Still Chosen: Latter-day Saint Theology of the Jews in the Post-Holocaust Era

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to examine how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members have responded to anti-Jewish theological tropes, especially in the post-Holocaust era. The thesis of this research is that, while the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not formally canonized any twentieth-century statements on antisemitism, its sacred texts—including the Book of Mormon—along with prophetic teachings and institutional actions before, during, and after World War II, reflect a consistent and distinctive theological perspective on the Jewish people as God’s covenant people with a positive eschatological role in his plan. Unique among its Christian cousins in that era, the Latter-day Saint perspective includes a general rejection of anti-Jewish tropes and—while imperfect—a general pattern of respectful engagement with Jews at both institutional and individual levels. This research is significant in an era of rising antisemitism as it promotes understanding of a religion that has historically maintained, though not perfectly, a more philosemitic approach both institutionally and individually. A deeper understanding of ideas and attitudes that discourage anti-Jewish tropes and combat antisemitism is desperately needed in the modern world.

1. Introduction

On 27 October 1942, 17-year-old Helmuth Hübener, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was executed in Berlin by a Nazi guillotine. His crime: as “the youngest resistance fighter to lose his life” against the Nazi regime, he sought to dispel their propaganda and publicize accounts of their atrocities—including those committed against Jews.1 His 1941 decision to illegally listen to, transcribe, and distribute BBC radio broadcasts and other opposition literature in the form of leaflets warranted swift conviction and execution, according to the policy “Against Parasites of the People” from the German National Ministry of Justice (Germany Ministry of the Interior 1995; Holmes and Keele 1995). While Hübener’s actions were those of an individual, his opposition to the tyrannical Nazi regime reflect his Church’s ideological opposition to those who deceive and persecute other children of God, including Jews.

Anti-Jewish theological tropes that gained currency during the rise of Christianity included deicide, divine cursing, covenantal rejection, and its resultant supersessionism. In short, Jews were labeled as “Christ-killers,” whose families and descendants were held collectively responsible for that crime. This belief contributed to the view that God had scattered the Jewish people and replaced—or superseded—them with the Lord’s new covenant people: the Christians. While one could debate whether these theological tropes preceded the mistreatment of Jews or were fabricated to justify scapegoating them afterward, the fact remains that Jews were often mischaracterized as physically weak, greedy, and power-hungry. Furthermore, non-Jews—including Christians—blamed and punished their Jewish neighbors for economic downturns, medieval plagues, and other problems that they either could not explain or for which they needed a convenient culprit. In the wake of the Holocaust’s horrors and the widespread antisemitism that supported it, many Christian churches had to reexamine their theology and practices relative to Jewish people.

1.1. Thesis and Historical Significance

The purpose of this research is to examine how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members—referred to hereafter as Latter-day Saints—have responded to anti-Jewish theological tropes, especially in the post-Holocaust era. This research is significant in an era of rising antisemitism as it promotes understanding of a religion that has historically possessed, though not perfectly, a more philosemitic approach both institutionally and individually. A deeper understanding of ideas and attitudes that discourage anti-Jewish tropes and combat antisemitism is desperately needed in the modern world. The thesis of this research is that, while the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not formally canonized any twentieth-century statements on antisemitism, its sacred texts—including the Book of Mormon—along with prophetic teachings2 and institutional actions before, during, and after World War II, reflect a mostly consistent and distinctive theological perspective on the Jewish people and their future in God’s plan. This perspective includes a general rejection of anti-Jewish tropes and—while imperfect—a pattern of respectful engagement with Jews at both institutional and individual levels.

1.2. Methodology

In terms of methodology, this historical–theological study includes an extensive review of primary and secondary source documents to investigate and assess the thesis. Primary sources include letters, meeting notes, public speeches and sermons, case studies of member behavior, and official proclamations from the Church and its primary leadership. It also includes Church publications, such as their various magazines, newsroom articles, and especially their canonized scripture. The scripture is used to assess whether there is a Latter-day Saint theological impetus for antisemitism or philosemitism, and whether the Church’s actions during the post-Holocaust period aligned with its canonized doctrine.

This research also includes the use of credible secondary sources, such as relevant survey data, as well as articles from experts in Latter-day Saint history, Jewish history, and American religious history, specifically in the post-Holocaust period. It also includes interfaith dialogue between Jews and Latter-day Saints describing and commenting upon Latter-day Saint theology regarding Jews and the Church’s integrity or hypocrisy with respect to those professed beliefs. To provide a more complete, objective analysis of the state of institutional antisemitism or philosemitism in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this research includes data produced by sources inside as well as outside of the Church. Furthermore, sources aim to provide both institutional and member-level evidence to illustrate how well or poorly individual Latter-day Saints’ attitudes and actions reflect their Church’s institutional directives. All sources are assessed for credibility, objectivity, and consistency. While the researcher is himself a Latter-day Saint, his conviction to the standards of historical research and evidence-based analysis—including the use of both affirmational and critical perspectives—ensures the necessary objectivity for this research. Moreover, an inside perspective may produce a more comprehensive understanding of both theological and historical correlations and lead to more robust conclusions than a non-Latter-day Saint studying the same topic.

2. Latter-day Saint Theology of the Jews

In simple terms, the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints relative to the Jews is that they are part of the Lord’s chosen covenant people, sometimes called the house of Israel; that they played a crucial role in preparing the way for Christ’s mortal condescension and mission; that they and their descendants were subsequently scattered throughout the earth; and that they will ultimately be gathered with the rest of the house of Israel to Jesus Christ in the last days leading up to his Second Coming. This research will sequentially substantiate each theological point and its practical impact, including how each one helps Latter-day Saints largely reject common anti-Jewish tropes adopted by other well-meaning Christian denominations.

2.1. Jews Still Part of Christ’s Covenant People

Latter-day Saints believe that both they and the Jews are part of the Lord’s chosen covenant people, sometimes called the house of Israel, which has a glorious, eternal destiny with modern-day implications. Part of the reason for this unique Latter-day Saint theology of the Jews is that Latter-day Saints not only believe in ancient scripture, like the Holy Bible and the Book of Mormon, but also in an open canon, including restoration scripture such as the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the words of their modern prophets. As Joseph Smith wrote in one of their 1842 Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (J. Smith 1842). With that in mind, analyzing specific passages and the overall thematic teachings of that open canon of revelation will help to clarify where and why Latter-day Saints have historically—and still to this day—opposed antisemitism on theological grounds.

As if to resolve any doubt regarding the Latter-day Saint theological position relative to the Jews, the title page of the Book of Mormon makes it abundantly clear; it reads that the purpose of the Book of Mormon, as the keystone of Latter-day Saint scripture, is to help the “remnant of the house of Israel,” including those Jews who have been scattered throughout the world, to “know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever” and finally “to the convincing Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God.”3 The Book of Mormon is true to its claim at the outset, as it later explains and reiterates the Lord’s ongoing covenant with the house of Israel and his great desire to gather all of his children—including the Jews—back to him in the last days. Other passages in the Latter-day Saint canon of scripture include the Savior’s impassioned reminder: “O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? … I the Lord have not forgotten my people.”4 Hundreds of years later in the Book of Mormon timeline, another ancient prophet wrote, “the Lord will remember his covenant which he hath made unto his people of the house of Israel.”5 Contextually, it is important to note that the people of the Book of Mormon were Jews from Jerusalem and had been effectually scattered, or at least led away by the Lord; for this reason alone, the Book of Mormon people held tightly to and often reiterated the Lord’s promises to gather his ancient covenant people. These selected passages, among many others, remind contemporary Saints that the Jews—like the oft-persecuted Latter-day Saints—are still a covenant people who have not been forgotten or abandoned by the Lord. It would be incredibly difficult for a believing Latter-day Saint to adopt or justify antisemitic attitudes or behaviors while also believing this incredibly philosemitic text.

