Selected Excerpts from Confessions of a Mormon Historian: The Diaries of Leonard J. Arrington, 1971-1999

  

The following are taken from:

 

Confessions of a Mormon Historian: The Diaries of Leonard J. Arrington, 1971-1999, ed. Gary James Bergera, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2018)

 

December 13, 1971

 

President McKay was also a stubborn person in insisting upon his own way. For many years he had been a second counselor when J. Reuben Clark, Jr. was first counselor—under Presidents Grant and George Albert Smith. President Clark was himself was a forceful personality, and tended to “run the church” during the last years of President Grant’s administration and during the George Albert Smith administration. President McKay gave the impression of one who had been frustrated by his relative impotence under President Clark, and, therefore, sought to exhibit his own authority when he became president. Even during his last years, when he was inform and not in a position to be well acquainted with conditions, he often gave the impression of stubbornly insisting upon his prerogatives. . . . With the exception of the Prophet Joseph Smith—whom President McKay resembled in many ways—no president contributed to the growth of the Church than President McKay. He was admired and adored by all kinds of people—the highly educated, the poorly educated; top business executives, poor farm hands; high government officials, the lowest clerk; aged temple workers, children in the Primary [church program]. Somehow, he attracted the support of every age and type of person, and each person felt he had a special affinity for President McKay. He built temples for the temple minded—the Church Educational System for the educators and students—missions for the missionary minded—and helped businessmen, farmers, laborers, and all kinds of persons with their problems. He refused to make dogmatic doctrines, and thus left the way open for the support of people of all beliefs. Among his most important accomplishments were the following: the building of Brigham Young University to be a great university, the inauguration of student wards and student stakes, the modification of a MIA program to make it more practical in an era when most of the young people went to college.

(1:90-91)

 

February 25, 1972

 

Upon reaching the council room, we sat on a bench outside the door. We heard the voice of the Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith . . . (1:112)

 

July 10, 1972

 

One person suggested that the picture he had of Brigham Young was of a bearded glowering uncompromising patriarch. Where in Church literature was a portrait of the man as a boy? This might be a good exercise for our department to attempt a characterize Brigham Young as a lad. And to characterize him in a human way. I pointed out that Brigham Young was brought up a Calvinist and Puritan—a Methodist—and in Calvinism children were expected to be little adults—sober and serious, not permitted to play, not encouraged to enjoy life, nor relaxed. I pointed out that Brigham Young had to overcome this background. He had to learn to dance, to sing joyful tunes, to enjoy the theatre, to make jokes; and even if he learned to enjoy life he must have had some qualms of conscience, he must have had occasional guilt feelings, he must have had a strong sense of sin some of which came out in his relationships with other people after he was a leader of the Saints.

 

One person pointed out that Great Basin Kingdom gives no example of revelation or inspiration, and did I believe that there was any in Church history. I pointed out that when one is attempting to do a scientific, scholarly work for the non-members of the Church, he is pretty well restricted to naturalistic evidence. I pointed out also that the evidence for revelation is found in minutes of the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency, which were not available to may then and are not available to many scholars even today. I also pointed out that one has to tailor his treatment to the audience that he is addressing and if one is writing for the Ensign he is free to use the evidence of revelation, whereas it may not be appropriate or acceptable in a scholarly journal. People would dismiss it as rubbish. (1:186-87)

 

August 8, 1972

 

A blessing pronounced upon the head of Brother Leonard J. Arrington, Church Historian, by President Harold B. Lee in the First Presidency’s Council Room on Tuesday, August 8, 1972. Assisting President Lee was President Marion G. Romney and Elder Howard W. Hunter. Reported by Francis M. Gibbons.

 

Brother Leonard J. Arrington, beloved associate and servant of the Lord, it is with feelings of great satisfaction that we respond to your request that we place our hands unitedly upon your head to invoke upon you the blessings you feel you need as you assume a high and responsible place in building the kingdom of God.

 

Brother Arrington, you have come to this position because we have prayed diligently and sought the guidance of the spirit to find those who might give proper attention to that which the Lord, by revelation, said, in the early beginnings of the Church, should be one of the most vital things; to keep proper records of the affairs that transpire in the Lord’s kingdom here upon the earth. We bless you for the way in which you have prepared yourself for this high calling by keeping the standards of the Church in your personal life; that despite your attainments in the academic and intellectual world, you have kept yourself in harmony with the teachings of the gospel. As a result, you have been brought to the favorable attention of your brethren. You have found favor with your Heavenly Father in whose service you are. We now bless you and bestow upon you the gifts of the spirit which will enlarge your understanding and will bring to your power and influence which you have not previously possessed; that you may have special discernments; that your mind might reach out with a special feeling or urgency to move in this direction or that direction; that you will learn to give heed to the sudden ideas that come to you from time to time, and if you do this, you will find things coming to pass at the very moment. We bless you with a discerning ear to hear these promptings which are the essence of the spirit of revelation. We bless that you might have the desire to search beyond that which is now known. Faith is that which leads beyond that which is known; and if you will exercise your faith and strive to push beyond the known, you will find books opened to you; you will find that information will come to you providentially and in a surprising manner by the revelations of Him in whose service you will be; you will have brought to you the special aids that you will need; and there will be brought to your attention historical records and data and findings, the like of which you have not known were in existence and you will stand and marvel at the outpouring of the spirit. The Lord will bless you and enlarge you and will open new doors to you to enable you to amass material and write histories and prepare necessary documentation for those of generations yet unborn so that the successors in our present positions will know what has gone before. We bless you with health of body and keenness of intellect, with spiritual responsiveness that you may give heed to those promptings and guides as Nephi of old, who, when given a difficult task, said that he went forth, not knowing beforehand what he should say or do. Seek for that guidance and the Lord will bless you and take you by the hand and give answer to your prayers.

 

We bless you to this end and devote you and consecrate you to this work by the authority of the holy priesthood and in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ. Amen. [signed:] Harold B Lee (1:229-30)

 

August 9, 1972

 

As the result of yesterday’s meeting with the First Presidency I have been thinking and praying about my calling at Church Historian. This was also prompted by the necessity of writing an article appraising President Joseph Fielding Smith as a historian. On the one hand, I am the Church Historian and must seek to build testimonies, spread the word, building the Kingdom. On the other hand, I am called to be a historian, which means that I must earn the respect of professional historians—what I write must be craftsmanlike, credible and of good quality. This means that I stand on two legs—the leg of faith and the leg of reason. (1:232-33, emphasis in original)

 

October 25, 1972

 

An interesting thought to contemplate. Two young women, each heading in quite different directions and in a quite different way, have forced a change in Mormon culture. Maurine Whipple is the first native Mormon writer to produce a realistic novel of Mormon life. If he had written the book today she would be acclaimed as one of the greatest novelists of the Church and in the West. If he had come from Salt Lake City she would have found a wide basis of support even when she published it. Then, of course, she never would have written a book like that except in a place like St. George. The young girl still in her 20s absorbed Mormon culture, understood Mormon culture, and tapped the universals and wrote a great novel of Mormon life back in the late 1930s. In a sense she prepared the way for Virginia Sorenson, Juanita Brooks, and others.

