Recommended Books on Church History from Elder Jensen (Former Church Historian)

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That manual came out while I was on my mission, and I bought a hardback copy that I still have.  But I think now, in 2017, it represents a "Church history as taught in the early 1990's" perspective that has too many liabilities.

When I was young, my dad told me how whenever he was considering buying an encyclopedia, he would simply turn to the entry on the LDS Church and read it.  If that article was well done, then he was confident that the rest of the entries would be suitable.  But if it had errors or was written polemically, he wouldn't trust the rest of the books.

If we subject the Institute manual to the same test and used the method of Book of Mormon translation, the origin of the Book of Abraham, polygamy, or the priesthood ban as a litmus test for its honesty and forthrightness, I don't know how well it would pass the test.  Not that I would expect a book written 25 years ago for a faithful audience to cover such subjects, but only that it would leave huge gaps for someone reading it today.  At the very least, I hope the Gospel Topics essays are taught as a mandatory supplement at the suitable points any time that book is used in Institute instruction.

I don't claim any insider knowledge, but it would not surprise me to learn that a revision/update of Church History in the Fulness of Times is underway as we speak. If nothing else, the Joseph Smith Papers project alone could enrich it as it has done other items of Church curriculum.

 

[Nevo]

On 5/11/2017 at 11:06 AM, hope_for_things said:

Great list, thanks for sharing.  I would add Paul Reeve's Religion of a Different Color, that is a must read in my opinion.  I also very much liked Gregory Prince's biography of Leonard Arrington, and Richard Van Wagoner's - Natural Born Seer is the best biography on the early Joseph Smith years in my opinion.

Those are all good ones too. I've only read a chapter or two of Reeve's book, but that could easily be substituted for All Abraham's Children (Russell Stevenson's For the Cause of Righteousness is another one). I should really read all of it. I enjoyed the Arrington biography, but agree with Dennis Lythgoe's criticisms in the latest issue of Dialogue. Prince chooses interesting subjects, so his biographies are "must-reads," but I don't always trust his judgments (or his extensive reliance on reminiscences).

I've only read the first four chapters of Van Wagoner's Natural Born Seer. With my ever-dwindling attention span I find the author's discursive style a bit much sometimes. At one point he lists—by name—twenty-five varieties of apples that grew in Vermont in the early nineteenth-century, since the Smiths probably had apple trees on their farm in Norwich. But there's no question that he did a lot of research (hence the temptation to include everything). I'm sure it hasn't helped that I've been reading it on my phone. I should just bite the bullet and buy the hardcover version.

Years ago I found a long passage of Van Wagoner's Sidney Ridgon biography that was plagiarized from Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. Ever since then I've been a bit leery of his work. But I haven't seen anything like that in the Joseph Smith book so far. Anyway, I should get back to it.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Nevo

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Every book on the list leaves out a lot of important history. Being selective does not necessarily make a treatment inferior.

In this case I think it does precisely because I think a faithful take on polygamy is important. The relative neglect of the topic in the institute manual is also distorting of the history I feel. And I say that as someone who usually defends the church manuals when they neglect that topic. I just don't think you can understand the persecutions in the Nauvoo era without understanding polygamy.

With any devotional or topical text I think leaving it out is fine. But for a history overview I think it's deeply problematic to basically give it one sentence in the whole pre-Utah period. The late 19th century period is a little better, if only because it's hard to even make sense of federal persecution without talking about polygamy. But without situating it with an understanding of Nauvoo I don't think even that makes as much sense as it should.

Edited May 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

39 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I've only read the first four chapters of Van Wagoner's Natural Born Seer. With my ever-dwindling attention span, I find the author's discursive style a bit much sometimes.

I confess I'm much more mixed on his Joseph Smith biography, especially if the list is a more faithful oriented one. It's not bad but I don't think I agree with Nevo's praise.

There are other great books. Religion of a Different Color is great. I really love Wayward Saints too and I think it situates well the very notion of apostasy and church responses to it. It's surprising how many things repeat. Plus it's useful for understanding a lot of long lasting structures in the state. (Like the opposition between the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune)

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Those are all good ones too. I've only read a chapter or two of Reeve's book, but that could easily be substituted for All Abraham's Children (Russell Stevenson's For the Cause of Righteousness is another one). I should really read all of it. I enjoyed the Arrington biography, but agree with Dennis Lythgoe's criticisms in the latest issue of Dialogue. Prince chooses interesting subjects, so his biographies are "must-reads," but I don't always trust his judgments (or his extensive reliance on reminiscences).