Likewise, Latter-day Saints have a firm belief that they, too, are, by blood or spiritual adoption, part of the house of Israel. In a mid-20^th-century book titled Doctrines of Salvation, Church President Joseph Fielding Smith taught that “every person who embraces the gospel becomes of the house of Israel”, meaning that they become inheritors of the promises of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (J. F. Smith 1956, p. 246). In a very literal sense, Latter-day Saints believe that “when they are baptized and confirmed they are grafted into the tree” and become part of that covenant family with the Jews (Ibid.). To further support this belief, Robert A. Goldberg, a Jewish scholar of the Latter-day Saints, noted that “Mormons feel a great affinity for all things Jewish and Israel,” and added that “Mormons ‘feel’ Jewish—or at least that Jews and Mormons are Biblical cousins.”6 Similarly, Latter-day Saint scholar Armand L. Mauss observed that “the peculiar Mormon doctrine, which identifies Mormons as Israelites” effectively “’neutralizes’ the various religious factors leading to anti-Semitism” (Mauss 1968, pp. 26–27). This is an essential concept to understand as it makes it doctrinally difficult for a Latter-day Saint to hate, speak poorly of, or mistreat Jews because, in a sense, they are thereby hating their own covenant family.

Tensions and Critiques

Nevertheless, it is important to note that institutionally philosemitic Latter-day Saint theology was sometimes poorly received and applied by its members. For example, in their 1968 study titled “Mormon Semitism and Anti-Semitism,” in which 250 Latter-day Saints were surveyed, researchers found that the more “orthodox” Latter-day Saints ranked highly in what they called “negative doctrines”—or negative religious beliefs—“about both historic and contemporary Jews” (Ibid., pp. 21–22). The negative religious beliefs included in the survey related to the charges of Jewish deicide, divine cursing, and covenantal rejection. These negative beliefs were not necessarily supported or reinforced theologically by the institutional Church, but they were widely held by Latter-day Saints in the late 1960s—at least as represented in this study.

It is important to note that Latter-day Saints in rural areas tended to express more secular antisemitism than did Latter-day Saints in urban areas (Ibid., pp. 23–25). This is not unexpected given the tendency for secular antisemitism to be more prominent among less educated individuals. What was unexpected was that, when the researchers controlled “simultaneously for education and urban origin,” they found that the belief in the “peculiar Mormon doctrine of Semitic identification” effectively neutralized most negative doctrines about modern Jews held by those same Latter-day Saints (Ibid.). In other words, despite institutionally philosemitic theology, Latter-day Saint members have sometimes adopted negative doctrines—or secular antisemitic notions. Fortunately, however, these negative doctrines are, in the words of the researcher, largely “neutralized” by Latter-day Saints’ simultaneous belief in Semitic identification, which can “prevent or reduce the incidence of hostility” (Ibid., p. 27).

2.2. Gratitude to Jews for Their Role in Preparing for Christ’s Life and Mission

Latter-day Saint theology wholeheartedly embraces with gratitude the Jews’ contributions to Christ’s life and mission. A careful reading of the scriptures makes it apparent that the ancient house of Israel—including the Jews—played a crucial role in preparing the way for Christ’s mortal condescension and the ultimate success of his earthly mission. For example, before Christ’s earthly life, powerful Israelite prophets, leaders, and teachers such as Joseph of Egypt, Moses, Elijah, Elisha, David, Solomon, Samuel, Anna, John the Baptist, and many others typified, pointed to, or otherwise prepared the way for the Messiah. Not only that, but Jesus would often quote and utilize the prophecies of these powerful predecessors to supplement his own teachings and clarify his divine role. Certainly, Christ’s righteous Jewish parents, Joseph and Mary, who were so careful about ensuring he knew the scriptures and regularly made pilgrimage to the temple in Jerusalem, are worthy of remembrance and regard; as some of his primary mortal influences, they were part of why Christ “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” over the course of his childhood.7

It is also important to recognize that during the Savior’s life, most of his followers, including his most devoted disciples, were Jews. In fact, the Jewish people provided a seedbed for Christianity. While advocates of supersessionism contend that Christians are the natural successors, or those who supplant, the Jews, Latter-day Saints argue that both Jews and Latter-day Saints are part of Israel, the Lord’s covenant people. Moreover, once the Jews, who have long been seeking a Messiah, recognize that Jesus Christ is the universal Messiah—for Christians and Jews alike—and all will then be gathered under the banner of God’s covenant people. Thus, Latter-day Saints espouse a restoration theology that avoids supersessionism in the traditional sense. Lastly, to downplay the role of Jews in the life of Jesus Christ, some have even sought to deny his actually being a Jew. For example, Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg groundlessly argued in his The Myth of the Twentieth Century that “to see in place of the light-brown haired, light skinned Jesus child a blue black, woolly haired, brown skinned Jew boy would be an impossibility” (Rosenberg 1930, p. 297). Despite rhetoric to the contrary, it is historically apparent that Jesus Christ himself was a Jew. Thus, in Latter-day Saint theology, to be antisemitic is to be antichrist.

Tensions and Critiques

Although the institutional Latter-day Saint theology largely speaks of Jews being part of the same enduring covenant family, some scholars argue that scriptural teachings in the Book of Mormon support deicide and supersessionist beliefs (Cain 1992). For example, scholar Seymour Cain acknowledges that Latter-day Saint teachings vary from the traditional supersessionism found among many Christians, but that Book of Mormon scriptures still teach that the Jews “are deicides”, and that the punishments they have received are “a direct result of their sins” (Ibid., p. 62). Cain argues that, regardless of contemporary prophetic paradigms, the foundational scriptural teachings regarding deicide and divine cursing still align with the traditional Christian trope of supersessionism—with some variation—and make it difficult for Latter-day Saints to argue they wholeheartedly reject supersessionism. While Latter-day Saints argue that the Book of Mormon passages Cain uses to support his claim are descriptive—not prescriptive—the reality is that any mention of divine cursing can be misconstrued to justify antisemitic hostility and violence.

Moreover, Jews have expressed their frustration and outrage at Christian attempts to make even descriptive statements regarding the cause of past or present Jewish suffering. For example, in his essay “Prayer in the Shoah,” rabbi and Auschwitz survivor David Weiss Halivni stated that “there is no transgression that merits such punishment [referring to the Holocaust],” and elsewhere adds that “we must not blame such a catastrophe on the sins of its victims. Anyone who does so denies the promises God made to Israel” (Halivni 2001, p. 271). Similarly, as part of his introduction and summary of Halivni’s writing, Jewish scholar Peter Ochs said the “effort to associate the Shoah and [Jewish] sin is morally outrageous” (Ochs 2001). Lastly, well-known Jewish scholar Richard L. Rubenstein argued, in his 1966 After Auschwitz: Radical Theology and Contemporary Judaism, that implying that God wanted or approved of the Holocaust as a form of Jewish punishment is “simply too obscene for me to accept” (Rubenstein 1966, p. 153). The comments of these Jewish scholars serve as a representative sample of Jewish outrage at any effort to justify violent antisemitism—including the Holocaust—by pointing the finger of blame at the victims. While Book of Mormon scriptures regarding the scattering and persecution Jews would experience over time are clearly not prescriptive—nor does it state that all crimes, such as the Holocaust, are the result of Jewish sinfulness—there is no denying that it does describe the failure of some Jews to accept the Messiah as a reason for subsequent scattering and suffering. Understandably, some Jews take offense at this aspect of Latter-day Saint theology, even if Latter-day Saints also affirm Semitic kinship and anticipate a positive eschatological future for them.

