Leonard James Arrington (July 2, 1917 – February 11, 1999) was an American author, academic and the founder of the Mormon History Association. He is known as the “Dean of Mormon History”[1] and “the Father of Mormon History”[2] because of his many influential contributions to the field. He was the first Church Historian for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) from 1972 to 1982, and was director of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Church History from 1982 until 1986.
From a diary entry dated August 17, 1992, Arrington expressed his frustration with several organizational aspects of the church. He titled this entry “Things I don’t like about the church.” This was his list:
1. The imposition of one pattern for everybody rather than suggesting two or three patterns and letting local wards or stakes or districts follow the one most convenient for them. Examples, the three hour meeting schedule on Sundays.
This is an interesting one. I know there are some areas where a two-hour block is done for local reasons, and in other cases where the institutional church has done it as a pilot program. His suggestion is akin to states rights over national–a preference for local governance over institutional decision-making. I’m not sure who out there is clamoring to keep church at three hours (except the love of status quo).
2. Appointing the highest tithe payers to positions of leadership rather than the most capable or worthy. In choosing stake leaders, the General Authority comes with a list of the 15 or 20 highest tithe payers and starts down the list to choose a stake president and high council.
This is an interesting one. It’s not inconsistent with everything I’ve ever heard before, but I have never heard the angle about being the highest tithe payers. I can’t imagine it would be too difficult to rise to the top of that bucket merely by consistently paying a full tithe, but I’m not sure. It is a bit unsavory if there is preference given to higher earners.
3. The maintenance of a disloyalty file on liberals, including articles they’ve written with questionable statements, newspaper clippings. These are used against the person without him or her knowing what is in the file and having a chance to deny or explain it. The supposition is that liberals are out to destroy or embarrass the church, a supposition entirely false.
This one is pretty terrible, and given the timing of when he wrote it, it’s particularly disturbing. Mere weeks later saw the infamous excommunications known as the September Six. This appears to still be done.
4. The insistence on unanimity among the Twelve, which means that the most obstinate member, the one holding out against the rest, wins.
I have blogged about this before, the fact that in group dynamics, when unanimity is required, the inflexible person carries the day; rigidity is rewarded.
5. The insistence on choosing a new president from the senior member of the Twelve. This means we’ll always have a president far beyond his energetic, creative period of life. We should retire persons from the Twelve at age 75 and never choose anyone over that age to be president of the Church.
Interesting that he wrote this when he was 75. I have often thought we should do 72.
6. The First Presidency and Twelve should call a person in to talk with him/her before putting that person on the blacklist, not to be cited, his/her books not to be sold in Church bookstores, not to be allowed to speak in Church, etc.
I believe he’s talking about Mormon authors and other Mormon speakers and writers rather than those undergoing church discipline. And I would agree that this is reasonable and would probably result in fewer allies being made into enemies.
7. The Church should allow historians to present “human” material in biographies of presidents and General Authorities.
This is clearly a theme for his life’s work. As a historian, he was aware of the warts and all versions of the lives of Mormon figures, but he often felt constrained by the quorum of the Twelve not to share information they felt was embarrassing or unflattering. This has clearly backfired all over the place now that Google exists.
8. We should allow women to be associates to the Twelve and sit in on their meetings. The Relief Society president should sit in on bishopric meetings. Mothers should be allowed to stand in the circle to bless their babies, confirm newly baptized persons as members of the Church, just as they now can open and close meetings with prayer.
There are now women in the Ward Council meetings which many wards favor over male-only meetings for decision-making. I’m not aware of women being included in meetings with the Twelve, however, and female input is an obvious blind spot for this group. Women are only for the first time being invited into councils at the highest levels in the church, but to do so they had to add “and Family” to the names of these groups as if that’s the only way women can be invited to contribute, a very limited perspective. The church’s prohibition on women holding their babies during a baby blessing is very hurtful and has been rigidly enforced in the handbook despite how nasty and exclusionary it feels to women who just gave birth. Arrington’s suggestions go beyond what many women have even asked for themselves. I also note that in all his writing, he uses gender neutral pronouns–even when he’s talking about strictly male positions! He’s very inclusive.
