DCP Compares Modern "Dislike" of Mormons to Jews Under Nazism

[Doctor Scratch]

Perhaps we should start a file? Maybe we could call it, "Cases of Mopologist Insensitivity"? Heck, we could probably create a file devoted solely to cases where the apologists were doing or saying problematic things in reference to Jewish history and people. In any case, here's the scoop:

All joking aside, Mormons generally aren’t well liked in America. Only Atheists and Muslims are disliked more: https://www.pewforum.org/20...

Based on kiwi’s postings here, I imagine that Mormons aren’t well-liked in New Zealand either.

I think this is unfortunate, though you have to wonder why the Mopologists object to this. I mean, if LDS *were* well liked, where would that leave the apologists? Who would be left for them to go after and attack? Rather predictably, Dr. Peterson can't resist the chance to issue a ridiculous comparison:

CK4L: "Mormons generally aren’t well liked in America."

They're generally well liked by those who know them personally, but not well liked in the abstract. On an obviously much lesser scale, not altogether unlike Jews in 1930s and 1940s Germany.

This isn't exactly news.

I hope, though, that the thought gives you a little frisson of pleasure!

I have to say: I'm really failing to see how/why it was necessary to bring up the "Jews in 1930s and 1940s Germany" comparison. I mean, it's not valid in the slightest. Plus, the Mopologists have a bad track record on this topic: I think of Dr. Hamblin's offensive rant, posted to FAIR Mormon, or Dr. Peterson's unfortunate remark about how "Jews have few friends in the world." In any case, a reader took note of this and objected:

I agree with you on many topics Dr. Peterson, but I must push back on this comment. I know you are just replying to CK4L's comment, however to compare members of the LDS faith currently to prewar through WWII Jews, living in Germany, is kind of a stretch and a little hyperbolic. Even if it is on a "lesser scale", the current situation of LDS members don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same discussion as Jews living in Germany during the 30s-40s. Last I checked there are no members of the LDS faith being arrested and shipped off to concentration camps. Members of the LDS faith hold high positions in government, education, health care and business. Hell, a member recently just ran for the President on the Republican ticket. Many of the comments in the post discussion are citing articles concerning the growth of the church and the general public's positive opinion of the Church. Explain to me how this is remotely similar to Jews in WWII Germany? Because of an internet troll? Perhaps it stems from the polygamy years? The Jews during prewar Germany were being targeted for Genocide by the Nazis. I know many here feel attacked by the likes of Gemli, CK4L, etc, etc...but these are internet trolls. All religious groups have their detractors. I would bet the LDS faith is no more being targeted than Catholics, Evangelicals, etc. The current status of the LDS church is a far cry from the Jewish population during prewar Germany. Your comparison to Jews during the WWII era shouldn't be mentioned and is a bit ridiculous, in my opinion.

thttps://encyclopedia.ushmm...

Well said. But, as you might imagine, a correction like this cannot be allowed to stand:

I realize that, for understandable reasons, Nazism and its treatment of the Jews is one of the third rails of modern discourse, and that making any comparative statements about it poses considerable (though far less understandable) risks.

I'm aware of the Shoah. I've spent time both studying and visiting Nazi concentration camps. I've read a great deal about the Third Reich and visiting important Nazi-related sites in such places as Bayreuth, Berchtesgaden, Braunau, Berlin, Munich, Nuremberg, and Weimar. Whenever I can, I visit Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. My father was directly involved in the liberation of the death camp at Mauthausen, and in documenting it photographically. I've donated copies of those photographs, which I own, to the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC and to the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.

My point was, simply, that even Germans caught up in the lethal anti-Semitism of the Nazi era often expressed their liking for individual Jews whom they knew, while going along with (or even enthusiastically cheering) that anti-Semitism. There are many letters preserved in the archives in which people wrote to the Nazi authorities expressing their love and support for the Führer while arguing that dear old Frau Rosenstein (our childrens' violin teacher) and Herschel Cohen (our kindly neighborhood pharmacist for many years) should be exempted from anti-Jewish policies because they're different from all those other Jews.

I was being neither hyperbolic nor ridiculous. I stand by my comparison. Calm down.

No: I think that he *was* being ridiculous. "Enthusiastically cheering" the reversal of policies that, e.g., discriminate against LGBTQ+ people is nowhere near being similar to anti-Semitism. Let him cite a single example of contemporary "anti-Mormonism" that even approaches the depravity and scale of anti-Semitism during the 1930s and 1940s. What he's saying here is absolutely shameful--especially for someone who claims to be "tolerant" and "respectful" of other beliefs and views.

Mercifully, "gilgal" pushes back:

I respectfully disagree with your comparison and its use. Calm down.