2.3. Jews’ Purposeful Scattering and Prophesied Gathering to Christ

It is historically verifiable that the house of Israel was scattered throughout the world by various nations over time. The Assyrian conquest in 722 BC dispersed the Northern Kingdom of Israel throughout the Assyrian Empire. Subsequently, the Babylonian conquest of the Kingdom of Judah in 586 BC and—centuries later—the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD in response to a Jewish revolt, left the house of Israel in shambles (Kellner 1905). The Book of Mormon teaches that “the Jews shall be scattered among all nations,” but promises an ultimate gathering again when they are “persuaded to believe in Christ.”8 That being said, while Latter-day Saints recognize that this scattering was, in part, a consequence of ancient Israel’s “unrighteousness and rebellion”—or failure to live the covenant—they also believe that this was a purposeful scattering that would bless the world and prepare for a more comprehensive gathering to Christ in the last days (McConkie 1958, p. 611). Prominent Church leader Bruce R. McConkie, who was referencing another apostle, James E. Talmage, noted in his 1958 Mormon Doctrine that Israel was scattered throughout the world in order to serve as “a leavening and enlightening influence wherever her scattered remnants have found lodgment” (McConkie 1958, p. 611; Talmage 1899, pp. 314–27). In other words, the distribution of the blood of Israel—and, in some cases, faithful covenant-keepers—throughout all the nations of the world served to prepare the earth for a worldwide gathering of Israel in the last days. By distributing the blood of his ancient covenant people throughout the earth, the Lord effectively set the stage for gathering all his children throughout the world under that same covenant banner. As further evidence of this worldwide distribution of Israel, since the earliest days of the Church, Latter-day Saints have received what they call patriarchal blessings, which include a declaration of their lineage within the house of Israel.9 Dr. Wendy W. Nelson, wife of current Church President Russell M. Nelson, recently reported that, through personal research, she has confirmed that all of the tribes of Israel are represented by the current worldwide membership of Latter-day Saints (W. W. Nelson 2018). Thus, each Latter-day Saint, either by blood or through covenant adoption, feels a kinship with all the house of Israel, including the Jews. Building on their canonized scriptural theology, modern-day Latter-day Saint prophets have declared, repeatedly and emphatically, to the Church’s members that “You were sent to earth … to help gather Israel. There is nothing happening on this earth right now that is more important than that. There is nothing of greater consequence. Absolutely nothing” (R. M. Nelson 2018). This kind of theological foundation not only explains the Church’s nearly 110,000 currently serving missionaries throughout the world but also explains why Latter-day Saints feel a deep love for and responsibility to not only the Jews but all of God’s children (Toone 2024).

Case in point, the Latter-day Saints’ tenth Article of Faith, penned in 1833 by Joseph Smith, affirms: “We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the 10 tribes” (J. Smith 1842, p. 709). The Latter-day Saints have so enthusiastically believed and prepared for this reality that both their scripture and their modern-day actions attest to it. An ancient Book of Mormon prophet and Jew named Nephi spoke extensively to his people of the gathering of Israel, including “the restoration of the Jews in the latter days,” that they “shall be gathered home to the lands of their inheritance,” and that the Lord will “restore his people from their lost and fallen state.”10 Clearly, the Book of Mormon provides Latter-day Saints with an optimistic eschatological vision of the Jews with contemporary implications relative to their responsibility in helping bring about this latter-day gathering of Israel. If there were any doubt as to who is invited to be part of this gathering, Nephi adds in beautifully inclusive language that the Lord “inviteth all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him”, because “all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”11 In terms of contemporary response to this prophecy of the gathering of Israel, Church founder and president Joseph Smith sent apostle Orson Hyde to Palestine in 1841 to dedicate the land “for the return of the Jews” (Peterson 2011).

Tensions and Critiques

Despite a theological foundation for a kinship with Israel, in addition to their own variant of supersessionism, another common anti-Jewish trope that could prevent Latter-day Saints from fulfilling their covenant responsibility to gather Israel is that of deicide. Specifically, believing that all Jews are deserving of punishment on account of their “killing Christ.” Latter-day Saints, both theologically and practically, generally reject this unsound argument, though there has been nuance—as well as inaccuracy and inconsistency—in the way Church leaders and individual members have described it over time. For example, in his acclaimed 1982 The Millennial Messiah, principal Latter-day Saint thought-leader and apostle Bruce R. McConkie wrote in plain terms that the Jews were scattered and punished “because they rejected the gospel, cast out their Messiah, and crucified their King”, and that their eventual gathering would be dependent on their “accept[ing] Christ” and “join[ing] the true Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (McConkie 1982, pp. 224–25). While he supported that argument for Jewish scattering with scripture, the way he framed the message could be sensibly understood to suggest that all Jews were responsible for Christ’s death, that—instead of it being a voluntary sacrifice—the Jews killed Christ, that all resultant Jewish persecution was justified given the ancient Jews’ failure to accept him, and that the Jews will continue to be persecuted until they accept Christ and his Church. There are several things about that statement that are problematic and could easily perpetuate antisemitic tropes, especially if mishandled. It is not certain how much of that interpretive reading Elder McConkie believed, but the statement’s lack of clarity opened the door to misunderstanding. Although his book was not official, canonized, or curriculum-correlated material, given Elder McConkie’s Church position, Latter-day Saints may reasonably have perceived it as authoritative and adopted the related negative Jewish tropes.

To address these issues, especially the charge of deicide, it is first important to note that Latter-day Saint doctrine is emphatic on Christ’s death being a voluntary sacrifice. A few selected passages from Latter-day Saint scripture that support this teaching include “Behold, he [Christ] offereth himself a sacrifice for sin,” implying it was voluntary; “the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father”; and “I, God, suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent.”12 Furthermore, Latter-day Saint doctrine explains that no mortal power had the capacity to kill the Messiah. Passages from both the Book of Mormon and the Bible that support this understanding include “He shall suffer … even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death”, and “I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself.”13 So, in the Latter-day Saint view, not only was Christ’s sacrifice voluntary, but it was impossible for the Jews to have killed him anyway. Lastly, Latter-day Saints hold that it was “expedient that an atonement should be made … or else all mankind must unavoidably perish”, and that it had to be “an infinite an eternal sacrifice,” which Christ was the only one capable of offering.14 While it would be inaccurate to say that Latter-day Saints are grateful that some of the Jews contributed to the condemnation and crucifixion of Christ at the hands of the Romans, it was, nonetheless, necessary and prophesied that he should die for the sins of the world.

As a logical extension of that theology, Latter-day Saints reject the use of deicide as a justification for antisemitic violence. Although the Book of Mormon acknowledges that “those who … [were] at Jerusalem shall be scourged by all people, because they crucify the God of Israel,” it does not in any way apply that blame to all future Jews or encourage or justify violence against them.15 Acknowledging that some Jews—specifically the ancient Jewish ruling council known as the Sanhedrin—were influential in the condemnation and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ by the Romans is a historical fact, but it is not inherently antisemitic. The deicide trope that is often used to justify antisemitic behavior is to apply a collective and everlasting guilt on all Jews for the behavior of a select group thousands of years ago. This theological trope is soundly rejected by Latter-day Saints.

