LDS Church News once spoke positively of Hitler, Nazi Germany

History is blunt. Left to itself, it doesn’t spin or gloss over unpleasant facts. The positive side to unvarnished history is that it can prevent future mistakes. There are many examples in history of religions enabling evil. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not an exception to this rule. A glance at the Dec. 9, 1933, LDS “Church News,” published with “The Deseret News,” contains a particularly unpleasant “puff piece” on Nazi Germany, and its leaders, Adolf Hitler, as well as Joseph Goebbels.

It’s titled, “Mormonism” in the New Germany,” and penned by the unfortunately over-enthusiastic Dale Clark, is grotesque in its effusive praise for Hitler. Here is an example: “As a specimen of physical endurance Hitler can easily take his place along side the athletes who are usually taken as classic examples. His 14 year struggle which brought him to power in Germany put him to a terrific physical strain (sic). Besides the great responsibility there has been trials and conflicts, and campaigning so strenuous that it has required his attention night and day, many times making it necessary for him to travel great distances by auto or plane, catching up on his sleep underway to fit him for the multitudes who would gather to hear him wherever he had time to stop.”

It’s amazing today to read such a sidling, fawning account of the 20th century madman, and I wonder if the Nazis controlled or edited what Clark submitted from Germany. The alternative is even worse to comprehend. In other parts of the article, the author sycophantically points out similarities between LDS Doctrine and Nazi Germany. Readers learn that Hitler and Goebbels lead “Word of Wisdom”-type lifestyles and do not drink or smoke. Also, the German custom of “Fast Sunday,” where Germans fast and donate the cost of the missed meals to a winter charity fund, is extolled for its similarity to Mormonism. Clark writes, again in press-release style, “… it has the important purpose of developing that spirit of sacrifice that is so being stressed in the new Germany, and also of creating more of a feeling of unity and brotherhood through voluntary mutual help.”

Early in the article, Clark writes, ominously, that religious freedom flourishes in Nazi Germany, except for “a few sects (which) have been prohibited or restricted.” We can guess at least one people of faith persecuted in Hitler’s Germany at that time — the Jews. And this leads to the most disturbing part of Clark’s national hagiography: finding a missionary moment in Nazi Germany’s persecution of Jews. After detailing previous difficulties to get access to Germany’s archives to do genealogy, Clark writes, “Now, due to the importance given to the racial question, and the almost necessity of proving that one’s grandmother was not a Jewess, the old record books have been dusted off and stand ready and waiting for use. No questions are asked. In fact some of the Saints instead of being refused by the pastors now have received letters of encouragement complimenting them for their patriotism.”

It is impossible to read that and not shiver with repulsion at why the “old record books” stood ready and waiting for use. Clark’s effusive cheerleading is a dark moment in LDS history. But, as mentioned, it is history, delivered in a blunt, pure fashion. It underscores the enabling that many organizations, religious or otherwise, used to have a presence in the heart of evil. Church President Heber J. Grant, no doubt worried about persecution Mormons might receive, urged members in Germany in 1937 to get along and not cause problems. Another disturbing example — as late as 1939 — of Mormon enabling of Nazism was remarks in a Nazi media organ written by West German LDS mission president, Alfred C. Rees. Like Clark, Rees enthusiastically compared Nazism with Mormonism. (read)

There are more courageous exceptions, of course. One Latter-day Saint who stood up to Hitler’s rule was Helmuth Hubener, who died a martyr at 17, tortured and beheaded in 1942 for belonging to an anti-Nazi group and publishing anti-Nazi leaflets. Hubener, who is the subject of a Gunter Grass novel, was first repulsed by Nazism as a boy when he witnessed anti-Semitism in his local ward. Hubener was quickly excommunicated by local authorities. However, his excommunication was later reversed by LDS authorities, who said local German leaders had not followed proper procedures. According to historians Alan F. Keele and Douglas F. Tobler, Hubener’s leaflets show that the teenager regarded his opposition to Nazism as a component of his religion. Hubener’s final words to the judges who sentenced him to die, “Wait. Your turn will come,” underscore his courage and resolve.

Hubener’s branch president was a fervent Nazi, who played Hitler’s speeches at the branch. Another branch member, Heinrich Worbs, was tortured at a concentration camp for calling a state-honored Nazi a “butcher.” Worbs, according to Keele and Tobler, was so physically ruined after his detention that he died months after release.

Clark’s article from 1933 fascinates me as much for its style as its repulsive cheerleading. It contains several examples of modern totalitarian propaganda efforts, that were also used, and refined, by Soviet-led communism. There’s the effusive praise for the leaders, praise for the party (in one instance Clark uses the phrase “originality and political genius of the Hitler party” to tout relief efforts in Germany), and the use of the terms “voluntary” and “unity” as propaganda phrases. For an example, go back to the third paragraph of this piece, where Clark writes, “… it has the important purpose of developing that spirit of sacrifice that is so being stressed in the new Germany, and also of creating more of a feeling of unity and brotherhood through voluntary mutual help.” One more example of modern propaganda includes Clark’s description of posters from youth Nazi organizations against tobacco and women’s cosmetics.

As mentioned, blunt history can also be a teaching tool. Clark’s Church News article would never be repeated today. Unfortunately, when adverse history is not blunt but is instead de-emphasized, massaged, or rationalized, it can be repeated. To read the Dec. 9, 1933, Deseret News and Church News, go here (page 3 of Church News section).

--- Doug Gibson

--- Originally published at StandardBlogs

Review: Parley P. Pratt: The Apostle Paul of Mormonism

Review by Doug Gibson

It’s been a long wait for the biography of Parley P. Pratt, the irascible, in-your-face 19^th century Mormon apostle who, like the man he idolized, LDS founder Joseph Smith, met his end via assassination.  Not even a Deseret Books hagiography has been published.  Mass market accounts of Pratt’s complex life have been relegated to his autobiography, an exciting first person account that is selectively edited, mostly omitting his marriage and family life and providing virtually no details of his death at the hands of a cuckold whose wife Pratt had added to his polygamous family.  A mediocre biography, published 75 years ago, is forgotten.

Hopefully, “Parley P. Pratt: The Apostle Paul of Mormonism” (Oxford University Press, 2011) will restore Pratt to the prominence he enjoyed during Mormonism’s first 100 years.  Scholars Terryl L. Givens and Matthew J. Grow have provided a well-researched, unbiased account of his life that includes a detailed look into his personal life, including his 12 marriages, his near apostasy in 1837 after a church bank failure and his estrangement and reunion with his equally gifted brother and fellow apostle, Orson.

The biography reads well enough to be enjoyed by the casual consumer.  However, perhaps the most valuable contribution the biography offers is that Givens and Grow have had translated –from 19 century shorthand – a collection of previously unavailable discourses that Pratt delivered in the last decade of his life.  It is not an exaggeration to say that very few Latter-day Saints comprehend how much of their church’s complex doctrine regarding eternal life, pre-existence, and the existence of matter and spirit, derives from Pratt’s teachings, pamphlets, and two books, “Voice of Warning” and “Key to the Science of Theology.”  Now largely forgotten, those books were once ubiquitous in LDS homes.  As Givens and Grow relate, Pratt wrote, “The individual thinking being never ceases to live and think and act.  (It) never ceases those sympathies and affections which are … the inherent principles of their eternal existence.”

Pratt reveled in and adored the doctrines that today’s LDS Church – while not repudiating – is shy to discuss.  Pratt spoke often of the eternal existence of matter, the existence of countless gods furiously working on as many planets, and, of course, Pratt was a staunch defender of polygamy.  The authors theorize that as much of Pratt’s inspiration for these complex doctrines likely derived from private, unrecorded, conversations he had with Joseph Smith over 14 years.

Pratt was a product of his times, born poor in the midst of a religious awakening in the early 19^th century.  Long before he was a Mormon, he sought New Testament-type active religion, with revelations, spiritual gifts and proper authority of God.  Pratt was part of a growing faction of pre-millennialism believers who believed that Christ’s coming would occur to overcome evil, rather than as a complement to a world that had achieved righteousness, which was the more popular post-millennialism belief of that era.

The authors concede that Pratt was an extremely valuable convert.  He was also likely the first Mormon convert swayed by the Book of Mormon, rather than the charismatic Smith.  The Book of Mormon, Pratt believed, confirmed his belief in latter-day revelation.  Pratt’s baptism paved the way for tens of thousands of converts, including brother Orson, renowned preacher Sidney Rigdon and future LDS Prophet John Taylor.

The subtitle “The Apostle Paul of Mormonism” fits Pratt, as he clearly identified himself and his calling with those of the apostles in The Book of Acts.  Like Paul, Pratt was willing to confront poverty, persecution, disgust, disbelief, and sacrifice to preach what he believed.  He relished debate, and despite his lack of schooling, was rarely defeated by opponents.  He also was not afraid of death.

Although his recurring poverty frustrated him at times, he would end all profitable business on a moment’s notice when called to a new mission by Smith or Brigham Young.  Indeed, it is hard to imagine Pratt fitting in with today’s staid, public relations-conscious LDS Church, with its compensated, elderly, well-attired apostles.

Pratt’s value to the young church’s survival was critical in the couple of years after Smith was martyred.  Through visits to the East Coast, Britain, and preaching in the Church’s center of Nauvoo Ill, Pratt solidified Young’s claims to lead the LDS Church, eliminating such rivals as William Law, James L. Strange, Rigdon, David Whitmer, Samuel Smith, and Samuel Brannan.  Pratt also played a key role in the migration of LDS members to the Salt Lake valley and later led an exploratory mission to Southern Utah and headed missions to San Francisco and even South America.

Pratt’s single-mindedness sometimes caused clashes with Young, who reproved the apostle for rash behavior that included rushed marriages.  Pratt was at time intemperate, fleeing debts, ignoring Young’s directions, taking wives in secret and not bothering with securing divorces for two.

The practice of polygamy led to a divorce from his second wife, and another abandoned him shortly after arriving in the Salt Lake Valley.  By all accounts though, the authors write that Pratt’s relations with his children and remaining spouses were loving and cordial.

Givens and Grow have produced a triumphant biography that gets as close to knowing the enigmatic Pratt as any biographer has.  There will always be gaps in Pratt’s life that invite speculation: his private conversations with Smith; his relationship with his much older first wife, Thankful, who died after childbirth; and what motivated him to recklessly help his last wife, Eleanor, try to escape to Utah with her children.  That failed attempt guaranteed Pratt’s death at the hands of her first husband and an enabling extralegal culture that condoned murder as a penalty for adultery.

Pratt’s legacy extends far beyond his 50 years.  Love him or hate him, Givens and Grow have provided readers with a biography worthy of their subject’s talents.

Originally published in 2011 at StandardNet

Lincoln used diplomacy to charm the once-hostile Mormons

Originally published at StandardBlogs in 2011. 

The crude, casual racism of a long-ago era is striking in this Nov. 28, 1860 Deseret News advertisement from merchant George Goddard. (page one of four) It reads, “Abe Lincoln, Republican, elected by a large majority!!!, immense excitement!, Democrats all but crazy!!!, Niggers rejoicing at the prospect of freedom!!! and before they are all let loose — over 4,000,000, Geo. Goddard is determined to close out his present stock of goods at the following reduced prices: What follows is a list or ordinary merchandise, everything from grey overshirts, to fine tooth brushes, to tobacco to McGuffey's Readers, etc.

Mr. Goddard's published bigotry underscores the hostility that Utah's Latter-day Saint hierarchy greeted the presidential election of Republican Abraham Lincoln 151 years ago. Historian George U. Hubbard, writing in the Spring, 1963 issue of the Utah Historical Quarterly, notes that the election of Lincoln was greeted with derisive speeches by Mormon leaders, including Church President Brigham Young and apostle George A. Smith. As Hubbard writes in, “Abraham Lincoln as seen by the Mormons,” the Illinois president was described as “weak as water” or as a “King Abraham” who would oversee the destruction of the United States. Prominent Mormon John D. Lee, who would later be executed for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, referred to Lincoln as “the Black Republican,” recounts Hubbard.

The Deseret News editorialized on Feb. 27, 1861, that “…Abraham the I. has, in all probability, been installed into office as successor of James the IV (James Buchanan) … we still believe as we have for many years, that the Union, about which so much has been and is being said, will go to destruction …”

Apostle Smith publicly worried that Lincoln's crusade against slavery would extend to persecution of Utah Mormons. Smith, after blasting Lincoln's anti-slavery crusade as “a priestly influence,” added that “the spirit of priestcraft” would lead to him putting “to death, if it was in his power, every man that believes in the divine mission of Joseph Smith, or that bears testimony to the doctrines he preached.”

Hubbard's piece notes the irony of the Utah antipathy for Lincoln. In fact, it had been his chief opponent, Democrat Stephen A. Douglas, who had been most critical of Utah Mormons during the 1860 campaign. The reason for Utah opposition to Lincoln was two-fold. The Republican Party platform of that era described slavery and polygamy as the “twin relics of barbarism.” That must have stung Utah Mormons, who had only recently admitted that their church promoted and practiced polygamy. The second reason for opposition to Lincoln by the Mormon faith was rooted in LDS theology. Mormon doctrine sees the establishment of the United States as overseen by God. As Hubbard writes, “To the Mormons the election of Lincoln meant the dissolution of the Union, a nation whose creation was divinely inspired.”

With those concerns, it's perhaps not surprising that the LDS Church hierarchy was a strong opponent of the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln's plans to free the slaves. The Deseret News, which spoke only what church leaders' approved of, blasted the idea, describing it as radical and unconstitutional. The Deseret News wrote, “He (Lincoln) is fully adrift on the current of radical fanaticism” and further described the president as having been “coerced by the insanity of radicals…”

Harsh words, nevertheless, history tells us that two years later Utah's religious leadership, and by extension its citizens, were strong supporters of President Lincoln, cheering his re-election victory and later mourned and paid tribute to Lincoln after his assassination. The about face in support, explains Hubbard, was due to the president's extraordinary diplomatic skills.

Lincoln was no stranger to the “Mormon question.” As a Whig legislator in Illinois in the early 1840s, he had sought — like any other pol — the support of the Mormon voting bloc. In fact, in one election Lincoln had assumed support from the Mormons only to see it taken away by Joseph Smith for political reasons. The future president was too mature a politician to allow the snub to have long-term consequences, and refrained from harsh criticism of the church.

Hubbard writes that the first significant positive response Lincoln received from church leaders was in April 1862 when he bypassed federal officials and instead directly asked Brigham Young to supply an armed force to protect telegraph and mail lines from Indians. Hubbard writes: “The Mormon leaders were delighted with this recognition and demonstration of confidence on the part of the federal government, and their response was immediate.”

Lincoln's diplomatic skills further charmed Utah Mormons after a dispute — common in that era — erupted between church leaders and the non-Mormon leadership of the Utah territory.

Instead of the norm, which would have been to take the civilian official's side, Lincoln responded with a compromise solution. He provided the Mormons some political victories, as well as the civilian leadership. One significant move was that the anti-Mormon governor was removed from office.

The clinching act of diplomacy that endeared Lincoln to Utah Mormons, Hubbard relates, was an interview that the president provided then-active Mormon T.B.H. Stenhouse in 1863. The thrust of Lincoln's remarks as to the Mormons was to let them have autonomy in Utah. Lincoln, to Stenhouse, said, “You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone, I will let him alone.”

That advice was manna to Mormon leaders, who had sought without success such a policy for 33 years. From that point on, the Mormon change of opinion on Lincoln was complete. Hubbard writes, “As a result, the Mormon population had become fervent supporters of Abraham Lincoln, and they were looking forward to his re-election.”

The death of Lincoln united, at least temporarily, Mormons and gentiles who flocked to the Tabernacle for an overflow memorial service for the president in April 1865. Future LDS leader Wilford Woodruff delivered the benediction. As Hubbard related in 1963, Abraham Lincoln has been a revered figure in the Mormon faith ever since. Nothing has changed in 2011, 48 years later.

-- Doug Gibson