 

The other young women is Fawn Brodie, whose book forces a new approach to Church history which is more honest, more realistic, and prepares the conditions for what we are now doing in the Historical Department. (1:323)

 

November 9, 1972

 

We were having a conversation yesterday about the chief requisites to be a good Mormon historian. We listed three:

1. A good Mormon historian will sincerely believe that religious experiences are possible.

2. The good Mormon historian will be able and willing to play with ideas and explanations even though they may threaten his values or beliefs.

3. The good Mormon historian will have a capacity to see events and people in perspective. (1:335)

 

January 29, 1973

 

President Dallin Oaks of BYU telephoned this morning to say that a faculty committee had recommended an honorary degree for Juanita Brooks, and said that he did not want to recommend anyone to the First Presidency or other members of the Board [of Trustees] if any of them had reservations about the proposed recipient. I told him that BYU had approved her as a lecturer in our [Charles] Redd series and that she was delivering the lecture next month and in this sense she was receiving deserved recognition. Perhaps that was all BYU needed to do this year.

 

I also pointed out that Utah State University had given her an honorary degree [in 1964] and that might be considered. Thirdly, I said that it was my understanding that President Lee, who has a long memory, felt that she was willful and disobedient in publishing in the face of their request that he not do so, that John D. lee’s blessings had been restored. I also said that it was my understanding that Brother [Dilbert L.] Stapley felt very strongly about Juanita’s disobedience in this and other occasions. President Oaks said he appreciated my frankness on this matter and said that it was possible for him to recommend against her on the grounds that she had already received an honorary degree from USU and on the grounds of her status as a Redd lecturer, and that he would recommend against her on these ground without betraying the confidence that I had passed on to him about the feelings of President Lee and Brother Stapley. (1:420)

 

June 28, 1973

 

Reflections on Hair Length

 

In the middle of the 1960s there occurred in the United States and nearby countries the phenomenon of the counterculture, the hippies, the yippes—the revolt against the establishment—in particular the revulsion against the Viet Namese War, Rock groups, hippies, rioting youths adopted the long hair motif partly as a reaction against the clean-cut, short-haired Army boys and partly because of their revolt against established mores. Since long hair became a symbol there was an emotional reaction against it on the part of the Church and the established elements of society.

 

This is an interesting development since in pioneer Utah the Mormons as pioneers were the long-haired boys and the Gentiles brought in new styles from the West and, having the money for barbers, had short hair and trimmed mustaches. To Brigham Young, barbers were a compete waste of human resources—unnecessary in building of the Kingdom of God. There was a tendency within Mormon culture to glorify long hair. Wasn’t Samson, the symbol of manliness, a long-haired and bearded boy? Didn’t Porter Rockwell, that symbol of the loyal frontiersman, have long hair? Didn’t Church authorities have long beards and long hair, perhaps in imitation of the Old Testament prophets Elijah, Elisa, Moses, and others.

 

Recent developments in the United States, especially those connected with the Watergate hearings, have tended to lower and tarnish the image of the clean-cut young advisors and administrators in the [Richard] Nixon Administration. People are discovering that clean-cut people are not necessarily honest, trustworthy servants. “Thank God for some of the longer-haired people,” some are declaring.

 

James returned from San Francisco saying that long hair is going out of style in California—a shorter-haired look is becoming more favorable, so James had his mother cut his hair according to the new style. When Carl went to work for the summer of the New Era, he was told by Brian Kelley and Lowell Durham that he would have to cut his hair a little and trim his mustache a little, which he did. After a couple of weeks on the job, the editor of Church magazines, Doyle Green, remarked that Carl would have to cut his hair still more. He asked his mother to give him the kind of hair cut that she gave to James, which meant cutting it quite short in length. He went to work the next morning and Brian took one look, went through a simulated faint, and said, “You look like an outlaw who has come into town and just been elected sheriff.”  (1:540-41)

 

August 9, 1973

 

As I was about to go President Lee said, “You are a fine writer, Leonard, and I appreciate what you have done. Let me say again that I thought Great Basin Kingdom was a magnificent work of research and writing. I read it all through and appreciated the straightforward and interesting manner in which you presented this—it must have required an enormous amount of work, and we are all grateful to you for it.” (1:572)

 

August 25, 1973 (Priesthood meeting in Germany)

 

President Lee: Quote from Isaiah relating a vision: Watchman what of the night?

 

Do you have a stereotype of what a stake president is like? A conservative, orthodox, farmer or businessman? Practical, non-intellectual, pious? Not a characteristic in Europe. They are all educated in the scholars in the humanities as well as technical. Professional people, etc.

 

Conclusions:

1. More humble—sophistication of European leaders.

2. Need to write directly for them.

3. The liveliness of Church in Europe.

 

Hand of the lord is in the work of the presiding brethren. So, guided by the Holy Spirit, they become of one mind and heart. Then they can say, they were moved upon the Holy Ghost. Decisions made in this way are inspired by the Lord. Everything said by a General Authority is not necessarily the mind and will of the Lord. As moved upon by Holy Ghost shall be the mind and will of the Lord. A private opinion if not born out by scriptures. New doctrine comes only from the Prophet and he announces it to General Authorities, stake presidents and announced as the mind and will of the Lord.

 

How does the church know when moved upon by Holy Ghost? J. R[euben] Clark said: Church will know the testimony of Holy Ghost in the body of the members themselves. Brigham Young said: Were your faith concentrated upon the object, your mind pure, everyone doing right, you would be filled with the Holy Ghost and it would be impossible for man to destroy as impossible for feather to avoid being consumed by a fire. (1:585; as noted by Bergera, “While waiting for the meeting to begin, Arrington jotted down some notes reminding him of things to do when he returned him” [ibid., 1:588 n. 51])

 

April 26, 1975

 

I recall studying the Book of Mormon and the Bible and Church history, but more as history than as doctrine or theology. Something must have influenced me to read the Bible when I was 13, and [to follow pit up with the Book of Mormon. I have not read either completely through since then although I have devoted many hours to reading in them. I did not enjoy reading either, but think I would today. I have appreciated the new translation of the Bible, and wish we had a Book of Mormon which eliminated the “and it came to pass” and other colloquial expressions. I have often thought it would be interesting to read the Book of Mormon in a foreign language to as to get away from the early American frontier idioms of the English edition. (1:841, emphasis in bold added)

 

October 31, 1975

 

Elder Sterling Sill told me that he asked President [David O.] McKay if there was anything he [Sill] had ever done which had displeased President McKay. President McKay said there was only one thing which he recalled which he displeased him. He said, “Shortly after your appointment [as Assistant to the Quorum] you gave a speech in Bountiful or somewhere in which you recommended to the Saints a book which I didn’t like.” Brother Sill said, “What in the world could that have been?” President McKay said, “You recommended to the Saints Joseph Fielding Smith’s book, Man, His Origin and Destiny, and I frankly did not like that book—it did a great deal of harm.” Elder Sill went ahead to say that he was giving a talk to the Saints in which he was telling them how important it was to read books—and what a delight to be able to share the inner thoughts of people by reading books they wrote, and he said he used as an example, Man, His Origin and Destiny. He said, “For instance, I can find out what Brother smith thinks about all these matters by reading his book—I don’t know whether the earth was created 8,000 years ago, 13,000 years ago, 500,000 years ago, or 3 million years ago or just when—that isn’t the point. The point is that by reading this book, I can find what Brother Smith thinks about these matters and so this is one of the advantages of reading books of this nature.”