The Latter-day Saints’ second Article of Faith states that “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins,” clearly refuting any sort of justification for multi-generational violence (J. Smith 1842, p. 709). Ezekiel supported this same sentiment when he taught, “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, … the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”16 Noted Latter-day Saint apologist and scholar Dan Peterson wrote: “it’s remarkable, even startling, that the Book of Mormon, published in 1830, expressly condemns anti-Semitism—so far as I’m aware, the only scriptural text, from any tradition, that does so” (Peterson 2011). One example of such Latter-day Saint canonized condemnation of antisemitism includes 2 Nephi 29; speaking to non-Jews, the Lord said, “ye have cursed them [the Jews], and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. … I will return all these things upon your own heads.”17 The Lord is clearly articulating, both to ancient and modern audiences, that he does not want anyone cursing or hating the Jews and threatens severe consequences on those who engage in such behavior. Moreover, he mentions the failure of some to “seek to recover them,” which Latter-day Saint readers would interpret as a clear allusion to their responsibility to gather—not persecute—Israel in the last days.

Mormon, one of the later prophets in the Book of Mormon, wrote “ye need not any longer hiss, nor spurn, nor make game of the Jews, nor of any remnant of the house of Israel”, because “the Lord remembereth his covenant unto them, and he will do unto them according to that which he hath sworn.”18 First, this scripture does not, as some have suggested, imply that it was at one time okay to “spurn” or “make game of the Jews”; on the contrary, it clearly communicates the Lord’s will that this should never be done, because they are part of his covenant people with whom he has an enduring relationship. Second, he reiterates that the covenant promises that he has made with them—specifically related to their eventually being gathered to him along with the rest of the house of Israel—will be fulfilled. To demonstrate that this sentiment aligns with post-Holocaust Latter-day Saint thought on the subject, prominent Latter-day Saint scholar Robert L. Millet commented that the Book of Mormonteaches “that God has a plan for his chosen people and that they have a crucial mission to perform,” that “he has not forgotten her,” and that he “has no intention of letting Israel go.” (Millet 1991, pp. 186–96).

Lastly, Latter-day Saint leaders have never used the perceived sinfulness of any group of Jews—ancient or modern—as justification for hatred or violence against them. In fact, the scattering experienced by the Jews was always described as a divinely enacted covenant consequence of a group’s unfaithfulness, not as an invitation for other groups to persecute them. Some earlier leaders—including Bruce R. McConkie in earlier versions of his unofficial, and subsequently revised, work Mormon Doctrine—used language that lacked the necessary nuance and seemed to lend credence to the deicide charge; however, the absence of any justification for antisemitic violence and the fact that those teachings were paired with strong Latter-day Saint beliefs in the ultimate gathering of Israel, the Jews’ ongoing covenant relationship with Jesus Christ, and the positive eschatological future of their people during the Savior’s millennial reign help to soften and contextualize otherwise easy to misinterpret comments (McConkie 1958, p. 360). In addition to speaking enthusiastically about the gathering of Israel and the shared covenant identity of all of the house of Israel, post-Holocaust Latter-day Saint leaders have become much more cognizant and careful about the way that they describe the Savior’s mortal condemnation and who is responsible.

In summary, while Latter-day Saint theology, including that found in the Book of Mormon and taught by Church leaders, does not celebrate that a small number of influential Jews rejected and condemned their Messiah, it also does not blame them for his death. Christ’s suffering and death at the hands of the Romans is clearly explained as a voluntary sacrifice, underscoring his inability to be taken or killed against his will. It acknowledges the failure of some Jews to accept Christ at his First Coming but looks forward to their doing so as part of the gathering of Israel in the days before his Second Coming. Church President Russell M. Nelson summarized well the Latter-day Saint theology toward their Jewish kinsfolk: “The coming forth of the Book of Mormon is a tangible sign to the world that the Lord has commenced gathering Israel and fulfilling covenants He made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (R. M. Nelson 2014, p. 30).

3. Institutional Efforts to Build Bridges with God’s Still Chosen Jewish People

Grounded in a theologically philosemitic foundation of respect, gratitude, and inclusion, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has consistently sought to build bridges of respect and cooperation with Jewish people and communities. While the Church has not formally canonized any twentieth-century statements on antisemitism—like the Catholic Church’s Nostra Aetate—official statements from Church leaders before, during, and after World War II, reflect a consistent and distinctive—though imperfect—pattern of respectful engagement with Jews, both institutionally and individually. To aid in demonstrating the Church’s consistent institutional rejection of common anti-Jewish tropes, a representative sample of these official Church statements from 1939, 1942, 1945, 1979, 1995, 2008, and 2018 will be used throughout this section.

From April 1939, just before the start of World War II, to October 1942, shortly after America’s official involvement, the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—the Church’s highest leadership council—issued a series of statements that reiterated the Church’s opposition to hatred, violence, war, and unrighteous dominion over others. The First Presidency called for the world’s leaders to return to peaceful negotiation and a resolution of differences without violent action, if possible (First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1939). They expressed that the “gospel of Christ is a gospel of love and peace”, and that “unrighteous dominion over our fellow men,” as was being perpetrated against the Jewish people, “can have no place in the hearts of Latter-day Saints” (First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1942, p. 90). Furthermore, they made repeated and significant calls to virtue, integrity, and love for one’s neighbors, and passionately decried the evil of hateful feelings toward any of God’s children (Ibid.). They added in the April 1942 statement that the Church’s mission to carry the gospel to all nations included “unto the Jew” (Ibid., p. 93). Lastly, the April 1942 statement also declares “that religion is instituted of God,” that people are only subject to God in their religious beliefs, and that “human law” does not have the “right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship” to “bind the consciences of men” (Ibid.). While the World War II-era First Presidency statements did not specifically denounce religious bigotry or antisemitism, they were released during a time of widely accepted antisemitism, and their content was diametrically opposed to the ideas fueling the Holocaust. Moreover, that they promote universal respect for all humankind and specifically mention the Jews as deserving of Christ’s gospel is a statement of humanity and love toward all people, including the Jews.

These strong philosemitic attitudes, built on strong theological foundations, continue in the post-Holocaust Church. For example, in 2008, Church leader D. Todd Christofferson wrote that, as Latter-day Saints, “We share every sentiment of horror about the Holocaust that any non-Jew can,” and then explained the Church’s efforts to respect the victims of the Holocaust relative to Latter-day Saint proxy ordinances (Christofferson 2008). In 2018, in response to the tragic Tree of Life Synagogue shooting, the Church released a statement expressing deep sadness about the event. They added, “We condemn in the strongest possible terms the hatred and violence that lead to such actions. We stand with our Jewish brothers and sisters and with all others who seek to promote peace and mutual respect” (Statement of Support for the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh 2018). In 2021, Canadian Latter-day Saint leaders joined with “the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs” in a joint statement including language such as “we commit to learning from and working with our Jewish neighbours”, and “we stand together against antisemitism” (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 2021). These kinds of official, proactively philosemitic institutional statements directly to and with their Jewish brothers and sisters demonstrate the Latter-day Saint theology that is clearly being taught in the post-Holocaust era. Lastly, in 2020, in the midst of widespread, racially-motivated protesting and violence in the United States, Church President Russell M. Nelson shared a message on his social media accounts condemning racism and inviting all to respect human dignity (R. M. Nelson 2020). Particularly relevant quotes from his posts include “We need to foster a fundamental respect for the human dignity of every human soul, regardless of their color, creed, or cause”, and a reminder that “we need to work tirelessly to build bridges of understanding rather than creating walls of segregation” (Ibid.). These statements clarify the Church’s opposition to any form of racism, including antisemitism. They also serve to invite all, but especially Latter-day Saints, to lead out in building metaphorical bridges of mutual respect and cooperation rather than walls that divide.

