Of Bags and Cats and Leonard Arrington

[jkwilliams]

The other day this quote from Leonard Arrington's diary (July 6, 1981) was cited in another thread.

Quote

"What is most disturbing is the apparent feeling on the part of some that we are letting some historical cats out of the bag.  What they ought to realize is that the cats have been out of the bag long before we came in, in 1972, and that our efforts have been to try to minimize the historical impact of those unfavorable facts and to put the lid on other facts that can be found by intense study of Archival material that would damage the Church and all its officers." (Prince, Leonard Arrington and the Writing of Mormon History, p. 358).

Until reading this, I had always thought Arrington was pushing for more openness in church history, but this quote makes it sound as if he was more about damage control for the things that had already been made public and trying to "put the lid on other facts" that the church didn't want to get out. I must say, if my reading is correct, it's really disappointing. 

What do you make of this?

[Calm]

I wouldn't assume this was his general attitude unless it consistently appears in his writings.  Perhaps he was simply responding to some criticism that got under his skin and he was making the point to himself that the person should have been looking at their efforts as helpful, not damaging.

[consiglieri]

I think this is a very interesting topic, and thank you for making it the subject of a thread.

During his tenure as Church Historian, it appears Arrington (or his staff) stumbled across additional negative information during "intense study of Archival material," and that in Arrington's opinion, these non-public facts "would damage the Church and all its officers."

I have no idea what material Arrington thinks would damage not only the Church but ALL its officers.  It doesn't sound good.

But having read this quote, which is from a personal diary entry of Arrington dated July 8, 1981, I have to reconsider the portrait of Arrington as telling all the facts.

The entire thrust of the book was that Arrington was known as a "tell-all" historian.  He would relate everything that pertained to the subject, warts and all. 

I think it is true that Arrington sought to be a "tell-all" historian, but only to the extent that damaging information was already in the public domain.

When it came to additional damaging information that was not already in the public domain, it appears he felt the safest course (for whatever reason) was to keep mum.

 

 

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The other day this quote from Leonard Arrington's diary (July 6, 1981) was cited in another thread.

Until reading this, I had always thought Arrington was pushing for more openness in church history, but this quote makes it sound as if he was more about damage control for the things that had already been made public and trying to "put the lid on other facts" that the church didn't want to get out. I must say, if my reading is correct, it's really disappointing. 

What do you make of this?

I don't know.  But, I think Arrington found himself in a tough position.  I think he wanted openness regarding church history, but he also loved the church and his leaders and wanted to protect them.  IMO, he tried to be loyal.  But in the end, I think he must have been hurt over how he was treated.   Or maybe he was able to rise above it all?

 

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I don't know.  But, I think Arrington found himself in a tough position.  I think he wanted openness regarding church history, but he also loved the church and his leaders and wanted to protect them.  IMO, he tried to be loyal.  But in the end, I think he must have been hurt over how he was treated.   Or maybe he was able to rise above it all?

Yeah, I really don't know what to think. 

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yeah, I really don't know what to think. 

 

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yeah, I really don't know what to think. 

He must have been a man that knew so much but could do so little because of the position he was in.  It would be hard.

[ALarson]

What's the deal with his portrait not being hung up with the other historians?  Anyone know?

(I'll look this up too, but remember something about it.)

ETA:

I guess it's hung in the COB now, but wasn't originally?  If anyone knows the story behind this, I'd be interested.  But I'll keep reading too!

.

Edited July 26, 2016 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wouldn't assume this was his general attitude unless it consistently appears in his writings.  Perhaps he was simply responding to some criticism that got under his skin and he was making the point to himself that the person should have been looking at their efforts as helpful, not damaging.

I hope you're right. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

The other day this quote from Leonard Arrington's diary (July 6, 1981) was cited in another thread.

Until reading this, I had always thought Arrington was pushing for more openness in church history, but this quote makes it sound as if he was more about damage control for the things that had already been made public and trying to "put the lid on other facts" that the church didn't want to get out. I must say, if my reading is correct, it's really disappointing. 

What do you make of this?