I've only read the first four chapters of Van Wagoner's Natural Born Seer. With my ever-dwindling attention span, I find the author's discursive style a bit much sometimes. At one point he lists—by name—twenty-five varieties of apples that grew in Vermont in the early nineteenth-century, since the Smith's probably had apple trees on their farm in Norwich. But there's no question that he did a lot of research (hence the temptation to include everything). I'm sure it hasn't helped that I've been reading it on my phone. I should just bite the bullet and buy the hardcover version.

Years ago I found a long passage of Van Wagoner's Sidney Ridgon biography that was plagiarized from Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. Ever since then I've been a bit leery of his work. But I haven't seen anything like that in the Joseph Smith book so far. Anyway, I should get back to it.

Thanks interesting thoughts, I haven't read the Lythgoe review, but I'll take a look at it.  

I really enjoyed the first few chapters of Natural Born Seer, but I would agree with you that the descriptions were overly detailed in some ways.  I think I liked it because it allowed me to really picture myself in that environment.  I will say that after the first few chapters when he gets into the treasure digging and seer activities is when the book really shines in my opinion.  

I still haven't read the Signey Rigdon book, but I've heard great things about it.  I haven't heard that he plagiarized Quinn before, that is disappointing.  Since he was actively involved in Mormon Studies did that issue ever get resolved in subsequent editions of the book? 

Edited May 11, 2017 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I'm much more mixed on his Joseph Smith biography, especially if the list is a more faithful oriented one. It's not bad but I don't think I agree with Nevo's praise.

Did you feel like Natural Born Seer was too critical in an unfair way?  If so, can you elaborate?  I think it was highly fair, much more so than Bushman's RSR is, where Bushman acknowledges many of the challenging issues around Joseph yet he never seems to explore the implications of the criticisms in very thorough ways.    

I like RSR, but I personally see it as a more apologetic approach to Joseph.  Bushman acknowledges his perspective on Joseph in the beginning of the book and that he's not going to write it from the perspective of a neutral observer.  

 

Edited May 11, 2017 by hope_for_things

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, Nevo said:

That's a good list.

Here's my top 10 list of recommended books for the "average member" looking to broaden their knowledge of LDS history:

1. Allen and Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints
2. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling
3. Underwood, The Millenarian World of Early Mormonism
4. Backman, The Heavens Resound: A History of the Latter-Day Saints in Ohio, 1830-1838
5. Leonard, Nauvoo: A Place of Peace, a People of Promise
6. Walker, Turley, and Leonard, Massacre at Mountain Meadows
7. Ulrich, A House Full of Females: Plural Marriage and Women’s Rights in Early Mormonism, 1835-1870
8. Alexander, Mormonism in Transition: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 1890-1930
9. Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation
10. Mauss, All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage

All those are good -- particularly Underwood. About the only one I might quibble with is The Story of the Latter-day Saints is a bit dated. But then so too is Arrington.

Quote

For members that are bit more adventurous, I would also recommend:

• Bergera, Conflict in the Quorum
• Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith
• Hallwas and Launius, Cultures in Conflict: A Documentary History of the Mormon War in Illinois
• LeSueur, The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri
• Newell and Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith
• Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View
• Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power and Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power
• Quinn, Elder Statesman: A Biography of J. Reuben Clark
• Smith, ed., An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton
• Turner, Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet

I like most of these. I think Quinn is much more problematic and at this point pretty dated. I also find Origins of Power has some problematic parts not well argued. I'd add Brooke's The Refiner's Fire other than the horrible counterfeiting chapter. But it's perhaps a bit dated now too although not quite as problematic in terms of theoretic structure as Quinn. Unfortunately there's not yet been a good book covering the same ground making us of all the research that's come out the past 25 years.

While I like Cultures in Conflict the very fact it's documentary makes it a bit problematic. However Fire and Sword while still very good is also a little dated. Turner is great though. I really like Hearken O Ye People too as a detailed history of the Kirtland era. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

In this case I think it does precisely because I think a faithful take on polygamy is important. The relative neglect of the topic in the institute manual is also distorting of the history I feel. And I say that as someone who usually defends the church manuals when they neglect that topic. I just don't think you can understand the persecutions in the Nauvoo era without understanding polygamy.

With any devotional or topical text I think leaving it out is fine. But for a history overview I think it's deeply problematic to basically give it one sentence in the whole pre-Utah period. The late 19th century period is a little better, if only because it's hard to even make sense of federal persecution without talking about polygamy. But without situating it with an understanding of Nauvoo I don't think even that makes as much sense as it should.