3.1. Building Bridges of Respect

From the earliest days of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its leaders have sought to demonstrate respect for and interest in the Jewish people. For example, during their time in Kirtland in the 1830s, the Latter-day Saints created what they called “the School of the Prophets”—sometimes known as the “Kirtland Theological Institution”—wherein they studied many things, including Hebrew.19 To aid in their study, Joseph enlisted the help of well-known Jewish scholar Joshua Seixas from “nearby Oberlin College” (Hauglid 2015). One historian noted that Joseph was “thrilled to have a minor Jewish celebrity agree to teach them Hebrew” (Ibid.). By the 1840s, Joseph enlisted the help of Alexander Neibaur, a Jewish convert to the Church, to continue to help in his studies of Hebrew (Ibid., p. 300). In July of 1843, Smith expressed a love of religious freedom for all people when he stated that, in addition to being willing to die for his own people, “I am just as ready to die for a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or any other denomination” (Roberts 1909, p. 498). While Jews were not explicitly included, his including “any other denomination” and his previous philosemitic attitude suggest his support of Jewish religious freedom as well.

On 7 October 1945, in the wake of World War II, then President of the Church George Albert Smith gave an address to the members of the Church in which he reiterated the Church’s respect for people of all faiths, including Jewish people. As part of his message, he spoke of his privilege to interact with “good men and good women” and “wonderful people” of various faiths across the globe (G. A. Smith 1945). He spoke of being in the homes of “both Christian and Jew” as well as “Mohammedans” and followers of “Confucious”, noting that they do not need criticism, but that Latter-day Saints had a responsibility to “go among them with love” and share the truths of His restored gospel (Ibid.). In contrast to other churches, which had to change or apologize for their previous antisemitic positions, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints simply reiterated its theological position of love for all humankind, recognizing the good people of various denominations throughout the world, and specifically including Jews as part of that family.

On 15 February 1978, the Church’s highest leadership council issued what they titled a “Statement of the First Presidency Regarding God’s Love for All Mankind” (First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1978). This document reiterated the Church’s belief that “all men and women are brothers and sisters,” and expressed admiration for the “great religious leaders of the world,” including “the Hebrew prophets” who “prepared the way for the coming of Jesus Christ” (Ibid.). This official declaration of gratitude and recognition for the Jewish people, among others chosen to carry out God’s purposes, was a noteworthy gesture of goodwill from the Church. Similarly, during the 1979 negotiations over the establishment of Brigham Young University’s Jerusalem Center—a study abroad center in the Holy Land—the First Presidency issued a statement regarding Jerusalem and the Jewish People. This statement included a reaffirmation of “love and respect … for the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and for the people of Israel”, and noted their shared beliefs regarding “the God of Abraham” as well as the “moral principles of the Hebrew scriptures” (First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1980). The highest level of Church leadership speaking so clearly about the Jewish people illustrated how highly Latter-day Saints regarded them and expressed a sense of solidarity and kinship with them.

Tensions and Critiques

The last words of Jewish journalist Daniel Pearl before being executed by a radical Pakistani group in 2002 were, “My father is Jewish, my mother is Jewish, I am Jewish. My family follows Judaism” (Cunningham 2012). With this declaration of Jewishness still resonating in the minds and hearts of his family and his people, it is little wonder that they expressed significant outrage at his proxy baptism into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 2011. One author described how the Latter-day Saint “practice of posthumously baptizing Jews—especially Jews who were murdered while proclaiming their Jewishness—feels like liturgical grave robbing” (Ibid.). For the same reason, this practice has also drawn Jewish ire when performed on behalf of Jewish Holocaust victims.

Contextually, it is important to note that Latter-day Saints believe that all of God’s children, past and present, deserve the opportunity to receive their necessary ordinances, including baptism. They cite, as partial justification for this belief, Christ’s teaching in John 3:5, that “except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”20 With the benefit of modern revelation through the prophet Joseph Smith, one of the ordinances they perform in temples relates to proxy baptisms for their ancestors who did not have the opportunity to receive authorized baptism during their mortal lives. This is done out of love for those ancestors and is a critical component of the worldwide effort to gather Israel to Christ in the last days. These baptisms are simply offerings to those who have passed on and temporarily remain in the Spirit World, where they can choose to accept or reject the ordinances. Out of unbridled and thoughtless enthusiasm for blessing the dead with these necessary ordinances, some Latter-day Saints completed proxy baptisms on behalf of Jewish victims of the Holocaust, apparently unaware of how insensitive and offensive some Jewish people would find that behavior.

When the Church’s leadership became aware of the situation, they reached out to Jewish groups about the issue, ultimately coming to an agreement in 1995 that resulted in a temple ordinance policy change throughout the Church. As part of this agreement, Elder D. Todd Christofferson described how, out of respect for those victimized by the Holocaust, the Church expended significant effort to remove “260,000 names of Jewish Holocaust victims” from their “publicly available International Genealogical Index,” so as to prevent unwanted proxy baptisms on their behalf (Christofferson 2008). The only allowed proxy baptisms for Jewish Holocaust victims are “those who are ancestors of living members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Ibid.). Moreover, the agreement and subsequent Church actions were intended to reaffirm the Church’s “commitment to respect the sensitivities of the Jewish community and to ensure that temple work for Holocaust victims is done only with proper family authorization” (LDS 1995).

In 2012, during the prominent election campaign of Latter-day Saint Mitt Romney, the First Presidency issued a letter clearly reiterating the 1995 policies relative to the baptism of Jewish Holocaust victims—apparently due to residual issues of Jewish proxy baptisms. Part of the letter, presented to all congregations of the Church, stated, “without exception, Church members must not submit for proxy temple ordinances any names … [of] Jewish Holocaust victims” (First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 2012). In terms of Jewish response to the Church’s efforts to respect Holocaust victims, Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League—who had previously described proxy baptisms as “offensive to Jewish people”—accepted the letter as “an important step by the LDS Church to further educate its worldwide members.”21 While some still find the practice offensive, these repeated institutional statements, reinforced by consistent philosemitic actions over time, have done a great deal to build bridges of respect between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Jewish people.

3.2. Building Bridges of Cooperation

In addition to showing respect, prominent Church leaders have expended considerable time and energy over decades to cultivate positive, cooperative relationships with Jewish people and the State of Israel. One example includes the previously mentioned Ezra Taft Benson, who, while serving simultaneously as both an Apostle for the Church and the United States Secretary of Agriculture in November 1957, visited Israel, where he met and built relationships with “hundreds of government officials, farmers, business and trade people, and leaders in the professions” (Benson 1962, p. 369). Elder Howard W. Hunter, who eventually became Church President, worked tirelessly with visionary bridge-builders such as Jerusalem’s longtime mayor Teddy Kollek to demonstrate goodwill, work through bureaucracy, and enable interfaith dialogue (Knowles 1994, pp. 216–21). These relationships paid dividends over time, as in the case of the BYU Jerusalem Center, which was dedicated in 1989. Intended to be a “home base for study in the Holy Land,” the Jerusalem Center has enabled generations of Latter-day Saints to expand their Near Eastern Studies through a study abroad experience (Brigham Young University Jerusalem Center n.d.). Nevertheless, it was entirely possible that it might never have happened, given significant opposition from Orthodox rabbis and other religious groups in and around Jerusalem in the 1980s (Knowles 1994, pp. 215–19). Despite opposition, President Benson’s and Elder Hunter’s patience, diligence, and “good relationships with government leaders helped remove some of the roadblocks” to its construction in that highly contested part of the world and allowed it to become a reality (Gibbons 1996, p. 290).