 

That comment of Brother Sill helps to reinforce other evidence which we have that President McKay did not like Man, His Origin and Destiny—did not like the dogmatism with which Brother Smith insisted upon his presentation of the scriptures—felt the evidence pointed to a far longer origin to the earth than Brother Smith was willing to accept. (2:105-6, emphasis in bold added)

 

September 22, 1976

 

Report to Jim [Allen] and Davis [Bitton] on my meeting yesterday with the First Presidency, and Elders [Mark E.] Peterson, [Ezra Taft] Benson, [Howard W.] Hunter, and [Bruce R.] McConkie. We were together almost two hours, talking frankly about our book projects, past and future. Here are some observations: . . .Elders Benson and Petersen will never accept books written by us, given our understanding of history. They want the glorious stories of the Restoration, unsullied by discussions of practical problems and controversial evidence. They want Prophets without warts, revelation direct from on high in pure vessels. They want faith promoting stories and oral homilies. They feel strongly and will vigorously oppose all our books, written as we understand history. We must therefore write books which will be appreciated and defended by the other Brethren. (2:240-41)

 

April 3, 1977

 

[General] Conference is over, and I shall record a few impressions. There was only a very little complaining about the fact that conference was held for only two days instead of the customary three, and that no conference was held, as traditionally, on April 6. The very few who complained, would have complained I we hadn’t had the traditional rain or snow, so of no consequence. I saw our former customer, Fred Collier, handing out tracts with quotations he had found in our Archies about the Adam-God theory. He seems to be sincere, but not entirely bright. (2:361)

 

July 15, 1977

 

A key stage in my own reconciliation of modern learning with religious belief came with reading George Santayana, The Life of Reason: Reason in Religion. The book was published in 1936 by Charles Scribner’s Sons, and I apparently brought it in 1937 and read most of it very carefully and appreciatively. The book was very influential for me; it helped me to see that one might be a sincere believer in Mormonism and at the same time accept the findings of the brightest intellects, whether in philosophy, or science, or the humanities. (Of course, Santayana says nothing about Mormonism as such, and quite possibly had no knowledge of it.) In particular, Reason and Religion helped me to understand that it isn’t important whether certain religious or theological affirmations are truths in a literal sense, or whether they are true in a symbolic or poetic sense. And while religious doctrines may be right symbolically, they should not be substituted for scientific truth. At the same time, whose who accept scientific truth as the only truth, as the final truth, end up substituting inadequate personal symbols which are unsatisfying and unedifying. Santayana introduced me to the idea of “myth”—to “mythical truth,”—which is a very satisfying concept. Religion may contain a symbolic, not literal, representation of truth and life. And for this reason one has no difficulty in trying to harmonize religious assertions with scientific “truth.”

 

In the Christian Epic, one may believe in the Virgin Birth in a symbolic sense, without worrying about the literal truth of it or whether such a thing was possible in the real world. In the Mormon Epic, one may believe in the First Vision without worrying unduly as to whether God and Jesus literally appeared in person to Joseph Smith, or whether he thought he saw them in a mystical sense. Did the plates of the Book of Mormon exist in a concrete literal sense or did thy exist in a symbolic sense? I feel comfortable either way.

 

I was stimulated to make this diary entry by reading Scott Kenney’s article “A Defense of the Christian Faith,” which is in the Sunstone which just came out today. The following fit right into the thoughts to which Santayana turned me to[,] back in 1937 or 1938:

 

The Scriptures are not themselves divine revelation. They are merely the human testimonies of divine revelation.

 

Modern man does not live only by abstract reasoning, but also by stories and images. We should not exorcize the pictorial, mythical, symbolic elements from religion as if men had only ears and not eyes, as if being stirred could ever be replaced by intellectual comprehension.

 

Truth is not simply facticity. A newspaper report of a traveler attacked on the way from Jerusalem to Jericho would perhaps leave us quite cold, even if it were truth, historically true. On the other hand, the invented story of the Good Samaritan on the same road stirs us immediately, since it contains more truth.

 

Many Mormons miss the power of the Restoration message by attempting to abstract its teachings from their historical context.

 

The ultimate criterion of a person’s Christian spirit is not theory but practice: not how he thinks of teachings, dogmas, interpretations, but how he acts in ordinary life. (2:389-90)

 

January 28, 1978

 

Recollection

 

I am particularly grateful for my LDS Institute training from George Tanner. Having spent several years at the University of Chicago Divinity School, he taught me to be a Christian first and a Mormon second. That is, to put first emphasis on the Christian virtues, and second emphasis to the more unique aspects of Mormonism. There are so many Mormons who give first emphasis to the unique or distinctive doctrines and practices of Mormonism. And this is wrong, very wrong, if we are in truth restored Christianity.

 

In this connection, I am grateful that George taught me to give priority to the meaning of the scriptures, and to abandon the proof-text use of them. He taught me to read each book of the Bible for its central meaning and purpose, and not for the purpose of finding passages which prove this or that. This is a common defect in Mormon seminary teaching—they teach the student ot underline this and that passage, and to memorize proof-texts, rather than to get the central message being conveyed. I shall never forget the exhilaration I felt when I lay on y bunk one Sunday afternoon, during my first year at the university, and read through in the Moffatt translation, the Acts of the Apostles. It must have taken no more than half an hour. I was so excited, so pleased, so spiritually satisfied. And there followed other books, read in one sitting, as it were. I read through the entire New Testament in that manner in a few weeks. And then I read various books in the Old Testament—reading each one as a unity. I purchased the [Edgar] Goodspeed Bible and read those, and re-read some of the New Testament works by Goodspeed. I liked Moffatt for the New Testament, and J. Powis Smith for the Old Testament. In each case, I read the introduction to each book before reading the book itself so it would be more meaningful. I kept up this habit through my U of I [University of Idaho] days, and carried it on to North Carolina, and read in these books. Not having the equivalent of a modern translation for the Book of Mormon, I was not so attracted to reading that. I understand there is an equivalent now put out by the Reorganized Church. I must get it. (2:459-60)

 

May 4, 1978

 

The “Finding” of the Abraham Papyri

 

When I was in New York City two or three weeks ago I received a telephone call from Bishop Norman Tolk of Morristown Ward, New Jersey, who asked me to speak to his ward. I was unable to accept that appointment, but we chatted on the telephone for a while. Bishop Tolk said that he grew up in Twin Falls [Idaho], knew Mary Dee very well—was in the same class with her. From Twin Falls he went to Harvard to do graduate work in physics. He later obtained the doctorate in physics from Columbia and served as a professor at Columbia for several years. He was an early supporter of Dialogue and served on the original board of editors. He says he [and others approached Dr. Henry Fisher of the Met, who] was interviewed [for] Dialogue on the finding of the Abraham papyri, and there is a suggestion in the report of the interview in Dialogue that the account given by Professor Atiya of the University of Utah is incorrect.

