Reddit reviews Brigham Young: American Moses

Oooo this is my wheelhouse!

First, I would recommend looking at the Mormon History Association Best Book awards going back to 1966. Quality scholarship, research, and writing are a mainstay with them.

Required reading:

Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet by John Turner / Brigham Young: American Moses by Leonard Arrington

Considered two of the best books about early Utah and the Brigham Young years. Arrington's book was considered groundbreaking when he wrote it, and Turner's book brings in the valuable perspective of the non-Mormon writing about Young. For many Mormons, Turner's book will be less sympathetic to Young than Arrington's, but Turner also worked closely with the Church Archives (and spoke glowingly about them and that process), so his research had access to some better sources. If you need a primer for Brigham Young, I recommend Arrington's book. For a Brigham Young graduate level course, I recommend Turner.

Early Mormonism and the Magic Worldview by Michael Quinn

To understand much of what happened in early Mormonism, you must understand the role that folk magic played in the lives of Americans in the 1800s. Quinn's research at this time was top notch, and he was a quickly rising star among Mormon historians. Considered one of his best works, and foundational to the understanding things like seer stones, divining rods, visions, and everything else that happened in the early church days.

David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Greg Prince

Covers late 1940s - 1960s Mormonism, one of the "rising moments" of Mormonism when we went from a Utah-church to a worldwide church. Prince had amazing access to the journals of President McKay's secretary, which led to some candid discussions about things like the publishing of Mormon Doctrine by McConkie, blacks and the priesthood, ecumenical outreach, and politics.

Spencer W. Kimball by Edward Kimball / Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball by Edward Kimball

Ed was Pres. Kimball's son, and the books cover both the apostle years and presidency years of Spencer W. Kimball. If you had to choose one, get Lengthen Your Stride, but make sure it has the CD that comes with the book. This has the unabridged manuscript prior to the Deseret Book edits, which is much more interesting.

By the Hand of Mormon by Terryl Givens (heck...anything by Terryl Givens!)

I'll admit - I'm a Terryl Givens fanboy. By the Hand of Mormon was the one that first got me in to him, mostly because he took the Book of Mormon as a serious work of literature to examine it's merits. It's not as devotional as many traditional LDS books about the Book of Mormon (it was put out by Oxford University Press), but it really gave me a deeper appreciation for the Book of Mormon as contemporary literature. Also check out Viper on the Hearth (Mormons on myth and heresy), People of Paradox (Mormon culture), When Souls had Wings (the pre-existence in Western thought), and so many others.

And just because I'm a big book nerd, here's the list of books that are on my desk right now that I can give you quick reviews if you want:

• Leonard Arrington and the Writing of Mormon History by Greg Prince
  
• The Mormon Jesus: A Biography by John Turner
  
• Mormon Feminism: Essential Writings, edited by Brooks, Steenblik and Wheelwright
  
• Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness by W. Paul Reeve
  
• Pedestals and Podiums: Utah Women, Religious Authority and Equal Rights by Martha Sonntag Bradley
  
• A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine & Church History, edited by Laura Harris Hales
  
• Glorious in Persecution: Joseph Smith, American Prophet 1839-1844 by Martha Bradley Evans
  
• The Mormon Church & Blacks: A Documentary History, edited by Harris & Bringhurst
  
• From the Outside Looking In: Essays on Mormon History, Theology and Culture, edited by Neilson & Grow
  
• Out of Obscurity: Mormonism since 1945, edited by Mason & Turner
  
• Mormonism & American Politics, edited by Balmer & Riess
  
• Seeking the Promised Land: Mormons and American Politics by Campbell, Green & Monson
  
• A Book of Mormons: Latter-day Saints on a Modern-Day Zion, edited by Jensen & McKay-Lamb
  
• Revelations in Context: The Stories Behind the Sections of the Doctrine & Covenants by the LDS Church
  
• Natural Born Seer: Joseph Smith, American Prophet, 1805-1830 by Richard S. Van Wagoner
  
• Revelatory Events: Three Case Studies of the Emergence of New Spiritual Paths by Ann Taves (looking at Mormonism, Alcoholics Anonymous and A Course in Miracles)
  
• A House Full of Females: Plural Marriage and Women's Rights in Early Mormonism, 1835-1870 by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
  
• Baring Witness: 36 Mormon Women Talk Candidly about Love, Sex, and Marriage edited by Holly Welker

It does feel late. Especially when our history seems to be such a big part of our identity and even our Sunday school curriculum. There are a lot of reasons why it's taken us this long to get to where we're at. (I'm gonna get reeeeeeally long-winded here, so prepare yourself!)