And:

Your disagreement is noted. It is a valid point, I agree that the Latter-day Saints are targeted. I don't dispute this. I don't think it is offensive or wrong to bring these things to light. I didn't like the comparison. I would also add in the past, say the Church during 1800s, the comparison could be made although on a smaller scale.
The members were being targeted by the government. They fled the United States for religious freedom and safety. They were being hunted and killed. Today though, I disagree. The Church is looked at favorably world wide, generally speaking. Look how it is spreading across the globe. Credit to the message it carries and the Church's members. Yes it will be attacked as many other religions. I also concede there are horrible anti-Mormons. Their tactics are mean spirited, aggressive, evil, etc. I agree the discussion needs to happen and change needs to occur to prevent future "Holocausts". The LDS church is doing positive things in the world and the world is noticing, the haters be damned. I guess, in the end Kiwi, the comparison doesn't sit well with me. Maybe it pulled some emotional strings....that is all I can say on the topic.

The Nazis pull emotional strings with me, too, Gilgal. I was raised with my father's horror at, and his direct personal experience with, the "Final Solution."

But the situations are precisely comparable in the precise way that I compared them: Take a look at Gary Lawrence's important 2008 book How Americans View Mormonism. One of the things that you will clearly see from his data (he's not only a Latter-day Saint but a Stanford-Ph.D.-holding social scientist and pollster) is that people who personally know Latter-day Saints have very different attitudes, very much more positive attitudes, toward members of the Church than do those who, so far as they are aware, have no direct connection with individual Latter-day Saints.

So, the bit about his father doesn't really carry any water. I'm sure his father was very rightly horrified. But for him to cite this as evidence of his own sensitivity to the topic (especially in light of all the other dunderheaded things he's said) is sort of like him claiming that he's not racist because he's a big fan of Thomas Sowell. (Did Sowell see his lynching post?)

In any case, I agree with gilgal: this was shamefully insensitive. Just recently, Gina Carano--the actress from the hit Disney+ program, The Mandalorian--was fired for saying things far less inflammatory than this. Given that this seems to be the prevailing attitude amongst film-industry types, you sort of have to wonder if Peterson's behavior will have an impact on Witnesses chances.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. Peterson! Please give Dr. Scratch a nod for your next blog entry detailing the inevitable comparisons LDS folks and the Jews elicit from luminaries such as yourself.

Also, you still need to finish up the edit Tom pointed out 8 days ago.

- Doc

[Kishkumen]

The comparison is a risky one to make. That said, I am inclined to agree with DCP, although I remain somewhat uncertain about the closeness of the similarity. I would say the two hatreds are alike, but one goes back much further in time and is more deeply culturally ingrained. The horrors visited on the Jews from antiquity to the present have no real close cousin. There has been and is too much going on too long.

Still, my view is that Mormons subconsciously endeavor to be super-white because they are, in fact, only conditionally white within the West’s schema of racism and white supremacy. Mormons may tend to gather with the political Right, but when push comes to shove both sides have no problem punching the Mormons. Mormons are the Other. No one really pays for discriminating against them. Very few even want to acknowledge the discrimination and attacks when they occur.

To the extent that I have contributed to hatred against Mormons by criticizing the LDS Church, that saddens me and I regret it. I am not LDS, but I am Mormon, and I do not approve of or support those who discriminate against or ridicule Mormons and Mormonism. Indeed, as of late I have found it hard to navigate my participation on this board, as I think that there is way too much ridicule and hatred of Mormons and Mormonism here.

The reason I stay is because I understand that a lot of the anger here comes from painful experience in the LDS Church. It is vitally important for people to work through that anger. Still, it can be painful to see people go through it and spill the toxins that come from their pain. I see more anti-Mormonism here than I am comfortable with, but I see the value of expressing and working out that pain.

[Gadianton]

Props to gilgal for standing up to this nonsense. The victim-playing by the Mopologists is epic and world renown. That playing the victim reaches these extremes of inappropriate comparisons is shameful.

But the situations are precisely comparable in the precise way that I compared them: Take a look at Gary Lawrence's important 2008 book How Americans View Mormonism. One of the things that you will clearly see from his data (he's not only a Latter-day Saint but a Stanford-Ph.D.-holding social scientist and pollster) is that people who personally know Latter-day Saints have very different attitudes, very much more positive attitudes, toward members of the Church than do those who, so far as they are aware, have no direct connection with individual Latter-day Saints.

If DCP's comparison is so valid and so appropriate, and if Gary Lawrence is the supreme authority behind this very observation, then I invite DCP to share the passages in Gary Lawrence's 2008 book that make this most appropriate comparison between 21st century Mormons, and Jews from the 1930s. How about a big CFR on that one, buddy? And if Lawrence missed making the remarkable point, then surely, a second or third tier scholar who has come to the same conclusion has also made this remark.