The Jerusalem Center has enabled thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Latter-day Saints to learn from and deepen their respect and admiration for the Jewish people. One of the important steps that the Church took out of respect for the Jewish people was to insist that anyone affiliated with the Jerusalem Center sign and strictly abide by a “non-proselytizing agreement”, to prevent anyone from converting from Judaism as a result of the Latter-day Saint presence in the Holy Land (Brigham Young University Jerusalem Center n.d.). Understanding that not proselytizing flies in the face of the Church’s driving mission to gather Israel demonstrates how important it was and is to the Church to build bridges of cooperation with the Jewish people. Nevertheless, the Jerusalem Center has served as a symbol of respect and collaboration that, through its affiliation with BYU, has inspired interfaith dialogue in the form of conferences and educational cooperation between Jews and Latter-day Saints (Diamond and Olsen 2016, p. xii; BYU Interfaith Engagement n.d.).

Tensions and Critiques

While some see efforts like the BYU Jerusalem Center as models of interfaith bridge-building and respect for the Jews, others see it as a disrespectful intrusion on already “occupied land” (Knowles 1994, p. 219). When the Jerusalem Center’s construction began, many groups opposed it, including Jews, Christians, and Muslims, each for different reasons (Shepherd 1988, pp. 102–3). Members of the Orthodox Jewish community expressed concern after some Latter-day Saints requested a list of Jewish Holocaust victims for proxy baptisms. Representatives of Jerusalem’s “veteran Christian communities” argued that Latter-day Saints were “not Christians” and lacked a “traditional community in the city.” (Ibid.). Lastly, Palestinian groups pushed back, arguing that land “expropriated from the Moslems” should not be allocated to the Latter-day Saints (Ibid.). The Church’s persistent—and ultimately successful—efforts to establish the Jerusalem Center despite opposition may have made the Church some enemies.

4. Individual Saints’ Sincere but Imperfect Efforts to Practice What They Preached

Grounded in a generally philosemitic theological foundation of respect, gratitude, and inclusion, individual Latter-day Saints have imperfectly tried to practice what they preach by respectfully engaging with Jewish people and communities. The philosemitic efforts and attitudes of many individual Latter-day Saints, both during and after World War II, help to illustrate the effect of the Church’s favorable ideological position toward the Jewish people. In addition to Helmuth Hübener, mentioned previously for his opposition to Nazi oppression, Latter-day Saints such as Brigham Young, Max Reschke, Karl-Heinz Schnibbe, Otto Berndt, Arthur Zander, Richard and Rosalie Pruess, William H. King, J. Reuben Clark, and Heber J. Grant serve as representative samples of Latter-day Saints’ efforts to live their religion relative to the Jews.

Despite the Church’s institutional and theological pattern of philosemitism, a fundamental tenet of the gospel of Jesus Christ is moral agency, meaning that not all Latter-day Saints necessarily adhere to their professed theology regarding the Jews. In other words, not all Latter-day Saints wholeheartedly embrace the Jewish people as fellow children of God. Well before the Holocaust, prominent early Church leader Brigham Young, for example, made some fiery remarks against Jews in the mid to late 1800s that certainly aligned with general antisemitic trends among Christians of his time, though detractors sometimes take them out of context (Young 1855, p. 143). Some of these potentially offensive remarks include his belief that if a Jew were to become a “true Christian,” then his Jewish “blood will be purged out of his veins” (Ibid.). He also perpetuated the deicide trope common among his contemporaries, that “the Messiah came through them, and they [applying the guilt collectively to all Jews] killed him” (Ibid.). This problematic deicide trope—or at least a lack of nuanced discussion about the same—continued to persist among some Church members even as late as Church leader Bruce R. McConkie in the late twentieth century. To appropriately contextualize—though not excuse—his antisemitic comments, President Young was also the man under whose leadership Church land was donated for the “first Jewish cemetery in Utah” in 1866 (Peterson 2011). Furthermore, in 1867, Young invited the local Jews to observe their “High Holy Day services for Jewish New Year and Yom Kippur in the church’s Seventies Hall” (Ibid.). In light of some of these inconsistent words and actions, and Young’s well-known habit of being difficult to pin down, it seems that Young’s antisemitic comments may be more a product of his nineteenth-century American Protestant inheritance than anything he was gleaning from Latter-day Saint theology.

Orson Hyde, another early leader, perpetuated, on at least one occasion in 1842, the anti-Jewish trope of the greedy Jew. For example, he reiterated common perceptions of his day about money being “all the god” that many Jews “worship,” though he added that there are “many of the most pious and devout among them” (Hyde 1842, p. 15). While he perpetuated the anti-Jewish trope as truth with regard to some Jews, he was also acknowledging that there were many who were righteous and good people. Moreover, Hyde did journey all the way to Palestine specifically to “dedicate and consecrate this land unto [God]…, for the gathering together of Judah’s scattered remnants” and “for the building up of Jerusalem again” (Ibid., p. 29). In summary, the earliest converts to the Church were still reconciling the culture in which they were raised with the Church they had recently joined.

By the time of the Holocaust, Latter-day Saints in Germany were wrestling with more than a passive cultural distaste for the Jews and, instead, an outright vitriolic violence toward them—especially under the Nazi regime. Some of these Latter-day Saints—living in the pressure-cooker of Nazi ideology—illustrated the Church’s theology in action; others, however, regrettably adopted antisemitic beliefs and behaviors. German Latter-day Saint Max Reschke is one who stands out as an exemplary model of living in accordance with the philosemitic teachings of his Church. In November 1938, Max found himself in the middle of a Nazi raid against the Jews in his community, including his Jewish friends the Scheurenbergs. At great personal risk, he impersonated a “German plainclothes policeman” to save them from the armed guards herding a line of Jews through the streets to an unknown, though probably unpleasant, destination (Reschke 1998, p. 91). That same night, Max drove the couple “across the border into Switzerland,” where they were able to escape and live through the war with gratitude for what Max had done (Ibid.).

As a fellow German Latter-day Saint and friend of Helmuth Hübener, Karl-Heinz Schnibbe admired his Jewish friends, sorrowed at their Nazi mistreatment, and fought back against Nazi misinformation during World War II. He described his Jewish acquaintances as “very kind to me,” stated how their Jewish family physician, Dr. Caro, “brought me into the world[,] … was a good and fine man”, and a “truly … conscientious physician.”22 Moreover, Schnibbe recalled being “terribly upset” when seeing their persecution at the hands of the “SS and SA men” (Ibid.). He reserved especially harsh language for the “presumptive bastards” who disappeared his Jewish friends, seized their property, and occupied their homes (Ibid., pp. 22–23). In concert with young Hübener, he went to great lengths to disseminate truth regarding the Nazi’s atrocious acts and, after being caught, was nearly “worked to death” in various Nazi labor camps (Ibid., p. xxviii). Schnibbe survived the war and, with the help of historians Blair Holmes and Alan Keele, shared his story in a fascinating book titled, When Truth Was Treason: German Youth Against Hitler (Holmes and Keele 1995).