I think he wanted to move the needle forward on openness, and made good progress in that aspect.  I doubt we will ever have access to everything in the archives.  The church has strategically hid documents, and continues to do so today.  I don't believe that there has never been an effort by the institution to be 100% transparent about our history.  

[drums12]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think he wanted to move the needle forward on openness, and made good progress in that aspect.  I doubt we will ever have access to everything in the archives.  The church has strategically hid documents, and continues to do so today.  I don't believe that there has never been an effort by the institution to be 100% transparent about our history.  

So you make the statement of faith that the Church "continues to do so today" as absolute fact.  I've felt deceived and hurt by omissions just as much as anyone.  Still,  this is quite a certainty you have

[Duncan]

50 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think he wanted to move the needle forward on openness, and made good progress in that aspect.  I doubt we will ever have access to everything in the archives.  The church has strategically hid documents, and continues to do so today.  I don't believe that there has never been an effort by the institution to be 100% transparent about our history.  

I think most archives are like that. I used the city archives once and a staffer was with me the entire time and sitting with me as I wrote down notes about a project I was working on and then they had to check them.

[Duncan]

One thing to remember is people lived history, they met people who knew earlier leaders or had relatives involved in things and so why read about it when your old neighbour across the street's dad was there or whatever. Par example, my Mum knew a man who fought in the Boer war and so she only knew about it from him and she only learned more years later but talking to someone who was there is much better than reading it. Joseph Smith said something about could you gaze into heaven for 5 minutes you would know more than all that was written about it 

[Kevin Christensen]

I think we should expect the institutional arms of the church to be just as open to us, as we are, in public, open to the institutional arms of the church and the community of saints. (Unless of course, it involves anything private, personal, embarrassing, or which is, quite frankly, none of their business, because after all, it's not my own honesty, openness, and integrity that is at issue here.)  I am the victim here, not the perp, which means I stand on a healthy, unassailable sense of righteous entitlement.  I am plaintiff, the judge and jury, not the accused, which means I hold the gavel, control the enforcer (oops,.. baliff), and tell the lawyers what they can and cannot say, and tell the jury what evidence counts and what does not, and I pronounce the sentence.  I'm the one looking for motes and performing eye surgery, and what training or qualifications do I need for that?  Is self reflection even as issue worth mentioning?  What difference could that make to what I see, what I notice, how I judge others, and whether or not I bother to judge myself?

And for the record, I think the Joseph Smith papers project demonstrates a remarkable determination to be open about everything.  And one of the things that I see in the changes in historiography over several decades, is not just about facts, but also of the paradigms of those who produce those histories, as well as the expectations of those who read them.  If I notice that, and consider the relevance, I might just see that those who have produced the histories were doing the best the could, following the models they knew, using the resources they had.  I might be be a bit more understanding, even grateful.

And for the record, I know something about openness and relationships. 

https://www.journeytohealingandjoy.com/helping-resources/articles/335-the-gift-of-the-polygraph

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited July 27, 2016 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[Johnnie Cake]

16 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The other day this quote from Leonard Arrington's diary (July 6, 1981) was cited in another thread.

Until reading this, I had always thought Arrington was pushing for more openness in church history, but this quote makes it sound as if he was more about damage control for the things that had already been made public and trying to "put the lid on other facts" that the church didn't want to get out. I must say, if my reading is correct, it's really disappointing. 

What do you make of this?

I have no doubt that these "unfavorable facts" have long ago conveniently disappeared from the Church archive never to be seen or heard from a gain...  <----- This is a statement of speculation on my part based on reasoned logic of past performance by such church historians as Joseph Fielding Smith

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, drums12 said:

So you make the statement of faith that the Church "continues to do so today" as absolute fact.  I've felt deceived and hurt by omissions just as much as anyone.  Still,  this is quite a certainty you have

Yes, the church continues to have documents that aren't available to the public.  Are you saying they have released everything?  I have collections of family documents that are still unavailable to look at.  Do you anticipate a day when they no longer restrict access? 