But maybe:

I realize that, for understandable reasons, Nazism and its treatment of the Jews is one of the third rails of modern discourse, and that making any comparative statements about it poses considerable (though far less understandable) risks.

Certainly, if the point was so pertinent, these foremost secular scholars on Mormon likability would take the risk to make itt.

But since the point isn't tremendous, and is 100% driven by a desire to call critics of Mormonism the equivalent of "ant-Semites", no respectable scholar would ever make the point.

In fact, I daresay, no respectable scholar has made this point.

[The Stig]

Apparently, Gina Carano has nothing on DCP in terms of the unwise comparisons to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany.

[Kishkumen]

But since the point isn't tremendous, and is 100% driven by a desire to call critics of Mormonism the equivalent of "ant-Semites", no respectable scholar would ever make the point.

In fact, I daresay, no respectable scholar has made this point.

On the one hand, I agree with you. Sure, it is handy to liken a critic to an anti-Semite, if you are an apologist. I recall when Bill Hamblin likened me to an anti-Semite and called me one of the most vile anti-Mormons he had ever had the displeasure of encountering. I though it was an amazingly hyperbolic outburst.

That said, I just can’t shake those moments of realization over the years when someone let me know what they really thought about Mormons. Nasty stuff at times. Some of it actually does follow tropes of anti-Semitism. These can be used against almost any marginal group. The point is not that the group is in imminent danger of being slaughtered, but they are definitely being relegated to the margins of society, where they are less of a threat to the “right” belief and practice. In this country, that’s basically Protestantism or Evangelicalism.

It bothers me to see anyone make these comparisons, but I privately make them myself, albeit likely for different reasons. I say this because I am not sure I am comfortable rejecting outright the exercise of thinking through the comparison if it is done for genuine reasons.

[Lem]

Props to gilgal for standing up to this nonsense. The victim-playing by the Mopologists is epic and world renown. That playing the victim reaches these extremes of inappropriate comparisons is shameful....

But maybe:

I realize that, for understandable reasons, Nazism and its treatment of the Jews is one of the third rails of modern discourse, and that making any comparative statements about it poses considerable (though far less understandable) risks.

Certainly, if the point was so pertinent, these foremost secular scholars on Mormon likability would take the risk to make it.

He’s made many inappropriate comparisons, this one is indeed shameful.

I’ve quoted this press release before, but it bears repeating. A couple of excerpts from a press release from the US Holocaust Museum, written by Edna Friedberg, Ph.D., historian in the Museum’s William Levine Family Institute for Holocaust Education:

Why Holocaust Analogies Are Dangerous
DECEMBER 12, 2018

...This trend is far from new, but it is escalating at a disturbing rate in increasingly polarized times. The Holocaust has become shorthand for good vs. evil; it is the epithet to end all epithets. And the current environment of rapid fire online communication and viral memes lends itself particularly well to this sort of sloppy analogizing. Worse, it allows it to spread more widely and quickly.

This oversimplified approach to complex history is dangerous. When conducted with integrity and rigor, the study of history raises more questions than answers. And as the most extensively documented crime the world has ever seen, the Holocaust offers an unmatched case study in how societies fall apart, in the immutability of human nature, in the dangers of unchecked state power. It is more than European or Jewish history. It is human history. Almost 40 years ago, the United States Congress chartered a Holocaust memorial on the National Mall for precisely this reason: The questions raised by the Holocaust transcend all divides.

....It is all too easy to forget that there are many people still alive for whom the Holocaust is not “history,” but their life story and that of their families. These are not abstract tragedies on call to win an argument or an election. They carry the painful memories of the brutal murder of a cherished baby boy, the rape of a beloved sister, the parents arrested and never seen again.

As the Holocaust recedes in time, some Americans (and Europeans) are becoming increasingly casual and disrespectful to the mass murder of millions. More dangerous, today the internet disseminates insensitive or hateful remarks with unprecedented ease and influence. Online discussions tend to encourage extreme opinions; they allow people to live in echo chambers of their own ideologies and peers.

.... Careless Holocaust analogies may demonize, demean, and intimidate their targets. But there is a cost for all of us because they distract from the real issues challenging our society, because they shut down productive, thoughtful discourse. At a time when our country needs dialogue more than ever, it is especially dangerous to exploit the memory of the Holocaust as a rhetorical cudgel. We owe the survivors more than that. And we owe ourselves more than that.

[Doctor Scratch]

I really have to question the logic of Dr. Peterson's comments. Dean Robbers touched on one of the more interesting things that Dr. Peterson said--i.e.:

I realize that, for understandable reasons, Nazism and its treatment of the Jews is one of the third rails of modern discourse, and that making any comparative statements about it poses considerable (though far less understandable) risks.

