mail (1)

De-Nazifying The Church

Plenty of horrifying things in history have been justified as accomplishing “great good.” That’s true of the atrocities in Ukraine. And it’s also true of those tearing apart the faith of believers young and old.

In recent weeks, a bittersweet display has unfolded as the world watches Ukrainian forces liberating relieved towns. These soldiers inevitably find what everyone sadly now anticipates they will discover—mass graves and burn pits housing the last remains and charred corpses of literally thousands of precious human beings. 

These bodies were discarded in heaps like the trash that some wounded souls had tragically been persuaded they were. How is that possible? What could lead a young soldier to be willing to do such vile and unforgivable things? 

The ignoble call to denazify. When Vladimir Putin announced his shocking decision to launch this vicious invasion in Ukraine earlier this year, he insisted that one of the goals of the offensive was to “denazify” the country. 

This rhetoric was meaningful in a country that had lost so many soldiers battling Nazis in World War II. And yet, to outside observers, the irony was painfully clear. The very country accusing leaders in Kyiv of being “abusive” and “genocidal” was destroying thousands of lives in its assault. As Timothy Snyder, a professor of history at Yale University, put it at the time, Putin appears to be “fighting a war the way that actual Nazis did” in his willingness to roll across sovereign boundaries and attack Ukraine on its own turf.  

However threatened Putin and others may have felt by some elements of Ukraine’s growing embrace of the West, it’s been abundantly clear that the rhetoric around “denazification” represents little more than a pretext for invasion—a manufactured grievance designed to justify the onslaught to a Russian domestic audience. As Claudia Wallner wrote earlier this year, “The West should not fall for Russia’s pretend moral outrage and pseudo-principled stance.” 

We haven’t fallen for it.  No matter how passionately Russian leaders insist their “special military operation” has good aspirations behind it, the reality has always been clear:  these ruthless attacks have needlessly left tens of thousands of people dead, wounded, and grievingand for absolutely no justified reason.   

Another liberation campaign. I’ve reflected recently on some parallels to this language being used to justify vicious actions overseas after witnessing a similar rhetorical pretext for an agonizing assault closer to home. Over the last decade, there has been a growing and increasingly organized anti-religious element in American society.  When it comes to Latter-day Saints, that opposition has been particularly organized and potentwith a cottage industry of anti-Church voices becoming more strident and more effective at reaching a wide audience.  

These assaults come from both the political left and the political right. What unites them is a conviction that faith leaders at the top are morally bankrupt—deceptive, power-hungry, and absolutely unworthy of trust. Thus, anything to dismantle and challenge their authority is game—including the promotion of “scary stories” about our people that are far from reality. As one friend put it, some of these voices “justify their brazen attacks on the Church because they think it’s evil and run by evil people (i.e., nazis), and as soon as you brand a group of people as nazis, whatever horrible attack you make on them is justifiable.” 

To listen to the motives and rationales of these full-time critics, you would hear plenty of insistence that they are, in fact, passionate about “doing good.” In fact, it’s striking how often this growing legion of podcasters, influencers, and activists frame what they are doing as a similar kind of liberation of believersconfronting the leaders and institution precisely so that naïve members will be disabused of their confidence and no longer be oppressed under their collective influence.  

To be clear, there are plenty of wonderful and thoughtful people with sincere questions and concerns about the Church. I’m speaking here of a subset who dedicate their lives to a relentless campaign of aggression framed up as a noble liberation effort—yes, against an institution and set of leaders despicable enough to deserve it. 

Looking closer at the consequences. It is true that some who step away from a life of faith initially feel some freedom and relief. There is a kind of relief that most anyone would feel, of course, to lay aside serious obligations that ask a lot of our hearts. But as Samuel Major pointed out recently, relief is not the same as peace. And whatever initial insistence there may be about being “happier than ever,” the truth can only be seen and known long-term. 

And if we take a closer look at the longer trajectory, the reality is that these “liberation” efforts over time often (not always) lead to hurting marriages and children swept away in all the currents of the day—being led towards decisions that cause heartbreak, fractured relationships, and any of the many varieties of addictive-compulsive behavior. 

This doesn’t even touch on the myriad other spiritual consequences set in motion. As one wise-and-wizened brother in my ward, Gary Sorensen, said recently, “we’ve each waited thousands of years to be able to come to earth and show God that we can follow His covenant.  This isn’t an invitation to a birthday party we’re talking about here. This is eternal life.”

To those leading these campaigns of faith attrition, are you aware of the full consequences of your work in the lives and homes of people you are reaching? Do you see what your efforts actually mean in the lives of these incredibly precious brothers and sisters?   

We will all one day stand before God—podcasters and prophets, faithful and faithless. Before that day comes, may we all recognize the significant rippling effect our choices have not only on people around us, but on our own unending futures. As General Maximus says in Gladiator, “What we do in life echoes in eternity.” 