Two other examples of Latter-day Saints living out their Church’s philosemitic ideology were Richard and Rosalie Pruess, who were Latter-day Saints in Hamburg, Germany, in the 1930s and 1940s. The Pruesses, a well-respected and well-liked German family, made a habit of picking up fellow church members in their “three-wheeled automobile” to take them to their local Latter-day Saint church meetings (Minert 2011, p. 164). Richard Pruess was apparently “anything but a Nazi”, as evidenced by his outright refusal to say “Heil Hitler,” his welcoming Jewish guests—such as fellow Church member Salomon Schwartz—into his home on occasion, and his reportedly saying that “those who persecute Jews will be punished” (Ibid.). On the other side of the world, Latter-day Saint and United States Senator William H. King worked against his own Democratic party to pass a 1939 bill in Congress that would have allowed “20,000 German Jewish refugee children” to immigrate to the United States (Medoff 2012). Unfortunately, despite this Latter-day Saint’s efforts to rescue Jewish children during the War, political opposition ultimately killed the bill before it could save any lives.

Otto Berndt is a further example of institutional Latter-day Saint theology and practice encouraging philosemitic behavior among its members. Despite the fact that Berndt was a German under the Nazi regime, he was also the Hamburg district president over their local Latter-day Saint congregations and found ways to resist oppression and support his Jewish friends. Not only did he “preach against government policy from the pulpit” but also “frequently walked with Jewish converts,” presumably to help protect them, but at the very least to show solidarity with them (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints n.d.). Berndt also refused to countersign a document drafted by local branch president Arthur Zander authorizing Hübener’s excommunication from the Church (Ibid.). Berndt’s individual and ecclesiastical support of those resisting antisemitic ideology is another example of Latter-day Saint theology in action.

Nevertheless, the St. Georg, Hamburg branch historian Hans Gürtler and other eyewitnesses noted that during World War II, “essentially all possible political opinions were represented in the branch.”23 One scholar noted that part of the reason why some German Church members may have believed Naziism was compatible with Latter-day Saint theology was due to “coinciden[tal] … common doctrinal ground” such as an interest in genealogy (Carter 2010; Dixon 1972). For example, Arthur Zander, the local branch president who sought to excommunicate Hübener, was an outspoken Nazi supporter, both individually and ecclesiastically (Minert 2011, pp. 168–69). He and his then first counselor Franz Jacobi—who Schnibbe described as a “super Nazi”—tried to broadcast Nazi messages among the Church members; fortunately, Berndt talked them out of most of it, saying, “This is a church of God, not a political meeting.”24 Nonetheless, Zander sometimes encouraged members to listen to Hitler’s speeches over the radio during church meetings, and eyewitnesses reported seeing him post a sign reading “Juden verboten”—“No Jews Allowed”—at the door of their Latter-day Saint chapel (Ibid.). While these signs were tragically common throughout Nazi Germany, that a Latter-day Saint placed one on their house of worship is disturbing and misaligned with the Church’s theology. It is gratifying to note that on at least one occasion, fellow Latter-day Saint Richard Pruess removed the “Juden verboten” sign from the Hamburg chapel, despite the personal danger that kind of philosemitic behavior invited (Ibid., p. 164). Some scholars, such as David Conley Nelson, have asserted that Latter-day Saints, in contrast with other religious groups at that time, were exceptionally complicit and supportive of the Nazi regime and its antisemitic agenda, but other scholars have severely criticized Nelson’s inability to adequately prove that thesis with a balanced analysis of the sources—even going so far as to describe his book as “a polemical work dressed up in academic regalia” (Green 2015; D. C. Nelson 2015).

While there were certainly some Latter-day Saints—such as Jacobi, the so-called “super Nazi”—who wholeheartedly embraced antisemitic ideology and behavior, evidence seems to suggest that was not the norm among Latter-day Saints in that period or since.25 As a contextual counterbalance to these antisemitic Latter-day Saint behaviors and attitudes during the Holocaust, it is important to recognize that Latter-day Saints living under the oppressive Nazi regime were in a delicate and dangerous position. Gürtler noted that “often … the existence of the [St. Georg] branch seemed to hang by a thread” due to the constant pressures from the Nazi regime and its supporters.26 In fact, since teenage Nazi resistance fighters Hübener, Schnibbe, and their accomplice Rudi Wobbe were all members of the St. Georg branch and had used the branch’s typewriter to support their “treasonous activities, … they had placed the three Hamburg branches in serious jeopardy with the police” (Minert 2011, p. 169). Berndt reported that, after the Gestapo interrogated him about the matter for four days and found nothing to implicate him in the boys’ activities, he was released with the warning, “Make no mistake about it, Berndt … when we have this war behind us, when we have the time to devote to it and after we have eliminated the Jews, you Mormons are next!” (Keele and Tobler 1980, p. 24). Both eyewitnesses and local Church leaders stated that the apparently pro-Nazi and antisemitic behaviors like Zander’s may have been more survival tactics done to “curry favor with the local police,” rather than sincere reflections of belief (Ibid.). Had Zander not at least put up a sign, for example, the branch may have been “forced to close down entirely” (Ibid.). The branch members’ concerns were not unfounded, as the branch’s building was eventually confiscated in 1943 and Zander drafted into the military (Ibid., p. 171).

Even if the antisemitic personal beliefs of some Latter-day Saints were genuine, there is evidence that they were not widely held. For example, while Zander may have genuinely hated Jews, causing Jewish convert Salomon Schwarz to be unwelcome at that branch’s church meetings, the neighboring “Barmbek Branch where no such sign was posted” warmly welcomed Schwarz to their meetings (Ibid.). Moreover, Schnibbe—himself a member of Zander’s branch—clearly stated that none of the Saints, “including Arthur Zander and Franz Jacobi, were evil persons”, and, despite acknowledging some of Zander’s questionable antisemitic activities, proceeded to praise his dedication and faithful Church leadership.27 Fellow local Church leader Berndt made a 1961 statement in which he explained that those who supported “the ideals of the New Germany,” including its antisemitic rhetoric and behavior, did so “because they believed it to be in the best interest of the Church and the country.”28 As a final note, he added that “repentance and forgiveness has been manifested by all concerned after the war,” which seems to indicate that those who engaged in antisemitic behavior during the war eventually realized their error (Ibid.).

While most of the intermittent antisemitic rhetoric of the nineteenth century Latter-day Saint Church had disappeared by the Holocaust, it is noteworthy that even thereafter, it still existed in small pockets among Latter-day Saints; perhaps most notably in the case of First Presidency member Elder J. Reuben Clark, Jr. According to a 1992 interview with his son J. Reuben Clark III, Elder Clark was reportedly “less enthusiastic” about Jews. (Clark 1988; also cited in Tobler 1992a) This appears to have been the result of some unspecified “unhappy experiences while living in the Eastern United States” that motivated Clark’s “personal and political, not religious or racial” antisemitism (Tobler 1992b, p. 70). Biographer D. Michael Quinn reported that Elder Clark actively embraced and distributed “copies of the Protocols [of the Elders of Zion],” an overtly antisemitic text (Ibid.). While the Protocols had been widely discredited as a political forgery for decades before the Holocaust, Clark reportedly appreciated it as it aligned with and supportive of his personal fears about Jewish political influence (Quinn 2002, pp. 327–28, 339).

