Why is the prophet Ezra Taft Benson often deemed controversial?


dorave
 Share

Recommended Posts

EDIT: My original tone here was unduly harsh. My apologies.

Daniel, with all due respect, I have neither the funds to access the Trib's pay-for-access online archives, nor the time to visit their offices in person. I'd be very grateful if you can find a way to document your own assertion here.

I'd even be content with a cite to Quinn, if you have one.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Within the past half century or more, the Church has remained neutral in political contests. It limits its political comments to what it considers moral issues (such as when it has opposed various proposals to create lotteries.) During these years the Church as issued many statements similar to the one that follows.

The First Presidency issued the following on October 28, 2003, which was read in sacrament meeting.

To: General Authorities and the following priesthood leaders in the United States:

Area Authority Seventies; Stake, Mission, and District Presidents; Bishops; and Branch Presidents

Dear Brethren and Sisters:

Statement of Political Neutrality

(To be read in sacrament meeting)

As we have done in recent years, we reaffirm the policy of strict political neutrality for the Church. The Church does not endorse political candidates or parties in elections, nor does it advise its members on how to vote. Likewise, Church facilities are not to be used for political purposes.

Church members should study the issues and candidates carefully and prayerfully and then vote for those they believe will act with integrity and will most nearly carry out their ideas of good government.

Members are encouraged to participate as responsible citizens in supporting measures and candidates that strengthen society morally, economically, and culturally. They are urged to be actively engaged in worthy causes to improve their communities and make them more wholesome places in which to live and rear families.

Political candidates should not imply that their candidacy is endorsed by the Church or its leaders. Church directories or mailing lists should not be used for political purposes.

Sincerely your brethren,

/s Gorden B. Hickley

/s Thomas S. Monson

/s James E. Faust

[The First Presidency]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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."

I am far more aware of things they you give me credit for. Naivete is not a strong suit of mine.

I personally know exactly how the Brethren convene on matters and how much they truly agree on. They are not bickering prideful men as so many try to paint them as. I think the picking apart of the Brethren comes from pride in the individual and has nothing to do with what truly is going on amongst the Brethren.

I fear far more for the personal salvation of those that focus on what they perceive to be errors of the Brethren far more than for those who might seem to blindly follow. If I were to err I would rather err on following an Apostle or a Prophet then not hearkening to them. For if I follow the Prophet and it is he that was wrong I will be held blameless.

LINK below

This site has wonderful quotes on this topic:

(George Q. Cannon, “Discourse” [report of conference address], Deseret News Weekly, 31 Oct. 1896 [53:609]; or Gospel Truth,p. 278.)

“You cannot say that you love God while you hate your brethren. You cannot say that you submit to the law of God while you reject the word and counsel of his servants.” “God has chosen His servants. He claims it as His prerogative to condemn them, if they need condemnation. He has not given it to us individually to censure and condemn them. No man, however strong he may be in the faith, however high in the priesthood, can speak evil of the Lord’s anointed and find fault with God’s authority on the earth without incurring His displeasure. The Holy Spirit will withdraw itself from such a man, and he will go into darkness. This being the case, do you not see how important it is that we should be careful? However difficult it may be for us to understand the reason for any action of the authorities of the Church, we should not too hastily call their acts in question and pronounce them wrong.”

(John Taylor, in Journal of Discourses, 7:325.)

“When you hear a man talk against the authorities of this Church and kingdom, you may know he is sliding down hill. He does not know what spirit influences him; he is ignorant that he is in the dark; and, unless he retraces his steps quickly, he will go overboard. You may set that down as a fact all the time. Why? Because, if this is the Church and kingdom of God, and [the President] is the elect of God, and his Council and the Twelve and others are the elect of God, and you seek to injure them, you run a great risk, and will be found fighting against God; for Jesus says, ‘He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me; and he that rejecteth you rejecteth me, and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me.’

President Harold B. Lee gave the following testimony and warning:

(In Journal of Discourses, 4:297.)” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1982, pp. 90–91; or

Ensign, May 1982, p. 64 .)

