Nauvoo: A Place of Peace, a People of Promise

Rating:
Summary: The Nauvoo that Never Was
Review: I wish I could be more positive about "Nauvoo: A Place of Peace, A People of Promise," but it is astoundingly disappointing. Glen Leonard is a fine historian who has been working on this subject for more than twenty years. This should have been his magnum opus, instead it adds virtually nothing to understanding about the subject and in many areas is a significant step backward.

The fundamental problem is summarized in Glen Leonard's book title, "Nauvoo: A Place of Peace, A People of Promise." Nauvoo may have been a beautiful place, as Joseph Smith Jr. thought, but it was never a place of peace. Political, economic, religious, cultural, and social divisions both within and without the church constantly swirled between 1839 and 1846. Some who have spent significant time in Nauvoo, including myself, would conclude that they still exist and rumble just below the surface of a seemingly quiet little town. In addition, there is abundant reason to question the "people of promise" aspect of Glen Leonard's title. Were they a "people" in a unified sense of the term? What promise did they hold?

What the title suggests is that this overview of the history of Nauvoo is a thoroughly faithful construct that seeks to show God working among the Mormons in every aspect of their lives. In essence, it represents a return to an overtly mythic history not seen since the time of Andrew Jensen and B. H. Roberts. Leonard asserts repeatedly that Nauvoo represented the first major explication of Joseph Smith's vision of the world. Nauvoo represented, and this is what he emphasizes to the exclusion of anything that might be contradictory, the first instance of Mormonism as a new religious tradition substantively different from what has gone before. It was in Nauvoo that Joseph Smith Jr. taught, admittedly to a small group sworn to secrecy, his most unique religious conceptions. In so doing, Leonard suggests, it was at Nauvoo that Joseph Smith Jr. fulfilled his religious mission. With such a perspective, mythic interpretations of the Mormon experience in western Illinois represent the only possibility for this book.

The reason for Leonard's myopic concern with Mormon theology is that the Latter-day Saints do not so much have a theology as they have a history. Confusing theology with history, therefore, requires that believing church members accept a specified set of affirmations that are grounded in the "pure" thoughts and actions of past individuals, especially those of Joseph Smith Jr. Without acceptance of these truths, Mormonism could and probably should fall of its own weight. The perception of truth or falsity about the religion, therefore, rests on what historians say about those who have gone before. Glen Leonard, therefore, is fulfilling the Mormon equivalent of St. Thomas Aquinas by systematizing the Nauvoo "truths" for the faithful.

Unfortunately, this expounding of his thesis leaves the reader wanting, or alternatively frustrated and angry, that the effort is not more sophisticated. In the end there is a wealth of detail in this lengthy book on the history of Nauvoo. It is not the historiographical triumph that I had hoped. Glen Leonard seems to attribute virtually all positive developments in both Nauvoo's history and the evolution of the church to inspired leadership by Joseph Smith Jr. or Brigham Young and to the righteousness of the rank and file. Any negative developments, and there were many, Leonard too often blames on "apostates" and anti-Mormons with sinister intentions. In that context, he accepts virtually without question, the Mormon myth of persecuted innocence. Leonard's Nauvoo is far too black and white for any historian to accept, and I would hope that the non-historians interested in the subject would be more discerning as well. Leonard also steps away from the role of the historian as analyzer to moralize on the tragic results of sin and rebellion against Joseph Smith Jr.'s authority. In every instance, this work is a morality play and not a history.

Rating:
Summary: The Nauvoo that Never Was
Review: I wish I could be more positive about "Nauvoo: A Place of Peace, A People of Promise," but it is astoundingly disappointing. Glen Leonard is a fine historian who has been working on this subject for more than twenty years. This should have been his magnum opus, instead it adds virtually nothing to understanding about the subject and in many areas is a significant step backward.

The fundamental problem is summarized in Glen Leonard's book title, "Nauvoo: A Place of Peace, A People of Promise." Nauvoo may have been a beautiful place, as Joseph Smith Jr. thought, but it was never a place of peace. Political, economic, religious, cultural, and social divisions both within and without the church constantly swirled between 1839 and 1846. Some who have spent significant time in Nauvoo, including myself, would conclude that they still exist and rumble just below the surface of a seemingly quiet little town. In addition, there is abundant reason to question the "people of promise" aspect of Glen Leonard's title. Were they a "people" in a unified sense of the term? What promise did they hold?

