Ten Years in Camelot
As I watch the Ultimate Fighter on Spike, I thought I would highlight once again an article from the Dialogue archives. This time I want to highlight an essay of the late Davis Bitton, “Ten Years in Camelot: A Personal Memoir,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 16/3 (Autumn 1983): 9-20. You may read it here. In this classic piece, Davis tells the story from his personal perspective of the heady years of the Church History Division under Church Historian Leonard Arrington, from 1972 to 1982.
Davis and Jim Allen were Assistant Church Historians under Leonard. This memoir is a fascinating inside look at what it was like to research and write cutting edge Church history at the center of the Church (and its leading hierarchy).
It was interesting to me that a decision was made that publication in Dialogue and Sunstone would be fine, so long as no particular issue was dominated by members of the History Division.
As heartening as the beginning was, the end was equally disheartening. The article describes Elder Benson’s (frankly ridiculous) criticisms of The Story of the Latter-day Saints (which I read on my mission and which was really my first introduction to serious Church history–the best one-volume history of the Church ever published).
At the time of this writing, Leonard’s portrait did not grace the hall where a series of portraits of the Church Historians were hung. It is as if he had never actually been Church Historian. (Does anyone know whether this glaring lacuna remains the case?) But the article is followed by a lengthy listing of the publications of the History Division under Leonard’s watch.
If I had to choose between having my portrait up in the hallway of some Church office building and having that remarkable corpus of scholarship to the credit of my colleagues and myself, it would be no question which memorial I would choose.
For those of you who are not familiar with Camelot or this memoir, give it a read and let us know what you think.
Arrington’s portrait does currently hang on the wall of historians at the COB, but I don’t think he’s in the section with the “official” historians. Rather he’s down the way with other luminaries such as B.H. Roberts (who was assistant historian).
Comment by David — May 31, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
Wow Camelot was 25 years ago. For anyone who is interested in the topic, I recommend Arrington’s own “Adventures of a Church Historian” which has one of the most breathtaking descriptions of the 1978 revelation on the priesthood I’ve ever read.
Comment by Matt W. — May 31, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
Yes, Adventures is in a way a kind of sequel to this article. A totally fascinating read.
Comment by Kevin Barney — June 1, 2007 @ 8:09 am
I’ve met a lot of them involved. It was an exciting time. I wonder how we can help to create a setting in which great scholarship can be faith-affirming (or faith can be robust to scholarship) to allow something like this again.
Comment by Sam MB — June 1, 2007 @ 8:15 am
Arrington’s list of publications was recently updated in the 2006 book Reflections of a Mormon Historian. The Arrington bibliography included there is breathtaking. I realize he did not actually personally write everything listed, but still, it is absolutely amazing how prolific he was.
Comment by Randy B. — June 1, 2007 @ 8:23 am
Given Bitton’s description of his memoirs as “modest, partial, and tentative,” as well as his recognition of his lack of objectivity when recounting certain experiences, I wonder how he saw things in, say, 1993 or 2003. Did he ever revisit these years in print?
(I am thinking here of his reply to Davis Bitton, “Anti-Intellectualism in Mormon History,” Dialogue 1/3 [1966]:111–34.)
Comment by Justin — June 1, 2007 @ 8:35 am
I’m not aware of a Reply-style revisiting of the Camelot article, although the Camelot article should certainly be read in light of the Bitton Reply.
Comment by Kevin Barney — June 1, 2007 @ 9:21 am
Sometimes, I imagine what it would be like to have been there. Flipping through Heber J. Grant’s journal or the early Utah RS minutes. It is almost fantastical.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 1, 2007 @ 10:47 am
I don’t have my copy of Quinn (Hierarchy 1) handy, but if memory serves me right he described his experience in Camelot as “everyday was Christmas,” or something like that.
Comment by David — June 1, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
For those of out of the loop, what are things like as far as archives access goes at the COB?
Comment by Melanie — June 1, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
My impression is that things have swung back in the other direction since 1982, and that there is much more openness now than there used to be.
Steve Olsen of LDS Archives will actually be addressing this question at the FAIR conference this August. His presentation is entitle “Are the LDS Archives Closed?” or something like that.
Comment by Kevin Barney — June 1, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
It’d be interesting if Olsen gives a comparison of archives access during camelot to current access. If he opens to Q&A, please someone ask if he doesn’t hit the topic.
Comment by Matt W. — June 1, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
I think most non-Archives-users’ impressions of the Archives are 25 years out of date, as if this Camelot essay had been written yesterday.
Leonard Arrington’s picture has hung in the gallery with the other church historians (*not* assistant historians, whose portraits are *not* displayed) for many, many, many years. It hangs in its chronological place, in a grouping of four photos of those who headed the various divisions of the History Department.
The description of the Archives in the Camelot essay is a quarter century out of date. Readers should remember that.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — June 1, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
#4, I personally don’t give a hoot in hell if scholarship is “faith-affirming” - in fact, would prefer it not be. (You can’t go into the history business with those blinders on.) Let the chips fall where they may. If the Church is true, it has nothing to fear.
Comment by pdmallamo — June 1, 2007 @ 10:09 pm