Tag: LDS

Mormons and the Nazis: More about Glenn Beck's Purple Triangle Story at Liberty University

Last week I wrote about Glenn Beck’s recent sermon at Liberty University. In that post, I pointed out that Beck referred to the colored cloth triangles that the Nazis made concentration camp inmates wear to identify the reason for imprisonment. The last triangle he displayed to his audience was a purple triangle (Watch the entire video here, for the purple triangle segment start at 10 minutes into the video).

Here is what Beck said about the prisoners wearing the purple triangles:

what got you sent to the concentration camps for the purple triangle? You were a Bible scholar. The Bible is the enemy to fascists.

As I pointed out in the post last week, Beck misled his audience. Bible scholars were not imprisoned unless they challenged the Nazi party. While all felt the scrutiny of the government, Bible scholars were not imprisoned simply for studying or believing the Bible. In fact, the overwhelming number of purple triangle wearers were Jehovah’s Witnesses. They refused to salute Hitler and paid a heavy price for it.
A little additional reading makes Beck’s misinformation particularly troubling. Beck’s religious group, the Mormons, was tolerated by the Nazis, mainly suffering local intimidation but little, if any, national persecution.  Based on the Twelfth Article of Faith, the Mormons’ policy toward the Nazis was to accommodate them. The LDS church in Germany disbanded their youth group without resistance at the order of the Nazis. The Mormon basketball ministry team helped the German team during the 1936 Olympics. Although later vindicated, the church even excommunicated one Mormon youth who was executed for carrying out anti-Nazi activities.
In early 1933, the activities and literature of the Jehovah’s Witnesses were banned by the Nazis. Some JWs were sent to the early concentration camps that year.  On the other hand, in December 1933, The Deseret News, a Mormon paper, published an article (scroll across to pp. 19 & 22; also here) lauding Hitler and the Nazis.

Note the reference to banned sects in the paragraph above:

Since the National Socialist party have come to power a few sects have been prohibited or restricted, but activities in the “Mormon” church have been carried on about the same as before. As a matter of fact, a number of interesting parallels can be seen between the church and some of the ideas and policies of the National Socialists.

At least one of the banned sects was the JWs. While the Witnesses were getting a purple triangle, the Mormons were finding common ground with the Nazis.
The Nazis eventually became suspicious of the Mormons, but along the way, the church and the National Socialists worked together. For instance, members of the Mormon basketball team, formed to proselytize, found favor in the eyes of the Nazis who called upon them to help with the German national team.
 

Mormon basketball team giving the Nazi Sieg Heil salute.
LDS Scholars Alan Keele and Douglas Tobler documented the Mormon tolerance of the Nazis in a 1980 article titled The Fuhrer’s New Clothes. In it, the scholars note that the Mormon leadership as well as individual Mormons tolerated and in some cases embraced the Nazis. In 1939, a LDS official penned another article in praise of the Nazis. According to Keele and Tobler:

In their eagerness to coexist with the [Nazi] government, American officials of the German Church resorted to public relation efforts . . . Probably the clearest example of this tendency is an article by West German Mission President Alfred C. Rees entitled ‘In the Land of the Mormons.’ The article appeared in a special issue of the Nazi Party organ Der Volkische Beobachter dated April 14 1937. In the Editor’s Preface to the article, President Rees is called ‘the representative of the Church in Germany,’ who ‘paints for our readers a portrait of Mormonism today, a church which views the New Germany with sympathy and friendship.’ (p. 27, Fuhrer’s New Clothes).