9. The manuals used in adult Sunday School, Priesthood, and Relief Society classes are absolutely hopeless. Using the same gospel doctrine manual every fourth year; the same with Priesthood manuals. Hopeless. Why can’t they assign a skilled and experienced writer to do a new manual every year?
I can’t say these have gotten better since he wrote this in 1992. The manuals need a serious overhaul. Hopefully, E. Uchtdorf will make headway on these with the right talent being appointed to rewrite them.
There were a few other choice quotes from Arrington’s biography in this same section. He talked about temple attendance in a letter to his children:
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.
I have to agree with him there. He also wrote the following to his children, a few months before his death in 1999:
There are LDS families in which loyalty to Mormon doctrines, practices, and leaders is so strong that the children feel they have to conform in order to assure the love of their parents. The parents love the church more than their children. Children sense that the parents would choose the church over their children if there was that choice. Young people are sometimes brought up to idealize church leaders, both past and present. But no human being is perfectly benevolent and wise. Leaders have their own life stories, complete with biases, fears, and needs as well as unique strengths and gifts. They can seek for the Spirit–for the Light–but they are still human.
Clearly someone who saw the very human side of church leaders could easily see that too much fealty to humans was unwise and would have some unforeseen negative outcomes. I’ve only just scratched the surface of the book, but so far, I can tell Leonard Arrington and I are kindred spirits.
- What do you think of his nine points? Are some more relevant than others?
- Do any of them surprise you? Are there some you dislike?
- Have you ever made your own similar list? What’s on it?
Discuss.
I think they are all great points and it is interesting coming from someone at such a high level in church. None of them surprise me (other than someone in his position would write them) and I like them all.
I have tried to compile my set of issues but I tire of the list and move on with life. Plus it can be discouraging given that I don’t think even a fraction will be changed in my lifetime and many not even in the lifetime of my children.
Quite a forward looking list for 1992. Ironically, in the past two years I’ve come to agree with every single point on his list but in 1992 I would have considered him a dangerous radical.
I can agree with many of the points. However, I may disagree with point 4, as I like the unity by the 12. I don’t think it is just whoever is the most stubborn wins. I believe these are opinionated, but humble men. See what Elder Erying says about this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8tccvnKEy0&feature=youtu.be
Onandagus, Humble would not be a word I would use for BRM and his magnum opus “Mormon Doctrine”
Great list, I agree with everything. I love the Church and hope we can mature and grow moving forward. Sadly, this quote sums up where we are now and I fear the current trajectory. “If change and growth are not programmed into your spirituality, if there are not serious warnings about the blinding nature of fear and fanaticism, your religion will always end up worshiping the status quo and protecting your present ego position and personal advantage as if it were God.”
― Richard Rohr, Falling Upward: A Spirituality for the Two Halves of Life
It’s a nice list of items to improve, particularly for 1992. Sadly, it is 2018 and we can still make almost the same list. Change. Happens. Very. Slowly. Around. Here. It is a poorly managed organization that cannot change when change is urgently needed.
The trick to implementing positive change is not to make the list, it is to marshal political support among senior LDS leaders, secure institutional approval, and then overcome bureaucratic and cultural inertia (which will almost always act to thwart the approved change). I suspect the constant insistence that there is no politics within the leadership is a barrier to getting political support for change among the leadership.
“2. Appointing the highest tithe payers to positions of leadership rather than the most capable or worthy. In choosing stake leaders, the General Authority comes with a list of the 15 or 20 highest tithe payers and starts down the list to choose a stake president and high council.”
Well there you go. As a teen, I always took note at the fact that Stake Presidency were all lawyers and doctors. I always assumed it was because they highly educated.