 

Bishop Tok was “in on” the turning over of the papyri by the Metropolitan Museum to the Church and he had a chance to talk with various museum officials and others. He says that it is absolutely untrue that Professor Atiya found the documents, called them to the attention of the Met, and arranged to have them turned over to the Church. He says the met knew all along that they had these papyri, that they were of special interest to the Mormons—in other word, that they were the “Book of Abraham papyri” of the Mormons. The officials at the Met thought the discovery of these would not be welcomed by Mormons and so they kept them quite because they thought the Mormons would (a) demand them; (b) destroy them. So they kept them hidden from the Church in order to insure their preservation and availability when needed. When Professor Atiya learned of their existence he made such a fuss that the knowledge of them became well known and especially on the part of the Church. So the next tactic of the Met was to get the Church to promise that they would be made available for study and for reproduction, which the Church apparently agreed to do. So the Church upon receiving them promptly turned them over to Hugh Nibley, who studied them. And of course, reproductions were also made in the Improvement Era, in Dialogue, and in BYU Studies.

 

Bishop Tolk says all of the above is known personally to him to be truth. I asked him to write it up and send a copy for us to place in the achieves. He said he would consider doing this. (2:523-34)

 

June 27, 1978

 

Notes on a conversation between [Ensign editor] Ja Todd, 26 June 1978, and Joseph Fielding McConkie, reported by Jay Todd, 27 June 1978. (Material by JFM in parenthesis.)

 

Subject: The circumstances of the revelation to grant the priesthood to all worthy male members of the Church, discussed “last week” at a family gathering by Elder Bruce R. McConkie.

 

The First Presidency had been interested in the topic for years, President [Spencer W.] Kimball especially, and "had felt a message coming through." Last June several of the apostles were invited to submit memos on various implications of the question-historical, medical, sociological, doctrinal, etc., among them Elders [apostle] Packer, Monson, and McConkie. The First Presidency had made the question a matter of formal prayer in the [Salt Lake] temple a number of times and had received no revelation, no answer. (JFM had not been present at the family gathering but had contacted his father in a phone conversation later and apparently received the same information and the addition of some other details. He said, at this point, that at one meeting-unclear whether it was all the Twelve or just the First Presidency-that someone commented, "The former presidents of the Church are here," and President Kimball confirmed it. On a second occasion, one of the men said, "President So-and-So is here," and President Kimball again confirmed that impression.)

 

On 1 June 1978, the General Authorities in town, including the patriarch, presiding bishopric, and seventies, held their joint meeting in the temple. It was an "average meeting, neither better nor worse than they usually had" but at the end, President Kimball did an unusual thing. He asked the Twelve to return, which had never occurred before in BRM's experience. Ezra Taft Benson was already out of earshot and had to be fetched back.

 

President Kimball then reviewed the situation, told the feelings of the First Presidency, explained what they'd been doing for the past times, and asked for responses. BRM, in an unusual breach of protocol, immediately arose and delivered a ten-minute lecture on why the blacks must receive the priesthood before the Millennium. He was followed by Boyd K. Packer, who spoke for ten minutes, bringing up different but equally persuasive reasons, and then by Elder Monson. The remaining General Authorities present except two (Elder Petersen and Elder Stapley were not present but in South America and ill, respectively) all spoke extemporaneously and gave their strong reasons. All took totally different points, and all were highly persuasive. President Kimball asked Howard W. Hunter and the other apostle who had not spoken to respond, and they responded very positively. They did not bring up new arguments, simply expressed agreement.

 

President Kimball then said that as a First Presidency they had prayed many times and had received no answer. He had also prayed many times in the temple alone and had received no answer. "We are all united in feeling; we are going to get an answer-yes or no." He must have felt assured of that by the Spirit. In his humble way, he asked, "Would you mind if I were mouth for this prayer?" They entered into the true order of prayer [a prayer circle], and as President Kimball began praying, "The Lord took over and directed his requests. It was obvious that it was an inspired prayer from the language." Up to that point (apparently prayers had been offered with the Council of the Twelve before or Elder McConkie would not have been able to report this) President Kimball's language had been very circumspect: "Would it be proper for us to ask this question?" Now he was direct, communicating on a different level.

 

At the end of that prayer, a Pentecostal experience occurred. All thirteen experienced and saw "just the way it was at Kirtland." BRM used that phrase several times in answering specific questions put to him by family members. The rushing of a great wind? "Just like Kirtland." Angelic choirs? "Just like Kirtland." Cloven tongues of fire? (Elder McConkie reportedly said that during this experience he came to understand, for the first time, just what was meant by "cloven tongues of fire." LJA.) "Just like Kirtland." Visitors from across the veil? "Just like Kirtland." They had "an incredible experience." No matter how his family phrased the question, he [Bruce R. McConkie] refused to say who had come from the other side. One family phrased a question about the presidents of the Church, that he sidestepped; and his sister, who had started to write down their names, began crossing them out. He stopped her: "I didn't say they didn't come, May. I just said I wasn't telling." (JFM reported that Joseph Smith had come to instruct them in the doctrine and that a great portion of the time was taken up with matters "pertaining to futurity and the course of the Church in the future," not related to the priesthood issue directly.)

 

By the end (no indication of how long it lasted), everyone was weeping.

 

BRM: "President Kimball has had many, many revelations. He is the preeminent seer since Joseph [Smith]. And he said it was the greatest spiritual experience of his life." Marion G. Romney has had many revelations, and Ezra Taft Benson has seen many, many visions. All agreed that it surpassed any previous experience. When BRM was called as a General Authority he had an "incredible experience" that he has shared with family members but forbidden them to tell. His sister, who had asked four years ago if anything had equaled it and had been told no, asked him to compare the two. "There was no comparison," he said.

 

Did they see the same things? If it was "just like Kirtland" they saw and reported different things and concurred in the seeing.

 

President Kimball's grandfather came [appeared] to him at the time he was called [to be a church apostle]. He had the experience of seeing his posterity as yet unborn down through the generations. [And yet] he said that this was the "preeminent religious experience of his life."