Whenever this conversation comes up, I'm reminded of a story that I've now heard told several times by an older friend of mine. Back in the 1960s-early 70s, a student or a researcher could visit the church historian's office, but before they left one staff member in particular would always ask to see their notes and would confiscate them on the spot! (Evidently this wasn't a huge issue, because a smart researcher would use carbon paper, dutifully surrender the originals, and keep the copy hidden away!) I often think of that pharisaically diligent staff member who tried so hard to "protect" the church's reputation. What he did sounds ridiculous now, but I can understand the instinct. A well-researched article on any aspect of Mormon history will use the exact same primary sources as the most fire-breathing anti-Mormon piece out there on the same historical topic. So by carefully restricting access to the originals you guarantee that the information won't be used for evil purposes, right? (There's heavy sarcasm in that last sentence, btw.)

Frankly, that's been the instinct within the church for a long time now (I mean the church as an institution or a bureaucracy). It seemed easier to "protect" the church by restricting access to information. But that's not a tenable strategy anymore—not with the internet.

In the 1970s, there was a push to professionalize the church's archives. They began to hire staff with archival and librarian training. They modernized their cataloging and began to create professional inventories for their collections. They created collecting strategies and began to purchase books to create an up-to-date research library. The historian's office turned from being a back room where we stored old stuff to an actual research institution with a staffed research room where approved students and historians came to do research.

With increased staff and visibility, the church’s old historian's office/archives was renamed as the historical department and Leonard Arrington was hired as director. Nowadays, the time that Arrington was director is referred to as "Camelot" because it was a supposed golden age. Arrington was a prolific writer, and he was a mover and a shaker. Among other things he hired a bunch of bright college kids/young historians as part of an ambitious project to write a series of monographs on church history.

This was a huge step away from the old, strictly devotional, Daughters of the Utah Pioneers type of history (not to bash the DUP—it’s just that they’re not known for their academic rigor). These were college-trained historians and they essentially had free access to the archives. I believe that some in the church (again, I’m talking the bureaucracy/institutional church throughout this entire comment) wanted to be progressive and professional, but some were anxious to “protect” the church too, and so having in-house historians write history was the best compromise—it disseminated information from the church’s collections to church membership, but restricted access to the originals to historians who were trusted members of the church in good standing. The projected series was never published in the way Arrington envisioned, but most of the proposed books were eventually published (for example, Heavens Resound, Nauvoo, Brigham Young: American Moses). Arrington fostered and encouraged an entire generation of historians. The field of Mormon history would not be half as rich or diverse today without Arrington’s support 20-30 years ago. Nor would we have the Joseph Smith Papers without Arrington (I’ll get to that in a moment).

In some respects, the 1980s-90s were bad decades for church history. Mark Hofmann started selling documents to the church in the early 1980s. Stuff like the Salamander letter (that obviously we later learned was forged) placed a lot of scrutiny on our history—and our historians. I don’t know a lot of details about the whys and wherefores, but I suspect that the “new” material Hofmann presented created enough of a controversy that those who were always anxious about protecting the church’s reputation then had the momentum to transition Arrington out the historical department. The compromise was the creation of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Church History at BYU where Arrington and many of the historians under him moved around 1981 and continued to write history. (It was probably better that way in the end.) The Hofmann murders in 1985 were awful and tragic in and of themselves, but they also put the church on the defensive. Gone were the days of the open archives, and the pendulum swung to the other side to safe conservatism. Access to church materials became more restricted as a general policy, and some would say that something of an anti-intellectual bent developed in the church as shown in matters such as the September Six that included the excommunication of historians in the early 1990s. I’ve been told that historical department staff were even discouraged by their bosses from membership in the Mormon History Association (an organization that Arrington helped to found). During these years, good articles and books were still written on church history and the archives were used by researchers both Mormon and non-Mormon--but it wasn’t Camelot anymore. It seemed that the atmosphere wasn’t as optimistic as it used to be.

In a way, the Joseph Smith Papers were first published in the 1980s. Dean Jessee, a historical department employee, was given the church’s blessing to publish a volume of Joseph Smith’s writings in 1984. A second volume followed in 1989, and he had a third ready for the press when he was told by higher ups to shelve the project. He did. Fast forward to the late 1990s and Larry and Gail Miller. The Millers are fairly famous in northern Utah—they own the Salt Lake Jazz and a bunch of car dealerships and other properties. The Millers had a friend who had a friend who worked in the church archives, and long story short the Millers asked if there was an interesting history project somewhere that could benefit from funding. This fellow thought of Jessee’s shelved project, got together with the Millers and some other researchers and they decided to revive the project as the Joseph Smith Papers.

(cont.)