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

Mormons don’t really believe in a rapture, but we also obsess about the end times

There’s an old Mormon joke: A cardinal says to the pope, “I have good news and bad news.” The pope replies, “Good news first.” The cardinal says, “Christ has returned.” The pope says, ‘What could be the bad news?” The cardinal replies,” He’s in Salt Lake City.”

Come on, it’s funny. I used to chuckle hearing it. I was thinking of that “joke” when reading a piece from Religious News Service on multimedia preacher Tim LaHaye, co-author of the wildly successful “Left Behind” series of books. The books are entertaining but violent religious “gorenography” that contain more violence than all the “Saw” movies combined and feature Jesus Christ as an “End Times” Godzilla who slaughters millions, creating rivers of blood. 

Afterwards, LaHaye’s prose lovingly focuses on the immersion of the Antichrist and his false prophet in a lake of molten fire that will eventually consume billions of others who fail to heed the lessons of “Left Behind.” The weirdest thing about this fairy tale — that would be too obscene for the Brothers Grimm — is that its most devoted readers are southern housewives with children.

Back to Latter-day Saints and the End Times. We’re not that grim, or eager for retribution, as LaHaye is. In fact, a little-known fact about Mormonism is that we teach near universal salvation. Our version of Hell, called Perdition, has no fire. From what I can garner from 50-plus years in the LDS Church, Perdition is perpetually overcast place where “Sons of Perdition” (apparently there’s no daughters) will be forced to listen to impotent debates between Cain and Judas, with Lucifer the moderator. In other words, boring.

Mormons throw a quantum twist to all this, though. We believe that God knows everything that we will do while we are alive, which presents the non-theological but still mulled-upon idea that perhaps everything has already happened and life as we know it is a re-run. (That is definitely not LDS Church doctrine)

But Mormons obsess about the End Times as much as anyone else, even if we don’t believe in a rapture. How else to explain the consistent popularity of Glenn Beck? The “Beck influence,” — and this used to be called the “Skousen influence,” is evident anytime I have a conversation with a member who refuses to believe that anything is going to get better in the next undetermined years or decades before the second coming of Christ. Pessimism is a requirement for a Beckian.

There’s also the dubious legend of the prophet Joseph Smith claiming that the Constitution will hang by a thread before the Second Coming. There’s also the prophecy of three missionaries who will be murdered in Israel and resurrect. This is a variation of the Left Behind Apostles of Christ who do the same during “the tribulation,” or apocalyse. And of course we fervently believe that the Three Nephite apostles, along with the Apostle John, are hanging around providing perfect directions to bewildered LDS travelers.

LaHaye and scores of millions of others believe that the rapture can occur at anytime. Mormons and scores of millions of others believe that Christ can return at any time. True or not, there’s a wonderful hook if all this is actually a con. 

Bad things always exist, and bad news can always be used as proof these are the End Times. In the meantime, we better all pay our tithing.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardNet in 2010.

Review: William Smith: In the Shadow of the Prophet

Originally published at StandardNET

In “William B. Smith: In the Shadow of the Prophet” (Greg Kofford Books, 2015), author Kyle R. Walker seeks an analogy between the well-known younger brother of Joseph Smith, and their lesser-known malcontent uncle, Jesse Smith, who eventually alienated his entire family, and presumably friends, with a self-righteous anger that threatened violence at times. It’s an interesting comparison, but the sheer lack of knowledge on Jesse’s life leaves it suspect. The nephew mellowed at the end of his life; we don’t know if Jesse did but the odds are against it.

The biography of Smith is very long, somewhat psychological, and the author frequently repeats information, but it is a magnificent work. Through extensive research, Walker has compiled a detailed biography that highlights not only the many dysfunctions that hampered Joseph’s younger brother, but spotlights his talents, and provides a poignancy, particularly in his later years, that makes you admire and root for the younger brother who was tossed from the main LDS Church a year-plus after Joseph’s death.

It’s appropriate he get a good, fair biography. Growing up in the LDS Church, I heard him described as immature, impulsive, adulterous, violent, profane, hypocritical .... He was all that, but I never heard the good, the missionary work, the defense of his slain brother, his suggestion the LDS Church expand to England, his tenure as editor and state legislator, and his later failed religious initiatives that otherwise set the framework for the now-named Community of Christ’s theological foundation. They were an aversion to polygamy and a belief in a lineal hierarchy of Smiths to head the “Reorganized LDS Church.”