Edited July 27, 2016 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, Duncan said:

I think most archives are like that. I used the city archives once and a staffer was with me the entire time and sitting with me as I wrote down notes about a project I was working on and then they had to check them.

It makes sense from an archival perspective to manage the documents, but it sounds like you had access to them, even though it was controlled access.  I think the difference here is that the church has hidden documents to protect the image of the church and to protect and keep false narratives alive.  

[Johnnie Cake]

36 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I think we should expect the institutional arms of the church to be just as open to us, as we are, in public, open to the institutional arms of the church and the community of saints. (Unless of course, it involves anything private, personal, embarrassing, or which is, quite frankly, none of their business, because after all, it's not my own honesty, openness, and integrity that is at issue here.)  I am the victim here, not the perp, which means I stand on a healthy, unassailable sense of righteous entitlement.  I am plaintiff, the judge and jury, not the accused, which means I hold the gavel, control the enforcer (oops,.. baliff), and tell the lawyers what they can and cannot say, and tell the jury what evidence counts and what does not, and I pronounce the sentence.  I'm the one looking for motes and performing eye surgery, and what training or qualifications do I need for that?  Is self reflection even as issue worth mentioning?  What difference could that make to what I see, what I notice, how I judge others, and whether or not I bother to judge myself?

^^^Brilliant paragraph^^^ You hit the nail on the head with that one Kevin...we are all our own plaintiff,  judge, prosecuting & defense attorney, bailiff and jury regarding the ideas we entertain.

Quote

And for the record, I think the Joseph Smith papers project demonstrates a remarkable determination to be open about everything.  And one of the things that I see in the changes in historiography over several decades, is not just about facts, but also of the paradigms of those who produce those histories, as well as the expectations of those who read them.  If I notice that, and consider the relevance, I might just see that those who have produced the histories were doing the best the could, following the models they knew, using the resources they had.  I might be be a bit more understanding, even grateful.

And for the record, I know something about openness and relationships. 

https://www.journeytohealingandjoy.com/helping-resources/articles/335-the-gift-of-the-polygraph

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I have a good friend who sits on the board of historians involved with the JSP project...several years ago just as the project was being funded and they were gearing up to tackle the project we met to have lunch and catch up...he wanted to save me...still (he's a good man).  Anyway I asked him how honest the team would be should they find something difficult among Joseph's papers would they still publish it.  He told me "Oh we have already found things that many in the church would find difficult and we do plan on including it in the project." Surprised, I asked if he could give me some clue to what he was referring to.  He responded by telling me that most member's have no idea how much Joseph loved his Whiskey. Then he quoted a passage he had just read from one of the papers where Joseph wrote "Whiskey whiskey, whiskey what will I ever do without my whiskey."  The unusual use of the words whiskey repeated three times stuck with me. While its been nearly 10 years since our lunch, as the project has progressed I've returned to the site to do a search of those words...  "Whiskey whiskey, whiskey"  and while the word whiskey does come up, this particular phrase and the context in which it was used by Joseph has never been published. 

So while the project has not yet completed, since this particular paper has been known for well over 10 years...it remains hidden still...so the project has yet to demonstrate openness about everything...at least not yet.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The other day this quote from Leonard Arrington's diary (July 6, 1981) was cited in another thread.

Until reading this, I had always thought Arrington was pushing for more openness in church history, but this quote makes it sound as if he was more about damage control for the things that had already been made public and trying to "put the lid on other facts" that the church didn't want to get out. I must say, if my reading is correct, it's really disappointing. 

What do you make of this?

I don't know.  But more context might be helpful. 

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

^^^Brilliant paragraph^^^ You hit the nail on the head with that one Kevin...we are all our own plaintiff,  judge, prosecuting & defense attorney, bailiff and jury regarding the ideas we entertain.