In other words: he understands that he's not supposed to be doing this, and yet he decides to do it anyways because he disagrees with the idea that you should leave some topics alone, and he thinks that he should be allowed to say whatever he wants. This just isn't very smart behavior from somebody with an important film debut coming up. Then again, maybe the idea is that all publicity is "good" publicity?

[Gadianton]

On the one hand, I agree with you. Sure, it is handy to liken a critic to an anti-Semite, if you are an apologist. I recall when Bill Hamblin likened me to an anti-Semite and called me one of the most vile anti-Mormons he had ever had the displeasure of encountering. I though it was an amazingly hyperbolic outburst.

Indeed. This was a favorite tactic of Hamblin. It's also a favorite of DCP and Kiwi57. How many times has the word "anti-Mormon" as a label for any random Internet critic been explained to mean the same thing as "anti-Semite" -- it simply means to be against the thing. Why would anybody object to a basic fact of grammar? Interestingly, it's only the most hyperbolic illustrative example one can think of if taken the wrong way (they way they intend it, obviously), and never has a less hyperbolic example with similar grammatical factuality ever been used to make the point, like, "anti-social" or "anti-body".

That said, I just can’t shake those moments of realization over the years when someone let me know what they really thought about Mormons. Nasty stuff at times. Some of it actually does follow tropes of anti-Semitism. These can be used against almost any marginal group.

Yeah, I've been there. I served a foreign mission in a heavy EV area and had my fair share of run-ins. I can't recall ever thinking my plight held comparisons to the plight of Jews in Nazi Germany.

The point is not that the group is in imminent danger of being slaughtered, but they are definitely being relegated to the margins of society, where they are less of a threat to the “right” belief and practice. In this country, that’s basically Protestantism or Evangelicalism.

It's really a truism of a large class of world religions, which assume exclusivity by the very nature of their claim to be a religion. And yes, at a country level this is true about EVs, but if you're a non-Mormon in Utah, you can be in for a real treat with the way Mormons can treat their neighbors. And the exclusivity of Mormon cliques is world renown. On my mission, many LDS youth were falling to the big EV churches simply because they had this totally different culture of acceptance, whereas they were shunned by the in-group Mormon kids. This, despite the fact EV's there were generally "anti-Mormon" and handed out Chick tracts and told us we were on the wrong path all the time. My interactions were all over the spectrum. I could be told I was going to hell in the same sentence as I was invited for dinner. An uppity Christian doctor once got me squared away quickly and arrogantly, and then refused to charge for his services out of respect for our 'ministry' even though you know he thinks our ministry is of the devil. Another disagreeable character upon learning that we were looking for housing, and not understanding what we were saying, immediately picked up a phone and called a few of his Christian buddies trying to find us a spare room and really apologized when he failed. I guess for me, some of anti stuff just got so silly and these born-agains could be such characters about it that it was rarely more offensive than it was entertaining.

It bothers me to see anyone make these comparisons, but I privately make them myself, albeit likely for different reasons. I say this because I am not sure I am comfortable rejecting outright the exercise of thinking through the comparison if it is done for genuine reasons.

I can't disagree, as the reasoning in any given situation could be genuine. But given so many examples in apologetics of disingenuous reasons comparing web critics to Nazis, it's hard to see the point of risking the comparison unless it really underscores the point in a profound way. But if Gary Lawrence could write an entire book about it without invoking the comparison, then it's likely possible to make the point in another way that's just as if not more effective, and without two levels of risky baggage.

[Doctor Scratch]

On the one hand, I agree with you. Sure, it is handy to liken a critic to an anti-Semite, if you are an apologist. I recall when Bill Hamblin likened me to an anti-Semite and called me one of the most vile anti-Mormons he had ever had the displeasure of encountering. I though it was an amazingly hyperbolic outburst.

Well, recall that John Gee very recently labeled Brian Hauglid and the Joseph Smith Papers Project--at least a portion of it--"anti-Mormon." And then take a look at some of Dr. Peterson's other remarks:

I'm not really worried about an LDS-themed Holocaust II -- though, when I read some of the QAnon loons gleefully anticipating a military coup and massive arrests and executions of those with whom they disagree, such a thing seems sadly far easier to imagine than it once was. I can guarantee you that many of the QAnon crazies are not at all fond of Latter-day Saints.

Um....what?? How does he get from the Pew survey about whether Mormons are "liked"....to this? Meanwhile, gilgal seems to ask for clarification:

And the Ex member, anti movement, is a movement, that has a crazy hive mindset that is all about tearing down the Church and members.

All too often true.