In Robert Graves' great historical novel, I, Claudius, the future Roman emperor and aspiring young historian Claudius meets two older historians in a library. Livy advocates writing history as a saga that expresses spiritual truths; Pollio says that facts are the most important elements in telling the story. Claudius comes to see that both views must be reconciled, and as he ascends to the throne he cleverly and quietly writes the true history of the empire while recording his own transcendental experiences along the way. The poignancy of Claudius' quest is mirrored in Leonard Arrington's fine new memoir, Adventures of a Church Historian.

Arrington is one of the most distinguished historians the LDS church has produced, along with Richard Bushman and Laurel Thatcher Ulrich. He has lived a full life, which he describes in his book; growing up poor in Idaho; high academic honors in college and graduate school; service in the U.S. Army during World War II in Italy and North Africa as an economist and administrator; author of many exceptional books and articles on Mormon history; and becoming the first non-general authority church historian in 1972.

The most important aspect of this book is the spirit it radiates. The faithfulness, charity, warmth, and humor in it are very moving. Arrington says that his approach to writing history has always been to join reason and faith in a large context and common sense and testimony. Candor and honesty are vital; we need only believe things that are true. Touchingly, Arrington writs for the first time of the revelatory spiritual experiences had had in his career: "a feeling of ecstasy suddenly came over me -- an exhilaration that transported me to a higher level of consciousness" (page 28). He felt that the Lord had given him a special errand in chronicling LDS history. These divine encounters helped sustain him throughout the difficulties he would meet in carring out his errand.

This relatively short book is full to bursting with Arrington's fascinating stories stories. The chapter about African-Americans receiving the priesthood in 1978 alone is worth the price of the book. He relates his first intimidating interview with President Joseph Fielding Smith and his subsequent discovery of that man's puckish sense of humor. He describes his graduate school time in North Carolina and the influence on him of the southern school of agrarian thought (otherwise known as "the fugitives") -- Robert Penn Warren, Allen Tate, and others. "They championed a revival of moral values and religious faith . . . an authentic American conservatism." (page 25; this is an interesting intellectual confession from a man who in the past has been carelessly labeled as a "liberal".) He recounts his church service at Utah State University and the coming together in the 60's of a "fraternity" of Mormon history scholars. His account of the founding of the LDS Historical Department is a rare and admirable glimpse into church leadership decision-making.

Arrington assembled a talented team of scholars and proceeded to professionalize the archives and write history. Their accomplishments in the decade of "Camelot" (their nickname for Arrington's time in office) were abundant. The best known fruits of their efforts are: "The Story of the Latter-day Saints" by James Allen and Glen Leonard, a very influential book in the 70's: Arrington and Davis Bitton's "The Mormon Experience", still the best one volume work about the church in general; and Arrington's masterful biography of Brigham Young. However, the church historian began to get opposition to his program. Even though he was supported by Presidents Harold B. Lee and Spencer W. Kimball, and Elders N. Eldon Tanner, Howard W. Hunter Alvin Dyer, Joseph Anderson (and most surprisingly and gratifyingly, Bruce R. McConkie) and others, the church leadership was a collective enterprise in which the determined opposition of one, two, or three apostles could carry a great deal of weight. This is what happened when some conservative general authorities attacked Arrington and company's interpretations of the past. They wanted, wrote Arrington in his journal, a church historian "who (1) has written little history; (2) saturates history with scriptural allusions and references; and (3) obstinately refuses to mention controversial episodes" (page 156). Arrington is forthright in naming the names of his adversaries. There was also an element of bureaucratic turf battle in the controversy, Arrington writes. The Correlation committee was determined to bring the writing of church history under their control. Eventually that committee blacklisted all History Division works from church manuals and publications (along with the writings of Eugene England and Lowell Bennion.) The History Division was eventually reduced in numbers by attrition and moved away from church headquarters to BYU. Through all this Arrington kept his integrity and remained a humble servant of God. He considers the story of the History Division as akin to that of Zion's Camp; perhaps initially perceived as ending in failure, but with real potential for great things in later years.

While remaining a faithful latter-day Saint, Arrington retains an admirable independence of mind and spirit. I think he identifies with the 19th century Salt Lake bishop Edwin Woolley (an ancestor of Spencer W. Kimball and a man about whom Arrington has extensively written.) Once, after a disagreement, Brigham Young told Woolley "Well, I suppose you are going to go off and apostatize." Woolley replied, "No, I wont. If this were your church I might, but it's just as much mine as yours."

In my opinion, this is the best Mormon book of the year; an instant classic. It is a gripping and riveting read, in an odd sort of way for a church memoir. It was Arrington and associates (along with Samuel W. Taylor) who helped light the fire of my testimony when I was just a kid, and for that I will be eternally grateful. There seems to be a cease-fire in the "history wars" on the publication of this book; a little surprisingly, it is available at Deseret Book. This has to be because everyone finally recognizes both what a good old man Arrington is and the truly wonderful nature of his contribution.

R.W. Rasband
Heber City, UT
wh958@victoria.tc.ca