Perspectives Re: Latter-day Saints and Nazis

[smac97]

I have encountered two separate articles about how the Church interacted with the Nazi regime in the 1930s-1940s:

Article by Jana Riess: Dear Mormons, our history of worrying about 'impure blood' doesn't end well

The article is political (about the Trump election), but Jana provides extensive commentary in it about the Latter-day Saints in Germany back in the day:

Quote

Ordinary Germans who viewed themselves as good people — people who took casseroles to sick neighbors and attended church regularly — voted for Hitler in large numbers. They did so because he promised an end to their economic woes and vowed to make their nation one the world would have to respect again.

Not coincidentally, he also gave them convenient scapegoats for all the things that were wrong with their country — Jews, Roma people, sexual minorities, people of color. Anyone with “impure” blood. Anyone who did not belong in his vision, anyone with “poison” in their veins.
...
It’s likely that there were eager Latter-day Saints at those {Nuremberg} rallies. According to historian David Conley Nelson, most German Mormons were accommodationists of the Hitler regime, to varying degrees. The one German Mormon we have chosen to remember is one who resisted: teenage martyr Helmuth Hübener, the youngest resistance fighter to be executed for opposing the Nazi regime. We love his story, the fact that he sacrificed everything to be on the right side of justice, living out the gospel with everything he had.

But the LDS Church in Germany did not support him; in fact, his Nazi branch president excommunicated him for standing up to Hitler.

 

Again: Most church members in Germany were accommodationists. In fact, two of the saddest episodes that emerge in Nelson’s historical research relate to how obsequiously German Latter-day Saints sought to make themselves useful to the Nazi regime by helping Nazis with two things Mormons were very good at: basketball and genealogy.

In 1935 and 1936, Mormon missionaries helped teach the German national team how to play basketball so they could compete in the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games, the first to include basketball as a medal competition. They were apparently delighted to share their knowledge.

Throughout the 1930s, German church members employed their talents at genealogical research to assist fellow Germans in finding their ancestors — not for the usual reason of linking families together forever in the eternities, but for the much darker purpose of proving their Aryan ancestry. Germans living under Hitler’s regime had to demonstrate their “biological purity, free of ‘racial pollution’ or the ‘corrupting blood’ of Jews or others Hitler considered to be inferior,” Nelson writes. And Latter-day Saints, with their expertise in family history, were only too happy to help Germans verify their racial superiority.

A somewhat contrasting view from the Deseret News today: Newly published Nazi archives reveal the regime’s disdain for the Church of Jesus Christ

Quote

In the hushed corridors of Berlin’s Bundesarchiv lies a dossier of some 500 pages compiled by the Nazi Party’s intelligence agency — the Sicherheitsdienst, or SD — on an unlikely group: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The B. H. Roberts Foundation recently acquired and published this dossier which provides an unfiltered view into the regime’s scrutiny of the faith under the Nazi regime between 1933 and November 1939, two months after the war began. Surveillance reports, police files, confiscated literature, and internal Nazi correspondence reveal the Nazi government’s suspicion and disdain toward German Saints who, though law-abiding, most often carefully distanced themselves from Nazism.

That's a fairly distinct view from the one advanced by Jana.

Quote

As a small religious community in pre-war Germany, the church and its members faced a profound dilemma under Adolf Hitler’s regime. Confronted by Nazi ideology, which intruded upon every aspect of life, German Latter-day Saints sought to survive while remaining true to their beliefs. While a minority of Saints embraced Nazism, the pages within the Gestapo dossier illustrate the fine line the church had to walk, balancing cautious compliance with quiet defiance — while underscoring the moral complexities of maintaining one’s faith in an oppressive state.

Riess: "Most church members in Germany were accommodationists."

Des News: "German Saints {}, though law-abiding, most often carefully distanced themselves from Nazism. ... While a minority of Saints embraced Nazism..."

Quote

Nazi threats and monitoring

Early signs of Nazi scrutiny of the church appeared as soon as Hitler rose to power. In 1933, Oliver H. Budge, president of the German-Austrian Mission, assured Gestapo officials of the Church’s political neutrality and subservience to the law. Yet Nazi authorities remained unconvinced, viewing the Latter-day Saints as a “Sekte” (“sect,” the colloquial German term for “cult”) to be monitored for potential “anti-state” activities.

By 1936, the pressure intensified. That April, Latter-day Saint mission leaders were summoned by the Gestapo and warned that “the strictest state police measures” would be imposed on the Saints if any hint of opposition to the Nazi regime emerged within their community.

