Why is the prophet Ezra Taft Benson often deemed controversial?


dorave
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest mormonmusic

He made a couple statements that were against current social thought outside the Church. "A woman's place is in the home" was one.

He also had every extreme conservative views, although he never disseminated them as a Prophet. In his book "The Proper Role of Government" he said some asked the question "Isn't a little bit of socialism OK?". His answer "Is a little bit of cancer OK?"

So, perhaps for these highly conservative views and statements, he was considered controversial. Boyd K. Packer has been labelled the same on other occasions given some of his bold statements that have offended certain groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the primary reason "some" consider him controversial is he spoke out against communism and socialism. He said communism was the greatest anti-Christ threat of the time. Those that are not as opposed to those political ideas as he was find him controversial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LINK

Ezra Taft Benson, “A Witness and a Warning,” Ensign, Nov 1979, 31

Communism introduced into the world a substitute for true religion. It is a counterfeit of the gospel plan. The false prophets of Communism predict a utopian society. This, they proclaim, will only be brought about as capitalism and free enterprise are overthrown, private property abolished, the family as a social unit eliminated, all classes abolished, all governments overthrown, and a communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society established.

Since 1917 this godless counterfeit to the gospel has made tremendous progress toward its objective of world domination.

Today, we are in a battle for the bodies and souls of man. It is a battle between two opposing systems: freedom and slavery, Christ and anti-Christ. The struggle is more momentous than a decade ago, yet today the conventional wisdom says, “You must learn to live with Communism and to give up your ideas about national sovereignty.” Tell that to the millions—yes, the scores of millions—who have met death or imprisonment under the tyranny of Communism! Such would be the death knell of freedom and all we hold dear. God must ever have a free people to prosper His work and bring about Zion.

On 3 July 1936, the First Presidency published this warning to Church members:

“Communism is not a political party nor a political plan under the Constitution; it is a system of government that is the opposite of our Constitutional government. …

“Since Communism, established, would destroy our American Constitutional government, to support Communism is treasonable to our free institutions, and no patriotic American citizen may become either a Communist or supporter of Communism. …

“We call upon all Church members completely to eschew [shun] Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired Constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America” (signed: Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., David O. McKay, The First Presidency, in Deseret News, 3 July 1936; italics added).

More recently, President Marion G. Romney, in the First Presidency Message in the September 1979 Ensign, wrote:

“Communism is Satan’s counterfeit for the gospel plan, and … it is an avowed enemy of the God of the land. Communism is the greatest anti-Christ power in the world today and therefore the greatest menace not only to our peace but to our preservation as a free people. By the extent to which we tolerate it, accommodate ourselves to it, permit ourselves to be encircled by its tentacles and drawn to it, to that extent we forfeit the protection of the God of this land” (p. 5).

We must awaken to “a sense of [our] awful situation, because of this secret combination which [is] among [us]” (Ether 8:24). We must not tolerate accommodation with or appeasement toward the false system of Communism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ezra Taft Benson (a member of the John Birch Society) was a ultra right wing, conservative Republican who had trouble separating his political beliefs from Church Doctrine. On more than one occasion the First Presidency had to issue statements correcting him. (Many church members believed he was send to preside over European missions to keep him out of the political spotlight.)

To cite a single example: at a Republican fund raiser he made a comment to the effect that a person could not be a Democrat and member of the Church in good standing. The following day the First Presidency issued a statement that members of the Church could indeed be Democrats and members in good standing; they further noted that members of the First Presidency belonged to both the Republican and Democratic parties.

While President of the Church he did a masterful job of refraining from making political comments. Notice how his Conference talks had themes such as reading the book of Mormon instead political themes.

Edited by Daniel2020
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point out is that all talks in conference are written then approved before hand by the First Presidency. Therefore we do not have to second guess if an Apostle is stating something incorrectly for it has been pre-approved by those with authority. Therefore all talks at conference are to be taken very seriously and not dismissed as Apostles having flaws or weaknesses or even political opinions. We are safe to say what is said at conference is the Churches position on any given matter. When they speak at conference they are not speaking their opinions at conference but speaking for the whole Church as mouth pieces of God. Whatever is said at conference I have learned if there is a contrast between my thoughts and those presented it is me that needs to change.