 

All were weeping and embracing at the end. President Kimball went around the room and embraced every man there. The Twelve normally have their own meeting afterward, but were "unable to continue." They were completely overcome. President Kimball collected his counselors, though, and said, "We have work too," and held the First Presidency meeting, going through a complete agenda.

 

A family member asked BRM: "Why did you all see it? Why didn't just President Kimball receive it and you receive confirmation of it?" He answered, "Because it will take all thirteen to witness of it in the kinds of changes that will have to take place."

 

Nothing happened for a week, then at the Thursday temple meeting on June 8, they discussed how to announce it. Some wanted to wait until October conference, others for the mission presidents' seminar the following week. BRM argued strongly for immediate release for two reasons: it'll leak, and "we have to beat Satan. He'll do something between now and then to make it appear that we're being forced into it." This course was adopted. Both Elder McConkie and Elder Packer were asked to submit drafts of the announcement. [When] Elder Packer told Elder McConkie that "they chose your draft[,]" Elder McConkie said, "It was the First Presidency's letter."

 

On June 9, the other General Authorities were asked to come to an early meeting, fasting, to the temple. President Kimball told them the decision and asked for responses. Franklin D. Richards spoke first as senior president of the quorum [of the Seventy], followed by BRM again giving an impassioned extemporaneous lecture on the relevant scriptures, and by President Romney: "I have a confession to make. Whenever we've discussed this question, I've assured President Kimball that I would support him fully, but if the decision had been left to me, I would have felt that we've always had that policy and we would stick to it no matter what the opposition. I have now changed my position 180 degrees. I am not just a supporter of this decision. I am an advocate." Every one of the Seventies spoke. According to Dean Larsen, they voiced approval to a man. Marion D. Hanks was reported so overcome that he could not speak. (2:560-64)

 

August 8, 1978

 

Swearing Elders—Reminiscences

. . .

One member of the Quorum of the Twelve, Elder Adam S. Bennion, knew of the group and was sympathetic with it, and I remember one glorious evening when he agreed to meet with us and give us a talk. He chose to build bridges between some members of our group and some of the more critical “orthodox” Brethren.

 

As to the name “Swearing Elders,” I think that was simply a joke. The notices of meetings which I received used the term “Mormon Seminar.” Some people referred to it as McMurrin’s Seminar, since he was either the original organizer or a leading member. I think the term “Swearing Elders” was probably a take-off on an expression which had been used in Mormon folklore for a long time, “Smoking Deacons.” That was the term used to refer to inactives [lapsed members] who became inactives primarily because they started smoking then they were 14 or 15 and felt out of place in church, so they had become Senior Aaronics. I think the term Swearing Elders was simply a humorous takeoff on that. Certainly there was nothing to the word swearing, and I am sure all of these brethren held the Melchizedek Priesthood. (2: 6032, 603-4)

 

September 14, 1978

 

Proud that we were able to produce the wonderful one-volume history The Story of the Latter-day Saints by Ji Allen and Glen Leonard. I recognize that this has been under somewhat of a cloud because of Brother [Ezra Taft] Benson’s and Brother [Mark E.] Petersen’s objections, but others of the Quorum of the Twelve and other General Authorities are very complimentary, and this includes President [Spencer W.] Kimball himself, who says he read it, thought it was splendid, and could not understand why Brother Benson and Brother Petersen did not like it. This is a major step forward in understanding this book and a major step forward in LDS history and is a milestone in LDS historiography. (2:616)

 

October 2, 1979

 

On Friday while I was out of the office, we received the galley proofs of Truman Madsen’s article on B H Roberts and the Book of Mormon not appear in the forthcoming issue of BYU Studies. . . . I also told Truman that we would like for him or Chuck to furnish us 100 reprints which we could then use in mailing out to people who need this article to strengthen their faith in B H Roberts and the Book of Mormon after they had had that faith questioned by George Smith’s paper. I also complimented Truman on the article and thought it would do much good.  (2:939, 940)

 

October 7, 1979

 

President [N. Eldon] Tanner discussed [at general conference] theological contributions of Joseph Smith and Mormonism:

 

1. Concept of godhead. A personal God. Three persons.

2. A personal devil.

3. Free agency.

4. The Priesthood

5. The human body as the tabernacle of the spirit. Word of Wisdom.

6. Salvation for the dead.

7. The principle of eternity. Marriage. (2:841-42)

 

June 17, 1980

 

George also said that he had learned that President Kimball in particular and the First Presidency in general were very angry about Elder Benson’s talk at BYU in which he made the statement that every word spoken by the current prophet must be regarded as from the Lord. They called Elder Benson in and scolded him and caused him to apologize to the First Presidency for those remarks. President Kimball declared that when the Lord spoke to him, that was one thing, but that the Lord did not speak to him on every topic and therefore it was Spencer Kimball talking, not the Lord. (3:62; the talk is in reference to Benson’s “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet,” BYU address given on February 26, 1980)

 

August 14, 1980

 

On Story of the Latter-day Saints, Lowell said that the first difficulty appeared when a person who did not like Jim Allen and his work and the work of historians like him wrote a six-page memo to Elder [Ezra Taft] Benson, objecting to the tone, contents, and wording of the book. Quite possibly Elder Benson did not read all of the memo, but he made a speech to the seminary and institute teachers which sort of put the Twelve [Apostles] on record against the book. Elder Benson has not read the book, but seminaries and institutes, which had ordered many copies of the book, began sending them back. This was at the time when the book had just been out long enough for Deseret Book to have sold about 4000 copies. The memo to Elder Benson was turned over to Elder Petersen, and a subsequent memo was written by one of Elder Petersen’s friends, and elder Petersen then was authorized to tell Deseret Book not to sell any more copies. But Deseret Book had 30,000 copies left. Brother [Marvin J.] Ashton, as president of Deseret Book Co., was then willing to get the approval of the Twelve that they might sell the book but not advertise it nor prominently display it. On that basis 35,000 copies were sold within a year and a half. 35,000 is all they had printed. Lowell says that was one of the most remarkable markets he has seen. (3:102-3)

 

November 11, 1980

 

It has been my secure conviction since my systematic reading began in high school, that the Church believed in truth. This was the essence of what we were taught in our MIA [Mutual Improvement Association] lessons, our Sunday School classes, and our religion courses. This was the essence of the books recommended for us to read: John Widtsoe’s In Search of Truth, john Henry Evans’s Joseph Smith: An American Prophet, Lowell Bennion’s The Religion of the Latter-day Saints. This is what I found as I read the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and the serm[on]s of Brigham Young and others in the Journal of Discourses. This is the way I had been taught in the Moscow [Idaho] Institute of Religion. Consistent with this, I thought my assignment as church Historian was to research the documents and write historical truth. Following that appointment I received, verbally, and in writing, confirmation of that goal in statements of President [Harold B.] Lee, Elder Howard Hunter, Elder Bruce McConkie, and Elder Gordon Hinckley.