Nevertheless, one of the fundamental tenets of the Church’s organization is that there is safety in councils, which principle was beneficial in the case of the First Presidency headed by President Heber J. Grant from 1934–1945. Specifically, Church President Grant’s and second counselor David O. McKay’s views were much more in line with the Church’s established, philosemitic theology of the Jews, thereby helping to prevent any of first counselor Clark’s antisemitic attitudes from causing problems in the Church (Tobler 1992b, p. 70). President Grant was known as a “strong critic of anti-Semitism,” was a booster for the Jewish National Fund, and considered the “Balfour declaration”, wherein the British expressed sympathy for creating a place for the Jews in Palestine, “as a divine portent” (Cooper 2014; United Kingdom Foreign Office 1917). Lastly, Quinn notes that President Grant’s “positive attitudes toward the Jews” were “more representative” of Latter-day Saint views “generally than were President Clark’s anti-Semitic attitudes” (Quinn 2002, p. 339). Furthermore, when Israel Bonds were issued in 1951, Church President David O. McKay bought “$5000” worth, stating “This is done to show our sympathy with the effort being made to establish the Jews in their homeland.”29 Clearly, the attitude of the Church’s presidents over time, but especially after the Holocaust, were decidedly philosemitic. Moreover, President McKay’s diary entry for 17 March 1961 records the details of an interesting anonymous donation that reflects well on the general philosemitic attitude of Church members. The anonymous letter accompanying the USD 16,034 donation read, in part, “Please accept the donation … for such purposes as you see fit” but noted that it would please them “if the same was used in helping to bring the Gospel to the Jews.”30 Other anonymous checks for that same purpose were subsequently received over the next few years (Ibid.).

As a final note about individual Saints’ efforts to practice what they preached relative to their theology of the Jews, the B’nai Shalom is worth mentioning. In 1967, Jewish members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah established an organization called B’nai Shalom—meaning “Children of Peace”—to celebrate “music, dance, culture, food and genealogy specific to Judaism” (About B’nai Shalom n.d.). It continues to this day and has become a worldwide resource to “bridge the differences of understanding and knowledge between religions and cultures” and frequently hosts gatherings, activities, and scholars, with an emphasis on “bringing Joseph (Ephraim) and Judah together” (Ibid.). This serves as just one example of the kind of non-Church driven efforts of individual Latter-day Saints to practice what they preach relative to gathering Israel as one.

The best evidence of one’s beliefs may be how well he or she lives them. Latter-day Saint theology and doctrine strongly endorses a positive eschatological vision of the Jews, seeing them as part of the Lord’s covenant people, destined to be gathered home to him in the last days, which implies that Latter-day Saints should love and serve Jewish people as fellow members of God’s covenant community. Not all Latter-day Saints’ behavior perfectly aligned with this doctrinal position, but most leaned farther into philosemitism than antisemitism. While some Latter-day Saints—including leaders—personally perpetuated anti-Jewish tropes or engaged in antisemitic activities before, during, and after the Holocaust era, this was not in line with the institutional position or general feeling of most Latter-day Saints throughout history. Moreover, although some, including Zander, did or said antisemitic things amidst severe political pressure to conform during the War, those actions may or may not have reflected their actual feelings. Even for those Latter-day Saint leaders—such as J. Reuben Clark and Brigham Young—who seemed to support antisemitic tropes, their personal beliefs did little, if anything, to alter the theology and prevailing Latter-day Saint attitudes toward the Jews. Overall, the philosemitic theology of the Church motivated Latter-day Saints such as Hübener, Schnibbe, Berndt, the Pruess family, anonymous Latter-day Saint donors to missionary work, and Presidents Grant and McKay, to love and support their Jewish neighbors, share truth, and resist antisemitic rhetoric and activities however they could.

5. Conclusions

This research supports the thesis that while the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not formally canonized any twentieth-century statements on antisemitism, its sacred texts—including the Book of Mormon—along with prophetic teachings and institutional and individual actions before, during, and after World War II, reflect a generally consistent and distinctive theological perspective on the Jewish people and their future in God’s plan. As part of this perspective, Latter-day Saint restoration theology provides an ongoing covenant framework whereby Jews continue to be chosen of God, part of the house of Israel, and eligible and prophesied to experience a glorious future as they come to recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah either in the last days or after his Second Coming. Nevertheless, in the wake of WWII, some Latter-day Saints did report negative religious beliefs such as the Jews’ covenantal rejection and divine cursing. Surprisingly, Armand Mauss’s research seems to suggest that their simultaneous belief in Semitic identification appeared to neutralize—or prevent their acting on—any antisemitic beliefs they may have possessed.

While acknowledging the role of a select group of Jews in the condemnation and crucifixion of Christ at the hands of the Romans, the Church rejects the trope of deicide. Latter-day Saint theology contends that Christ’s sacrifice was voluntary, that his life could not be taken from him, and that his death was a necessary part of the plan of salvation. They also denounce the false doctrine of inherited guilt by all Jews for the actions of a few, and condemn any violence perpetrated against the Jews. Scholar Seymour Cain argued that, even if Latter-day Saints reject supersessionism in its traditional sense, the Book of Mormon passages that describe divine cursing can easily be misconstrued to justify antisemitic hostility. Moreover, before, during, and after the Holocaust, Latter-day Saint teachings—including those of Brigham Young and Bruce R. McConkie—sometimes applied guilt more broadly than their institutional theology supports. Under Latter-day Saint theology, the latter-day gathering of Israel—including Jew and Gentile—to Christ is the most important work taking place on earth right now and must continue in preparation for his Second Coming. Since Latter-day Saints see themselves as part of the house of Israel, the same covenant family as the Jews, it would be nonsensical to attack or persecute their own family whom they have a responsibility to gather and love. Lastly, as Latter-day Saints recognize Christ to be a Jew, they equate being antisemitic as being antichrist or antichristian. That is not to say, however, that all individual Latter-day Saints were wholeheartedly philosemitic. Franz Jacobi, Arthur Zander, and J. Reuben Clark are examples of those that, for whatever reason, harbored—and in some cases acted upon—their antisemitic beliefs. This research supports that these antisemitic individuals were the minority, but they did—and those with similar beliefs likely still do—exist among Latter-day Saints.

The Church’s consistent philosemitic restoration theology—coupled with prophetic calls for unity—demonstrate a sustained institutional and individual advocacy for religious freedom, opposition to intolerance, solidarity with Jewish people, and a positive eschatological vision of their future in God’s plan. While both institutional actions and individual Latter-day Saints’ efforts to live in accordance with their theology were imperfect, especially in the first generation of Saints steeped in nineteenth-century American prejudices, the general feeling among Latter-day Saints, and the perception among most historians, is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a predominantly philosemitic religion. There have been instances of Latter-day Saint disrespect for Jews—such as banning Jews from attending Latter-day Saint Church meetings, doing proxy baptisms for Holocaust victims, and perpetuating tropes of deicide. Yet these failures, at worst, or misunderstandings, at best, have led to interfaith outrage and frustration in the Jewish community. Nevertheless, Latter-day Saints were not guilty of antisemitism to the same degree as many other pre- or post-Holocaust religious groups, largely due to their efforts to reject anti-Jewish tropes and embrace positive institutional and individual bridge-building with Jews before, during, and after World War II. In summary, Latter-day Saint theology of the Jews did not change much in the wake of World War II, though the care with which it was taught and members’ effectiveness in living in accordance with that theology did improve in noticeable ways over time. The Jews are still God’s chosen covenant people, and, far from feeling justified in condemning or persecuting them, most Latter-day Saints feel a familial and covenant responsibility to help gather their brothers and sisters to Christ.