackWagon]

Like Johnnnie Cake says, there have been no formal apologies so I don't really see it as "harping" on anything, especially when apologists and even members on this board act as if the church has never withheld (sequestered) history.

That said, the church is making some really positive changes; the essays, the joseph smith papers etc. But just because they are doing better now doesn't mean they never screwed it up. I think the church is also acknowledging its past errors, like when Elder Uchtdorf says "mistakes have been made" and Elder Ballard says, "Gone are the days..."

These are good things, but like Johnnie Cake, I find it frustrating and sometimes even dishonest, when people act like corrections today means there was never any harm done.

Harm was done but things are getting better.

[consiglieri]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

So I concede that we need anti-Mormons and their efforts against us.  

 

The LDS Church has done more damage to itself by hiding information than all the anti-Mormons in the world could ever hope to inflict.

Do you also "concede" that the LDS Church has finally had to admit that much of what the anti-Mormons were saying all along is true?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Like Johnnnie Cake says, there have been no formal apologies so I don't really see it as "harping" on anything, especially when apologists and even members on this board act as if the church has never withheld (sequestered) history.

That said, the church is making some really positive changes; the essays, the joseph smith papers etc. But just because they are doing better now doesn't mean they never screwed it up. I think the church is also acknowledging its past errors, like when Elder Uchtdorf says "mistakes have been made" and Elder Ballard says, "Gone are the days..."

These are good things, but like Johnnie Cake, I find it frustrating and sometimes even dishonest, when people act like corrections today means there was never any harm done.

Harm was done but things are getting better.

Yep. Most people understand that the church kept its history more closely held in years past. Acknowledging that doesn't mean there was evil intent, but as Arrington said, such practices have negative consequences. I do know a few people who insist that the church has never kept anything away from public knowledge, but then I've never understood why anyone would make such a silly assertion. 

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Yep. Most people understand that the church kept its history more closely held in years past. Acknowledging that doesn't mean there was evil intent, but as Arrington said, such practices have negative consequences. I do know a few people who insist that the church has never kept anything away from public knowledge, but then I've never understood why anyone would make such a silly assertion. 

Rodheadlee was just making the same silly assertion the other day when I brought up the fact Joseph Fielding Smith cut out the 1832 First Vision account and hid it in his safe for decades.

 

      1,445

• Separates Water & Dry Land
•  
• 
• Members
• 1,445
• 2,390 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:NoCal

 

Posted yesterday at 6:47 AM · Report post

On ‎6‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 11:16 AM, consiglieri said:

It is obvious you are not interested in examining evidence that contradicts your religious views.

You could prove me wrong by actually reading Stan Larson's article in the 2014 Dialogue journal and then making some intelligent comments.

I won't hold my breath, though. 

 

I read it right up to the part that says we can speculate. I'm going to speculate that JS cut the pages out and started over becuase he didn't like the way it came out. Then someone dug them out ofr the trash and off we go. But I won't deny that the victors write the History, it's true for all civilizations and organizations. This brings us back to the Holy Ghost and needing a witness to confirm or deny the truth of the LDS Church and JS's vision. If you don't have a witness you probably shouldn't get baptized.

[Jeanne]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet here you are, harping on the Church despite its improvements (" the church is guilty...").

There has been quite a bit of discussion for some years now about the Church's "new openness," discussions with necessarily require a concession that "the Church" (or, more particularly, some of its leaders and employees in positions of authority) was in years past less open, and perhaps even "secretive" in some respects.  So this "shocking admission" isn't really very "shocking."  But it is apparently an opportunity to bash the Church.  

And yet here you are, harping on the Church despite its improvements.

I think this article about the Church and its increasing openness about its history to be interesting:

"The reins are looser now."  And this article was written in 2005.  And in the intervening 11 years the Church has made even more significant efforts to be more open regarding its history.  

And yet here you are, harping on the Church despite its improvements.

Leonard Arrington died in 1999 (in full fellowship in and devoted to the church all the way, as I understand).  To whom do you imagine an apology is owed?  To you?

