For a book project I am currently working on, I recently revisited Ron Walker’s Wayward Saints: The Godbeites and Brigham Young (which you can download for free here). I had glanced through the book years ago, but it never really made that big of an impression. However, this time through it struck me as a phenomenal volume. Not only is it full of nuance, sophistication, and exhaustive research, but it is better written than a majority of Mormon history books I’ve read. It made me better appreciate Leonard Arrington’s description of Walker as the “best writer” in Mormon studies.
This got me thinking: what other books do we sometimes overlook in the field? Wayward Saints, for instance, only received one vote in a recent survey here on JI, and I failed to include it on my list of the “Mormon History Canon.” (I would probably add it were I to try the list over again.) Some other books that come to mind:
1. Klaus Hansen, Mormonism and the American Experience. I haven’t read it, though I’ve heard several smart people say good things about this book. Perhaps I’m just hesitant because his earlier Quest for Empire.
2. Grant Underwood, The Millenarian World of Early Mormonism. Revisiting this book again this summer, I was struck by its sophisticated approach to intellectual history (a rarity in Mormon studies) and its grasp of broader American intellectual issues. (Also its length!)
3. James Allen, Trials of Discipleship: The Story of William Clayton, a Mormon Pioneer. Another book I haven’t ready, but have heard wonderful things about.
4. Stanley Hirshon, Lion of the Lord. Just kidding.
Now, I’m sure some volumes I say are “under-appreciated” is more of a reflection of my own limited reading or background, but I do think that there are some classics that don’t get as much attention as they should. (Especially with the high number of quality books in the last decade that keep us busy.) But what are some of the books you think don’t get enough credit?
(Note: I considered opening it up for most “overrated books,” but decided that would be too snarky.)
“(Note: I considered opening it up for most ?overrated books,? but decided that would be too snarky.)”
Do it!
Comment by Chris H. — September 29, 2011 @ 9:24 am
If you don’t do it, we will.
Comment by Steve Evans — September 29, 2011 @ 9:40 am
For a single book, I would nominate Carthage Conspiracy by Oaks and Hill, in part because it sets out its evidence in a logical and, well, lawyerly, way while at the same time being absolutely readable and engaging. It’s an important subject in itself, but also got us out of the mold of Fate of the Persecutors and other similarly embarrassing ways of looking at past “enemies.”
As a general class of works, I would nominate the sermon collections of past church presidents. We have various incarnations of JSmith’s teachings, and the Journal of Discourses to cherry-pick for the next generation. But there are also the Discourses of Wilford Woodruff and Teachings of George Albert Smith and JFSmith’s Gospel Doctrine and HJGrant’s Gospel Principles (or have I got those titles backward?) Sometimes the sermons of past presidents go out of style when a new president’s sermons become available, when of course they should not — not only for their devotional use but for what the various emphases and literary styles and topical concerns can tell us about the eras in which they were written. I loves me my old sermon volumes.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — September 29, 2011 @ 11:14 am
Underwood is underappreciated? I thought everyone had a copy and loved that book.
Carthage Conspiracy might be a good one. Can I confess I’ve actually never read it despite hearing about how good it was for I don’t know how long?
Wayward Saints is really an underrated book. Like you I really loved it. I’m constantly surprised at how many people haven’t read it.
A second thread on overrated books would be great.
Comment by Clark — September 29, 2011 @ 11:25 am
How about John Brooke’s The Refiner’s Fire? (I beat Steve F. to it).
Comment by Christopher — September 29, 2011 @ 11:36 am
That is actually a book I specifically had in mind when I thought of this post, Chris.
Comment by Ben Park — September 29, 2011 @ 11:56 am
Isn’t that a book that might belong simultaneously in the underrated and overrated categories Christopher? (I felt somewhat weird defending it against Russell’s recent post even though I’ve been a big critic of many parts of it) I do think it gets discounted too quickly.
By that measure perhaps Brodie ought be included too? It’s ridiculously dated at this point and I suspect the nitty gritty religious claims we’d all disagree with. (We are Mormon after all and think the Book of Mormon, visions and so forth are real) Still I think it gets cast aside too quickly. While I think DKL goes overboard in praising it he has convinced me of its worth.
Comment by Clark — September 29, 2011 @ 12:32 pm
It seems like The Story of the Latter-day Saints is always left off of “lists” in favor of The Mormon Experience, then comments from those that that have read both indicate that The Story is superior. Perhaps its reputation is marred by its publisher and light faithful tone. I haven’t read The Mormon Experience, but found The Story very helpful in getting a broad view of the institutional history.