Edited by Rosabella
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ezra Taft Benson was a ultra right wing, conservative Republican who had trouble separating his political beliefs from Church Doctrine.

Because, especially as a prophet of God, they go hand in hand.

If church doctrine isn't driving our political beliefs (be on whatever side of the aisle as you may), what on earth is?

The structure of Zion (our goal) does not stand independent of government. Government will STILL exist, even when Christ returns. Thus, we need to be VERY attentive to searching the scriptures (ancient and modern) and praying for revelation - in an effort to better understand the will of God on the matter.

Edited by Prodigal_Son
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any organization that seeks to destroy the freedom of religion is evil. Any organization that believes that lazy and idle able bodied men and women should also be given the same bread and clothes as those who labor for an honest wage is also not good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Benson is only controversial to those so-called Latter Day Saints who think themselves smarter than our General Authorities.

Or could it be that those whom find him(or some of his views) controversial understand that a Prophet is subject to his own opinions, that just because it was said doesn't make it true, and that history shows us this.

Men don't live on the moon

Death is not the on the spot punishment for mixing races and

The civil rights/ women rights moments didn't lead to a communist takeover.

Just this "so-called Latter day Saints Opinion"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure if the communist underpinnings to Rock N' Rock music panned out, but civil rights for all turned out to be a very good thing.

Actually civil rights is a bad thing, whereas human rights and God given rights are a good thing.

The thing that make anyone controversial is when they speak of things that threaten the beliefs of others..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point out is that all talks in conference are written then approved before hand by the First Presidency. Therefore we do not have to second guess if an Apostle is stating something incorrectly for it has been pre-approved by those with authority...We are safe to say what is said at conference is the Churches position on any given matter.

Not true.

Under the rules of logic to disprove this statement I need only cite a single example. I'll cite three:

--LeGrand Richards was instructed not to prepared remarks. He spoke extemporaneously and without a time limit.

--When LeGrand Richards invaded the time Dalin Oaks to speak Oaks offered impromptu remarks beginning with, "As I fold my notes..."

--Do you really think the First Presidency approved J. Golden Kimball's famous remark in General Conference, "Heber, I can't see a damn thing?" Or the other profanities that escaped his lips for which he was so well known?

At a more substantive level you'll find remarks made by in General Conference by James E. Talmage and John A. Widsow regarding evolution to be at odds with those made in later years in General Conference by subsequent Apostles.

Statements made by a single General Authority--even in General Conference--are not official Church Doctrine. When the Church makes a doctrinal statement it comes in the forum of a statement--often a letter read in Sacrament Meeting--that is issued by (and signed by) the entire First Presidency. Often--as in the case of the Priesthood and temple ordinances being available to Blacks--it will also be signed by all members of the Quorum of the Twelve.

Edited by Daniel2020
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point out is that all talks in conference are written then approved before hand by the First Presidency. Therefore we do not have to second guess if an Apostle is stating something incorrectly for it has been pre-approved by those with authority. Therefore all talks at conference are to be taken very seriously and not dismissed as Apostles having flaws or weaknesses or even political opinions. We are safe to say what is said at conference is the Churches position on any given matter. When they speak at conference they are not speaking their opinions at conference but speaking for the whole Church as mouth pieces of God. Whatever is said at conference I have learned if there is a contrast between my thoughts and those presented it is me that needs to change.

Thank you. This is my understanding as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. This is my understanding as well.

Your understanding is incorrect. See my above post, especially the part about how Church Doctrine is promulgated.

--------------

BTW, I'm a member in good standing. I've held many callings in the Church, including one in a Stake Presidency.

Edited by Daniel2020
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

There is a long list of Church publications including the Ensign which prints conference reports.

What is stated in conference is Church doctrines. We must keep in mind Apostles are Prophets, Seers and Revelators. The New Testament was written by Apostles. Are we to disregard them also?

What is the point of Conference if it does not teach Church doctrines? Why are we told to listen to the ordained mouthpieces of God if what they say does not matter?

In addition to restoring ancient principles, Joseph Smith added new revelations to the body of scripture: the volume of sacred writ was not to be closed. Many of these revelations were communicated during regular conferences, then printed in official reports. Significantly, these revelations stand as scripture itself: “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, … my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” (D&C 1:38.)