Smith was a complex of emotions, alternating between damning the Utah Mormons post-excommunication, to proposals, whether to Brigham Young and Orson Hyde, that he rejoin the Utah Church, but only with a promise of a renewal of apostleship and the church patriarch position, with hints that he be as highly regarded as Young. In fact, about 1860, long after his excommunication, William B. Smith impulsively was rebaptized into the Mormon Church. Nothing came of it, and Smith, entering a more stable phase of his life that would eventually lead to membership in the Community of Christ, never affiliated with his old faith.

These contradictory emotions were liabilities to Smith’s early tenure in Mormonism. Despite his time as an apostle and other leadership positions, he was never fully trusted by his peers in the hierarchy. His key strength was his familial ties, and the patience of his elder brothers, Joseph and Hyrum, who endured his weak sensitivity, grandiosity, sense of entitlement and flaring temper, which occasionally extended to violence. Smith had a stable but needy home life, married to a chronically ill wife, Caroline, and dabbling in polygamy as it was introduced. His church troubles intensified when he went on a mission in 1843 to head the Saints in New England. He alienated local leaders, eventually drumming some out of the church, and favored manipulative associates, such as George J. Adams, who flattered him.

The most serious error Smith made was to assume, due to his family name, that he had the sealing power to conduct polygamous marriages. That action eventually had him removed from the position about the time his brothers were murdered in Carthage. For the next year and a half, a shaky, oft-broken truce would last between Young, the Quorum of the Twelve and William Smith, who returned to Nauvoo in May of 1945 with a terminally ill wife who died soon after. This was a time of tension in which most of the Smiths broke association with Young’s leadership, but William’s behavior was particularly erratic. It included a strange public speech advocating then-secret polygamy, irresponsible marriages to very young teens, sympathy for criminal thugs, and constant arguments over compensation and his status as church patriarch. As Walker notes, though, even as the turmoil continued, Smith performed with enthusiasm his blessings duties as patriarch.

Smith’s church tenure was finished after he abandoned Nauvoo and published an anti-Brigham Young bromide, ironically printed in the newspaper of Thomas Sharp, the man chiefly responsible for killing his brothers. The next several years were spent moving around the region with his new family (he married his late wife’s younger sister) and allying himself with Mormon factions. As Walker notes, he had more affiliations with disaffected Mormons than any of his colleagues, including ventures with James J. Strang, Martin Harris, Lyman Wight, George J. Adams, and even John C. Bennett! 

Perhaps the most interesting part of the book is Smith’s several-year church that he headed, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He was more successful in this venture than many perhaps realize. His church had several branches, a newspaper and several hundred members with William as the prophet. The author wryly notes that once Smith was established as prophet, he hedged away from earlier positions that Joseph Smith III eventually take over the church. Alas, the church failed when a key member, Isaac Sheen, discovered William’s polygamous past and heavily publicized it. Besides the church, William also lost his wife, Caroline’s sister Roxey Ann, who with their children left him.

William B. Smith lived a long life. The last 30-plus years of his life was spent mostly in a manner far more serene than the fiery decades of 1830 through 1859. He married a woman, Eliza Sanborn, with children and they had a few of their own. The newlyweds withdrew from Mormonism and its offshoots, and lived a rustic, semi-poor existence farming in Elkader, Iowa. Smith even briefly joined the Union Army during the Civil War to make some money. He eventually affiliated, with his wife,  with the Reorganized LDS Church, and served missions and as a branch president. His status as a brother of Joseph Smith made him an admired man, and Smith used his still-strong preaching skills to laud his brother and his faith. 

He never stopped hoping that he would achieve a major position in the Community of Christ, and frequently asked such of Joseph Smith III. The son, gifted with strong patience, compassion and interpersonal skills, never acceded to his uncle’s wish but flattered his frail ego and utilized his talents, allowing him to go on missions and speak at conferences. He outlived Eliza by a few years, and even remarried before his death at 82 in 1893.

William B. Smith, arguably a rogue as a much-younger man, was a better man late in life, a kind man who greeted Utah Mormon missionaries with tears and a hug late in his life. Walker notes that the Prophet Joseph Smith once said that William would be a good man late in his life; that proved to be true. 

There’s much I haven’t mentioned in this biography. Rest assured if you have a passion for LDS Church history, you won’t be disappointed by Walker’s biography.

-- Doug Gibson

Early Mormon leader Pratt talked of spirit world, disdained ghost hunting

Originally published at StandardNET in 2010.

Today, as an LDS leader, Parley P. Pratt is mostly mentioned and taught as a subject of history, but not theology. We see his much-read, edited autobiography, as well as a little-read scholarly biography, on book shelves, and his name is listed as the author of several songs in the LDS hymn book.