What the title suggests is that this overview of the history of Nauvoo is a thoroughly faithful construct that seeks to show God working among the Mormons in every aspect of their lives. In essence, it represents a return to an overtly mythic history not seen since the time of Andrew Jensen and B. H. Roberts. Leonard asserts repeatedly that Nauvoo represented the first major explication of Joseph Smith's vision of the world. Nauvoo represented, and this is what he emphasizes to the exclusion of anything that might be contradictory, the first instance of Mormonism as a new religious tradition substantively different from what has gone before. It was in Nauvoo that Joseph Smith Jr. taught, admittedly to a small group sworn to secrecy, his most unique religious conceptions. In so doing, Leonard suggests, it was at Nauvoo that Joseph Smith Jr. fulfilled his religious mission. With such a perspective, mythic interpretations of the Mormon experience in western Illinois represent the only possibility for this book.

The reason for Leonard's myopic concern with Mormon theology is that the Latter-day Saints do not so much have a theology as they have a history. Confusing theology with history, therefore, requires that believing church members accept a specified set of affirmations that are grounded in the "pure" thoughts and actions of past individuals, especially those of Joseph Smith Jr. Without acceptance of these truths, Mormonism could and probably should fall of its own weight. The perception of truth or falsity about the religion, therefore, rests on what historians say about those who have gone before. Glen Leonard, therefore, is fulfilling the Mormon equivalent of St. Thomas Aquinas by systematizing the Nauvoo "truths" for the faithful.

Unfortunately, this expounding of his thesis leaves the reader wanting, or alternatively frustrated and angry, that the effort is not more sophisticated. In the end there is a wealth of detail in this lengthy book on the history of Nauvoo. It is not the historiographical triumph that I had hoped. Glen Leonard seems to attribute virtually all positive developments in both Nauvoo's history and the evolution of the church to inspired leadership by Joseph Smith Jr. or Brigham Young and to the righteousness of the rank and file. Any negative developments, and there were many, Leonard too often blames on "apostates" and anti-Mormons with sinister intentions. In that context, he accepts virtually without question, the Mormon myth of persecuted innocence. Leonard's Nauvoo is far too black and white for any historian to accept, and I would hope that the non-historians interested in the subject would be more discerning as well. Leonard also steps away from the role of the historian as analyzer to moralize on the tragic results of sin and rebellion against Joseph Smith Jr.'s authority. In every instance, this work is a morality play and not a history.

Rating:
Summary: The Nauvoo of Mormon Imagination-Nothing More
Review: I wish I could be more positive about this book, but it is astoundingly disappointing. Glen Leonard is a fine historian who has been working on this subject for more than twenty years. This should have been his magnum opus, instead it adds virtually nothing to understanding about the subject and in many areas is a significant step backward.

The fundamental problem with Glen Leonard's book is summarized in his title, "Nauvoo: A Place of Peace, A People of Promise." Nauvoo may have been a beautiful place, as Joseph Smith thought, but it was never a place of peace. Political, economic, religious, cultural, and social divisions both among and without the church constantly swirled between 1839 and 1846. Some who have spent significant time in Nauvoo, including myself, would conclude that they still exist and rumble just below the surface of a seemingly quiet little town. In addition, there is abundant reason to question the "people of promise" aspect of Glen Leonard's title. Were they a "people" in a unified sense of the term? What promise did they hold within them?

What the title suggests is that this overview of the history of Nauvoo is a thoroughly faithful construct that seeks to show God working among the Mormons in every aspect of their lives. In essence, it represents a return to an overtly mythic history not seen since the time of Andrew Jensen and B.H. Roberts. In so doing, it significantly reduces the complexity of events, avoids matters that challenge or contradict Mormon myth, views the Mormons as good and their opponents as evil, and all too often ignores the cultural context of the early church. Leonard asserts repeatedly that Nauvoo represented the first major explication of his and his fellow churchgoers' vision of the world. Nauvoo represented for him, and this is what he emphasizes to the exclusion of anything that might be contradictory, the first instance of Mormonism as a new religious tradition substantively different from what has gone before. It was in Nauvoo that Joseph Smith taught, admittedly to a small group sworn to secrecy, his most unique religious conceptions. In so doing, Leonard suggests, it was at Nauvoo that Joseph Smith fulfilled his religious mission. With such a perspective, mythic interpretations of the Mormon experience in western Illinois represent the only possibility for this book.

