Note: The following letter was not written or solicited by the Church. Rather, it is authored by an individual from Mount Morris, New York.
To the editor:
The recent fuss raised by the Salt Lake Tribune over discussions between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Utah State University about documents in the estate of Mormon historian Leonard J. Arrington is a prime example of the victory of distortion over understanding.
At issue is the ownership of various documents copied by Mr. Arrington from church archives while he was in the Church’s employ and notes and research generated by him in his capacity as a church employee. The documents, notes and research were bequeathed by Mr. Arrington to Utah State and recently went on public display. The problem is, that material may not have been Mr. Arrington's to give.
More likely, it remains the property of his employer — the Church.
Which is a pretty straightforward matter of law, easily explained and understood. But the Tribune's take has been different. It has implied instead some sinister plot by the Church to hide supposedly embarrassing secrets from its past.
That's nuts.
The actions of the Church, clearly, are not to conceal, but to protect — to protect the value and integrity of its archives.
Here's why the Church's position makes sense. If you work for an organization, you don't have the right to copy its private documents and make them public. If you work for the Coca-Cola Company, you can't copy board of director minutes and pass them around to your friends. Likewise, if you work for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you can't duplicate minutes of private meetings of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and make them public. The right to do that lies with the organization, not the employee.
Additionally, the work of Mr. Arrington in his capacity as a Church employee is not his property. Just as the Tribune reporters covering this matter wrote stories which belong to the newspaper and not to them — even though it was their work, it bears its copyright — the work of Mr. Arrington on the Church's payroll is the Church's.
It's not about suppressing the past, it's about protecting the past.
Documents in the archives of the Church have monetary and historic value. As the steward of those documents, the Church has the right to protect that value. Stopping the unauthorized duplication and dissemination of those documents is merely an effort to that end.
It's unfortunate the Tribune chose to ignore that fact.
Sincerely,
Bob Lonsberry
Mount Morris, New York