I question whether polygamy played as large a role in the Nauvoo persecutions as you seem to think. There were rumors, fed mainly by apostates, but I believe polygamy was minimal in its impact compared to other factors in provoking the oppression coming from non-Mormons.

I agree there needs to be a more extensive treatment of plural marriage in the Church's college-level texts on Church history. I hope to see it in the future.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, cinepro said:

During a recent local presentation, Elder Jensen said he would follow up with attendees and email a list of recommended books on Church history.  I recently received the email, so if you're wondering what the Top 14 books Elder Jensen would recommend people read to learn about LDS Church history, these are them:

 

The correct phrasing is "these are they".

Your grammar made me curious enough to look it up. I found this link, which gives a good explanation, although I object to its lowest-common-denominator attitude of capitulation to "whatever people around you seem most comfortable with."

https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/25/these-are-them/

Edited May 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I'm much more mixed on his Joseph Smith biography, especially if the list is a more faithful oriented one. It's not bad but I don't think I agree with Nevo's praise.

Well, I can only vouch for the first few chapters. Maybe it all falls apart after Chapter Five   I'm not a big fan of Van Wagoner generally, but I thought the early chapters of the Joseph Smith bio were fine.

I completely agree with you on The Millenarian World of Early Mormonism and Wayward Saints, by the way. I recognize that there are many, many excellent books missing from my list(s).

Hearken, O Ye People is great. I suggested Backman's book because I think it works better as a general survey of the period. But for readers more interested in details—who'd like a multi-page account of Joseph Smith's tar and feathering episode, together with maps and floor plans, for example—then Staker's the man.

Also agree that Quinn is problematic and a bit dated, but where else can you find so many of the controversial details of Church history in one place? I don't think all of his interpretations necessarily hold water, but a member wanting to know "where the bodies are buried" will find most of them there. But, yes, caveat lector.

[Tacenda]

Bill Reel posted this on FB today, I'm pretty sure most people are unaware of the way polygamy was lived by these 4 prophets. A guy at my husband's work brought these up because his father is an anti and told him. The co-workers were unaware too. Same with the head in the hat and seerstones. I guess people aren't religiously reading the Ensign or other works.

Here is the link Bill posted, I didn't know this either. 

ETA: maybe I'm not allowed to share the FB post so I deleted it, but it did say that Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and Brigham Young married teenagers, the largest gap between ages was Lorenzo Snow's gap and it was 42 years, he was 57 and she was 15. Which is way too large IMO. Most members probably have no idea.

And here is a link that shows that there weren't a lot of young teen brides in the time frame that these leaders married young brides. And the menstruation of the young women compared to now. It looks like they started later back then. So this tells me that the leaders who married these young women, should have just let them mature more since some may be too young to have children anyway.

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/09/19/changing-biology-age-at-first-menstruation/

 

Edited June 1, 2017 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

ETA: maybe I'm not allowed to share the FB post so I deleted it, but it did say that Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Brigham Young married teenagers and the largest gap between ages was Lorenzo Snow's gap and it was 47 years, he was 57 and she was 15. Which is way too large IMO. Most members probably have no idea.

"Most members" have no idea because they never pick up a book.  If people took some accountability for their own knowledge of the gospel and Church history we'd have far fewer faith crises.

And John Taylor was 78 when he married his last plural wife, Josephine Roueche, in 1886.  She was 26, 52 years his junior.
That took about 30 seconds for me to find.


We are talking eternity here.  Age difference is a temporary concern at best when entering into an eternal marriage covenant.
 

Edited June 1, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

"Most members" have no idea because they never pick up a book.  If people took some accountability for their own knowledge of the gospel and Church history we'd have far fewer faith crises.

And John Taylor was 78 when he married his last plural wife, Josephine Roueche, in 1886.  She was 26, 52 years his junior.
That took about 30 seconds for me to find.


We are talking eternity here.  Age difference is a temporary concern at best when entering into an eternal marriage covenant.
 

Yep, I'm partially guilty too. And in my post you quoted, I did mention that the members lack looking as you have mentioned. Even with the seerstones, it was surprising that my husband's co-worker didn't know the full story, which was recently told in the Ensign. And they are very TBM. 

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So this tells me that the leaders who married these young women, should have just let them mature more since some may be too young to have children anyway.