Great article. My compliments.
I’ll never forget the first time I read this list from Leonard’s personal journal. As I read these words, I sat in stunned silence. I read them again…and yet again. Afterwards, I thought “someone has just put into words, the way I have come to feel about the organized church. I had a feeling of almost overwhelming comfort rush over me…to realize and understand that I truly was not alone in my reflections.
The following is a letter which I wrote to the author (Dr. Gregory Prince) shortly after the release of this book. (It has changed my life for the better.)
Dr. Gregory Prince
Madison House Autism Foundation
15201 Shady Grove Road
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Dear Dr. Prince:
My name is _________and I’m from the great little town of _____, Utah. I’m writing today to let you know that I’ve just completed reading your book Leonard Arrington and The Writing of Mormon History. I’m so pleased to inform you that it has very quickly rocketed to the top of my reading list; and has undeniably become one of my favorite books of all time!
You might find it interesting to know that I’ve really wrestled with my faith in the LDS Church and its leaders for several years now; mostly due to my focused research into what’s real in Mormonism versus what is mythology and public relations spin. I also freely admit that having raised and loved a severely Autistic daughter for the past 25 years, has taken a toll (emotionally, physically and spiritually) on my resolve to continue believing in a loving Heavenly Father.
However, I’ve FINALLY found a kindred spirit, a searcher for truth, a “salt of the earth” good man in Leonard Arrington. Thank you so much for introducing me to this great soul and his simple faith. I’ve rarely loved a reading experience as much as I’ve delighted in devouring this narrative. God bless you for the work you’ve done (and continue to do) to bring the truth of things to light.
Warmest regards,
My post script to Dr. Prince:.
Note: I’ve loved listening to you on Radio West and Mormon Stories; your comments and perspective have been a great comfort to me. Also, I understand that you have an Autistic son. This simply makes me admire and appreciate you even more. God bless.
While I note the Church’s predilection to choose stake presidents who happen to be among the wealthiest in a stake, my father was a stake president in an East Coast stake full of Wash DC lawyers. I’m pretty sure my father, a fairly new retired Air Force Lt Col, nor his predecessor would have made the list of top 20 wealthiest in the stake. I take Arrington’s point as a general observation but not a hard fast rule.
I attended a class he participated in. I also talked with him on one occasion about faith. I came away thinking he knows a lot about the church but I wondered if he had experiences that created a testimony.
I think some people get wore out with the church and church organization after a life time of attendance. There are things on his 9 point list I can relate too. If Leonard could talk to us today, would he be pleased that his list got published?
@dave-
Occupational prestige and earnings generally are similar. Your dad certainly hit a prestige note given his location.
Jared: “If Leonard could talk to us today, would he be pleased that his list got published?” I’m not sure, but two points: 1) this biography isn’t the only place it’s been published, and 2) his family members who granted access to it for publication weren’t concerned. “I came away thinking he knows a lot about the church but I wondered if he had experiences that created a testimony.” That remark sounds like every comment you’ve ever made in a Mormon discussion that I’ve seen. It seems that you enjoy the role of testimony police. If that’s your jam, whatever, but I have also found that it’s really hard to judge what qualifies as a testimony in another person.
Hawkgrrrl another great post.
I have taught the Gospel Doctrine Class for a number of years then a Mission break then came home to teach the YSA class….the lesson manuals are terrible….it’s an embarrassment and the youth is even worse….I spent a lot of my professional life writing curriculum and given the wonderful resources available now the manuals could be so exciting and full of resources and levels of understanding.
One gets the feeling that the church wants to bore its people whitless ?
On the other issues how could anyone disagree….?
The only one I would add is that the influence on a unhealthy western romantic culture is for me as a ‘foreigner’ who has lived in ‘the valley’ THE prime reason for the churches inability to move…to much ‘self speak ..self talk’ which goes round and round but nowhere….