Keele and Tobler also describe the fate of a young Mormon boy, Helmuth Hubener, who was executed by the Nazis for anti-government activities. The Branch President of the local Mormon church excommunicated him after his martyrdom arrest. Even though the excommunication was not ratified by Mormon leaders in the United States, no one in Germany addressed the matter until after the war was over (Additional note: My original post said Hubener was excommunicated after his death. Instead the German LDS church action was taken after his arrest. After the war, in actions taken between 1946 and 1948, the local and then U.S. church reversed the excommunication. I am sorry for the original error.)
Glenn Beck told Liberty University that the Bible was the enemy of fascists. However, his own church put up little resistance to Nazi fascists. They did not wear the purple triangle. Without the whole story, it is unseemly for Beck to hold it up as a badge now.
UPDATE: In response to reader comments, let me add that Baptists (Liberty University is a Baptist school) were about the same as the Mormons. Baptists lauded Hitler in the 1930s because Hitler didn’t drink or smoke and because the Nazis campaigned for family values.  Beck’s grandstanding about resistance to fascism is pathetic when one considers the historical record of his religion and the religion of his audience.
Let me add that I am not saying I would have done any better than the Mormons or the Baptists. I would have wanted to protect my family and so I would have wanted to leave the country or do what I had to do to keep my family safe. In the face of evil, humans often wither with or without the Bible.
Additional sources:
The Rise of the Nazi Dictatorship and its Relationship with the Mormon Church in Germany, 1933–1939 – Steve Carter
Ernst C. Helmreich. The German Churches under Hitler: Background, Struggle and Epilogue. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979. (see especially pp. 404-406)
(H/t to commenter DukeCanuck)
More on the historical errors in Beck sermon.

BYU, Utah professors rebut LDS gay change group

Last Friday, the Salt Lake City Tribune published an opinion article by members of a Latter Day Saint group called Foundation for Attraction Research. This group, co-founded by National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality leader, Dean Byrd, claims that science validates their religious view of homosexuality. Among other problems, the article last Friday misrepresented the views of National Institute of Health Director Francis Collins.

A week later, today’s SLC Tribune has an effective rebuttal from Wiliam S. Bradshaw, professor emeritus of molecular biology at Brigham Young University; David G. Weight, professor emeritus of clinical and neuropsychology at BYU; and Ted Packard, professor emeritus of educational psychology at the University of Utah. The authors sent the article to me directly:

First, the authors’ manipulations of quotations from Dr. Francis Collins distort and misrepresent his views. They first cite Collins about possible genetic influence on homosexuality. After several intervening paragraphs they introduce separate comments about “individual free will” and “playing the hand dealt to us,” which they represent as his “additional insight on homosexuality.”

This juxtaposition is a deception. The “free will” comments actually refer to genes and intelligence or criminal and antisocial behavior, not homosexuality. Collins has responded to this corruption of his statements by A. Dean Byrd as incoming president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, or NARTH.

Collins sets the record straight as follows: 1) “The words quoted by NARTH … have been juxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion than I intended”; 2) The fact that there are other factors that influence how information in DNA is expressed “certainly doesn’t imply that those other factors are inherently alterable”; 3) Even though the actual genes contributing to SSA have yet to be identified, “it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years.”

Here is the full text of Collins’ unequivocal denunciation of others who, like Byrd and the three authors, have recently misappropriated his scientific views: “It is disturbing for me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observation to make a point against homosexuality. The American College of Pediatricians pulled language out of context from a book I wrote in 2006 to support an ideology that can cause unnecessary anguish and encourage prejudice. The information they present is misleading and incorrect, and it is particularly troubling that they are distributing it in a way that will confuse school children and their parents.”

Regular readers here may recognize the source of this information about Collins – Exgaywatch and then here and here. Read the rest at the link above, I think the authors have made a quality rebutal.

In Quiet Desperation: Rebuttal to Byrd, Cox & Robinson

I posted yesterday that Dean Byrd, Shirley Cox, and Jeffrey Robinson misrepresented the views of Northwestern University researcher Michael Bailey. The misrepresentation happened in a review of the book, In Quiet Desperation. The book was written by Fred and Marilyn Matis and Ty Mansfield and in the first part explores the suicide of Stuart Matis from his parents’ perspective and in the second part, Ty Mansfield explains his views of homosexuality from the vantage point of an observant Latter Day Saint.

Beyond the problem with how Byrd et al handled research in their review, Ty Mansfield claims the trio of NARTH members mishandled his book. I have not read the book so this post simply reports an excerpt from his rebuttal and an observation. I invite readers to read the book and this exchange and decide for yourself.