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/09/19/changing-biology-age-at-first-menstruation/

 

It was not unusual for young brides to stay in their parents' home for a few more years before moving to their husband's home.  So maturing was being allowed at least for some.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Bill Reel posted this on FB today, I'm pretty sure most people are unaware of the way polygamy was lived by these 4 prophets. A guy at my husband's work brought these up because his father is an anti and told him. The co-workers were unaware too. Same with the head in the hat and seerstones. I guess people aren't religiously reading the Ensign or other works.

People honestly don't study much on their own or even read the scriptures. The ignorance of even basic scriptural doctrines is common. Expecting them to know those things is probably expecting too much.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

People honestly don't study much on their own or even read the scriptures. The ignorance of even basic scriptural doctrines is common. Expecting them to know those things is probably expecting too much.

I think it is important to understand why.  And I am sure there are many and diverse reasons.
Part of it has been the Church in the past insisting that members stick to Church publications, which for the most part have been watered down in the past.  (Definitely improving).
Part of it has been the false assumption of members that if they simply stay in the Church, regardless of how much they learn, they will receive all the blessings of heaven based on being faithful alone.  This is contrary to several prophetic teachings.
Part of it has been members assuming that the Sunday School teachings are deep enough to learn the gospel with no supplementation.
And there are probably dozens of other variations as to why members don't bother to study the gospel.

I would think that once a person is converted to the gospel that learning as much as they possibly could about the most important thing in life would become a priority.  Seriously, what's more important?

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Bill Reel posted this on FB today, I'm pretty sure most people are unaware of the way polygamy was lived by these 4 prophets. A guy at my husband's work brought these up because his father is an anti and told him. The co-workers were unaware too. Same with the head in the hat and seerstones. I guess people aren't religiously reading the Ensign or other works.

Here is the link Bill posted, I didn't know this either. 

ETA: maybe I'm not allowed to share the FB post so I deleted it, but it did say that Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and Brigham Young married teenagers, the largest gap between ages was Lorenzo Snow's gap and it was 42 years, he was 57 and she was 15. Which is way too large IMO. Most members probably have no idea.

And here is a link that shows that there weren't a lot of young teen brides in the time frame that these leaders married young brides. And the menstruation of the young women compared to now. It looks like they started later back then. So this tells me that the leaders who married these young women, should have just let them mature more since some may be too young to have children anyway.

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/09/19/changing-biology-age-at-first-menstruation/

I don't believe 15 was too young to bear children. Jews did it all the time. At 15 most females are essentially full-grown women. I do believe all the hormones children are getting in milk, etc, is hastening menstruation tho.

[Calm]

"the Church in the past insisting that members stick to Church publications"

In teaching in class only and there was no restriction on teachers studying outside Church materials to help themselves feel more prepared, the instructions were only that it was not necessary to invest either time or money into purchasing outside materials.  I double checked this several times as a teacher and ward librarian because I kept hearing this from critics and a few members.  Less well off teachers shouldn't be made to feel they are lacking just because they may not be able to afford commentaries or even education available to others.  I think the Church is very wise and compassionate to have that approach for its teachers given it is a global Church with a wide range of membership.

The ward library was not to include non Church distribution publications except for a dictionary iirc, this was more a space and budget issue from my interpretation, though there was undoubtedly significant concern about noncorrelated material being passed around...it is just in every ward that I have been since the internet got going and before, hardly anyone used the library for even the correlated stuff save for pictures and an occasional video.  In one ward, we would create packets each week of pictures, flannelboard stories and handouts and half of the teachers didn't bother to pick those up.  Why spend money on stuff that isn't going to be used?  Plus many smaller wards had a closet available for the library, if that.  No need to have them feeling deprived or less prepared by having unneeded resources that required too much space.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I don't believe 15 was too young to bear children. Jews did it all the time. At 15 most females are essentially full-grown women. I do believe all the hormones children are getting in milk, etc, is hastening menstruation tho.

Off topic, but it is more likely obesity has the highest influence of earlier puberty in females (it can even cause a misdiagnosis of early puberty).  The added hormones in milk are protein and are more likely to be digested than absorbed in a form that is a problem.  The fat cells in our bodies, otho, can trigger hormone production.

http://www.webmd.com/children/features/obesity#1

Menstruation itself is not starting earlier, btw, according to the above.

Pollutants may be contributing as well, but not as much.

http://www.livescience.com/1824-truth-early-puberty.html

"A study by Kirsten Krahnstoever Davison of Penn State, published in 2003 in Pediatrics, was one of several studies documenting that over 50 percent of overweight girls enter puberty early. Similarly, studies on young girls adopted from poor countries, suddenly introduced to high-fat diets and entering early puberty, reveal the fat cell connection.

