In Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? we demonstrated that the Mormon leaders suppressed important Church documents and that we exerted a great deal of pressure in an attempt to force the release of these documents. Some of the more liberal Mormon scholars became very aroused over the policy of suppression. A group of these scholars presented the Mormon leaders with a list of suggestions on how they should run the Historian’s Office. They wanted a trained historian to be appointed as the Church Historian. They also wanted the records to be made available to scholars and for the Church itself to start printing the rare documents. When we heard of these requests we could not see how the Church leaders could possibly comply with them without undermining the entire foundation of the Church. Take, for instance, the idea of appointing a qualified historian. A true historian, if he were honest with himself, could never approve of the methods used by Joseph Fielding Smith and other Church Historians in the past. Besides, it had become traditional for a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to fill this position. It seemed very unlikely, then, that the Church would appoint a trained historian, but on Jan. 15, 1972, we received a real surprise when we read the following in the Salt Lake Tribune:

Dr. Leonard J. Arrington, noted Utah educator and author, has been named historian of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, . . . Howard W. Hunter of the Council of Twelve Apostles will be released . . .

While Dr. Arrington is an active Mormon, many people consider him to be very liberal. At one time Arrington had openly criticized the Church for not publishing the diaries of the early Mormon leaders and for not permitting “qualified historians to use them without restriction” (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1966, page 26).

While the appointment of Leonard Arrington as Church Historian was certainly a surprise, the choice of James B. Allen and Davis Bitton as assistant historians made some wonder what direction the Church was headed in. Allen had previously published an article which undermined Joseph Smith’s story of the First Vision, and Bitton had written an article in which he made an attack on the accuracy of Joseph Smith’s History of the Church. Now, what could the Church leaders have had in mind when they appointed such liberals to the Church Historian’s Office? The only reasonable explanation is that the policy of suppressing the records had failed and that the Mormon leaders were trying to present a new image to the world. They were apparently going to try to make it appear that they were proud of the records they had suppressed for so many years.

In any case, after his appointment, Dr. Arrington announced great plans for the Historical Department. Many of them, however, have been thwarted by men who follow the philosophy of Ezra Taft Benson, President of the Council of the Twelve Apostles. Benson is a man who believes that it is wrong to tell the whole truth about Mormon history. He believes, in other words, that there should be a cover-up with regard to certain things that have occurred in the past. Arrington, on the other hand, is more open and scholarly in his approach.

Dr. Arrington’s problems began just after his appointment to the office of Church Historian when he announced the formation of a group known as “Friends of Church History.” When about 500 people showed up for the first meeting, the General Authorities apparently became fearful that such a large group studying history might uncover things which would prove embarrassing to the Church. Orders were given to hold up the project, and no meetings have been held since November 30, 1972 (see Answering Dr. Clandestine, page 41). Although no official announcement has ever been made, it is reasonable to assume that “Friends of Church History” is now defunct.

Some of Dr. Arrington’s other projects seem to be endangered by the attitude of the General Authorities. One of his dreams was to have the Church publish a one-volume history. This dream seemed to become a reality in 1976 when James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard produced the book The Story of the Latter-day Saints. In the Foreword to this book, Dr. Arrington said that “two of our finest historians” had been assigned to the project—as we have already pointed out, James B. Allen is Assistant Church Historian. Dr. Arrington went on to state that he had personally approved the manuscript for publication. Although most Mormons would consider this a harmless publication, President Benson felt that it was too humanistic and it is rumored that he wanted it shredded. In a letter dated June 23, 1978, President Benson stated: “The book, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, will not be republished.” It appears, therefore, that as far as Mormon history is concerned, the views of Leonard Arrington and Ezra Taft Benson are diametrically opposed.

Leonard Arrington’s most important project was to oversee the production of a sixteen-volume sesquicentennial history of the Mormon Church. These volumes were to be authored by prominent Mormon scholars. The Salt Lake Tribune for April 26, 1975, quoted Dr. Arrington as saying:

“We have signed contracts with 16 persons, each of whom is writing one volume of the set,” said the church historian. “Each requires several years of intensive research and none will be available before 1978. We hope all 16 volumes will be ready by 1980.”

The original idea behind the project was to have the volumes ready for the 150th anniversary of the Church—the sesquicentennial celebration of 1980. While Dr. Arrington said he hoped “all 16 volumes will be ready by 1980,” 1982 has arrived and not a single volume has been published!