Now, in response to Byrd, Cox, and Robinson, a reader’s response to a book can have as much or more to do with the reader’s own preoccupations and paradigms as it does with the actual content of the book. And where an author is silent—as I tried to be regarding clinical themes—individuals will fill in the empty space with their own biases. People can stubbornly remain stuck with a given point of view and only see evidence that confirms that view, and any contradictory evidence is ignored. This phenomenon is so common that psychologists have even given it a name: confirmation bias. In Quiet Desperation has been subject to that distortion from two sides. Those who believe that homosexual relationships should be accepted by the Church have co-opted the book for their own purposes. And these reviewers have done the same, but in an opposite direction.

So there will be no further confusion, let me set the record straight. First, I do not believe in a biologically determined cause of homosexuality, and our book does not once make that claim. Second, I wholeheartedly support the Church’s teaching on the family, heterosexual monogamy, and the sanctity of the eternal union of man and woman as the only means of attaining the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, and that this ideal is one that everyone should hope and strive for, no matter what their temporal challenges might be. My beliefs, I feel, are in complete harmony with what the Lord’s Prophets and Apostles teach. In addition to supporting the Church’s teachings, most of the reviewers’ scientific assertions about homosexuality I have no quarrel with. Further, I respect the dedication and hard work of these individuals and so many others in assisting those who have sought them out for treatment for their unwanted homosexual feelings. They have brought great encouragement and tireless energy to helping their many patients.

Despite the authors’ affirmation of LDS teaching, Byrd et al criticize the In Quiet Desperation authors with being too pro-gay. Clearly, Mansfield rejects that accusation.

As I read the rebuttal, it occurred to me that this debate was the LDS parallel to the differences between the change and congruence paradigms we discuss here. In fact, Mansfield links to and quotes a Christianity Today article from an anonymous writer which laments both the evangelical focus on change of orientation and those who believe living a gay life is the only alternative for same-sex attracted people.

This author sounds very much like the person I wrote about in the essay, A Valued Life. It seems as though Mansfield is describing a realistic approach to same-sex attraction within the framework of adherence to LDS theology. However, that is not good enough for Byrd, Cox, and Robinson. They write:

However, with appropriate help, many individuals who struggle with same-sex attraction are able to diminish or eliminate that attraction and make substantial changes in their lives. Those who read In Quiet Desperation, therefore, should do so with the knowledge that the Stuart Matis story may have had a much different outcome had Stuart found the needed help.

Similarly, Ty Mansfield and the reader should understand there is much hope and substantial evidence that those who want to overcome same-sex attraction can make changes and achieve happiness and peace in their lives. Therefore, this review is written to contradict for Ty, and the many others who continue to struggle with same-sex attraction, the vision of hopelessness perpetrated through In Quiet Desperation.

I have heard the same criticism. To some, realism and an honest appraisal of the evidence is somehow hope squelching. If the study of Jones and Yarhouse is to be believed, more people in Exodus are living within the congruence model than have reported change. Given the modest change, it seems that what is happening via Exodus mediation is congruence for the lion’s share of the 53% who reported a positive response.

However, for Byrd et al, within their understanding of LDS theology, Mansfield’s approach is “A Slippery Slope that Limits the Atonement” as they title their review. They write:

The book inadvertently limits the power of the Atonement in the lives of people who struggle with homosexual attraction. As professionals with many combined years of practice in treating those with unwanted homosexual attraction, we have witnessed changes in the lives of many of these individuals, and the epiphanies have been many.

Like all emotional challenges, the outcome data has ranges of success. What is clear is that when the same standard applied to treatment outcomes of similarly situated difficulties is applied to the treatment outcomes of those with unwanted homosexuality, the results are remarkably similar. There is much in the professional treatment protocols that are compatible with the restored gospel. Appropriate professional help along with the healing powers of the gospel have repeatedly convinced us that there is no struggle for which the Atonement is not sufficient.

I know very little about the LDS doctrine of the Atonement, but if Mansfield limits it, I would argue that they also limit it in a different manner, given their reliance on “professional help.” It seems to me that what they are saying is that counseling plus the gospel is needed. Well, actually, that is what they say when they write: “Appropriate professional help along with the healing powers of the gospel have repeatedly convinced us that there is no struggle for which the Atonement is not sufficient.” So a little reparative therapy is needed to make the Atonement sufficient.