 

It has been disturbing to me in recent months to see evidences that some Church officers do not want to promulgate historical truth. The Sunday School manuals on the Old Testament make no pretense of covering biblical scholarship on the Old Testament. The talk to BYU students of Elder McConkie on things one must believe to be a Latter-day Saint rules out the possibility of accepting scientific “truth” about the age of the earth, the evolution of plant and animal life, and the revelations of science about the universe. The refusal of the Church to permit the republication of Story of the Latter-day Saints by [James B.] Allen and [Glen M.] Leonard, which is the best attempt of LDS historians to convey historical truths of our origin and growth. The dissolution of the History Division and transfer of our historians to BYU reflects the Church’s desire to disassociate itself from the publication of historical truth.

 

If they do not want historical truth, what do these officials want? They favor the purveying of traditional truth, which is different from historical truth—not historical truth, scientific truth, or philosophical truth.

 

The scriptures, of course, say, “The glory of God is intelligence”; “A man cannot be saved in ignorance”; “The truth shall make you free”; and so on. But certain theologians—Joseph Fielding Smith, Joseph F. Smith, Bruce McConkie—have pointed out that this is not referring to the truths of physics, chemistry, economics, and sociology, but to the saving truths of the Gospel. Surely, a person can inherit eternal gory without understanding secular truths—academic truths. Only religious truth is essential to salvation.

 

Our religion cannot avoid coming to grips with historical truth, because it is based on historical truth claims—the visit of Moroni, the First Vision, the delivery of the Book of Mormon plates, the restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood, and so on. A predominant school of thought—Bruce McConkie—holds that religious truth rests on testimony and prayer, not research. But if we depend, as we must so heavily, on historical truth to validate our claims to being the one, true Church, how can be avoid depending on research as well?

 

There is inevitably a certain tension between our historical claims and historical events in time. We cannot be immune to scholarly exploration because of the nature of our claims.

 

One can hardly understand the Latter-day Saints without having an understanding of the historical drama which established their group. We are like the Jews in that our sense of history is a distinctive feature. History gives us our sense of identity as a people. This is our distinction; Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Seventh Day Adventists—none of these depend for their identity on history as much as the Latter-day Saints.

 

From a secular standpoint, our history is simply that of any group which struggles to maintain its identity as it copes with political, economic, and religious forces which seek to destroy or limit its uniqueness. Herein lies the tension, for our history is not simply a secular history; it is a sacred history of our relationship to God. Our history discloses our Covenant relationship, tells of God’s intervention on our behalf, of His role in the events that affected us. Our history is a witness to our encounter with God. Our religion is not a set of abstract values and ideas, but a demonstration of God in history—his revelations to Joseph [Smith], His approval of Brigham [Young], His inspiration to Spencer Kimball, and so on. A discussion of Latter-day Saint doctrine misses something unless the history is included, for the history gives power and significance to the doctrine, to our claims, to our lives. Our history must somehow reflect or reveal the historical character of our faith. (3:126-28)

 

December 30, 1980

 

3. The Church of course is the owner of Deseret Book and there is no consensus among “the Brethren” on what should happen to the sesquicentennial history. There are some of the apostles who have supported it, and have recently supported it vigorously in the deliberations (Lowell told me afterwards this included Elders Hinckley, Monson, Ashton with reservations, and Hunter). On the other hand, there are Brethren with seniority who are strongly opposed to publishing any of the books (I gather from remarks afterwards that this includes Elders Benson, Petersen, and Packer). Some of the Brethren (I assume Elder packer) want Deseret Book to buy all the manuscripts and put them away in a safe. That is of course a ridiculous proposition, as everyone will recognize. In any case, there is no consensus. No members of the First Presidency felt strongly enough about it to counteract the very strong statements of opposition made by Elders Benson and Petersen and Packer.

 

4. I should interject at this point something Lowell told me afterwards, that the project was discussed in considerable detail in the meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve on December 11. Because there was no consensus they appointed a committee of the following to meet: Elder Hinckley, Elder Packer, Elder Ashton, Homer Durham, and Lowell Durham. That committee had its meaning on a date not yet revealed to me and they were unable to reach a consensus except on the following proposal which was then mentioned to the board and is now being relayed to me by Lowell. (3:140)

 

April 21, 1987

 

Davis informed me that he had chatted this morning with Everett Cooley about plans to publish the [B. H.] Roberts Book of Mormon transcript. Apparently this has been a special obsession of George D. Smith who has---

 

1. Written to some twenty nationally known scholars asking what they think about the Book of Mormon.

2. Submitted the manuscript to various publishers and finally got an approval from the University of Illinois Press.

3. Got Jan Shipps to urge [press director] Richard Wentworth of University of Illinois Press to publish it.

4. Got Sterling McMurrin to write an introduction.

5. After trying two or three people, not Brigham Madsen to edit it for publication.

 

Davis and I both feel that this is a great mistake, that this will be a disservice to Roberts, to the Book of Mormon, and to the Church, as well as to do Mormon scholarship generally. We are surprised that Brig Madsen would to it, but now that he has agreed to do so, we will chat with him about trying to put the matter in proper context and trying to be fair to B. H. Roberts, the Book of Mormon, and the Church. The need is to have the volume as balanced as possible, and we will advise Brig to do this.

 

Part of the problem is the failure of Truman Madsen[‘s] [biography of Roberts] and Bookcraft Publishers to have anything to say about this. If Truman had put in the chapters on it, obviously the book [by Roberts] never could have been published [without addressing Madsen] and it [Madsen’s book] would have answered in advance the criticism [of the Book of Mormon by Roberts]. (3:187-88)

 

October 14, 1981

 

Michael Marquardt has worked in tandem with Jerald and Sandra Tanner. He could not be trusted. He took microfilms from our reading room and duplicated them. He published material without permission. We denied him the use of the reading room, and should have done so earlier. He is trying to damage the Church, and has no interest in historical truth. (3:228)

 

February 11, 1982

 

2. In his book Agape and eros, Anders Nygren distinguishes between two ways, in which the love of God can be conceptualized. The first he terms “nomos” (law) and the second “agape.” Nygren associates nomos with the Old Testament and regards it as the perspective that God’s love toward an individual is predicated upon the person’s obedience to God’s commandments. “The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him (Psalm 103:17).” In contrast, Nygren associates agape with the New Testament and defines it as a type of love that is given independent of the person’s worthiness to receive it. “God commandeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8) Many mainline Protestant denominations have essentially an agape orientation. Catholicism combines both agape and nomos. Mormonism is highly nomos in its nature. “I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise” (D&C 85:10)”, and “When we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to the law upon which it is predicated. (D&C 130:21).” Problems arise when perceived obedience does not result in anticipated blessings, or if a person believes that personal unworthiness disqualifies him or her from receiving the blessings of the Lord.  A person imbued with a nomos perspective often has feelings of guilt and fear, judges themselves harshly for supposed imperfections. A nomos orientation can also lead us to judge other people on the basis of their participation in Church, or their compliance with the commandments. My counsel is, let’s not go too far in the direction of the nomos outlook; let’s move a little in the direction of the agape concept. I guess another way of saying this is that we should not always expect to have a successful personal life, or successful Church life, merely by being cheerfully obedient to what authorities tell us. . . .