The threat had teeth. The documents from the dossier reveal that the Nazi government monitored Latter-day Saint worship meetings, missionary activity, church publications and individual members, infiltrating and scrutinizing even benign church activities. Nazi police arrested missionaries and confiscated numerous church pamphlets (this was prior to missionaries leaving the country, as depicted in the 2024 movie, “Escape from Germany”). And authorities under the infamous Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels officially banned The Articles of Faith by Latter-day Saint apostle James E. Talmage.

Gestapo officials categorized the church’s teachings as subversive to the Nazi state, and internal correspondence shows that Reich officials seriously considered banning the church entirely, with one 1937 memorandum indicating that while a “potential dissolution was being considered,” it was deemed “currently unfeasible” only due to the Church’s international connections. Some Nazis also spread bizarre conspiracy theories, with one report claiming that church President Heber J. Grant was a “Jewish millionaire” who controlled the banks in Utah.

Sports diplomacy and survival strategies

In 1936, the church found a unique way to ease tensions with the government: teaching basketball. As Germany prepared to host the Berlin Olympics, the Nazi government invited American Latter-day Saint missionaries, familiar with the sport, to coach the German national basketball team. Melvyn M. Cowan, a missionary in the German-Austrian Mission, wrote that this cooperation provided “a new means whereby the Gospel of Jesus Christ can be preached by words and actions, to the youth of a nation—a youth less available, perhaps, under ordinary circumstances.” For Cowan, it was a chance to foster goodwill with German officials while avoiding direct political conflict.

The missionaries’ involvement in Olympic training was not a sign of political support but a strategic effort to portray the church as harmless and cooperative, along with an opportunity to have a positive influence on German youth. This pragmatic choice allowed the church to continue its work under a regime that viewed most religious groups with suspicion and hostility.

A stark contrast: Ideology vs. faith

In 1936, Apostle John A. Widtsoe articulated the church’s stance on the authoritarian regimes of the time, writing that “Communism, Fascism, and Nazism may be judged by this principle — whatever endangers to the least degree man’s right to act for himself is not of God and must be resisted by Latter-day Saints.” Widtsoe’s condemnation of totalitarianism resonated with many Saints, who believed that Nazism, at its core, violated the religious principle of free agency.

This fundamental conflict between Nazi ideology and Latter-day Saint doctrine appears in one of the most thorough Gestapo reports on the church — a memorandum prepared in 1938 for Reichsleiter Alfred Rosenberg. Rosenberg was one of the primary ideological architects of National Socialism as well as a member of Hitler’s inner circle. The report concluded that due to the faith’s international orientation and “pacifist tendencies,” its belief in modern prophets and revelation, and because of its “glorification of Judaism” and Jewish scripture (the Old Testament), “the doctrine of the Mormons is incompatible with the National Socialist worldview.”
...

Leadership’s position on neutrality and resistance

Despite ideological conflicts, Latter-day Saint leaders in Germany and Utah counseled members to focus on spiritual growth rather than political matters. Roy A. Welker, president of the German-Austrian Mission from 1934 to 1937, reassured Nazi officials that the church would comply with state regulations, invoking the Twelfth Article of Faith, which emphasizes honoring and sustaining the law. When church President Heber J. Grant visited Germany in 1937, he urged German Saints to focus on living the gospel and avoid entangling themselves in political affairs. Gestapo agent Fräulein Peycke was in attendance at one of Grant’s speeches in Berlin and reported its contents to her supervisors.

However, internally, church leaders referred to the German government as “criminals” and “detestable.” As America entered World War II and communication with church headquarters in Utah was severed, church leaders in America spoke more forcefully. In 1943, future church President David O. McKay denounced Hitler as a “murderous dictator,” while German Saints struggled to endure the war, isolated from the church in America.

Conclusion: Resistance, not accommodation

These newly published documents suggest that the church’s survival in Nazi Germany was far from guaranteed. Through minimal compliance with regime requirements while maintaining their religious principles, German Latter-day Saints managed to preserve their faith community during one of history’s darkest chapters. The fact that only about 5% of German Latter-day Saints became Nazi Party members, roughly half the rate of the general population, speaks to the Saints’ reluctance to embrace Nazi ideology, even under intense pressure to conform.