In any case, the authors offer no “outcome data,” or no research to support their claims of epiphanies. As we discuss within the evangelical context, this debate seems to be in part theological for some involved, rather than based in science. For Byrd et al, it appears their need for the change paradigm is based, at least in part, on their belief that their religious beliefs require that paradigm. Somehow, living in accord with LDS beliefs is insufficient, one must change one’s attractions to demonstrate progression in the faith. In general, I think psychologists have trouble seeing the role of their worldview loyalties in how they interpret data. Too often, loyalty to one’s worldview can lead to confirmation bias when approaching science, picking the studies that seem to fit and ignoring or failing to consider adequately those which do not.

Michael Bailey reacts to “blatant misquotation” on LDS website by Byrd, Cox and Robinson

Researching sexual orientation and health and mental health correlates, I came across a reference to Michael Bailey’s 1999 commentary on the topic in a book review by Dean Byrd, Shirley Cox and Jeffrey Robinson. The way Dr. Bailey was quoted had him saying things that I did not think he believed. I sent the link to him and asked him if the way he was quoted accurately communicated his views. Baliey’s response is below and as I thought, indicates that he was not quoted properly. First, let me provide some background.

In 2004, the book In Quiet Desperation: Understanding The Challenge Of Same-gender Attraction by Fred & Marilyn Matis, and Ty Mansfield was published by Deseret Book, a publisher owned by the Latter Day Saint (Mormon) church. About the book, the publisher says,

Most likely, someone you know is living a life of quiet desperation, struggling with feelings of same-gender attraction. In an effort to help Latter-day Saints understand and reach out to those who suffer from this difficulty, Fred and Marilyn Matis discuss how they’ve dealt with the knowledge of their son Stuart’s challenge with same-gender attraction, and how parents and others can reach out with love. In addition, Ty Mansfield discusses his own challenge and how he continues to go forward with faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. “The Lord promised that he will change our hearts, but he didn’t say when,” writes Mansfield. “He never promised it would happen in mortality. He only said it would happen.”

Here is a video news clip of the authors describing their hope for their book.

This is gut wrenching to watch. I could write an entire post just sorting through these stories in the context of the LDS church (in fact, there will be additional posts on this topic). For now, I offer this information as context for understanding why NARTH past-president Dean Byrd, Brigham Young University Social Work professor, Shirley Cox, and private practitioner, Jeff Robinson quoted Michael Bailey’s work on mental health and homosexuality.

Even though the In Quiet Desperation authors advocate living faithfully as LDS adherents, Byrd et al wrote a sharply critical review in 2005 of the book, published on a website dedicated to defending Mormonism (FAIR -Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research).

Titled “A Slippery Slope that Limits the Atonement,” the review is a harsh rebuke of the authors and the publisher. They begin:

While we, the authors of this review, are critical of the content and message of In Quiet Desperation, we want to be clear that we do not place all of the blame for any harmful effects the book may have on the shoulders of the Matises and Ty Mansfield. Indeed, In Quiet Desperation is symptomatic of the confusion about same-sex attraction commonly had throughout society. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not immune to such confusion.

Specifically, because the In Quiet Desperation authors are realistic about the prospects of sexual reorientation, Byrd et al condemn their work and message.

Byrd et al also fault the In Quiet Desperation authors for recognizing the negative effects of social pressure and stigma on the mental health of gays. Even though the Matises’ son demonstrated evidence of stigma and self-hatred, was clearly depressed and committed suicide, Byrd et al attacked the concept that stigma can lead to emotional problems. This is the context for their misrepresentation of Michael Bailey’s views.

Byrd et al criticize Ty Mansfield’s views on stigma as follows:

Much of the difficulty with homosexual challenges, Mansfield places on a homophobic society (p.128). He notes:

* The negative rhetoric voiced in society (p. 189).

* The bias or ignorance in society (p. 195).

* The closed-minded society (p. 221).

Readers should be aware that the above statements can be frequently found on gay activist Web sites. While Mansfield and others suggest that society’s view of homosexual men and women is a causative factor in their resulting mental illnesses, such does not appear to be the case. There is a high correlation between engaging in homosexual practices and a greater than normal risk of suffering from mental illness including suicidality, anxiety disorders and clinical depression.12 While one might suggest that society’s view of homosexual men and women is a determining factor in their mental illnesses, such does not seem to be the case since the study was duplicated in The Netherlands with the same results,13 and The Netherlands is arguably the most gay-affirming country in the world!