Pratt was more than that, of course. In the 19th century his books on theology, available free on the web today, were required reading for serious church members. ( A book on his early writings, The Essential Parley P. Pratt, can be read here.)

There’s a convenient website to learn about Pratt. It’s at http://jared.pratt-family.org/ I peruse it often, eager to learn more about this amazing man, who lived a half a century and died a violent death, pursued by a cuckold whose wife he had married. (Brigham Young referred to Pratt’s activities as “whoring,” but there was no prurience in Pratt’s actions. His theology on earth saw no conflict in taking the unhappy wife, and Mormon convert, of a drunken spousal abuser as his own plural wife. His placid acceptance of his own violent death adds support to this assessment.)

Pratt’s writings on the post-life spirit world, while not often cited today, clearly laid a framework for how the spirit world is taught today in the LDS Church. It’s key to understand that to be “active” in the Mormon church requires service. And there’s no defined approved amount of service. Example: at our ward conference on Sunday, our stake president definitively told the congregation that more service is needed. Further explanation: as Pratt taught years ago, Mormonism believes that every person on earth needs to be taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As with many other Christian religions, Mormons are taught that every person who has lived on earth will accept Christ as his or her savior.

Almost 161 years ago, Pratt laid out the spirit world in a General Conference address on April 7, 1853, in Salt Lake City. Pratt described the spirits that left life as “organized intelligences,” created long before they entered and departed earth, a second estate to Mormons.

Pratt taught that the spirit, being material, contained the shape and characteristics of a mortal body. The spirit also retained what we had learned in the first estate (pre-existence) and the second estate (earth). These characteristics included knowledge, emotions, passions, beliefs, and vices.

In the discourse, he says: “Let a given quantity of this element, thus endowed, or capacitated, be organized in the size and form of man, let every organ be developed, formed, and endowed, precisely after the pattern or model of man’s outward or fleshly tabernacle, what would we call this individual organized portion of the spiritual element?

“We would call it a spiritual body; an individual intelligence; an agent endowed with life, with a degree of independence, or inherent will; with the powers of motion, of thought, and with the attributes of moral, intellectual, and sympathetic affections and emotions.

“We would conceive of it as possessing eyes to see, ears to hear, hands to handle, as in possession of the organ of taste, of smelling and of speech.

“Such beings are we, when we have laid off this outward tabernacle of flesh. We are in every way interested, in our relationships, kindred ties, sympathies, affections, and hopes as if we had continued to live, but had stepped aside, and were experiencing the loneliness of absence for a season. ....”

(Pratt also taught what Mormons are taught today, that after we die, the “veil,” which prevented a knowledge of our first estate — thereby allowing free agency — is lifted, and we recall our entire existence.)

But, getting back to the spirit world, Pratt describes it as having “many places” and “degrees.” Mormons like to use the terms “Paradise,” where more-righteous exist, and “spirit prison,’ where unrighteous spirits reside. Pratt describes it in deeper terms.

The more unrighteous a person is in the spirit world, the longer the sinner’s wait — in darkness and misery — before he or she receive education, and ultimately accepts the Gospel.

Here is how Pratt describes the lowest degrees of the spirit world: “I will suppose, in the spirit world, a grade of spirits of the lowest order, composed of murderers, robbers, thieves, adulterers, drunkards, and persons ignorant, uncultivated, etc., who are in prison, or in hell, without hope, without God, and unworthy as yet of gospel instruction. Such spirits, if they could communicate, would not tell you of the resurrection, or of any of the gospel truths; for they know nothing about them. They would not tell you about heaven, or priesthood, for in all their meanderings in the world of spirits, they have never been privileged with the ministry of a holy priest. If they should tell all the truth they possess, they could not tell much.”

Ultimately, as Pratt and current LDS doctrine define, the responsibilities of righteous spirits mandate more service. The second estate is not a period of blissful rest, but more missionary work.

In fact, Pratt is a bit prescient in his disdain of today’s pop-fascination with “ghost-hunting,” as well as the fad of spiritualism, which was beginning its long popularity in the mid-19th century. As Pratt explains in his discourse, the righteous spirits have little interest in what occurs on earth; they are far too preoccupied with serving the countless spirits who need assistance.

He even describes what the spirit world must be like for the slain Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith, saying: “… if I were to judge from the acquaintance I had with him in this life, and from my knowledge of the spirit of priesthood I would suppose him to be so hurried as to have little or no time to cast an eye or a thought after his friends on the earth. He was always busy while here, and so are we. The spirit of our holy ordination and anointing will not let us rest. The spirit of his calling will never suffer him to rest, while Satan, sin, death or darkness possess a foot of ground on this earth. While the spirit world contains the spirit of one of his friends, or the grave holds captive one of their bodies he will never rest, or slacken his labors.”