While some, such as Hübener’s branch president Arthur Zander, embraced Nazism, the majority of Saints continued to show “no interest in political events and current affairs,” as one Nazi official frustratedly noted in the 1938 Rosenberg report. Instead, these members of the church maintained their focus on religious rather than political devotion. These newly published files challenge simplistic and misleading narratives about the Latter-day Saints in Nazi Germany, revealing instead a complex story of a faith community trying to protect its members while remaining true to their beliefs.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Dario_M]

Oh my.. are we again talking about politics? 🙄 

[sunstoned]

This is apparently a follow-up article in the SLTrib by Jana Riess titled,

After Trump’s election, Latter-day Saints are again on the wrong side of history

 

From the article:

Quote

Most church members were accommodationists in Nazi Germany. While they may not embrace all of Trump’s agenda, today’s Latter-day Saints are enabling the unseemly elements of his platform.

 

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/11/12/after-trumps-election-latter-day/

 

 

 

[Amulek]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

In 1935 and 1936, Mormon missionaries helped teach the German national team how to play basketball so they could compete in the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games, the first to include basketball as a medal competition. They were apparently delighted to share their knowledge.

Well, apparently it didn't help much. According to Wikipedia the German team lost to Switzerland in the first round and was then knocked out by Italy in the consolation round (neither were close contests).

Also, I don't really think of Mormon missionaries playing basketball as being a stellar example of Saints having been "obsequious" agents of the Nazi regime.

In fact, both of the examples given seem more like placating attempts at staying off the radar.

 

[CV75]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have encountered two separate articles about how the Church interacted with the Nazi regime in the 1930s-1940s:

Article by Jana Riess: Dear Mormons, our history of worrying about 'impure blood' doesn't end well

The article is political (about the Trump election), but Jana provides extensive commentary in it about the Latter-day Saints in Germany back in the day:

A somewhat contrasting view from the Deseret News today: Newly published Nazi archives reveal the regime’s disdain for the Church of Jesus Christ

That's a fairly distinct view from the one advanced by Jana.

Riess: "Most church members in Germany were accommodationists."

Des News: "German Saints {}, though law-abiding, most often carefully distanced themselves from Nazism. ... While a minority of Saints embraced Nazism..."

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think accommodation typically involves carefully distancing without embracing. So, I see consistency between the Reis and Deseret News conclusions on that point.

There is a similar accommodation taking place in keeping the two great commandments, and some grace to be found in Joseph Smith’s assertion that “It doesn't prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.” Neither of these ideas support an ideologically based critique of the Church or our neighbor (past and present). Reiss seems more prone to pushing an ideologically-based critique than the Deseret News does. But maybe I'm biased.

On what basis should one punch a Nazi or anyone else who errs in doctrine or accommodation?

[CV75]

46 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

This is apparently a follow-up article in the SLTrib by Jana Riess titled,

After Trump’s election, Latter-day Saints are again on the wrong side of history

 

From the article:

 

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/11/12/after-trumps-election-latter-day/

 

 

 

I'm assuming slightly more than half the USA saints voted for Trump and slightly half voted for Harris -- just like the rest of the nation. I don't think it right to judge a particular community before history is made due to disappointment in the winner of an election. I think the Church's stance on abortion and immigration as moral matters (for example, just pulled those out of the air!  ) fall very short of extreme. I think Riess' assertion, "Our people are once again on the wrong side of justice, the wrong side of the gospel and the wrong side of history," and her comparison to Nazi accommodation, shows her own propensity to accommodate extremist rhetoric. Brutish.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Oh my.. are we again talking about politics? 🙄 

Never!

[Dario_M]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Never!

Hmmm. 🧐

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

This is apparently a follow-up article in the SLTrib by Jana Riess titled,

After Trump’s election, Latter-day Saints are again on the wrong side of history

 

From the article:

 

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/11/12/after-trumps-election-latter-day/

 

 

 

How can someone say that the two saddest acts of accommodationism were some missionaries teaching the german team basketball and genealogy work?  How far on the wrong side of history can a group really be when that's the level of their wrongdoing??

It's like she made an argument and then used her best evidence to prove how the argument doesn't hold up.

[Peacefully]

This is what I was met with by our door greeter on Sunday:

“God still loves America”

Sorry, not sorry, I had to put this somewhere. 

 

Edited November 13, 2024 by Peacefully

[JVW]

I do have a comment coming but I just wanted to quickly say I hope this thread doesn't go the politics route and get closed. I learned a lot from reading these two articles and the sites that it linked to https://bhroberts.org/projects/gestapo & https://mormonr.org/qnas/aA2rfb/latter_day_saints_and_nazi_germany were really fun to look through. I think I may be related to Roy E. Babbel but I'd have to check my family tree. Also that 2024 movie Escape From Germany was actually a good movie. I was expecting a "mormon movie" type of quality, but it felt like a real movie and was well done.

The idea and principle about how the church, and individual saints, deal with governments that are doing awful things is a really interesting thing to consider and I've had my wrestles with that issue. 

[manol]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

There is a similar accommodation taking place in keeping the two great commandments

The phrase connecting the two, "And the second is like unto the first", makes me think there is an interpretation which does not rely on any form of "accommodation" in order to fully keep them both. 

Edited November 13, 2024 by manol

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

This is what I was met with by our door greeter on Sunday:

“God still loves America”

Sorry, not sorry, I had to put this somewhere. 

 

When I first read this post, I assumed that the words were said by someone who was sad that Harris lost and was trying to remind members that whoever wins, it's ok because God still loves His children.

But then I realized that maybe that wasn't how the comment was meant and maybe it was meant in a "God loves America and that's why Trump won" context.  If that's how it was meant, it would have been hilarious if you had responded with "So God didn't love America in 2020 when Trump lost?" and then just stood there waiting for the person's answer.

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

This is what I was met with by our door greeter on Sunday:

“God still loves America”

Sorry, not sorry, I had to put this somewhere. 

 

I think it was the perfect greeting since it can be understood in a way to support a wide range of opinions.

Like…

He is despondent about who was elected but still loves His children despite their error in judgement.

or

He still loves His children so He made sure this time they got the wonderful President they deserve.

or

He still loves His children even though they haven’t figured out how to devise a system that doesn’t result in having to choose between the lesser of two evils every 4 years.

Like I said, seems like the perfect greeting.

 

[JVW]

I want to communicate my thoughts about some of the underlying principles presented when considering the Saints living in Nazi Germany.

I had never heard this quote before, but found it on one of those linked sites and really like it.

Quote

In 1936, Apostle John A. Widtsoe articulated the church’s stance on the authoritarian regimes of the time, writing that “Communism, Fascism, and Nazism may be judged by this principle — whatever endangers to the least degree man’s right to act for himself is not of God and must be resisted by Latter-day Saints.”

For a long time I held a similar view to this Q&A bit from this site https://mormonr.org/qnas/aA2rfb/latter_day_saints_and_nazi_germany.

Quote

Did the twelfth article of faith make people more willing to become Nazis? 

Possibly. The twelfth article of faith says: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."[81] This has been interpreted to mean the Saints believe in upholding the laws of the land and being good citizens of whatever country they live in,[82] and there is at least one report that the verse was cited in support of National Socialism among German Latter-day Saints.[83] Mission leaders in Germany also cited the twelfth article of faith to signal the Church's willingness to coexist with the Nazis.[84]

During the Covid years there were many policies enacted that endangered a man's right to act for himself. None of the rules or mandates were "immoral" in their nature. For example, there was no mandate telling me to lie, cheat, steal, or covet. But I had a thought experiment: what if one day the government did pass a law or a mandate that required me to act against my personal moral beliefs? That literally happened in the story of Daniel and the lion's den.

Quote

Daniel 6:6-7, 10 Then these presidents and princes assembled together to the king, and said thus unto him, King Darius, live for ever. All the [leaders] of the kingdom ... have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any God or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions. Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.

Praying to God was outlawed for 30 days. What would I do if the U.S. government passed a law saying no more praying is allowed under penalty of death? It seems like a harmless law. I could still pray in my mind while I'm driving or walking. I don't have to kneel or perform any ceremonies to pray. I could pray in my closet with the door locked, in secret, where not even my family would know I was doing it. So why didn't Daniel choose to obey that law? Daniel chose to pray as he always did, with humble ceremony according to his traditions, in a visible manner.

I believe that the decision that Daniel made was the correct decision. I also believe that the majority of Saints would not make the same decision as Daniel under similar circumstances. And I believe that Article of Faith 12 is a very good justification in favor of disavowing Daniel's actions. However, I discovered D&C 134 (which AoF 12 seems to be loosely based on) and it clarifies things and lines up more with the John A. Widtsoe quote previously mentioned.

Quote

Doctrine and Covenants 134:2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

 I may be interpreting it wrong, but it seems to me like resistance against an oppressive government is actually condoned in this section, even though it seems to run contrary to AoF 12.

During Covid all governments "enact[ed] such laws as in their own judgments [were] best calculated to secure the public interest". But they did not "at the same time [hold] sacred the freedom of conscience". And it could most certainly be stated that Nazi Germany did the same thing in their view. From what I understand, the very first thing Hitler did after he rose to power was cleaned up the cities. And his campaign made many promises "calculated to secure the public interest". But it was his way or death, little to no freedom of conscience.

The end result of my pondering was a personal experiment to see if I had the power to resist rules that contradicted my personal beliefs, and the result was in the affirmative, much to my surprise. I chatted with one of my friends about these ideas and principles and he said, in essence, "I will follow whatever the law of the land is, period. Unless the prophet tells me not to, then I will do as the prophet directs." I personally think this view is lacking, but that's just me.

I have another post incoming about the second principle these Saints and Nazi Germany articles reminded me of.

[manol]

10 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I think it was the perfect greeting since it can be understood in a way to support a wide range of opinions.

Like…

He is despondent about who was elected but still loves His children despite their error in judgement.

or

He still loves His children so He made sure this time they got the wonderful President they deserve.

or

He still loves His children even though they haven’t figured out how to devise a system that doesn’t result in having to choose between the lesser of two evils every 4 years.

Like I said, seems like the perfect greeting.

or, God loves America; it's Americans he can't stand!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Seriously I don't think God loves America (or Americans) any more than he loves anyone else, BUT I think the greeter realized that Americans could use a hug right now, and phrased his greeting perfectly.

Edited November 13, 2024 by manol

[Peacefully]

31 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I think it was the perfect greeting since it can be understood in a way to support a wide range of opinions.

Like…

He is despondent about who was elected but still loves His children despite their error in judgement.

or

He still loves His children so He made sure this time they got the wonderful President they deserve.

or

He still loves His children even though they haven’t figured out how to devise a system that doesn’t result in having to choose between the lesser of two evils every 4 years.

Like I said, seems like the perfect greeting.

 

Nope, I asked him what he meant and he said “the election”. ( I know where he stands). I said “not everyone agrees” and walked off. My husband stayed behind and instead of apologizing the guy started talking about right- wing conspiracy theories. Not what we needed or expected at church. 

[Peacefully]

26 minutes ago, manol said:

or, God loves America; it's Americans he can't stand!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Seriously I don't think God loves America (or Americans) any more than he loves anyone else, BUT I think the greeter realized that Americans could use a hug right now, and phrased his greeting perfectly.

Unfortunately, that is not what he meant. 

[JVW]

Another thing that comes to mind is how the church responded to Nazi Germany, and how it interplays with the goverment today.

I've wrestled a lot with decisions the church has made in response to various government policies historically and currently. There are a lot of different ways the church can choose to respond, and it could be justified in responding any way it wants using scripture. A really passive response could be justified with "turn the other cheek". A really aggressive response using a militia could be justified with literally the entire Book of Mormon.

In Mosiah 24 Amulon rules over the people of Alma and they are threatened with death from their task masters if they utter a prayer, so they keep that law and pray in their hearts. They didn't fight or resist their oppressors, and God supported them so that they couldn't feel the weight of the burdens they carried.

Quote

13 And it came to pass that the voice of the Lord came to them in their afflictions, saying: Lift up your heads and be of good comfort, for I know of the covenant which ye have made unto me; and I will covenant with my people and deliver them out of bondage.

14 And I will also ease the burdens which are put upon your shoulders, that even you cannot feel them upon your backs, even while you are in bondage; and this will I do that ye may stand as witnesses for me hereafter, and that ye may know of a surety that I, the Lord God, do visit my people in their afflictions.

15 And now it came to pass that the burdens which were laid upon Alma and his brethren were made light; yea, the Lord did strengthen them that they could bear up their burdens with ease, and they did submit cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the Lord.

16 And it came to pass that so great was their faith and their patience that the voice of the Lord came unto them again, saying: Be of good comfort, for on the morrow I will deliver you out of bondage.

In Alma 46 Moroni threatens to put to death any people who support the oppressive government, and he follows through with it. And here is how he is regarded:

Quote

14 Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives.

15 And this was their faith, that by so doing God would prosper them in the land, or in other words, if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God that he would prosper them in the land; yea, warn them to flee, or to prepare for war, according to their danger;

16 And also, that God would make it known unto them whither they should go to defend themselves against their enemies, and by so doing, the Lord would deliver them; and this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity.

17 Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.

There is one difference between these two stories. In one, the people are already enslaved, like the children of Israel before Moses. In the other, the people are not yet enslaved but are resisting an oppressive government in war. So the contexts are different. I wonder how that context applies to the church and the saints during Nazi Germany era?