Activist researcher J. Michael Bailey offered other hypotheses: “homosexuality represents a deviation from normal development and is associated with other such deviations that may lead to mental illness,” or “the consequences of lifestyle differences associated with sexual orientation” leads to mental illness or “behavioral risk factors associated with male homosexuality such as receptive anal sex and promiscuity” leads to mental illness.14

Reading this passage, one could come away thinking that Dr. Bailey believes “other hypotheses” are superior to the one involving stigma. One might also think that Bailey believes certain sexual practices lead directly to poorer mental health outcomes among gays. (It is worth pointing out that no one in the book In Quiet Desperation advocates or apparently lived or lives a promiscuous life.) When Bailey examined how his work had been cited, he reacted as follows:

I was dismayed to read Byrd, Cox and Robinson’s summary of my views. In the context of a debate about the reasons for higher rates of mental illness among homosexual individuals, Byrd et al cites me as “offering” several hypotheses other than the increased stigmatization of homosexual people. It is unfortunate and misleading that they did not indicate that I discussed some versions of the hypotheses they mention alongside the stigma hypothesis. I was noncommittal about the merits of the hypotheses, because the required scientific research had not been conducted (and still hasn’t for the most part). I concluded: “it would be a shame—most of all for gay men and lesbians whose mental health is at stake—if sociopolitical concerns prevented researchers from conscientious consideration of any reasonable hypothesis.” But I also wrote: “It would indeed be surprising if antihomosexual attitudes were not part of the explanation of increased suicidality among homosexual people, but this remains to be demonstrated.”

One of Byrd et al’s out-of-context quotations is so egregiously wrong that it amounts to a blatant misquotation. They suggest that I believe that “behavioral risk factors associated with male homosexuality such as receptive anal sex and promiscuity leads to mental illness.” I do not. I brought up receptive anal sex and (relative) promiscuity as factors that help explain increased rates of HIV infection among gay men. I said explicitly that it was unclear how these could help explain the increased rates of suicidality and depression among homosexual people. I favor open debate on controversial issues, including those related to sexual orientation. But constructive debate depends on responsible, accurate reporting of facts (and facts include what other people actually said and meant). In these remarks Dean Byrd, Shirley Cox and Jeff Robinson fail to live up to these requirements. For those interested in what I really said, please see the actual article that Byrd et al mischaracterize.

In fact what Michael Bailey says in his article about the stigma hypothesis is the following:

Consider first the idea that increased depression and suicidality among homosexual people are caused by societal oppression. This is an eminently reasonable hypothesis. Surely it must be difficult for young people to come to grips with their homosexuality in a world where homosexual people are often scorned, mocked, mourned, and feared, and there is considerable anecdotal evidence that the “coming out” process is emotionally difficult. The hypothesis would be strengthened by findings that issues related to self-acceptance, or acceptance by others, often trigger homosexual people’s depressive and suicidal episodes. Furthermore, homosexual people should not, by this model, be more suicidal than heterosexual people in reaction to stressors of equal magnitude. It would indeed be surprising if antihomosexual attitudes were not part of the explanation of increased suicidality among homosexual people, but this remains to be demonstrated.

And then as Bailey notes, Byrd et al really distorts his meaning regarding lifestyle differences. In the 1999 commentary, Bailey writes:

Another possible explanation is that increased psychopathology among homosexual people is a consequence of lifestyle differences associated with sexual orientation. For example, gay men are probably not innately more vulnerable to the human immunodeficiency virus, but some have been more likely to become infected because of 2 behavioral risk factors associated with male homosexuality: receptive anal sex and promiscuity. It is unclear how an analogous model would account for homosexual people’s increased rates of suicidality and depression…

In my opinion, Byrd, Cox and Robinson owe Bailey an apology and a retraction. Here I have only dealt with the misrepresentation of Bailey’s views. According to this rebuttal by Ty Mansfield, the entire review is a lengthy misrepresentation of his book. And I am not the only one who believes Byrd et al have done an injustice to this book and to the science of sexual orientation. Other LDS authors have also weighed in on the matter and in a post to come this week, I will review their critique of Byrd et al’s treatment of In Quiet Desperation.

And it is not the first time…