Parley P. Pratt envisioned a world of spirits with missionaries, and their superiors, on the run, constantly busy, trying to fulfill what is the mantra of Mormonism’s Heavenly Father, who is quoted in LDS scripture as such, “… this is my work and my glory — to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” (Moses 1:39, The Pearl of Great Price)

Today’s LDS General Conference sessions often feature shorter, earnest “peanut butter & jelly” speeches that reflect a safer, more cautious era.

Pratt’s discourses and writings provide a rougher, but healthier meal.

-- Doug Gibson

Brigham Young and the Expansion of the Mormon Faith, a review

Review by Doug Gibson

"Brigham Young and the Expansion of the Mormon Faith," 2019, University of Oklahoma Press, follow a more comprehensive biography a few years back from John Turner, "Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet. (Reviewed here)

Thomas C. Alexander is the author of ... Expansion of the Mormon Faith, and despite not being as detailed as Turner's biography -- as part of the Oklahoma Western Biographies series, it lacks footnotes, for example -- it is a very valuable historical and biographical resource, offering insights and accounts of Young's time in Utah that may surprise readers.

The book moves rapidly through Young's life until events after Nauvoo, then it settles down into a much more detailed account of the Mormon prophet's life in Utah. Early in the book, Alexander provides life passages that underscore both Young's learned stances and philosophies on life. For example, he was amicably turned out of his home by his father at age 16 with the admonition to make his way in the world. Also, as a young man, Young was a more radical Methodist, insisting on baptism by immersion and a believer in talking in tongues. In fact, he joined the more radical Reformed Methodists, writes Alexander. For a while, early Mormonism included talking in tongues, of which Young participated in.

As mentioned, the meat of the biography is Young's 30-year tenure as ecclesiastical leader in Utah -- and for a while governor -- although he retained political power even after having to accept territory leaders sent by Washington D.C. Readers who are accustomed to hearing that Young was a forbidding autocrat who brooked no dissent or disobedience from church members will be surprised by Alexander's account. Not infrequently, church members ignored Young's advice. Some examples: Some members Young would call -- from the pulpit -- on missions chose not to serve; some members called to colonize new towns would either not go or return home after a short spell; some merchants would refuse Young's admonitions to not sell or trade with out-of-state, or non-Mormon, merchants; some of Young's ecclesiastical opinions, notably blood atonement and the Adam-God Doctrine, were disputed by members and high church leaders. The latter never gained acceptance, the former appears to be a possibly misunderstood remnant of the Mormon Reformation only.

However, this is not to intend that Alexander's biography is a harsh critique of Young.It's no hagiography either. Alexander notes Young's strong personality and organizational skills. He managed to settle hundreds of colonies through Utah and the rest of the Intermountain West. He retained great loyalty and devotion among members of the Mormon Faith during his tenure. Although he made his share of mistakes, he was enough of a diplomat to endure severe hostility from Washington D.C., non-Mormon territorial leaders, military officials, and dissident Mormons within Utah. His stature, diplomatic skills, and relationships with allies, such as non-Mormon Thomas L. Kane, occasionally assisted his efforts to sway U.S. officials to ease tensions. It's clear that without Brigham Young, the Utah Mormon Faith would likely have splintered apart.

Young had a caustic tongue, and was a strong, talented public speaker who spoke off the cuff a lot. Alexander acknowledges that his rhetoric caused problems. The author accurately notes that Young did not order the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but points out the sharply inappropriate remarks Young made at the site,, talking about revenge being taken. Alexander writes that Young, for years after the massacre, urged federal officials -- to no avail -- to speed their slow investigation.

Alexander does a  great job describing the tension and dangers that swept through Utah during the Utah War in 1857 and the later Black Hawk War. The former inspired a palpable fear in Utah. Salt Lake City was emptied at one point. A tragic error by Young that allowed a Native American ally to be killed by Mormon settlers exacerbated the already deadly Black Hawk War. In both cases Young learned from mistakes, having the presence of mind to negotiate and make concessions in order to achieve peace, however uneasy it may have been.

Young had an idealistically contradictory viewpoints of Native Americans. Believing them as meant to be part of the restored gospel, he wanted to keep them close to settlers. This clashed with the goal of obtaining more land and resources for settlements. These conflicts flared into violence, with Young sometimes sanctioning the deaths of Native Americans. At the same time, he was angry at settlers who dealt harshly with Native Americans. Eventually, Native Americans were moved away onto reservations, with monetary promises from the federal government that were largely reneged on.