5. Latter-day Saints can learn from reading some of the new translation of the Bible. And they can learn by reading each book as a unit, rather than simply following the common procedure of going from one verse here and another there to prove a certain point. I will never forget the excitement I felt when I took [James] Moffat’s translation of the New Testament and sat down on Sunday afternoon to read in it, and read through the Book of Acts in a half hour. And what a thrill it gave me to read through as a unit, like I might have read an article in a magazine. (3:245-46, 347)

 

May 26, 1983

 

I was informed today by a very good source that in the meeting of the First Presidency and Council of Twelve last Thursday, May 19, President [Gordon B.] Hinckley mentioned that he had learned of the action of some members of the Twelve initiating an investigation of persons who had written for the Seventh East Press, Dialogue, Sunstone, and other “anti-Mormon” publications. He is reported to have said he deplored this. He specifically reprimanded Elders [Boyd K.] Packer and [Mark E] Petersen. “This will have the effect of driving intellectuals out of the Church. The Church cannot afford to lose our intellectuals.” He said specifically they ought to “lay off Sterling McMurrin.” (3:302)

 

January 22, 1989

 

Taught the Gospel Doctrine class today. About 40 people there. Taught Lesson 4, which covered Doctrine and Covenants, 2-3, 5-6, 8-10.

 

I told them there were several topics covered and the teacher might feel freedom in choosing which to cover, so I would cover two[:] 1. Martin Harris. 2. Importance of the Book of Mormon in obtaining a testimony [of truth of LDS Church]. (3:544, emphasis added)

 

July 26, 1989

 

Aspects of “the modern world” that I fail to appreciate.

1. The self-righteousness of modern writers, particularly those of Jewish heritage, who regard the rest of us as bigots and rednecks if we believe in prayers at Commencements, Nativity exhibits, interracial marriages, and stricter controls of pornography.

2. The arrangements under which the wealthiest persons in most communities are medical doctors. They don’t work ay harder than most of us, they didn’t invest any more years in education, they aren’t any smarter than most of us; why should they earn $300,000 a year while the rest of us do well to earn $30,000 or $40,000?

3. The emphasis on sex and sexiness.

4. Modern poetry.

5. Modern novels.

6. Modern art.

7. Modern dance.

8. Modern music.

9. Environmentalists, by demagogic tactics, forcing us to avoid projects of benefit to ordinary citizens so the “wilds” can be protected for us by California millionaires.

10. The commonness of litigation, promoted by unscrupulous lawyers.

11. The [Mormon] Tabernacle Choir and other groups projection of “Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory” [“Battle Hymn of the Republic”] as a national hymn when, in fact, it was the song of the North. They should sing Dixie as well.

12. The insistence on special rights for criminals, rights criminals deny to their victims, thus promoting, or at least not discouraging, crime. The insistence of the National Rifle Association on protecting criminals in the purchase of guns so that one always fear walking down streets specially late at night, for fear of being held up with a legally purchased, legally possessed gun.

(3:559-60; as Bergera notes, “Arrington was overjoyed when the LDS Church repudiated racial discrimination in 1978 but apparently agreed with the advice, which continued to be published in the church’s lesson manuals, encouraging members to ‘marry those who are of the same racial background generally’ [Spencer W. Kimball, quoted in the 1995 Aaronic Priesthood Manual, 127-30” [ibid., 559])

 

September 18, 1989

 

As I get older I recognize more clearly the limitations of the human intellect in his attempts to unravel the mystery of God’s action in the world. Writing good history requires brains, courage, access to archival sources, and appropriate intellectual training and formation. But it also depends on intuition, the daily inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and the inspiration that comes from Sacrament services and individual and collective devotional life. I have not yet come to feel the necessity of frequent attendance at the temple. I think I get as much inspiration watching birds, or looking at the mountains and the wilderness, as participating in the rituals there. The one regret I have is the failure of the Church authorities to recognize that by restricting the use of the archives they are concealing vast riches of inspiration and revelation. (3:581-82, emphasis added)

 

October 6, 1990

 

As for my lecture for the week, I want to complain about white guilt and the granting of preferences to blacks. When Congress passed the Civil Rights Bill in 1964 there was general agreement that employers would not grant radical preferences to rectify racial imbalance. But in the middle sixties was the explosion of black power. Whites were made to feel very guilty and so we must grant preferences to get redemption from that guilt. Elite universities granted concessions in response to black student demands that came very close to racial separation—black dorms, black unions, black yearbooks, black homecoming dances. Blacks have the lowest grade point averages of any racial grip, yet no one dared point out or demand equal performance from them. They must be given scholarships; they must be paid to improve their grades. At Pennsylvania State University a black student who improves his/her grade from C to C+ and gets $550 and anything higher $1,100. There is a shift from black responsibility to white responsibility. University administrators are not expressing a heartfelt feeling of concern as much as compromising their high values and principles (scholarship) to redeem themselves from the feeling of white guilt. Why can we not simply view blacks as American citizens who deserve fairness and in some cases developmental assistance without special entitlements based on color? Why can we not have policies that attack poverty, not black poverty, all the while instilling values of self-reliance? Special entitlements based on color only prolong the hurt; development overcomes it. Japanese, Chinese, Mormons, Jews, have accomplished that. Do we not have reason to expect blacks to do the same? Lecture for the day. (3:590)

 

June 4, 1994

 

I was thinking, while watching President [Ezra Taft] Benson’s funeral [on television], of the four great ideas or movements of the last 150 years:

 

1. Marxism. By this idea I have hardly been touched. I read Marxist literature in connection with my economics classes: biographies of [Karl] Marx and [Vladimir] Lenin, Das Kapital, the Communist Manifesto, various collections of Marxist essays and excerpts. But I did not see any relevance; the theory was faulty, the prescription unthinkable, the assumptions quite wrong.

2. Darwinism. I was early exposed to [Charles] Darwin’s theory of evolution I my zoology class as a freshman at the U. of I [University of Idaho]. It all sounded reasonable and proven. George [S.] tanner helped me to reconcile y faith to it, and I have never had a faith problem with evolution. I believe in the ancient age of the earth, in the existence of dinosaurs, in the existence of pre-Adamites (as they are called), and that all of this is consistent with Mormonism, faith, and good doctrine.

3. Freudianism. [Sigmund] Freud’s explanations of the workings of the human psyche has become part of our vocabulary: ego, inferiority complex, passive-aggressive, dream psychology, I never took a course in psychology, but I read several Freudian books, many articles, and listened to some lectures. I finally found an interpreter, influence by Freud, with whom I could relate: Carl Gustav Jung the Swiss psychiatrist who introduced introvert and extrovert, a system of psychoanalysis consistent with religion, and a theory of the unconscious that seemed reasonable.