Sadly, the rhetorical assault will undoubtedly continue against all faith communities, relentless and ruthless. And those leading this assault will surely continue to frame their attack on sacred things as a kind of glorious campaign of liberation that will surely do much good in the world.  

Don’t fall for it. Heaven above and the history books below will both ultimately tell the full story of the devastation they are causing. 

And if you look closely, you can see it too.

About the author

Jacob Z. Hess

Jacob Hess is a contributing editor at Deseret News and publishes longer-form pieces at PublishPeace.net. He co-authored "You're Not as Crazy as I Thought, But You're Still Wrong" and “The Power of Stillness: Mindful Living for Latter-day Saints.” He has a Ph.D. in clinical-community psychology from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Jacob is a staff writer and Latter-day Saint Voices editor at Deseret News.
On Key

You Might Also Like

When Did We Stop Trusting the Media? A Review of “September 5”

When did we begin to lose trust in the news media? There are plenty of theories. Some suggest March 6, 1981, Walter Cronkite’s last broadcast. Others suggest it was the coverage of President Bill Clinton’s perjury and impeachment. Others suggest it was the advent of 24-hour news stations. The newest film from Paramount Pictures suggests another option in its title, “September 5.” September 5, 1972, is the day that the Black Sabbath militant group kidnapped Israeli Olympic athletes. In total, eleven Israelis were killed. But according to the journalists at the center of the movie, none of that was nearly as important as making sure the “ABC” logo was on the TV screen while the coverage went on. A brief epilogue about how the incident turned out ends with these eerie words, “900 million people watched.”  “September 5” is interesting because, in a movie presumably about the attacks, we see none of it ourselves except through camera lenses and TV screens. It’s not a movie about the attacks at all; it’s a movie about watching the attacks. The film opens as Geoff takes over the control room for ABC Sports. He’s running the night shift, when word comes in about the attacks.  The ABC studios are yards from where the attacks are happening. So they rush Peter Jennings into the Olympic village, and put their own studio camera on top of the building so they can keep a camera on the room where the hostages are being held at all times. Geoff wakes up his bosses, Marvin and Roone, who often debate the relative merits of their decisions, such as whether to turn the story over to ABC News rather than the sports division or whether or not to call the attackers “terrorists.” These compelling arguments make for thoughtful viewing. Ben Chaplin, who plays Roone, an American Jew, does particularly good acting work as he tries to find a nugget of morality in what they are doing.  But every argument ends with the decision being made that will best help ratings and ABC. No matter how many times they argue about good practices, such as waiting for a second confirmation that the hostages were all safe before reporting, the better angels of our trio of decision-makers always lose.  By the way, the hostages weren’t safe, ABC did get the story wrong because they were relying on German state news, and Germany was trying to look safe and less militaristic in their first major international attention since the end of WWII. But for a moment, when the station thought the hostages were safe, their only concern was getting them in the studio for interviews.  Marvin Bader tries to use the language of “the story” as though his audience deserved to have “the story” in real-time. And no matter what decision they made it was in pursuit of capturing the story. But this justification rang shallow as the movie moved on. When the German police burst in to get them to stop telecasting their rescue attempts live because the militants were watching, they stopped to get them to put their guns down, but turned the feed back on nearly as soon as they had left. All of this makes this an engaging movie that is worth watching. When journalists are the main characters, we expect them to be the good guys. “All the President’s Men,” “Spotlight,” “The Post.” Even the film “Shattered Glass” about a dishonest journalist, spends more time highlighting the good journalists who caught him. “September 5” doesn’t offer the media such a convenient way out. By making its characters clear-headed and conflicted, they are more than simple villains. They are exactly what the pressure of studio news would naturally produce. There are real powerful forces driving the decisions of the news industry that are at odds with what is right or good, and all too often, there’s nothing we can do about it. If we are curious about how the spiral of trust began, this film serves as a worthwhile primer while being entertaining as all get out. The film is rated R. It is thematically tough, dealing with questions like whether to broadcast an execution live, but none of the violence of the incident is actually seen the movie. In terms of a ratings feel, I might compare it to the film “Gravity” while using the word “f***” three more times than is allowed in a PG-13 film. I wouldn’t recommend this for young children or young teens, but the themes about how media manipulates us would be important for older teens, and I might consider watching this film with my kids once they turn 15 or so.  If I did, I’d ask them questions about the nature of journalism. Is getting the story more important than the lives of the kidnapped Olympic team? Do we need to know about what’s happening in real-time on the other side of the world? How has constant news coverage made the world a better or worse place? What motivates those who choose what to show on the news, and how they tell those stories? Four out of Five Stars. September 5 has already had a limited release, and it is rolling out in individual markets across the country through January. 

Woman Speaking at a Pulpit | Role of Women in the LDS Church | Women in the Mormon Church | Role of Women in Mormonism

When Authority Wears a Skirt

What defines the authority of Latter-day Saint women? A blend of temple covenants and leadership roles, affirming their sacred power.”

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This