Young's discourses are covered well in the book. On issues, he was progressive for his times on women's role in society. He supported suffrage; Utah territory provided the vote to women. He also routinely granted divorce to women who requested it. Despite his own limited education, he implemented a strong education system, including BYU, University of Utah and LDS Business College. He also strongly supported the arts in Utah society, favoring concerts and stage productions. In fact, he called church members to be in the arts, prompting (appropriate) complaints that they needed to be paid for their time and efforts,

The book provides familial details of Young's family life among his many spouses and children. In the Beehive and other houses, daily family spiritual time was mandated. Alexander notes Young's occasional chagrin that some family occasionally missed those spiritual hours.

His final years, as Alexander notes, were accompanied by increasing health problems. One of his final public acts was the dedication of the St. George Temple. Too weak to stand during the ceremonies, Young was carried throughout the building and spoke seated. He also did a lot of church reorganization in the final years, including ranking apostle leadership by ordination rather than age.

Alexander's biography is relatively easy to read. There's much more than I summarized. I was surprised by some of the details of Young's mind and life that I learned from the book. The Young depicted, while flawed as any other man, is both pragmatic, eager to learn more, and learned from his mistakes.

Young was struck ill in the summer of 1877 and died soon afterward. According to Alexander, although his health was poor many today believe he died of appendicitis, which was not diagnosed as such in that time.

Parts of the biography that stand out are the accounts of the Utah War, the Mormon Reformation, the Mountain Meadows Massacre and its aftermath, the Black Hawk War, a section on Young's discourses, and accounts of the prophet's family life.

Mitt Romney’s dad George was too perfect to be president in 1968

(This post, originally published at StandardNET, was written in 2010, long before Mitt Romney's unsuccessful 2012 bid for the presidency.)

The Spring 1971 BYU Studies journal has an interesting article. Titled, “The 1968 Presidential Decline of George Romney: Mormonism or Politics?,” it’s an interesting look at the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney’s father (seen above). The elder Romney was as an attractive a candidate in 1967 as his son was 40 years later. They were both very handsome and about the same age when they ran. The elder Romney never ran for the presidency again. He served in President Richard Nixon’s cabinet for one term.

It’s popular today to assign Romney’s relatively early demise in the 1968 presidential derby to the bad publicity resulting from his claim that he was “brainwashed” into supporting the Vietnam War by U.S. military, but writer Dennis L. Lythgoe disagrees. Romney’s perfect persona was disconcerting to many voters, Lythgoe asserts. The American electorate may not have bought a used car from a man like Richard Nixon, but they were more apt to vote for Tricky Dick than for auto executive George Romney, who had revolutionized the auto industry by pushing compact cars onto the market.

Mixed in with Romney’s “perfectness” was a piety that disquieted voters. Romney’s campaign took issue with the declining morals of a nation. His stump speech, according to Lythgoe’s reporting, involved the “nation’s six declines: religious conviction, moral character, quality of family life, the principal of individual responsibility, patriotism and respect for law.”

Yet George Romney lacked passion detailing these issues. He also didn’t appear to have a great command of the issues. Voters sensed a vagueness from Romney on the issues. I’ve read “Nixonland,” by Rick Perlstein, which covers the early mid-1960s to early ‘70s and my hunch is that Romney simply wasn’t as Machiavellian as Richard Milhouse Nixon. Romney appears to have been asking Americans to be more decent. However, Nixon was pointing at other Americans and saying, “you are more decent than those people.” Nixon used division, scapegoats and created faux victims to boost his political fortunes. George Romney doesn’t appear to have been capable of that vilification.

It would be impossible today for any Mormon to be a serious contender for the presidency if the church still barred black males from holding the priesthood. Surprisingly, though, it doesn’t seem to have been the biggest barrier to Romney’s campaign. There were lots of news articles about the LDS Church’s blacks and the priesthood policy during that election cycle, and the elder Romney was criticized often for it, but his strong support for civil rights as governor of Michigan diluted much of the bad publicity that might have resulted. However, one must also factor in that 42 years ago we were a less racially tolerant society than we are now.

In the 1960s, George Romney was not shy about claiming that he consulted God about all major decisions. According to Lythgoe, he reportedly prayed to God for guidance prior to his decision to run for governor of Michigan in 1962.

It would be interesting today to track the fortunes of a presidential candidate who made those same statements. President George W. Bush was criticized for his reliance on God’s counsel, but it didn’t stop him from serving eight years in office.