Comment by Craig M. — September 29, 2011 @ 12:51 pm
Nice post Ben. I remember liking Hansen when I read it a number of years ago. I thought he framed issues well and I remember thinking it would be a good book to use in a course on Mormonism (but there’s probably better alternatives now).
Good point about Brooke. That brings up the question of if underrated and hated are the same thing. Brooke’s merits are not so much in the details but his overall concept of linking Mormonism to particular intellectual traditions, something a lot of Mormon historians had been hesitant to do.
Comment by Steve Fleming — September 29, 2011 @ 1:30 pm
In no particular order:
1. Liahona and Iron Rod: A Biography of Carl A. and Rose J. Badger (R. Badger). One of the best, most honest family histories you’ll ever read; plus, Carl’s first-person contemporary insights into the Reed Smoot Hearings are unparalleled. (Carl was Smoot’s personal secretary.)
2. Adventures of a Church Historian (L. Arrington). As good an introduction to Arrington and his mission as is available.
3. A Disciple’s Life: The Biography of Neal A. Maxwell (Hafen). That this book was written by a sitting General Authority shouldn’t be a criticism. Hafen’s study is thoughtful, reasonable, and very insightful.
4. Reed Smoot: Apostle in Politics (Merrill). Though dated, Merrill’s biography is a very good study of Church/State relations during the first third of the 20th century.
5. Joseph Fielding Smith: Gospel Scholar, Prophet of God (Gibbons). This is probably the best of Gibbons’s biographies. It’s comprehensive, thorough, and doesn’t shy away from controversies.
Comment by Gary Bergera — September 29, 2011 @ 3:03 pm
I’m disappointed it’s not actually a link to a Wayward Saints download, but a review of the book. I came across some Godbeites references as an undergrad, and then forgot about them until recently when I saw the book at a friend’s house.
re:A Disciple?s Life: The Biography of Neal A. Maxwell, I had a copy of this, and couldn’t make it through the book. Everyone at every reference has an initial, making it appear Elder Maxwell never knew anyone but in the most formal manner…
Comment by Ben S — September 29, 2011 @ 3:35 pm
Steve (9) that’s an interesting point. I’ve noticed that some books are praised for what they attempt not based upon what they actually achieve. That used to really bug me: some book winning awards that was a massively flawed book. I’ve become more reconciled to it if only because I agree that blazing trails is important. I just think that how one grapples with the evidence has to count a lot too.
So by that measure should we praised Lance Owens “interesting” book about Joseph Smith as a Kabbalist? What about some of Nibley’s more interesting books? Very flawed in the details and evidence but quite intriguing and ground breaking in the big picture? I wonder if we apply a double standard? i.e. are people who praise Nibley unwilling to praise Brooke or Quinn who are just as ground breaking and perhaps just as problematic in the details? Or vice versa for that matter?
Ben (11), I have to admit that Wayward Saints was a hugely influential book on my thought. It wasn’t without problems (although it’s been so long since I last read it I can’t remember what they were or if I’d still think them problems). However it really opened up for me a significant set of questions to think about on many levels. I can’t say enough good about it. Plus you learn more about the origin of the Salt Lake Tribune!
It’s also interesting since it’s an other route certain spiritual/hermetic traditions entered into Mormonism. If you’ve read any of the other history books influenced by Brooke and Quinn’s hermetic take on Mormonism but focused on other traditions and literary figures then you’ll note the parallels. Wayward Saints doesn’t go into those but if you read them together it’s hard to miss. (There was actually a journal that started up with papers more or less following the approach Quinn took in Magic World View only targeting other religions and movements – it’s worth checking out if you’re curious)
Comment by Clark — September 29, 2011 @ 6:01 pm
I’m seriously thinking about starting on an overrated list Ben. Hey, it was your idea!
Comment by SC Taysom — September 29, 2011 @ 8:21 pm
I wash my hands of the whole idea. (Though I would definitely grab some popcorn.)
Comment by Ben Park — September 29, 2011 @ 8:45 pm
Taysom is totally the man for the job.
Comment by Chris H. — September 30, 2011 @ 9:47 am
What about Arrington’s _Great Basin Kingdom_? I think there are more than a few folks out there who see it as “dated.” But I’ll go on record saying it’s a seminal book in Mormon historiography.
Comment by BLJ — September 30, 2011 @ 10:04 am
Clark, I’m not sure what to say about the principle of being ground breaking in general but with regards to Brooke specifically, placing Mormonism in a context outside of the immediate environment and finding similarities and finding similarities in the persistence of “hermetic” thought was a tremendously bold and clever idea. The scope of the task created problems, he had a huge amont of data to sift through. But the questions he asked (I would argue) were the right ones and (I would also argue) Brooke pointed in the good directions.
