Fake Mormon History and Holocaust Denialism

[Morley]

This thread starts with a simple observation of an error and rapidly escalates into a tempest in a thimble.

Huck, this is an ernest and sincere observation, and I think it deserves a good faith answer. As you know, I don't usually post in Daniel Peterson critique threads, but this one had some hooks for me.

Dr. Peterson is moralizing. To do this, he's telling stories of others' drunkenness, womanizing, and folks getting Purple Hearts and promotions they don't deserve. He's ostensibly using an unimpeachable source, his own WWII hero father, who told him these stories firsthand. In his initial telling of these tales, Peterson's not postulating, he's presenting this material as cold, hard fact--stuff that you'd be an ass to question.

When the story behind the moralizing turns out to be suspect, it casts doubt on everything in his narrative. Given the professor's history of shading the truth, plagiarizing, and, um, Watson-lettering, it matters. It doesn't matter much, but it still matters.

But as you might guess, it was the portrait of Peterson's father that pulled at me.

In presenting his father's timeline, the professor mentioned Theodor Detter in the same breath that he talked about his father working with prisoners of war. The back of the painting was inscribed "I’m very happy to have painted your picture. Please remain friendly toward me." In my experience, it's not typical for an artist plead for kindness in exchange for a portrait. Given all this, I assumed that Detter must have been either one of those POWs or someone else whom Peterson's father exercised some significant power over.

From what I've read, I'm fairly certain Detter wasn't a POW. This means that the painting was exchanged for c-ration cigarettes and a plea for goodwill--given from a civilian in a war-torn country to an NCO of a foreign occupying army. I'm familiar with this type of situation. To me, the exchange seems wrong--on many levels. At the very least, the power dynamic is skewed and shouldn't be exploited.

All that, and I'm at a loss as to why the anecdote would have been included.

[Dr. Shades]

Let's not forget that this was the military during wartime. It wasn't a question of Peterson Senior being "caught dead" doing anything; the man quite literally didn't have a choice.

-_-

I'm guessing that mark is supposed to indicate your glib disapproval? If so, what part of my post was in any way incorrect?

[drumdude]

Oh I’m sure he had a choice. I’m sure there were consequences that would follow.

I remember singing a song about this in Mormon church.

I think my memory is correct in recalling that DCP is a convert so his father would not have been subject to this hyper moralistic demand.

I believe you’re correct. I’ve always considered this one of the best arguments against Mormon missionary efforts. His dad gets off scot free.

[Marcus]

This thread starts with a simple observation of an error and rapidly escalates into a tempest in a thimble.

Huck, this is an ernest and sincere observation, and I think it deserves a good faith answer. As you know, I don't usually post in Daniel Peterson critique threads, but this one had some hooks for me.

Dr. Peterson is moralizing. To do this, he's telling stories of others' drunkenness, womanizing, and folks getting Purple Hearts and promotions they don't deserve. He's ostensibly using an unimpeachable source, his own WWII hero father, who told him these stories firsthand. In his initial telling of these tales, Peterson's not postulating, he's presenting this material as cold, hard fact--stuff that you'd be an ass to question.

When the story behind the moralizing turns out to be suspect, it casts doubt on everything in his narrative. Given the professor's history of shading the truth, plagiarizing, and, um, Watson-lettering, it matters. It doesn't matter much, but it still matters.

But as you might guess, it was the portrait of Peterson's father that pulled at me.

In presenting his father's timeline, the professor mentioned Theodor Detter in the same breath that he talked about his father working with prisoners of war. The back of the painting was inscribed "I’m very happy to have painted your picture. Please remain friendly toward me." In my experience, it's not typical for an artist plead for kindness in exchange for a portrait. Given all this, I assumed that Detter must have been either one of those POWs or someone else whom Peterson's father exercised some significant power over.

From what I've read, I'm fairly certain Detter wasn't a POW. This means that the painting was exchanged for c-ration cigarettes and a plea for goodwill--given from a civilian in a war-torn country to an NCO of a foreign occupying army. I'm familiar with this type of situation. To me, the exchange seems wrong--on many levels. At the very least, the power dynamic is skewed and shouldn't be exploited.

All that, and I'm at a loss as to why the anecdote would have been included.

The moralizing concerns me also--that's a very common ploy within my Mormon family.

[drumdude]

Huck, this is an ernest and sincere observation, and I think it deserves a good faith answer. As you know, I don't usually post in Daniel Peterson critique threads, but this one had some hooks for me.

Dr. Peterson is moralizing. To do this, he's telling stories of others' drunkenness, womanizing, and folks getting Purple Hearts and promotions they don't deserve. He's ostensibly using an unimpeachable source, his own WWII hero father, who told him these stories firsthand. In his initial telling of these tales, Peterson's not postulating, he's presenting this material as cold, hard fact--stuff that you'd be an ass to question.

When the story behind the moralizing turns out to be suspect, it casts doubt on everything in his narrative. Given the professor's history of shading the truth, plagiarizing, and, um, Watson-lettering, it matters. It doesn't matter much, but it still matters.

But as you might guess, it was the portrait of Peterson's father that pulled at me.

In presenting his father's timeline, the professor mentioned Theodor Detter in the same breath that he talked about his father working with prisoners of war. The back of the painting was inscribed "I’m very happy to have painted your picture. Please remain friendly toward me." In my experience, it's not typical for an artist plead for kindness in exchange for a portrait. Given all this, I assumed that Detter must have been either one of those POWs or someone else whom Peterson's father exercised some significant power over.