Despite his piety, Romney was considered a moderate, even a liberal Republican. In what would make a Beck 9/12 member gasp, he cited progressive Teddy Roosevelt as a hero. Yet he lost badly, apparently failing to grab the blue collar middle class workers who boosted Nixon. Lythgoe cites three main reasons for Romney’s loss: “his vagueness on the issues; the Negro Doctrine of the Mormon Church; and his piety.”

Reporters came to believe that he did not have deep enough knowledge of the national scene, especially foreign affairs, to handle himself effectively on the political stump,” he writes.
Finally, the “fear that he believed himself to be divine and therefore incapable of error produced new frustrations in the voters,” added Lythgoe.

Was Romney the first perfect politician? Was that “perfection” also a problem with his son Mitt? In my opinion, the younger Romney is an overwhelming favorite to grab the GOP presidential nod in 2012. It will be interesting to see how the son fares in a challenge his father never undertook.

-- Doug Gibson

Book argues that Book of Mormon a response to Anti-Semitism in New Testament

Review by Doug Gibson

Bradley J. Kramer, who has degrees from both the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Brigham Young University, provides a provocative argument in a new book published by Greg Kofford Books, Salt Lake City. At least it's a provocative argument to readers such as myself, with a more casual relationship to Gospel knowledge and analysis.

The theme is described in the title, "Gathered in One -- How the Book of Mormon Counters Anti-Semitism in the New Testament." The author does not consider the New Testament to be uninspired nor anything less than essential to those who adhere to or seek to learn more about Christianity. In fact, it's mulled in the book that perhaps anti-Judaism is a better term than anti-Semitism.

With analysis augmented by references to religious scholars, Kramer argues that much of the New Testament, particularly in the Gospel of Matthew and John, can perpetuate a hostility and increasing prejudice against Jews. The aforementioned Gospels, including later parts of The New Testament, were written several decades after Christ was crucified. The Romans had utilized extreme force against the Jews, and this influenced sentiments within the still-young Christian faith.

An example of this cited in Matthew Chapter 27, is the Gospel author's assertion that all Jews present urged a hesitant Pontius Pilate to kill Jesus. This includes the so-called blood curse, where the Jews are quoted as saying "his blood be on us, and on our children."

As Kramer writes, "And now, before all its readers, the Gospel of Matthew passes judgment on the Jews ... inviting its readers to scourge and mock and ultimately execute them, just as the ancient Jews allegedly did Jesus."

Kramer's book dismisses the Gospel interpretation of Pilate as urging leniency to Christ, arguing that the Roman official historically was known for brutal leadership and disrespect to the Jews, and was eventually recalled to Rome. Another provocative argument broached in the book is that the Pharisees were not the hyper-judgmental, hyper-letter-of-the-law hypocrites as they are described. Rather, the Sadducees, were the party of the elites. The Pharisees, the book adds, represented the middle- and lower-classes. The book notes that some scholars even believe Christ may have sympathized with the Pharisees, and -- gulp -- might even have been one.

Quoting Fisher, Kramer writes, "(Matthew's Pharisees are) not the Pharisees of Jesus' time, but those of Matthew's own that the Gospel author is arguing against." As mentioned, The Gospel of Matthew was written several decades after Christ's earthly life.

The Gospel of John, it is argued in the book, can be perceived as being worse than Matthew's Gospel, as it casts the Jews as "(abiding) in darkness," "(wicked) masters of Israel," and "blind to all things spiritual," and more. As Kramer notes, the rhetoric makes it seem impossible that the Jews could remain God's covenant people.

The Book of Mormon provides a distinct, more forgiving interpretation that avoids anti-Judaism, asserts Kramer, who is the author of "Beholding the Tree of Life: A Rabbinic Approach to the Book of Mormon." As Kramer notes, 1st Nephi 14:14 assures that Jews will eventually be "armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory." Other Book of Mormon scriptures promise that righteous people will look toward the Jews to receive correct teachings and counsel.

Kramer also writes that in the Book of Mormon, when the sins of wicked groups or individuals are revealed, the rhetoric by prophets condemning the sinful behavior "seems not so much to revel in their moral turpitude, as the Gospels appear to do with respect to the Pharisees, as it is to reveal the strength of God's commitment to them."

An example of this, Kramer adds, is Laman and Lemuel, never cast out or left behind by their father or brothers. And that offer of forgiveness and inclusiveness is extended to their descendants, no matter how opposed their theologies are.