Thus, by experience and revelation, Joseph learned and taught (1) that scripture is nothing more or less than the word of the Lord, (2) that the book of God’s word is not closed, (3) that God speaks to all dispensations, (4) that scripture must be correctly understood through the spirit of truth, and (5) that the words of the Lord’s servants when moved upon by the Holy Ghost are scripture, too. (See 2 Pet. 1:20–21; D&C 68:4.)

Edited by Rosabella
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the point of Conference if it does not teach Church doctrines? Why are we told to listen to the ordained mouthpieces of God if what they say does not matter?

It is to help us reach the Celestial Kingdom. Which comes from obeying the commandments and strengthening one another.

I did not say not to listen to General Authorities. What I'm trying to help you understand is that not every single word they utter is doctrine and they are not infallible. (As when Joseph Fielding Smith said man wouldn't land on the moon.)

If you think "they can do/say no wrong" you're setting yourself up for a spiritual fall. What happens to your testimony when you find general authorities disagreeing with each other. See my above example regarding evolution. Or how Talmage and McKonkie disagree about who appeared to Nephi.

General Authorities are indeed prophet, seers, and revelators--when speaking in that capacity. But most of their comments are those of counsel made by very righteous men.

Also, as I said above, the Church has adopted a procedure so that members can be sure what is official doctrine. It is announced by the entire First Presidency and often with the concurrence of the Quorum of the Twelve.

As a final example, don't forget Sidney Rigdon (the First Counselor in the First Presidency) who said in General Conference that he was supposed to lead the Church following the death of Joseph Smith. He wasn't. Thanks to the Holy Spirit the membership understood he was wrong--even though he said it in General Conference.

Edited by Daniel2020
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To cite a single example: at a Republican fund raiser he made a comment to the effect that a person could not be a Democrat and member of the Church in good standing. The following day the First Presidency issued a statement that members of the Church could indeed be Democrats and members in good standing; they further noted that members of the First Presidency belonged to both the Republican and Democratic parties.

I know Benson was on-record saying this about communism/socialism; I've not heard any statement he made regarding the Democratic party per se. Did Benson really state that there was no such thing as a good Democrat, Dan? ;) I'd love to see the source on that.

Ezra Taft Benson . . . had trouble separating his political beliefs from Church Doctrine.

Then I should think you would say he's in excellent company.

The civil rights/ women rights moments didn't lead to a communist takeover.

Benson probably waxed paranoid, but there was a kernel of truth in there. The American Communist Party was indeed part of a broad coalition that supported the civil rights movement; it appears to be reasonably settled that the American Communist Party was getting funding from the USSR at least as early as 1959. The Commies were funding social upheavals all over the globe during this period in history. So was our own CIA. It was just the way the world worked.

It's obviously silly to use the term "communist" to shut down debate; and some of Benson's ideological comrades (if not the man himself) were certainly guilty of that. But before we try to paint Elder Benson as completely bat-shizzle crazy for thinking that some leftists were allied with Communist interests, consider the fact that--to a limited degree--he was right. And as much as some people today would wish us to forget it, the communists of Benson's era were a pretty scary bunch.

If we had fought the Cold War against the Nazis instead of the Soviets, you can bet the American social conservatives of the day would have operated at least partially on funds that originated in Berlin. And Kennedy, Johnson, et. al. would have exploited American fears of postwar Nazis just as mercilessly as McCarthy exploited American fears of postwar Communists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, as I said above, the Church has adopted a procedure so that members can be sure what is official doctrine. It is announced by the entire First Presidency and often with the concurrence of the Quorum of the Twelve.

You agree, then, that "the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets"?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Benson was on-record saying this about communism/socialism; I've not heard any statement he made regarding the Democratic party per se. Did Benson really state that there was no such thing as a good Democrat, Dan? ;) I'd love to see the source on that.

Yes, I'm sure of that. His fax pau was was very much a cause celebre in its day. (It was very much a slap in the face of Hugh B. Brown, a Democrat and member of the First Presidency.)

My copy of it was lost by movers. If you do some digging in The Salt Lake Tribune archives (towards the end of David O. MaKay's presidency) you'll find articles about it. I doubt, however, you'll find anything about it in biographies about Ezra Taft Benson, as it was one of his fax paus his supporters conveniently overlook. (More than once he made a political remarks that embarrassed the Church.)

Edited by Daniel2020
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share