Now dear Shawn,you clothe yourself in the holy garments of the Democratic party and say that you oppose the war. If you will review the wars of the past 60 years, you may find a difficult correlation with Democratic Party and peace or conversely Republican Party and war. It just doesn’t wash.

But I love the dialogue here. I don’t have much time to read this type of blog as a full time missionary serving with my wife in - of course - England. But I wanted to find the essay and give to to a member here who will get a real spiritual lift from consideration of it.

I loved the revisiting of spiritual experiences in England’s article because I have had those experiences too. But perhaps even more universally valuable is the reminder that loving and serving unconditionally is a significant purpose of the church.

Love to you all - for all of us are truly seekers of truth. Keith

Yep, I’m one of those. I had the pleasure of taking England’s Mormon literature course in the mid-1990s and getting to know him personally, and he got me involved in the Association for Mormon Letters, Sunstone, and other things that have played a HUGE role in my life. No other college professor in undergrad or grad had as big an influence on me, and I’m so glad I didn’t miss out.

Also, he is probably the one person I personally know within Mormonism who I admire most as a role model, influence, etc. including his flaws and humanity, which make most General Authorities look like robots in comparison. I was more sad when he died than when President Hinckley died, and while I usually avoid funerals, England’s was one I made sure to attend. I haven’t actually read many of his essays and haven’t agreed with some of his theological views (such as on polygamy), but I just love his attitude and influence on breaking out of the usual Mormon boxes, and he pointed me in so many valuable, rewarding directions. I don’t know if I can ever forgive BYU for not appreciating and valuing him to the end.

I can’t wait for the biography! I do hope a more narrative one is done sometime too about all the ins and outs of his fascinating life, in addition to this collection of essays Charlotte England mentions.

In addition, England’s last major project “A Reader’s Edition of the Book of Mormon,” is finally out through Signature Books. The book spilts the 1830 BoM thematically into 7 separate books, each with an essay by a prominent Mormon scholar, including Cluadia Bushman and Edward Kimball. It looks fantastic and can be purchased here: http://www.signaturebooks.com/bookofmormon.htm

I think you need to change your issue # from 120 to 121 on your link

I’m a huge Eugene England fan and love this tribute issue.

Thanks to you and to Sunstone for making it available like this.

Dan

I’ll raise you one. Here are all the articles from that issue in PDF form:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_backissues&task=contents&issue=120

I’m loving the new site.

By the way, for those interested, there is a Sunstone magazine issue from January 2002 that is almost entirely devoted to Gene England. Every single article in this particular issue is a mouse click away:

http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/mag-issue-121.asp

You’ll definitely want to read “Why the Church is as True as the Gospel.” It’s likely his best-known work and a stone-cold classic. Another fun way to experience him is through recordings of his Sunstone symposium readings (use the link above). Anyone else have suggestions? Happy hunting! Let us know what you think once you’ve had time to read a few things.

Matt Thurston — am I ever going to collect a commission for all this Sunstone-shilling I’ve been doing lately?

What we don’t have is any record of strife between these groups, and I think that’s what the real take away lesson of the scriptural segment there probably is for me. Not that we must be pacifists or that we must be willing to fight, but that both choices are acceptable and that we must accept the choices of others to live according to one philosophy or the other. Which, of course, leads to a greater peace in the land by not causing contention within the House of God, which is the first step in converting those who are unbelievers.

I think if we want to spread peace to the world, we must stop fighting amongst ourselves about minor things and learn to accept that minor theological points are not a big deal, and that we really just need to move on. Like I told my wife yesterday, I think the answer to a lot of the questions regarding church history may ultimately be: “we don’t know exactly why the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to do X or Y, and that’s okay for now”. I can live with that for now. I’m learning more, and as I learn more, the ambiguity is lessened in some areas and strengthened in others, but I think learning to live with ambiguity is a major part of maturation in this life. Just a personal point of view.

John N. — I agree that England is tragically underappreciated, although I’m not quite sure why. I think only time will tell whether his hopes for a shift in our culture take hold. I do see some progress in the increasing willingness to take those of other faiths at face value, rather than trying to fit them into our own, Mormon box. However, as Jaime’s post about the pervasiveness of non-doctrinal norms shows, we still have a long way to go.

I sent this on to some of Gene’s daughters, my aunt one of them, because I think it was a nice reminder of Gene’s impact on so many people in such important ways. I also appreciated the reminder of some of the ways he helped me find my own voice, although THIS voice DID do what you feared Gene’s would: that is, talked herself out of the church. But you are right– it is the memory of his voice that sometimes manages to tug at my heart and remind me that the church needs strong people like you to expose a rather insular culture to views that are actually more harmonious with Christ’s than some of the more popular trappings of conservative Mormon culture. Thanks for the reminder of a man who I do miss greatly.