While a cleaner Earth is a fine idea, the best prevention for precocious puberty seems to be to keep kids healthy and running wild like kids."

Edited June 1, 2017 by Calm

[RevTestament]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Off topic, but it is more likely obesity has the highest influence of earlier puberty in females (it can even cause a misdiagnosis of early puberty).  The added hormones in milk are protein and are more likely to be digested than absorbed in a form that is a problem.  The fat in our bodies, otho, can trigger hormone production.

http://www.webmd.com/children/features/obesity#1

Menstruation itself is not starting earlier, btw, according to the above.

Pollutants may be contributing as well, but not as much.

http://www.livescience.com/1824-truth-early-puberty.html

"A study by Kirsten Krahnstoever Davison of Penn State, published in 2003 in Pediatrics, was one of several studies documenting that over 50 percent of overweight girls enter puberty early. Similarly, studies on young girls adopted from poor countries, suddenly introduced to high-fat diets and entering early puberty, reveal the fat cell connection.

While a cleaner Earth is a fine idea, the best prevention for precocious puberty seems to be to keep kids healthy and running wild like kids."

Actually, I don't think it's high fat diets at fault. I feel it is high sugar and carbs that are mostly the cause of child-hood obesity. 

The "saturated fat" scare was largely a false misrepresentation I think promoted by the American companies producing cooking oils after WW II. A polynesian island once had one of the highest fat diets in the world - lots of coconut fat - which is supposedly a harmful saturated fat, yet they were not fat. Nor did they have heart disease or other degenerative diseases - at least not at any appreciable rate. They were indeed extremely healthy overall. That is until they got connected to imported foods from the West. 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I don't believe 15 was too young to bear children. Jews did it all the time. At 15 most females are essentially full-grown women. I do believe all the hormones children are getting in milk, etc, is hastening menstruation tho.

Most scholars assume Mary was 12 or 13 at the latest.

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

"Most members" have no idea because they never pick up a book.  If people took some accountability for their own knowledge of the gospel and Church history we'd have far fewer faith crises.

And John Taylor was 78 when he married his last plural wife, Josephine Roueche, in 1886.  She was 26, 52 years his junior.
That took about 30 seconds for me to find.

I agree that members ought to read more, but I fault the correlation committee model for this lack of information more than I fault members.  The culture teaches people to avoid external sources of information, and this kind of stuff rarely comes up in Sunday School.

I have an idea, maybe the church could write a book about each President of the Church and use those books in Priesthood and Relief Society.  Oh wait, they did this already, only sadly they intentionally omitted references to all the polygamous wives.  Its easy for the church to be transparent, only unfortunately the leaders don't want the transparency. 

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that members ought to read more, but I fault the correlation committee model for this lack of information more than I fault members.  The culture teaches people to avoid external sources of information, and this kind of stuff rarely comes up in Sunday School.

I'd say there is plenty of fault to go around.
If your a med student and you finish anatomy and all of a sudden you notice your professor never taught the parts of the hands, do you blame the professor exclusively?  Shouldn't you have noticed?
Clearly the professor should have covered all pertinent information.  (IE the Church).
But surely a student has some responsibility for noticing areas that they are missing information (assuming they know they exist, like a hand).

I completely agree, correlation and the "only read Church publications" ideal share much of the blame.  But seriously, you'd have to be some kind of an ostrich with your head in the sand to not realize you were lacking knowledge.
Again, plenty of fault to go around.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Actually, I don't think it's high fat diets at fault. I feel it is high sugar and carbs that are mostly the cause of child-hood obesity. 

The "saturated fat" scare was largely a false misrepresentation I think promoted by the American companies producing cooking oils after WW II. A polynesian island once had one of the highest fat diets in the world - lots of coconut fat - which is supposedly a harmful saturated fat, yet they were not fat. Nor did they have heart disease or other degenerative diseases - at least not at any appreciable rate. They were indeed extremely healthy overall. That is until they got connected to imported foods from the West. 

I agree it is sugar and other refined carbs that is more likely the cause of obesity these days.  I was talking about fat cells in our bodies, not fat in the food.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that members ought to read more, but I fault the correlation committee model for this lack of information more than I fault members.  The culture teaches people to avoid external sources of information, and this kind of stuff rarely comes up in Sunday School.

Do you have any research  demonstrating that nonmembers research or study more than Mormons do? Or that Mormons used to research or study more before correlation?

Edited June 1, 2017 by Calm