I’d imagine that Nibley has merit as well (I still need to read it). Interestingly, though Brooke and Nibley asked different questions, they came up with similar answers (i.e. Nibley’s endorsement of hermeticism).
Comment by Steve Fleming — September 30, 2011 @ 11:53 am
I’m not sure if these are underappreciated, but I would include:
Orson Pratt/England
Heaven’s Resound/Backman
JS The First Mormon/Hill (the standard JS bio, for me, before Rough Stone Rolling)
Building the City of God/Arrington, Fox, May
Mormonism in Transition/Alexander
Hugh B. Brown-An Abundant Life/Firmage
MHA Tanner Lectures, 1st 20 Years
Sidney Rigdon/Van Wagoner
James Strang/Speek
Comment by larryco_ — September 30, 2011 @ 12:57 pm
Steve, I can’t agree it was clever. Remember Quinn’s first edition of Magic World View had come out years earlier.
Comment by Clark — September 30, 2011 @ 2:19 pm
It wasn’t the magic angle that the clever (that was pretty obvious) it was the linking to Francis Yates’s thesis. That was the bold move. Yates was revolutionary. Scholars have since been refining what she said, all of which (I’m arguing) is useful for situating Mormonism.
Comment by Steve Fleming — September 30, 2011 @ 3:02 pm
Wayward Saints is a tremendously fun book to read. To the list I would add Breck England’s book about Orson Pratt, definitely. Peterson’s bio of Nibley is great, as is Sgt. Nibley, PhD. A really interesting and well-crafted book.
Comment by BHodges — October 1, 2011 @ 9:56 pm
I don’t think the Ostlings get quite enough credit for Mormon America. Also, everyone and their mother should read Mark Ashurst-McGee’s master’s thesis.
Comment by Christopher Smith — October 2, 2011 @ 6:17 pm
Steve, I’ll grant you that. For all his rather questionable parallels he does vastly better with the theoretical scaffolding than Quinn does. I think Yates own models have come into question a bit. Although to be fair she was writing nearly 50 years ago so that’s hardly surprising. As I’m sure you know Yates is heavily criticized for overemphasizing a perhaps non-existence consistency within the broad “hermetic movement.” Whereas many see it as just too diverse for her theory to work.
Of course that’s part and parcel of the change from the scholarship of the 30’s through 60’s versus the new generation of the 60’s through the 90’s. (Roughly structuralism vs. post-structuralism)
It’s long been interesting to me that Mormonism’s more esoteric roots have been primarily analyzed in light of models of that era (either in apologetics following Nibley or more critical views via Quinn, Brooke or others) I suspect that was one reason why I liked Wayward Saints since he touched on some of those influences (albeit from England) but within that sort of grand narrative these other figures used.
Comment by Clark — October 2, 2011 @ 9:03 pm
You’re right about Yates. I’m putting in a chapter on the various critiques of her in my dissertation. I may post something here, since it looks to me like the new light on Yates is useful to situating Mormonism.
Comment by Steve Fleming — October 2, 2011 @ 9:15 pm
Sorry regarding Wayward Saints that should have said, “but without that sort of grand narrative these other figures used.” That is Walker notes the importance of spiritualism for the British Saints and then notes the tensions between that and what was going on in Utah (during a period of centralization of charismatic influence away from lay practice and to the Apostles). However Walker feels no need to really fit such beliefs into a particular framework.
Comment by Clark — October 2, 2011 @ 9:54 pm
Regarding Wayward Saints, is the BYU Studies edition any different from the Illinois version?
Comment by J. Stapley — October 3, 2011 @ 2:40 pm
Honestly I didn’t even know there were two different editions.
Comment by Clark — October 3, 2011 @ 11:50 pm
To add: Cooper’s Promises Made to the Fathers is very underappreciated.
Comment by Joe Spencer — October 4, 2011 @ 8:45 am
Glad to see someone mentioned “Joseph Smith, The First Mormon,” by Hill. Don’t know if this is unusual or not, but the little branch in Minnesota that I was serving at on my mission had a copy in the library, so that was when I first read it. It was relevatory, faith-promoting, and inspiring for me even then. I took sections and xeroxed them and hung them on my wall so-as to have them with me from area to area. I’d recommend it to anyone.
Listing scholarly works in the “under-rated” category along with straight historical ones, I’d definitely add “Why The King James Version?” by J. Reuben Clark, Jr., to the mix. As Gary (10) said, the fact that it is written by a General Authority should never disqualify a book of quality.
Comment by Eric — October 6, 2011 @ 11:52 am