Also, as Kramer writes, The Book of Mormon urges Christians to listen respectfully to Jews who disagree with the prophets, and to consider them as friends. Nephi maintained that the Jews had much to teach us. (The book includes this reference from  2nd Nephi 25:5 -- "... I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews."

There's much more to this fascinating read. It addresses a harsh truth, which is that anti-Semitism clings to Christianity. However, without tarnishing the spiritual gifts of the New Testament, this problem can be addressed. The Book of Mormon serves as a guide to resolving this uncomfortable issue.

Early Mormon grudge against President Van Buren lasted a long time

Mormons believe that the higher level of salvation, or exaltation, a person earns after their time on Earth determines the extent of their power and responsibilities throughout eternity. Temple ceremonies on earth are connected to the Mormon view of the hereafter. As can be expected, energetic Mormons have done temple work for just about all of the U.S. presidents and even founding fathers. For a long time, there was one key exception: the eighth U.S. president, Martin Van Buren. (See above in this Matthew Brady photograph)

Although it wasn’t true, I was told as a child by more than one adult LDS Church member that temple ceremonies had not been performed for President Van Buren as punishment for his deliberate betrayal to the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith and the early LDS church members. And indeed, Smith was very bitter when, on a visit to Washington D.C. in 1839, President Van Buren emphatically rejected the young church’s pleas to allow church members to settle peacefully in Missouri or at least be paid for their losses at the hands of that state’s anti-Mormon mobs. In early 1840, Smith met again with Van Buren, who uttered these LDS-iconic words: “...your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you.

Although the incident — to Van Buren — was probably one of many minor annoyances a president had to deal with, to the early, clannish, persecuted Saints, Van Buren became the scapegoat, or at least symbol, of what members perceived as indifference and mistreatment from the federal government. Before he died, Smith said that Van Buren “was not as fit as my dog, for the chair of state; for my dog will make an (effort) to protect his absurd and insulted master ...” Later, when the LDS members moved to Utah, then-Prophet Brigham Young condemned Van Buren from the pulpit.

The rumor that Van Buren never had his temple work done probably started in 1877, when then-Prophet Wilford Woodruff oversaw most of the U.S. presidents’ temple work but deliberately left out Van Buren, and 15th U.S. president, James Buchanan, who sent the U.S. Army to Utah in 1857.

In an interesting irony — according to the book, “Presidents and Prophets,” by Michael K. Winder — despite Woodruff’s actions, Van Buren, who died in 1862, had actually been baptized for the dead in the Salt Lake City Endowment House in 1876. However, it was not until 1938, during the tenure of then-Prophet Heber J. Grant, that Van Buren received his full temple endowments. Buchanan had received his six years prior. Still, the long feelings of enmity toward Van Buren that church leaders cultivated for scores of years was strong enough to last well into the latter half of the 20th century.

It’s difficult for people who are not members of the LDS Church to understand the fuss over posthumous baptisms and temple work, but the importance attached to these ordinances by members are part of what makes the LDS Church unique and contributes to the still-quirky image of my faith 180 years after its founding..

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardNET in 2010.

The Fighting Preacher is T.C. Christensen's best film

This is not really a review. I watched, with great interest, T.C. Christensen's film, "The Fighting Preacher," which is the story of Willard Bean and his wife, Rebecca, and their efforts to revive the LDS Church in Palmyra, New York. Their mission lasted roughly 25 years. Christensen has consistently improved film by film and that makes "The Fighting Preacher" his best film. "The Fighting Preacher" is faith-affirming without the syrup and suspension of belief that accompanied earlier efforts. He's more subtle in this film.

A perfect example is the film's strongest scene, where Bean, talking to a formerly hostile Palmyra local with whom he has slowly developed a friendship, mentions his first, unsuccessful marriage. Talking about his wife's tragic murder at the hands of an abusive man after her divorce, Bean expresses deep regret and sadness that he wasn't a better husband to her, saying, clearly remorseful, that he could have done better.

I should note that the two actors playing Willard and Rebecca Bean, David McConnell and Cassidy Hubert, are superb in their roles.

Boxing plays a big role in the film. Until Gene Fullmer came along in the 1950s, Bean was arguably the best Mormon boxer who was active in the faith (Jack Dempsey was an inactive Mormon, who jokingly called himself a "Jack Mormon.") The film depicts Bean as a middleweight champion, and shows him winning a major title. I've done research on Bean's boxing career and am convinced he was never the middleweight champ, national or world. The world middleweight champion during that era was Tommy Ryan.