From what we have been able to determine, some of the scholars who were working on the volumes were too frank in their presentation and this caused great consternation among some of the Apostles. Since that time Church leaders have been dragging their feet in an effort to delay or even cancel publication of the volumes. The Church leaders find themselves in a difficult situation, however, since Deseret Book Company had signed an agreement with the sixteen authors which would be binding in court. In order to suppress the history without the possibility of lawsuits, the General Authorities decided to pay each author who had finished his work $20,000 (those who have not completed their volumes were to receive a smaller amount). Since there were sixteen authors to be paid off and other costs involved, the Church may have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars. That the General Authorities would approve this massive project and then abort it after some of the Church’s top scholars spent years working on it shows a total lack of inspiration.

In the Salt Lake City Messenger, January 1979, we observed:

There is reason to believe that Benson wants to remove Arrington from his position as Church Historian. Some feel that he will gradually be “phased out.” It is also reported that it is becoming increasingly difficult for Mormon scholars to get access to documents in the Historical Dept. If Dr. Arrington should survive under the leadership of President Spencer W. Kimball, it is very unlikely that he will remain Church Historian if Ezra Taft Benson becomes President.

It now appears that the Church has begun the process of “phasing out” Dr. Arrington. The Salt Lake Tribune for July 3, 1980, announced:

PROVO (AP) — The history research division of the Mormon church’s historical department will move to Brigham Young University, officials announced Wednesday.

The department’s library and archives division and arts and sites division will remain at the church’s Salt Lake City headquarters, said church President Spencer W. Kimball. . . .

Director of the new institute will be Dr. Leonard J. Arrington, church historian.

Most of the division’s personnel will be transferred to BYU, where they will become part of the faculty and staff.

Although President Kimball tries to persuade members of the Church that “This transfer of the work of professional historians from a Church department to an institute in the university is a forward step,” (Deseret News, Church Section, July 5, 1980), it is obvious to anyone who really examines the situation that this is a real demotion for Church Historian Leonard Arrington. While he may remain Church Historian in name, it is clear now that Church leaders have removed the powers which used to go with this title. Before Arrington’s appointment, the Church Historian had charge of the records and would make decisions as to who could see the various documents. Now it appears that there will be about a forty-five mile gap between the Church Historian and the church records—i.e., the distance between Provo and Salt Lake City:

Dr. Arrington and some History Division staff members eventually will move to the BYU campus but, the institute has not yet been assigned a particular building or office area in Provo. The Church’s library and archives will remain in Salt Lake City. (Deseret News, Church Section, July 5, 1980)

It is obvious, then, that Church leaders want to get Dr. Arrington as far away from the Church Office Building as possible and to reduce his influence with the Mormon people. It has been claimed that it will not be too long before Arrington retires, and planning the move and setting up operations in Provo will no doubt take up much of his remaining time.

There now seems to be a question as to whether Dr. Arrington can even be referred to as “Church Historian.” Sometime after he was installed as Church Historian he was given the title “Director of the History Division.” It is reported that when Dr. Arrington was asked about whether he was still “Church Historian,” he replied that he had been sustained in conference as the Church Historian and had never been released from that position; therefore, he still retained the title “Church Historian.” Although he was referred to as “the Church Historian” in the March 1979 issue of The Ensign (page 51), a recent advertisement for a book by Arrington and Bitton seems to indicate that he no longer claims the title:

For many years Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton served as Church Historian and Assistant Church Historian for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Arrington is currently Director of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Church History at Brigham Young University and Bitton is Professor of History at the University of Utah. (Sunstone Review, vol. 1, no. 3, page 23)

The reader will remember that Apostle Boyd K. Packer criticized a historian for trying to “convince everyone that the prophet was a man.” Interestingly enough, the new book by Arrington and Bitton, which deals with “two apostles” and other Mormons, is entitled Saints Without Halos: The Human Side of Mormon History. It is also interesting to note that this new book is NOT being published by the Church but rather by Signature Books in Salt Lake City.

Although Dr. Arrington is trying to be very gracious about the whole matter, it is obvious that the Church leaders have stubbornly opposed his plans to get out an accurate history of the Church. Nevertheless, many important documents have come out of the Historical Department since Dr. Arrington became Historian, and these documents have really helped us in the production of the new edition of Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?