I'm rather interested, in a "rubbernecking at a car crash" kind of way, in this fixation that so many critics have for the LDS Church to apologize for . . . well, pretty much everything.  That is one of the most obvious perks of neverending faultfinding: you'll always succeed at it.  You can always find something to complain about.  Something to criticize.  Something about which to demand an "apology."  And yet I really doubt that the litany of apologies demanded by our critics would do a scintilla of good.  Our critics would, I think, A) ignore the apology, B) ignore actual and/or attempted improvements made by the Church, C) repeat ad nauseam the criticisms relating to the issues complained about, D) use the apology as a brickbat with which to attack the Church and its truth claims, and/or E) some combination of the above.

Blech.  What a depressing, dark thing it must be to be obsessed with criticizing and finding fault with the LDS Church.  What a bleak, negative outlook it must create.  I won't pretend that the Church is without flaw, or that it does not need to improve.  Of course it does.  But the Church is a beautiful thing.  I see much good in it.  I admire its members who devote so much selfless service to others.  And more to the point, I see people providing this selfless service for weeks and months and years on ends because they believe in the truth claims of the Church, and because they have received a spiritual witness about such things.  Of course, this only leaves further opportunity for our critics to calumniate and demean us: We're stupid.  We're dishonest.  We're deceived.  We're weak.  We only stay in the church and devote ourselves to it due to social pressures.  Again, this is the really pernicious thing about faultfinding: you'll always succeed at it.  Always.

I am very pleased that the Church has been more open with its history and with the difficult aspects of it.  The Church is improving and progressing in many ways.  I believe it will continue to do so.  I also believe that our critics will pretty much disregard such things, and will continue to find fault, to vilify, to foment discord against the Church from without (and, sadly, from within as well).  All this is, I think, part of the Plan.  "For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things."  (2 Nephi 2:11).  Elder Oaks recently had some interesting things to say about this:

Or, as Hugh Nibley more succinctly put it: “We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes.”

So I concede that we need anti-Mormons and their efforts against us.  But that does not stop me from feeling badly for them and the dark, mean-spirited faultfinding outlook that infects so many of them.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well..this almost beats "good riddance".

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Leonard Arrington died in 1999 (in full fellowship in and devoted to the church all the way, as I understand).  To whom do you imagine an apology is owed?  To you?

 

-Smac

Like I already mentioned, the church has begun to acknowledge errors in their approach but they have not apologized. Who should they apologize to? How about the entire church. Leaders can apologize to the church members from whom the sequestered the information. From whom they misled by omission.

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Like I already mentioned, the church has begun to acknowledge errors in their approach but they have not apologized. Who should they apologize to? How about the entire church. Leaders can apologize to the church members from whom the sequestered the information. From whom they misled by omission.

Who should they apologize to?

I don't know.  Maybe they could start with all the Mormons who have left the Church when they found out their leaders were covering up the history . . . 

 

[jkwilliams]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So I concede that we need anti-Mormons and their efforts against us.  But that does not stop me from feeling badly for them and the dark, mean-spirited faultfinding outlook that infects so many of them.

We are doing our part, after all. In all seriousness, however, I think the dark, mean-spirited faultfinding outlook is more a reflection of individual personalities. Heaven knows I've run across "pro-Mormons" who fit that to a T, such as the guy who threatened to shoot me and the person(s) who sent threatening emails to my wife. One can stand up for one's beliefs and even against someone else's beliefs without crossing over to the dark side. 

Edited June 10, 2016 by jkwilliams

[Jeanne]

Just now, consiglieri said:

Who should they apologize to?

I don't know.  Maybe they could start with all the Mormons who have left the Church when they found out their leaders were covering up the history . . . 

 

And a real apology to the MMM descendants.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I know that the church doesn't apologize... Fair enough. 

Whether it does or does not "apologize" for its treatment of Leonard Arrington isn't really the point.  Whether an apology is even in order isn't really the point.  The point is that our critics will find fault with us not matter what we do.

Quote

What I found of particular interest in this revelation was that here we had on record a man in a position to know state that the church did in fact hide and sequester its troubled history.  How many times have we had on this and other boards apologists and believers claim other wise? 

Dunno.  CFR, I guess.  I'm surprised that you're surprised.  A central facet of discussions about The Joseph Smith Papers Project, the Gospel Topics Essays, and other efforts by the Church over the past several years is that these efforts reflect a marked change and improvement in the Church's openness.  Consider the following recent remarks by Elder Ballard (emphases added):

Quote

Expounding upon the opportunities and responsibilities teachers in the Church Educational System have, Elder Ballard encouraged instructors to study by faith and teach their students to do the same.