Bean's BoxRec.com boxing record lists his fighting days ending in 1902. BoxRec is likely not complete and it's very possible Bean fought for a promotion that described his fight as for the "world's or national middleweight championship," (that kind of stuff happens today) but it wasn't, if it happened, for a title that the high-level boxing world of that era would have paid attention to.

However, Bean was a very good pro fighter. He lost a decision to Fireman Jim Flynn, who fought twice for the world heavyweight title, and defeated Jack Dempsey (Flynn lost the rematch). Bean also fought to a no decision, although newspaper reports tagged him the loser, to Joe Choynski, one of the early greats of boxing, a Hall of Fame boxer. So no bones about, Bean was a splendid boxer.

Here is an Ensign article about Willard Bean that serves as a template for "The Fighting Preacher." There is a larger book version of Bean's life but I have been unable to procure a copy.

Here is a link to my blog post on Bean's boxing career, Willard Bean, Mormonism's Fighting Parson, did have an admirable pro career.. His life was a fascinating one.

When Socialism was popular with Mormons and Utah

Mormons, as well as the state of Utah, have been identified as conservative/Republican for so long that it may surprise many to know that 100 years ago more than a few Mormons in Utah were card-carrying socialists, rallying against the evils of capitalism.

No, socialists were never the majority in Utah, nor were most socialists in Utah LDS, but in the years between 1900 and 1920, the Socialist Party in Utah enjoyed some triumphs.

In the early 20th century, about 40 percent of the members of the Utah Socialist Party were LDS. There were many thousands of socialists in Utah, which was only one of 18 states that had socialists in its state legislature. In fact, there were nine socialist publications in Utah, with the largest, The Intermountain Worker, boasting a circulation of 5,000.

If you can find the spring, 1985 edition of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, John R. Sillito (of Weber State University) and John S. McCormick (of the Utah State Historical Society), provide the interesting information on the rise and fall of the Utah and LDS socialists. Utah socialists controlled the entire administrations in Bingham, Murray and twice in Eureka. The demographics of Utah’s socialists mirrored the national party at that time. The Socialist Party peaked in 1912, with presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs getting close to 1 million votes.

Eureka, a mining town, was the center of socialist success. According to Sillito and McCormick, They write, “In 1907, the voters of Eureka elected Wilford Woodruff Freckleton to the city council as a socialist. Halfway through his term. Mormon Church authorities called him on a mission to England. Upon his return two years later, he resumed his involvement in the Socialist Party and in 1917 was again elected to the city council on the socialist ticket.

A.L. Porter, a Mormon and prominent Springville socialist, wrote this declaration of beliefs that was unearthed Springville High School gymnasium, dedicated in 1931 (Porter was the janitor): “Our political faith is Socialism, our religious faith is (Mormon) the Latter-day Saints. We are living under capitalism and the wealth of the world is privately owned by individuals ... but this building is collectively owned by the community ... It is built by wage slavery as all labor at this point in history is ...”

In 1981, the authors recount, the opening of the cornerstone of the Gila Stake Academy in Thatcher, Ariz., revealed a socialist manifesto written by a prominent Mormon of that period, George W. Williams, who helped construct the building. Williams, born in Toquerville, Utah, firmly stated his beliefs, including, “millions are walking the streets of our large cities seeking employment. The capitalists who own the machinery of governments are using every means under their control to hold in check the rise of the workers who are beginning to show their strength ...” Williams “expected those who read his statement in the future to ‘be living in the light of a better day,’” write Sillito and McCormick.

More than 100 socialists were elected in Utah in 19 communities during that era, but by 1920 the movement had already peaked and socialism began its slide into irrelevance that remains today. Sillito and McCormick offer three reasons why the socialist movement waned in Utah. The first was the memory of the unsuccessful United Order socialist-like communities. While the United Order doctrine attracted some Mormons to socialism, its failures also led to a lack of enthusiasm for a collective society.

The second reason cited is that many non-LDS socialists were very critical of the Mormon Church and its cultural and political influences within the state. One prominent Utah socialist, Murray B. Schick, in a national socialist newspaper, harshly criticized the church for its emerging movements into the corporate world.

History has proven Schick correct, at least from a socialist perspective, but his and others’ critiques turned off many active Mormons from socialism.

The third reason, according to Sillito and McCormick, is that the LDS Church was moving toward a more free-enterprise, capitalistic institution. “Mormon leaders ... were clearly, if unofficially, anti-socialist, just as they were anti-union...,” write the authors.

The growth of Utah socialism clashed with the LDS Church’s deliberate decision to try to move into the mainstream of American society. In that kind of battle, at least in Utah, the Socialist Party was no match for the Mormon Church.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardNet