Mormons, Nazis, and Anti-Semitism

[_Daniel Peterson]

The voice of reason.

Very welcome on this thread.

[_Morley]

Lincoln . . . fought the American Civil War to end slavery

Actually, no he didn't. He fought it to save the Union. There is no question that he personally opposed slavery, but saving the Union was his principal goal in fighting the Civil War.
.....

Lincoln did fight the war to end slavery. The Civil War was the war that ended slavery. But I can see your point about being clear as to Lincoln's stated purpose. So, let's just go with "He fought the American Civil War, that ended slavery—a pretty good accomplishment for the mid-Nineteenth Century."

How about addressing the substance of my post now? Here it is, again, with the offending piece modified:


Okay, so judge each man by the standards of the day in which each lived. Lincoln lived from 1809 to 1865. He fought the American Civil War, that ended slavery—a pretty good accomplishment for the mid-Nineteenth Century. Clark lived from 1871 to 1961. However, Clark was a racist even by the standards of the early to mid-Twentieth Century.

J. Reuben Clark was also a 'prophet, seer, and revelator.' Shouldn't that give him some added wisdom or discernment? If not, what purpose does the office serve?

Clark said some pretty hateful things about Jews. Defending him by attacking Lincoln with "I would be quite surprised if he weren't also, by today's standards, an anti-Semite," is ridiculous.

[Guest]

Books about the Mormon experience under Nazism?

Here are two:

When Truth Was Treason: German Youth Against Hitler, by Karl-Heinz Schnibbe, with Alan F. Keele and Douglas F. Tobler. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, and Provo: Academic Research Foundation/Stratford Books, 1995/2003.

Hubener Vs. Hitler: A Biography of Helmuth Hubener, by Richard Lloyd Dewey. Provo: Academic Research Foundation/Stratford Books, 2004.

Dr. Peterson,

Thanks for the references. The second sounds particularly interesting.

With regard to the cast and content of your testimony on MST, I trust you will agree that it seems a bit "detached" or academic. It certainly seems so to me, particularly in comparison to that of my FIL, and especially when he bore it in the German language.

In re-reading my earlier comment on your testimony on MST, however, I agree that it was a bit harsh - and I have deleted it.

It is unfair to compare the emotional impact of an contemporary academic's testimony to that of an aging and exceedingly humble man who believed that his life had been preserved through two world wars because of his Mormon faith while most of the rest of his family perished.

[_Corpsegrinder]

Yes, thank you, Dan, for the suggestions on books regarding Helmuth Hubener. I look forward to reading them, after I’m done with Quinn’s book on J. Reuben Clark.

From DCP…

Incidentally, do you or your Kameraden here have any evidence to suggest that J. Reuben Clark endorsed Kristallnacht, or any of that sort of thing?

Why, yes. This from Quinn:

In February 1941, the New York Times reported that Berlin’s Nazi Party newspaper referred to the necessity of “eliminating all Jews.” This was an echo of the LDS newspaper’s headline in 1938, “Death for 700,000 Jews Threatened: Semites Must Get Out or Die, Nazis Declare.” Even this stark Utah report gave less than one-tenth of Adolf Hitler’s goal of killing every Jew in Europe. During the balance of 1941 and increasingly thereafter, newspapers in every major American city reported specific examples of the mass execution of Jews throughout Nazi-controlled Europe. In apparent response to such reports, LDS author N. L. Nelson wrote a book against Hitler in the early months of 1941 and referred to the Nazi “butchery” of the Jews.
In his June reply to Nelson’s manuscript, Reuben defended Hitler and added, “There is nothing in their history which indicates that the Jewish race have [sic] either free-agency or liberty. ‘Law and order’ are not facts for the Jews” (p. 335).

So as early as 1938, newspapers in Utah were reporting on Hitler’s planned mass murder of the Jews. J. Reuben Clark thought it was a swell idea…but this is OK because everybody else is an anti-Semite, too, right?

From DCP…

You've started your response off in wonderfully insulting fashion, though. No revving up. No warm up required. Full throttle from the start.

Well, yes. I dislike bullies and I've seen the way you interact with the other posters in this forum. A good offence is the best defense, right? Now stop yer whining before I give you another wedgie!

From DCP…

And yet, by today's standards, he (Lincoln) would be a racist...

It' s a mistake to imagine that Nazism came across as pure evil...

You'll notice, though, that I said that "the true nature of fascism became fully evident in the Second World War...

Slow down Hoss, you're veering way off into tangent-land.

Here's the core issue: should an Apostle of the Lord be expected to hew to a higher moral standard than everybody in the 1938 edition of Who's Who in America and Europe? Or are you arguing that one can be a Nazi-sympathizer AND an Apostle of the Lord?

Dan, are you a Nazi-sympathizer-sympathizer?

If yes, then I think you need to seek help…that sounds a bit like “Sieg Heil!” doesn’t it? How very appropriate.

From DCP…

Speaking of fatuous...

I am--I am speaking of a fatuous gasbag named J. Reuben Clark. Glad we cleared that up.

From DCP…

I'm not even exactly sure what this sentence means.

I'll spell it out for you. Here's the incredibly confusing sentence, as quoted in your reply:

Helmet’s courage is certainly more edifying than anything that Dan Peterson--or Adolf Hitler--might have gleaned from the music of Richard Wagner

Now, here's what it means:

On MST, you associate spiritual edification with the music of Richard Wagner. Well, so does Herr Hitler. I suggest that the example of Helmuth Hubener's courage, in resisting Nazism, is more spiritually edifying than the music of Richard Wagner.

Don't be so obtuse, Dan.

From DCP…

Actually, no he didn't. He fought it to save the Union. There is no question that he personally opposed slavery, but saving the Union was his principal goal in fighting the Civil War.

On the contrary, after 1 Jan. 1863, Lincoln fought, among other things, to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. So yes, he fought to free the slaves.

Stop hanging out with those darned Confederate apologists, Dan!

From DCP…

In civil conversation, one expresses disagreement with some variant of "This is incorrect." One doesn't typically accuse one's conversation partner of being a liar.

Uh, no.

This is me calling you a liar: "You are a liar.

This is me calling a particular statement a lie: "This is a lie." (Notice--no distinction as to whether it is your lie or someone else's lie, but I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt.)

[_DrW]

Yes, thank you, Dan, for the suggestions on books regarding Helmuth Hubener. I look forward to reading them, after I’m done with Quinn’s book on J. Reuben Clark.

From DCP…

Incidentally, do you or your Kameraden here have any evidence to suggest that J. Reuben Clark endorsed Kristallnacht, or any of that sort of thing?

Why, yes. This from Quinn:

In February 1941, the New York Times reported that Berlin’s Nazi Party newspaper referred to the necessity of “eliminating all Jews.” This was an echo of the LDS newspaper’s headline in 1938, “Death for 700,000 Jews Threatened: Semites Must Get Out or Die, Nazis Declare.” Even this stark Utah report gave less than one-tenth of Adolf Hitler’s goal of killing every Jew in Europe. During the balance of 1941 and increasingly thereafter, newspapers in every major American city reported specific examples of the mass execution of Jews throughout Nazi-controlled Europe. In apparent response to such reports, LDS author N. L. Nelson wrote a book against Hitler in the early months of 1941 and referred to the Nazi “butchery” of the Jews.
In his June reply to Nelson’s manuscript, Reuben defended Hitler and added, “There is nothing in their history which indicates that the Jewish race have [sic] either free-agency or liberty. ‘Law and order’ are not facts for the Jews” (p. 335).

So as early as 1938, newspapers in Utah were reporting on Hitler’s planned mass murder of the Jews. J. Reuben Clark thought it was a swell idea…but this is OK because everybody else is an anti-Semite, too, right?

From DCP…

You've started your response off in wonderfully insulting fashion, though. No revving up. No warm up required. Full throttle from the start.

Well, yes. I dislike bullies and I've seen the way you interact with the other posters in this forum. A good offence is the best defense, right? Now stop yer whining before I give you another wedgie!

From DCP…

And yet, by today's standards, he (Lincoln) would be a racist...

It' s a mistake to imagine that Nazism came across as pure evil...

You'll notice, though, that I said that "the true nature of fascism became fully evident in the Second World War...

Slow down Hoss, you're veering way off into tangent-land.

Here's the core issue: should an Apostle of the Lord be expected to hew to a higher moral standard than everybody in the 1938 edition of Who's Who in America and Europe? Or are you arguing that one can be a Nazi-sympathizer AND an Apostle of the Lord?

Dan, are you a Nazi-sympathizer-sympathizer?

If yes, then I think you need to seek help…that sounds a bit like “Sieg Heil!” doesn’t it? How very appropriate.

From DCP…

Speaking of fatuous...

I am--I am speaking of a fatuous gasbag named J. Reuben Clark. Glad we cleared that up.

From DCP…

I'm not even exactly sure what this sentence means.

I'll spell it out for you. Here's the incredibly confusing sentence, as quoted in your reply:

Helmet’s courage is certainly more edifying than anything that Dan Peterson--or Adolf Hitler--might have gleaned from the music of Richard Wagner

Now, here's what it means:

On MST, you associate spiritual edification with the music of Richard Wagner. Well, so does Herr Hitler. I suggest that the example of Helmuth Hubener's courage, in resisting Nazism, is more spiritually edifying than the music of Richard Wagner.

Don't be so obtuse, Dan.

From DCP…

Actually, no he didn't. He fought it to save the Union. There is no question that he personally opposed slavery, but saving the Union was his principal goal in fighting the Civil War.

On the contrary, after 1 Jan. 1863, Lincoln fought, among other things, to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. So yes, he fought to free the slaves.

Stop hanging out with those darned Confederate apologists, Dan!

From DCP…

In civil conversation, one expresses disagreement with some variant of "This is incorrect." One doesn't typically accuse one's conversation partner of being a liar.

Uh, no.

This is me calling you a liar: "You are a liar.

This is me calling a particular statement a lie: "This is a lie." (Notice--no distinction as to whether it is your lie or someone else's lie, but I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt.)

This is both edifying and entertaining- no really! I am enjoying this immensely.

Please continue - both of you.

(Where are the smileys when you need them?)

[_Nevo]

From DCP…

Incidentally, do you or your Kameraden here have any evidence to suggest that J. Reuben Clark endorsed Kristallnacht, or any of that sort of thing?

Why, yes. This from Quinn:

In February 1941, the New York Times reported that Berlin’s Nazi Party newspaper referred to the necessity of “eliminating all Jews.” This was an echo of the LDS newspaper’s headline in 1938, “Death for 700,000 Jews Threatened: Semites Must Get Out or Die, Nazis Declare.” Even this stark Utah report gave less than one-tenth of Adolf Hitler’s goal of killing every Jew in Europe. During the balance of 1941 and increasingly thereafter, newspapers in every major American city reported specific examples of the mass execution of Jews throughout Nazi-controlled Europe. In apparent response to such reports, LDS author N. L. Nelson wrote a book against Hitler in the early months of 1941 and referred to the Nazi “butchery” of the Jews.
In his June reply to Nelson’s manuscript, Reuben defended Hitler and added, “There is nothing in their history which indicates that the Jewish race have [sic] either free-agency or liberty. ‘Law and order’ are not facts for the Jews” (p. 335).

So as early as 1938, newspapers in Utah were reporting on Hitler’s planned mass murder of the Jews. J. Reuben Clark thought it was a swell idea…but this is OK because everybody else is an anti-Semite, too, right?

When you first showed up on this board, you started another thread on Clark's anti-Semitism brandishing a vandalized Wikipedia entry that claimed that Clark "was an avid anti-Semite, even going so far as to defend Hitler's extermination of the Jews." I see you haven't changed your tune.

You claim to be reading Quinn's biography of Clark, but you cut-and-pasted your quote from Jeff Needle's review posted on the Signature Books site. If you had actually read Quinn's book, you would know that Quinn provides no evidence—none—that Clark ever "endorsed Kristallnacht" or thought that "mass murder of the Jews...was a swell idea."

Clark's "defense" of Hitler in his June 1941 letter to Nels Nelson—author of The Second War in Heaven, As Now Being Waged by Lucifer through Hitler as a Dummy—consisted of such damning statements as "I should like you to excuse my warning you against your assuming as truth most of the criticism you see leveled against Hitler and his regime in Germany.... Hitler is undoubtedly bad from our American point of view, but I think the Germans like him" (quoted in Quinn, Elder Statesman: A Biography of J. Reuben Clark [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002], 291–292).

Clark was an ardent pacifist. He abhorred war. He believed that WW2 was "an unholy war," a "war for empire." Based on his belief that militarists were conspiring to involve the US in this European "war for empire", Clark regarded "most of the anti-Nazi reports in the newspapers...as exaggerations and false propaganda" (Quinn, Elder Statesman, 288). After all, the British had effectively used atrocity stories to stir up anti-German sentiment in WW1 and these stories were later shown to be untrue. Clark turned out to be wrong about this. But it is an outrageous lie to claim that Clark thought "the mass murder of Jews...was a swell idea." Nothing could be farther from the truth. Clark opposed all mass killing, no matter who was doing it.