I miss Gene too. I never took one of his classes, but I met him at Sunstone and he was very gracious in responding to questions.

I think he is underappreciated and less well known than his mentor. Lowell Bennion has a prominent service center at the University of Utah named after him, but England has nothing of the same type yet to my knowledge. UVU at least should name a chair after him after the work he did trying to get their Mormon Studies program off the ground.

While I agree with you that he provided wonderful ways of being Mormon and taking peace seriously as part of our religion, considering how he and others, like Bennion, were treated by the institution, would you say he was right about the chances for cultural change in Mormonism?

1. Any defintion of “Mormon Studies” is problematic, your post suggests. Perhaps “New Mormon History” would be more precise, but England was not foremost a historian. The term was meant to be inclusory, as opposed to exclusionary. I certainly did not suggest, and do not believe, that Mormon Studies is concerned only (or even mainly) with “obscure questions”.

2. You’re right — England would be the first to point out that he (any many others) studied at the feet of Lowell Bennion. Just as I wrote this post in hopes reminding folks of England’s work, England was a tireless promoter of Bennion’s work. I meant no slight to Bennion. For me, however, England has been a more impactful figure. Perhaps this is a generational issue, I don’t know. That said, England was more than simply a puppet of Bennion’s ideas. His ideas has come into their own, and his is the name I see and hear more often in publications/lectures/symposia these days than Bennion.

3. I think you misunderstood my use of the word “head.” As I thought was clear from the post, I didn’t mean that Quinn and Compton are “leaders”; rather, I used them as representing the “brains” or factfinding/research-oriented wing of the MS crowd. Certainly, they are two among a long list of qualified individuals. Yes, I’m aware of Arrington, Davis and that ilk. But the point of the post was not to give a comprehensive list of Mormon researchers, only to give context for a discussion of England’s thoughts.

In addition, Michael Quinn and Todd Compton (who are probably appropriately labeled part of the Mormon Studies crowd) are far from “the head” of that movement. Not only were there predecessors long before those two (think Arrington and Bitton), but Quinn and Compton aren’t unique, either, in their desire or their ability to unearth previously unknown historical tidbits. Besides, Mormon Studies as a movement is less interested in the obscure questions you suggest, and much more interested in addressing questions like “why is Mormon history relevant to larger historical issues?” and “what does the study of Mormonism–both contemporary and historical–tell us about the human experience?”

I did no such thing.

It seems like it would have been more charitable to use your own site as an example. Bad form.

And equating the American Democratic party with pacifism is preposterous.

England was a liberal in the same way Lowell Bennion, Robert Rees, and others were/are liberals. (And I agree, when we think of liberals in Mormon Studies we usually think of the “fact gatherers.”) What makes people like England liberal, in my opinion, is that they are not affraid to differentiate between the institution and the gospel of Christ. In contrast, I’d argue that conservatives and most Mormons think of the two as inextricable. England was not above questioning the institution and its leaders; in fact, I think he considered it a necessary part of both being a good member of the institution (and of gaining a testimony), that it made both the individual and the institution stronger. At the same time, he considered the institution and leaders to be absolutely necessary and vital for personal growth and salvation. He was both an unabashed “homer” and a “critic” at the same time.

If you are familiar with Fowler’s Stages of Faith, I consider the Eugene Englands and Lowell Bennions of Mormonism to be the few who have made it to Stage 6. Their faith includes but transcends the institution and its sometimes ethoncentric worldview/doctrine/dogma to a universal faith and worldview that is inclusive of the entire human community. For an orthodox and somewhat fundamentalist church, this is indeed very liberal.

I agree wholeheartedly about the need to truly embrace a Gospel of Peace. I left the Republican party in 2003 (back when we were “winning” the war) over the issue of the Iraq War. Book of Mormon prophets plainly rejected the concept of “pre-emptive” war in more than one place, and I think our collective failure to recognize that as Mormons was one of the most important and tragic missed messages for our day. Hopefully there is still time to learn it.

On avoiding petty and nit picky fault-finding, I concur as well. We can and should address issues of substance in as Christlike a way as possible, but there is too much uncharitable murmuring in the peanut gallery these days. We acknowledge we’re not perfect and yet gripe unceasingly when others are imperfect.

Thanks for reminding us of England’s important messages.

Dang I miss that man.