Also, on the subject of “sources of strain”, I was really hoping that Terryl Givens’ last book People of Paradox would be a contribution, or an update, on O’Dea’s writings on the matter. In my opinion, it showed a disappointing lack of depth in that regard.

Amen and Amen!

I think that some of this tension is loosening while many more people are becoming more interested in “scholarly” history. From my experience, the lay member of the Church is much more likely to appreciate certain views if they personally know someone who holds them. When they realize that someone they know, trust, and admire is willing to look at history in a “scholarly” way, they suddenly think, “hey, since person X thinks its ok, then there must be some merit to it.”

My general concern has been with the rank-and-file members of the Church with whom I rub elbows who don’t seem to spend much time thinking about the gospel in depth, as far as I can tell. Some even seem a little suspicious that I like to research Church history and religious doctrine in general. Then I come online and feel like the smallest fish in the biggest pond. If only I knew some people who were really interested in my day-to-day non-internet life!

I’m glad and encouraged by reports like this, and I’ve heard many of them in the recent past.

kevinf,

Thanks for your comments. I think you’re probably correct in your assessment, and I think (hope?) the church and its scholars are better prepared to handle the “honest evaluation of the church’s history” than they were in Arrington’s day.

I think we’ve come a fair distance since then, and I certainly see a refreshing new approach to church history that is on a par with the “Camelot” of Leonard Arrinton’s days. These things do tend to run in cycles, but the pendulum swings seem to be moving further towards an honest evaluation of the church’s history. I found RSR fascinating, challenging on some levels, but ultimately strengthening my testimony of Joseph Smith. Others that I have talked with, though, have been critical or dismissive of Bushman’s work.

Wasn’t it Joseph Smith himself who said, “By proving contraries, truth is made manifest”? The tension O’Dea wrote about I think will always be present, but is vital for the church to continue to grow and mature. Our history is so tied up with our doctrine that we can’t ignore it, and how we handle it now will help to set a tone for the decades to come.

I love paradoxes, usually.

J., interesting observation about “the young folk.” I think you make a valid point. And I like your analogy to a family.

Nate, I think that you’re right that it’s good to approach the situation as evidence of “a healthy diversity of opinion.”

Eric, I don’t want to turn this thread into a forum for arguing the merits of Helen Whitney’s film. My reaction of disappointment would have been much different if my friend has seen The Mormons and wasn’t pleased with it. That’s fair. What seems sad to me is the idea that some Latter-day Saints can’t approach their faith in an intellectual or critical manner at all, and refuse to even view or read anything resembling an academic narrative of Church history.