I have a good friend who sits on the board of historians involved with the JSP project...several years ago just as the project was being funded and they were gearing up to tackle the project we met to have lunch and catch up...he wanted to save me...still (he's a good man).  Anyway I asked him how honest the team would be should they find something difficult among Joseph's papers would they still publish it.  He told me "Oh we have already found things that many in the church would find difficult and we do plan on including it in the project." Surprised, I asked if he could give me some clue to what he was referring to.  He responded by telling me that most member's have no idea how much Joseph loved his Whiskey. Then he quoted a passage he had just read from one of the papers where Joseph wrote "Whiskey whiskey, whiskey what will I ever do without you."  The unusual use of the words whiskey repeated three times stuck with me. While its been nearly 10 years since our lunch, as the project has progressed I've returned to the site to do a search of those words...  "Whiskey whiskey, whiskey"  and while the word whiskey does come up, this particular phrase and the context in which it was used by Joseph has never been published. 

So while the project has not yet completed, since this particular paper has been known for well over 10 years...it remains hidden still...so the project has yet to demonstrate openness about everything...at least not yet.

Thanks for sharing this.  I agree that the track record of transparency and openness is very poor.  Its upsetting to me because I feel like I have a right to this information. My family has been a part of this church from its early beginnings on both sides, and has sacrificed so very much for the sake of the church.  Its my church too, and my information they are keeping hidden.  I want the information wide open for everyone to see.  It bothers me to no end that they are intentionally trying to paint a picture that isn't factually accurate.  

Give us the information, its ours, you have no right LDS church to restrict access to this material, and then pretend you are being transparent!!  This is hypocrisy, dishonesty, and it does our entire community a gross injustice.  Shame on you LDS church for this practice of deceit!  (If you can't tell, this subject really gets me riled up) 

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for sharing this.  I agree that the track record of transparency and openness is very poor.  Its upsetting to me because I feel like I have a right to this information. My family has been a part of this church from its early beginnings on both sides, and has sacrificed so very much for the sake of the church.  Its my church too, and my information they are keeping hidden.  I want the information wide open for everyone to see.  It bothers me to no end that they are intentionally trying to paint a picture that isn't factually accurate.  

Give us the information, its ours, you have no right LDS church to restrict access to this material, and then pretend you are being transparent!!  This is hypocrisy, dishonesty, and it does our entire community a gross injustice.  Shame on you LDS church for this practice of deceit!  (If you can't tell, this subject really gets me riled up) 

I wish the church had more confidence that the church is true, their words ring hollow when they're afraid to tell it like it was.

[jkwilliams]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know.  But more context might be helpful. 

Agreed. On its own, it sounds terrible, but I don't imagine we're going to see the context anytime soon.

[HappyJackWagon]

The possibilities of additional skeletons in the closet makes me long for a full-on WikiLeaks disclosure. If only there was a way.

I was thinking about this last night as I was in a meeting discussing the value of journal writing. My understanding is that church leaders are now counseled NOT to keep personal journals because of the sensitive nature of things they may be writing, whether personal or more broad. If this anti-journal counsel really exists it's a shame to think about the significant loss of information and insight from those leading the church.

[drums12]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, the church continues to have documents that aren't available to the public.  Are you saying they have released everything?  I have collections of family documents that are still unavailable to look at.  Do you anticipate a day when they no longer restrict access? 

I'm not saying they have.  I'm just saying I don't know.  If you have family documents in possession of the Church I believe you.  I apologize if I came across as attacking.  I missed the part where you specified that you knew of documents related to your family.

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, drums12 said:

I'm not saying they have.  I'm just saying I don't know.  If you have family documents in possession of the Church I believe you.  I apologize if I came across as attacking.  I missed the part where you specified that you knew of documents related to your family.

You're fine, I wasn't taking this as an attack towards me, thanks for the apology, but its not needed.  It just frustrates me when ancestors of mine donated documents to the church for safe keeping and then the church won't let people access them.  No wonder Leonard Arrington intentionally didn't donate his journals to the church.  

I just want transparency and openness for our community, I think we have a right to it.  

[hope_for_things]

58 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wish the church had more confidence that the church is true, their words ring hollow when they're afraid to tell it like it was.

Help me understand your comment here better, because I think that leaders of the church may be hiding documents precisely because they do believe the church is true, and they justify this behavior out of loyalty to the church.