Leonard fails to appreciate that Nauvoo represented so much more for Mormonism than just a stage on which Joseph Smith pronounced his esoteric religious conceptions. To a very great extent the Nauvoo experience represented a conflicting set of ideals. It was both triumph and tragedy, the lessons of which Mormons might apply. They might be attracted to the success and image of the city; it was the closest approximation the church had to the ideals of Zion carried in scripture and doctrine. At the same time, all should be repelled by the darker side of political power-corruption, influence-peddling, and the hardness of political choices. Much the same was true when considering the other aspects of the Nauvoo experience in such realms as the development of theology, the growth and development of church institutions and ecclesiastical quorums, the treatment of individuals toward others both in terms of group loyalty and dissident elements, and the promotion of peace versus the warrior mentality. It would be appropriate to consider Nauvoo in all of these contexts in future studies. I await the time when a truly benchmark history of the Nauvoo experience will appear.

Rating:
Summary: Comprehensive Nauvoo history
Review: Leonard has been working on this book for over twenty years, and the result is an impressive, comprehensive history of Nauvoo. He traces the history of the area, of course focusing on the years 1839-1846 when the Mormons were there, but not exclusive to that period. It describes the first settlers, the Mormon War after the main exodus, the Icarian period, and all the way through the re-dedication of the Nauvoo Temple in 2002.

Leonard's detailed research debunks some things we always thought were true (for example, he claims that John Taylor's pocketwatch didn't stop a bullet--it was crushed when he fell) and provides more detail on many familiar stories we thought we knew (like the conference where Brigham Young and Sidney Rigdon vied for leadership of the Church).

The book gets bogged down from time to time going over who owned what parcel of land, and describing every possible profession that was followed in Nauvoo. Descriptions of Nauvoo's economy aren't nearly as exciting as stories of the lives of the early Saints.

As an active Latter-day Saint, Leonard treats doctrinal topics, revelations, and divine manifestations matter-of-factly without discussion as to their truth. His focus, instead, is the story of the people of Nauvoo. He claims to be writing for a universal audience, but a non-LDS reader may have difficulty with his passing mentions of prominent Mormon figures who are poorly identified because Mormons generally are familiar with them. For example, he uses the names "Orrin Rockwell" and "Porter Rockwell" interchangably (never "Orrin Porter Rockwell"), without telling us they are the same person.

The theme of the book is that the Nauvoo period was crucial in defining the LDS Church against the rest of Christianity. Eternal marriage, temple endowments, vicarious ordinances, and man's divine potential are uniquely Mormon doctrines that Joseph Smith taught in Nauvoo. Leonard spends some time describing how many of Joseph's associates, including Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith III, rejected many of the Prophet's Nauvoo teachings and thereby formed their own religious groups. The understanding of these concepts increased my appreciation for the Prophet Joseph Smith and the city of Nauvoo itself.

Rating:
Summary: When Historians Let Agendas Rule...
Review: This alleged "history" of Nauvoo is filled with inaccuracies, unsupported mind-reading, and biased propeganda.

For example, Leonard boldly claims that the Council of Fifty was merely "an advisory committee under the direction of the First Presidency and the Twelve" that was only "symbolic" of a future millenial kingdom of God. Had Leonard bothered to cite any evidence supporting this extremely novel interpretation, it could be respected as an alternative view. He fails to do so, however, and thus appears to intentionally distort the facts, in order to avoid the prophetic succession questions that the Council of Fifty posed.

Likewise, Leonard's discussion of Freemasonry in Nauvoo is contradictory and grossly inaccurate. On the one hand, Leonard takes the highly conservative view that Freemasonry's origins are found in the trade guilds of the 1600s and 1700s. On the other hand, Leonard explains parallels between Masonry and the LDS Temple on the basis that both go back to a common "ancient" origin. Leonard further claims that John C. Bennett was the first to notice these parallels, ignoring the earlier letters of Heber C. Kimball which noted the same.

Leonard also perpetuates the myth that Joseph Smith became a Mason merely for friendship and political advantage. Informed Masons, however, realize that this is a high insult to the Prophet's memory. If these were Joseph's true motives, he would have had to lie to be admitted. Further, the Nauvoo Lodge continued to practice Masonry long after the Grand Lodge of Illinois declared them clandestine (illegitimate). By this time, any dreams of "friendship and political advantage" had been hopelessly crushed.

Leonard seems to attribute almost every positive development in Nauvoo's history to inspired leadership and righteous Saints. Negative developments, Leonard blames on apostates and anti-Mormons. Leonard's Nauvoo is black and white--oversimplified at best. Worse, Leonard becomes "preachy" as he overtly moralizes on the tragic results of sin and rebellion against Joseph Smith's authority.

This book could have been a terrific overview of a critical period in Mormonism. Instead, it is nothing more than ill-supported propeganda, some of which seems to be purposely misrepresented. I can not recommend this book whatsoever.