4. Historical-critical understanding of the Bible. You have probably heard the least about this because, though popular among Bible students and scholars, it has not reached a wider audience. I was introduced to this by George Tanner in 1936, but I have followed it to some extent in the years since. I regret that there is little of it in Mormon literature. The word critical, by the way, does not mean negative but, rather, free of presuppositions, or, as in my case, self-conscious about one’s presuppositions. It means understanding the Bible as a collection of writings by many authors over more than a thousand years; they contain different points of view, sometimes contradictory understands and formulations of the nature of God and our relationship with Him and other human beings. The Bible may be the word of God but, as we have it, it is the words of Amos and Isaiah, Luke and Paul; and so on.

 

Nor is the usual credit to various ancient figures historically accurate. Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible, David did not write most of the psalms, Solomon did not write the Song of Solomon, Paul did not write the letters to Timothy or Titus, and scholars doubt that Peter had anything to do with the books of Peter. Although the vast majority acknowledge the Bible, much if ot is simply ignored. Most put aside Joshua, with its horrifying narratives of extermination, and Judges with its accounts of patriarchy and sexual assault, and Song of Solomon, which doesn’t mention God and its erotic references and Ecclesiastes with its apparent hedonism. For many, the Bible is little more than an anthology of quotations to be drawn upon as arguments or occasion requires. It is a series of proof texts. From the point of view of the historically-critical method of the Bible can be viewed as a historically conditioned anthology—not a compete and infallible guide to the details of human conduct. A series of signposts pointing the way to a goal that its writers, like us, had not yet reached but were moving toward. Their experience of the divine may have been superior to ours, but they were nevertheless human experiences. (3:626-27)

 

Arrington's Endorsement of John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (1985)

 

The following is the “Foreword,” co-authored by Leonard Arrington, to John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies; Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1985), ix-xii, a book which affirms the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I am including this here as some idiots (including Hannah Stoddard) try to give the impression that Arrington rejected the Book of Mormon as historical, scripture, etc.:

 

Foreword

In 1964 a cynical Gordon H. Fraser published this claim: "The fact that the Book of Mormon is void of any literary content, credible history, biography, romance or ethical teaching, assures that it will not be read or analyzed in a thoughtful manner; hence there is little danger of the average reader studying it to the point of arriving at an opinion as to its credibility."

The book now in your hands demonstrates the error and bias of Fraser's bleak assessment. Here is consistent history. Here are the results of careful reading. Here is information credibly establishing the Book of Mormon in its ancient New World environment.

This book has been many years in preparation and will undoubtedly endure for many years to come. It will become required reading for all people interested in the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. Those who comment on the historicity of Book of Mormon accounts henceforth are irresponsible or uninformed if they ignore or neglect Dr. Sorenson's present work.

Just as this study will be fundamental for future research, it is also the product of a trend toward increasingly serious Book of Mormon scholarship over the past three decades. Many readers of this volume can appreciate how far these studies have come.

During these years, different approaches to Book of Mormon research have been taken. Some have been apologetic, hostile, polemical, or eclectic. Some have represented the book as evidence of the authenticity, fecundity, and power of the Restoration under the leadership of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Early Latter-day Saint scholars like George Reynolds and B. H. Roberts suggested the need for an earnest and systematic examination of the relevant secular literature, but they could only anticipate the day when serious historical and analytical work would be undertaken.

The rise of historical-critical methodologies in biblical studies (which B. H. Roberts once called "hanging heavy weights on slender threads") brought techniques for examining the language and composition of ancient Hebrew scriptures, and these skills have often proved effective in examining the texts of the Book of Mormon. The stunning discovery of documents like the Dead Sea Scrolls also invited LDS scholars to compare Book of Mormon materials with the practices of other ancient religious peoples. Sidney B. Sperry took the linguistic tack; he often said that, on the grounds of his knowledge of Hebrew alone, he knew the Book of Mormon could not have exclusively nineteenth-century origins. For some years, his course at Brigham Young University on "Hebrew Manners and Customs" examined case after case in the Book of Mormon narrative demonstrating the volume's Hebrew background. Hugh W. Nibley and M. Wells Jakeman, meanwhile, looked to context. Jakeman built up a picture of the Book of Mormon's fit in terms of Mesoamerican tradition, while Professor Nibley pursued with astonishing acumen huge quantities of historical materials that put the book squarely into its claimed time and place in the ancient Near East.

But Nibley made no effort to pin down the New World connections. "What of the mighty ruins of Central America?" he pondered. "Until the people who study that area can come to some agreement among themselves as to what they have found, the rest of us cannot very well start drawing conclusions." Such extreme caution can now give way to concrete possibilities. With Dr. Sorenson's approach, the process of spelling out an explicit geographical and archaeological context has begun in earnest. He presents a credible model for an ancient American background for the Book of Mormon. This model takes notice of details given in descriptions of the Book of Mormon lands, of battle movements, of cities built and abandoned, and of demographic data. He suggests that highland Guatemala is a good candidate for the land of Nephi, that the Isthmus of Tehuantepec fits the requirements of the "narrow neck of land," and that hundreds of other facts fall into place as this theory is carried to its logical conclusions. This is a model and hypothesis for other serious Mormon and non-Mormon scholars to consider. Unlike many of his predecessors, Dr. Sorenson insists that this model must not be held sacrosanct. He invites critical as well as confirming considerations.

How does he proceed? In a word, he asks more questions than he answers. Many stones are turned. His words are probing and carefully weighed. Great surprises and rewarding insights await the reader on every page. He asks questions like "Who were these people?" "What might they have looked like?" "Who were their neighbors?" "How many Nephites were there?" "How did they live, eat, speak, work, and fight?" He then finds plausible answers to these questions by matching specific data from reliable archaeological and anthropological studies of Mesoamerica with the entire spectrum of cultural and historical information found in the Book of Mormon. This approach is panoramic and exhilarating. It sees things that have simply never been seen before.

Just as a good question is half an answer, however, a good answer raises yet further questions. This book is never flawed with any pretension that confirmation is final "proof." The most that a scientific approach can do in this realm, as in any other, is to achieve probability. This volume clearly achieves plausibility, although (inescapably) questions still remain. Thus, the religious dimension is "bracketed," however relevant these studies may turn out to be for apologetic purposes. Much to his credit, John Sorenson is acutely and consistently aware of all these limitations.

An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, for the first time, writes Nephite cultural and natural history in the context of American hemispheric reality. While there may always be resistance and controversy surrounding the Book of Mormon, here is a solid invitation to continuing research and comprehension. The book cannot be dismissed, as by Fraser's slightings, with a wave of the hand.

Leonard J. Arrington

Truman G. Madsen

John W. Welch