[_Morley]

....
It's easy for us to condemn such views now, but we belong to a different culture. As Quinn observes, Clark was "a product of the nineteenth century." Had Clark been born in 1971 instead of 1871, I think we can be reasonably certain that he would have thought differently about a lot of things.

We're not being revisionists, here: people who were his contemporaries condemned JRC's views at the time. Clark spent most of his adult years, and two thirds of his life, in the Twentieth Century. He didn't have to be a product of the Nineteenth Century. Clark had all the advantages. His 'free agency' and apostleship, his education and government service, as well as his suggested communion with God--all should have nudged him toward enlightenment. Yet, both you and Daniel would argue otherwise.

[_Nevo]

Clark had all the advantages. His 'free agency' and apostleship, his education and government service, as well as his suggested communion with God--all should have nudged him toward enlightenment.

I hate to break it to you, Morley, but communion with God doesn't automatically eradicate all cultural prejudices. "We have this treasure in earthen vessels..." (2 Cor. 4:7).

[_Morley]

Clark had all the advantages. His 'free agency' and apostleship, his education and government service, as well as his suggested communion with God--all should have nudged him toward enlightenment.

I hate to break it to you, Morley, but communion with God doesn't automatically eradicate all cultural prejudices. "We have this treasure in earthen vessels..." (2 Cor. 4:7).

It doesn't seem to have eradicated any cultural prejudices.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, do you or your Kameraden here have any evidence to suggest that J. Reuben Clark endorsed Kristallnacht, or any of that sort of thing?

Why, yes. This from Quinn:

In February 1941, the New York Times reported that Berlin’s Nazi Party newspaper referred to the necessity of “eliminating all Jews.” This was an echo of the LDS newspaper’s headline in 1938, “Death for 700,000 Jews Threatened: Semites Must Get Out or Die, Nazis Declare.” Even this stark Utah report gave less than one-tenth of Adolf Hitler’s goal of killing every Jew in Europe. During the balance of 1941 and increasingly thereafter, newspapers in every major American city reported specific examples of the mass execution of Jews throughout Nazi-controlled Europe. In apparent response to such reports, LDS author N. L. Nelson wrote a book against Hitler in the early months of 1941 and referred to the Nazi “butchery” of the Jews.
In his June reply to Nelson’s manuscript, Reuben defended Hitler and added, “There is nothing in their history which indicates that the Jewish race have [sic] either free-agency or liberty. ‘Law and order’ are not facts for the Jews” (p. 335).

Odd that you didn't quote the actual words in which Brother Clark endorsed Kristallnacht.

]So as early as 1938, newspapers in Utah were reporting on Hitler’s planned mass murder of the Jews. J. Reuben Clark thought it was a swell idea…but this is OK because everybody else is an anti-Semite, too, right?

Striking that you don't actually quote the specific words in which Brother Clark endorses the mass murder of Jews.

Well, yes. I dislike bullies and I've seen the way you interact with the other posters in this forum.

Sure. On a board such as this, otherwise universally characterized by charity, love, kindness, and mutual respect, my nasty and viciously aggressive brutality certainly stands out.

Here's the core issue: should an Apostle of the Lord be expected to hew to a higher moral standard than everybody in the 1938 edition of Who's Who in America and Europe? Or are you arguing that one can be a Nazi-sympathizer AND an Apostle of the Lord?

I don't know that he was a Nazi-sympathizer. That's your characterization, and I don't buy it.

Dan, are you a Nazi-sympathizer-sympathizer?

No, I'm a bully and a fan of bullies.

I am speaking of a fatuous gasbag named J. Reuben Clark.

He doesn't deserve that airy dismissal.

His career achievements may very nearly be up to the level of yours, I suspect. If not, indeed, even higher.

Of course, we'll have a clearer picture of that when various professional academic historians produce a multi-volume biography of you.

On MST, you associate spiritual edification with the music of Richard Wagner. Well, so does Herr Hitler. I suggest that the example of Helmuth Hubener's courage, in resisting Nazism, is more spiritually edifying than the music of Richard Wagner.

Good grief.