“There are some who look upon the leaders of this Church and God’s anointed as men who are possessed of selfish motives. By them the words of our leaders are always twisted to try to bring a snare to the work of the Lord. Mark well those who speak evil of the Lord’s anointed for they speak from impure hearts. Only the ‘pure in heart’ see the ‘God’ or the divine in man and accept our leaders and accept them as prophets of the Living God. . . .

“I want to bear you my testimony that the experience I have had has taught me that those who criticize the leaders of this Church are showing signs of a spiritual sickness which, unless curbed, will bring about eventually spiritual death. I want to bear my testimony as well that those who in public seek by their criticism, to belittle our leaders or bring them into disrepute, will bring upon themselves more hurt than upon those whom they seek thus to malign. I have watched over the years, and I have read of the history of many of those who fell away from this Church, and I want to bear testimony that no apostate who ever left this Church ever prospered as an influence in his community thereafter.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1947, p. 67.)

Edited by Rosabella
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally know exactly how the Brethren convene on matters and how much they truly agree on. They are not bickering prideful men as so many try to paint them as. I think the picking apart of the Brethren comes from pride in the individual and has nothing to do with what truly is going on amongst the Brethren.

I am curious as to how you personally know this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel...The First Presidency also counseled the membership to oppose the so-called Equal Rights Amendment, and to Support the passage of Proposition 22 and 8 in California. I believe that the First Presidency will ask California Saints to oppose the legalization of Marijuana this November.

Daniel, I really enjoy you cultural Mormon's...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William F. Buckley wrote a novel about the conservative movement in the late 50s. He follows several young people who travel different avenues on the right-wing highway--from Ayn Rand's Objectivism to the birch Society's willingness to sabatoge careers based upon circumstantial evidence and hearsay. It just so happens that the young man who becomes a Bircher is also a returned returned Mormon missionary. I'm guessing part of that aspect had to do with Ezra Taft Benson, and many other LDS of that generation who found the movement attractive.

Amazon.com: Getting it Right (9780895260246): William F. Buckley Jr.: Books

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious as to how you personally know this.

My husband and I know some of the GAs and their families personally (my husband is related to a member of the first presidency) and I have met with them regarding research they requested from me. I also have friends and a family member that have met with them regarding research they requested. In my personal conversations and meetings with them they explained how they make decisions for the Church and how they all get along so well because of having the Spirit communicating truth to them. They are not quiet about how the Church works. They are actually quite open when you talk to them about it.

Having known many of them and knowing how truly humble they are it saddens me when I hear false claims about them. I personally heard from the mouths of other GAs how they felt about President Benson and his teachings. It does not come close to what is spread falsely around on forums and by the murmuring of members.

Edited by Rosabella
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with the person who commented that President Benson is only controversial to those who think they know better than the General Authorities. I will concede that only those who think they know better than the General Authorities (whether willing to admit it or not) think that President Benson shouldn't have been the prophet. The fact remains, however, that he was controversial, whether you think he should have been or not.

I attended Relief Society today, which is a rare occurrence for me these days, being the ward YW president. The lesson from the Gospel Principles manual was on prophets. One of the questions the teacher asked was how we know a prophet is a prophet. There were the usual answers: called of God; line of succession; won't lead the Church astray; personal revelation; by their fruits; etc. The woman sitting next to me shared something she remembered from when Elder Benson became President Benson. (Side note: about 95% of the active members of my ward are under age 40. This sister was one of less than five women in the room who would remember this change as an adult at the time.) She shared how it was a matter of "great consternation" among many members of the Church at the time, and a lot of people had a hard time with his being prophet because of his political history. With everything he'd said in the past, and his general political attitude, a lot of members had a hard time with him now being so dominant in the religious landscape. However, she noted, after his call as President of the Church, he toned things down on a huge level. His focus changed and he didn't discuss politics anymore. She observed that it was a testimony to the fact that a prophet is a prophet and that he shares what the Lord wants the Church (and world) to hear and know, and not his own opinions.

I thought it was a great point that really added to the lesson, and it made a lot of sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It saddens me when I see so-called good members of my faith slag and attack President Benson, more so it seems some of the more vitriolic attacks come from those who were still in the Pre-Existence when President Benson served.