There have been numerous prophecies about how the church will never fall again. That it's here to stay until the Second Coming of the Anointed One. In my mind, that means that church leaders are at liberty to respond in whatever manner they deem most fit and that God will support them in their choices. So I am confused, for example, by the choice the church made to close all of the temples during the Covid years. We are taught that in the temple is basically the fulfillment of the purpose of why God created everything. So why would God direct His prophets to acquiesce to an oppressive government and pause the fulfillment of the entire purpose for our existence on Earth? Why during Nazi Germany times did the church not respond more aggressively to Hitler's oppressive rule? Why didn't they tell their members to resist?

On the other hand, I do see them fighting for religious liberty in court, so it's not as if they aren't doing anything. I also understand the importance of maintaining political neutrality, but I guarantee that captain Moroni wasn't politically neutral when he saw oppression. I probably just don't have the full picture. I'm not a researcher into all of the ways the church interacts with various governments around the world, they may be doing much more to resist oppression than I'm giving them credit for. And in the next few decades they may step up to the plate even more as oppression from government becomes ever more commonplace and standard in governments here and around the world.

[JVW]

Ya'll are going to get this thread closed before a good discussion can even begin.

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Nope, I asked him what he meant and he said “the election”. ( I know where he stands). I said “not everyone agrees” and walked off. My husband stayed behind and instead of apologizing the guy started talking about right- wing conspiracy theories. Not what we needed or expected at church. 

Hopefully someone mentioned it to the Bishop so he could pull him aside and tell him he can't do that at church.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, manol said:

The phrase connecting the two, "And the second is like unto the first", makes me think there is an interpretation which does not rely on any form of "accommodation" in order to fully keep them both. 

For me, "like unto" expresses accommodation, otherwise it would say "exactly like." There is an order or categorization which distinguishes between the two types and demonstrations of love; I take the bridges between the two as accommodation. Also, as far as fulness (bonding rather than bridging / accommodating) goes, the degree to which we keep the second depends on how fully we keep the first, bonded first to God and then the neighbors who likewise keep the two great commandment. Semantics are important for how we explain and apply our understanding. These are the semantics I use.

[Peacefully]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Hopefully someone mentioned it to the Bishop so he could pull him aside and tell him he can't do that at church.

I might but I believe the bishop is like-minded so not sure how seriously he would take it. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

fact, both of the examples given seem more like placating attempts at staying off the radar.

Imagining this being done by men I have known, it sounds like typical irrepressible missionary behaviour hoping to soften hearts.  I have had family and friends speak of how they went among Mafia or gang members because someone was interested even though there wasn’t much chance of conversion.

Quote

In 1935 and 1936, Mormon missionaries helped teach the German national team how to play basketball so they could compete in the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games, the first to include basketball as a medal competition. They were apparently delighted to share their knowledge.

 

And they are also delighted to share their knowledge of English to Russians, Chinese, Canadian immigrants, immigrants to Utah…

It appears Reiss thinks a good Christian should pick and choose who is worthy of conversion.  Only the good guys deserve the gospel.

Seems to me like the bad guys need the gospel as much or more than the good ones.

Ammon and his brothers went among the Lamanites and even protected the sheep of the Lamanite king who had quite likely participated in wars against Ammon’s own people.  Such missionary behaviour has a long history in our Church.

Jesus was condemned by his own people for allowing various bad guys to be his followers and even had the nerve to heal a Roman, one of the oppressor of the Jews.  Maybe she grew up to treat her Jewish servants like dogs, all because Jesus was willing to save her life.  Then there was the Jewish tax men who made livings off of oppressing their own people for the Romans.  How dare Jesus reach out to them to become his disciples.

Edited November 13, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

Update 11/13/24: After this was published, the B. H. Roberts Foundation contacted me to say that it is in the process of translating and publishing a trove of documents related to Latter-day Saints in Nazi Germany, and that some of these documents challenge the idea that most LDS church members were accommodationists to the Nazi regime.

That archive can be accessed here and contains official reports regarding Nazi government surveillance of foreign religious groups, including Mormons. One report, for example, concerns a Latter-day Saint who was fired from his job and questioned by the police for refusing to offer a Nazi salute. I would recommend reading these primary sources as well as David Conley Nelson’s book referenced below for a fuller picture of the complexity of that era. The primary sources certainly demonstrate the pressures the church was under in Germany in the 1930s, with the government threatening to expel missionaries or disband the church throughout the country. — JKR

Update added to the top.

It would be interesting if this article ended up shifting perceptions more positive.  Unlikely, but one can dream.