“As Church education moves forward in the 21st century, each of you needs to consider any changes you should make in the way you prepare to teach, how you teach, and what you teach if you are to build unwavering faith in the lives of our precious youth,” Elder Ballard said. “Gone are the days when a student asked an honest question and a teacher responded, ‘Don’t worry about it!’ Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue. Gone are the days when students were protected from people who attacked the Church.”

Fortunately, Elder Ballard taught, the Lord has provided timely and timeless counsel to teachers—to “seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.”

In an increasingly secular world that is hostile to faith, family, and gospel standards, religious instructors can help students by teaching them what it means to combine study and faith as they learn.

“Teach them by modeling this skill and approach in class,” Elder Ballard taught.

Knowledge by faith produces pure testimony, and a pure testimony has the power to change lives, he declared. Recognizing that some students have already been “infected by pornography and worldliness” before they even enter a classroom, Elder Ballard spoke of the important role teachers play in building foundations of faith for youth.

“Today, what they see on their mobile devices is likely to be faith-challenging as much as faith-promoting,” Elder Ballard said. “Many of our young people are more familiar with Google than with the gospel, more attuned to the Internet than to inspiration, and more involved with Facebook than with faith.”

I know you want to cast the Church in the worst possible light ("the church did in fact hide and sequester its troubled history"), as well as its defenders ("How many times have we had on this and other boards apologists and believers claim other wise"), but the Church has been improving in terms of addressing the controversial aspects of its history for years now.  

Quote

So yes if you'd like to apologize to me I'll kindly accept your apology.

Apologize to you for what?  Why are you owed an apology for how the Church may or may not have treated Leonard Arrington years ago?  Isn't that . . . you know, between him and the Church?  How do you know that he didn't receive an apology?  How do you know if he even felt an apology was expected or required?

Thanks,

-Smac

[consiglieri]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

And a real apology to the MMM descendants.

Well, the LDS Church did build a monument at Mountain Meadows, complete with a plaque saying how great the LDS Church was for building the monument.

 

[jkwilliams]

From what I understand, Arrington really wanted to open up the history to a broader audience, but the Brethren decided, for whatever reason, that they did not want to move in that direction. I have sometimes wondered what would have happened had Arrington's view prevailed. I suspect the explosion of information via the Internet would have had a much less significant effect on the church because much of what has emerged would have been dealt with, and the church would have kept control of the message. 

[Danzo]

I'm sorry, I did it,

Everything that the church has every withheld was my fault.  Since my earliest childhood days, I have worked non stop to destroy evidence, burn books, alter Sunday school lessons, and silence all critics.

If there is anything you don't know about church history, I kept it from you. If you ever learned anything that was incorrect about church history, I was the one feeding you the incorrect information.

 

 

[Johnnie Cake]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Whether it does or does not "apologize" for its treatment of Leonard Arrington isn't really the point.  Whether an apology is even in order isn't really the point.  The point is that our critics will find fault with us not matter what we do.

They fired the man for wanting to do exactly what 35 years later they are actually doing themselves...so yes a simple apology or perhaps an admission that we were wrong and you were right could be nice. 

Quote

Dunno.  CFR, I guess.  I'm surprised that you're surprised.  A central facet of discussions about The Joseph Smith Papers Project, the Gospel Topics Essays, and other efforts by the Church over the past several years is that these efforts reflect a marked change and improvement in the Church's openness.  Consider the following recent remarks by Elder Ballard (emphases added):

Already provided a CFR inside my post

Quote

I know you want to cast the Church in the worst possible light ("the church did in fact hide and sequester its troubled history"), as well as its defenders ("How many times have we had on this and other boards apologists and believers claim other wise"), but the Church has been improving in terms of addressing the controversial aspects of its history for years now.  

Why blame me for the churches missteps? I'm not casting them in any light, they did that to themselves didn't they?  Shoot the messenger for delivering the message.

Quote

Apologize to you for what?  Why are you owed an apology for how the Church may or may not have treated Leonard Arrington years ago?  Isn't that . . . you know, between him and the Church?  How do you know that he didn't receive an apology?  How do you know if he even felt an apology was expected or required?

Thanks,

-Smac

Relax -Smac...take a breath...you asked if you should offer me an apology and I merely accepted your kind offer that yes I would be willing to accept your apology...you weren't being disingenuous were you?

Edited June 10, 2016 by Johnnie Cake