From what I've read, I'm fairly certain Detter wasn't a POW. This means that the painting was exchanged for c-ration cigarettes and a plea for goodwill--given from a civilian in a war-torn country to an NCO of a foreign occupying army. I'm familiar with this type of situation. To me, the exchange seems wrong--on many levels. At the very least, the power dynamic is skewed and shouldn't be exploited.

All that, and I'm at a loss as to why the anecdote would have been included.

The moralizing concerns me also--that's a very common ploy within my Mormon family.

The kind of storytelling that DCP does was also very common in my adopted Mormon family. Mormons were encouraged to embellish and share those embellished stories with other members at church.

The truth of the story was always secondary to the purpose of the story. Either a moral cautionary tale, or some miraculous faith promoting yarn. All of these stories were woven together to uphold a narrative that the church is true, and that to go against it is death.

I don’t think DCP even consciously realizes he’s doing it. It’s just so baked into LDS culture to tell stories like this.

[Tom]

I’m afraid that my comment took the thread in a different direction than intended by drumdude. My apologies to drumdude for the threadjack.

Best,

Tom

[huckelberry]

The moralizing concerns me also--that's a very common ploy within my Mormon family.

The kind of storytelling that DCP does was also very common in my adopted Mormon family. Mormons were encouraged to embellish and share those embellished stories with other members at church.

The truth of the story was always secondary to the purpose of the story. Either a moral cautionary tale, or some miraculous faith promoting yarn. All of these stories were woven together to uphold a narrative that the church is true, and that to go against it is death.

I don’t think DCP even consciously realizes he’s doing it. It’s just so baked into LDS culture to tell stories like this.

Drumdude, and others, at this point I can only think I really have no idea what you are talking about. I only today bothered to go read DP's story. I read a contrast between actual knowledge of the Holocaust and context of knowledge and the alternative of denial resulting from ignorance and desire. It is a significant if not novel observation.

What moral cautionary story are you talking about? To tell the truth I do not much relate to the sort of story you are referring to. Perhaps not my family. Perhaps the church changed after I escaped. I get the feeling church h expectations are projecting things into DP's story not naturally there.

I can see Morley's concern about the note on the portrait. It suggests things not told. I have no idea as to why it is of any concern when the SS troops left.

[Marcus]

The moralizing concerns me also--that's a very common ploy within my Mormon family.

The kind of storytelling that DCP does was also very common in my adopted Mormon family. Mormons were encouraged to embellish and share those embellished stories with other members at church.

The truth of the story was always secondary to the purpose of the story. Either a moral cautionary tale, or some miraculous faith promoting yarn. All of these stories were woven together to uphold a narrative that the church is true, and that to go against it is death.

I don’t think DCP even consciously realizes he’s doing it. It’s just so baked into LDS culture to tell stories like this.

Absolutely. Especially this:

"The truth of the story was always secondary to the purpose of the story."

That concept caused probably the biggest rift between my lds father and myself. I was an absolute pro at writing and telling those fake stories that glorified the lds priesthood leader, and I did so in every birthday, Christmas and Father's day card, as well as in multiple sacrament meeting talks, and various other writings. I was well into my 20s before I finally realized how bizarrely dishonest this lifetime Mormon trait was, and I abruptly and completely stopped all fake communications.

I only found out recently--many decades later--- that my father keeps an album of all my fake laudatory writings, and that he reads, re-reads, and treasures those, those fake writings that are the outcome of being raised in a cult, instead of having a relationship with the real me. I am sickened by this, but that is what comes of the extreme lds mindset.

[drumdude]

The kind of storytelling that DCP does was also very common in my adopted Mormon family. Mormons were encouraged to embellish and share those embellished stories with other members at church.

The truth of the story was always secondary to the purpose of the story. Either a moral cautionary tale, or some miraculous faith promoting yarn. All of these stories were woven together to uphold a narrative that the church is true, and that to go against it is death.

I don’t think DCP even consciously realizes he’s doing it. It’s just so baked into LDS culture to tell stories like this.

Drumdude, and others, at this point I can only think I really have no idea what you are talking about. I only today bothered to go read DP's story. I read a contrast between actual knowledge of the Holocaust and context of knowledge and the alternative of denial resulting from ignorance and desire. It is a significant if not novel observation.

What moral cautionary story are you talking about? To tell the truth I do not much relate to the sort of story you are referring to. Perhaps not my family. Perhaps the church changed after I escaped. I get the feeling church h expectations are projecting things into DP's story not naturally there.

I can see Morley's concern about the note on the portrait. It suggests things not told. I have no idea as to why it is of any concern when the SS troops left.

I’m afraid it would take a longer time than I have to explain it all, but I appreciate your view. Often these threads can seem like a nonsensical dogpile- when the evidence isn’t viewed as a whole. It’s not always possible to give the complete context since DCP has been posting a blog a day for decades now.

99% of what DCP posts is completely irrelevant to anything, but I enjoy picking out the occasional threads of interest even when they are a little obscure (like this one admittedly is.)

Marcus got what I was going for, in her post above.

[Marcus]

Drumdude, and others, at this point I can only think I really have no idea what you are talking about. I only today bothered to go read DP's story. I read a contrast between actual knowledge of the Holocaust and context of knowledge and the alternative of denial resulting from ignorance and desire. It is a significant if not novel observation.

What moral cautionary story are you talking about? To tell the truth I do not much relate to the sort of story you are referring to. Perhaps not my family. Perhaps the church changed after I escaped. I get the feeling church h expectations are projecting things into DP's story not naturally there.

I can see Morley's concern about the note on the portrait. It suggests things not told. I have no idea as to why it is of any concern when the SS troops left.

Yes, maybe it did. Or maybe it didn't and you just didn't have that type of completely and totally Mormon-driven family insanity that others experienced. Either way, lucky, lucky you.