I have suffered with this old canard about being LDS and Democrat, and like the current occupant of the White House's birth certificate, one can NEVER offer up the original source of this canard. Truth de told, up until the advent of Barry Goldwater's run for the Presidency, Utah was a solidly Democratic State. I've read in bio's of President McKay's Father returning from a Priesthood Session ashamed because he was sitting on what became the GOP side of the chapel. President McKay often told the story of his Father remarking to his Mother..."How will I ever show my face in town again as a Republican".

I too remember vividly and yes fondly of growing up in a John Birch home, my Grandfather a founding member of the JBS (Robert Welch was always "Uncle Candy" to us kids) I recall my Grandfather quipping to a friend he served on the Stake HC with, (who eventually became a GA himself) that the "Lord must be with us...he called Elder Brown home before ETB". Whilst it was a bit of "insider Baseball" I can tell you that my Grandfather had nothing but respect and admiration for President Brown, as did President Benson.

President Benson served our Lord and Savior with great endurance.

When called by President Eisenhower to serve as Secretary of Agriculture, many of the pundits of the day scoffed and mocked him. Drew Pearson said that he'd be the first fired, yet he served 8 years. If my memory serves me correctly, President Benson is/was the only Eisenhower Cabinet Officer to serve the entire two terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a slightly different take on this. I do not think that President Benson was acting on his own opinions before becoming the prophet and then changed to start speaking only the Lord's will afterwards. I think He always spoke the Lord's will and that the Lord's will for what he would speak changed when he became prophet.

I think the Lord's appointed role for him to play changed, but I feel strongly that everything he taught both before and after his calling as president was very much what the Lord wanted him to say. I feel the same way about all of the apostles and prophets. What the 15 members of the first presidency and the quorum of the twelved teach is what the Lord wants them to teach, whether or not we want to hear it or like it.

We cannot in good faith pick and choose what we will accept from the words of the prophets and apostles. We are called not to test the veracity of their words, as though we had more authority than they, but rather to gain a witness of them so that we can follow them faithfully. We do not decide whether they speak truth, we only decide whether we will follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of excerpts from the Gospel Principles manual, Lesson 10:

When the Lord’s servants speak or write under the influence of the Holy Ghost, their words become scripture (see D&C 68:4).

In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. “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” (Articles of Faith 1:9).

Though this has grown too argumentative, I fear, I would submit that anyone foolish enough to declare Benson's (or any other seer's) PROPHECIES as 'off' (such as the civil rights claims) is erroneously assuming that they, too, can see the beginning from the end.

How many of you on this thread have the mantle of seership?

Um, yeah. That's what I thought.

You (meaning all of us), therefore, cannot comment on whether prophecies have been completed and come to fruition. You're as blind as the wicked Nephites who put a timeline on the prophecies of Samuel the Lamanite and declared death to all believers.

The watchmen on the tower have a perspective that most of us will never appreciate until we're on the other side of the veil and all things are revealed.

What, I ask you, is the RISK in following the counsel and prophecies of the brethren? How is my life imperiled by following these mighty men of valor?

In the words of Joshua, "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve." With the words of God proclaiming from the pages of the D&C, "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, 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."

I think that waiting for the "thus saith the Lord" to come from the mouths of the brethren is little more than an excuse and opportunity to refuse and refute any inconvenient doctrine that might come from one of these, our called and sustained (by you) Apostles.

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.

I used to translate for General Conference and the talks were delivered to me ahead of time, pre-written by the GAs and preapproved by the first presidency. Sometimes a GA would accidentally stumble and omit a word in reading his own talk, but the written version was always the official version which received the Prophet's approval and endorsement and went into church publications.

The Prophet and Apostles are the most united group of men I have ever witnessed in my life. They support one another implicitly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How to broach this subject respectfully and yet directly, as a non-member? Hopefully this will do it: President Benson was a member of the John Birch Society. And, for the accuracy of it's general anti-communist stance, JBS is also accused of having unfairly targeted people as unpatriotic, often through rumor and unfounded innuendo--frequently with the result of ruined careers and livelihoods. If the accusation is true, then would it not be fair to say that an LDS prophet who is unwavering in his support of such is controversial? Not necessarily wrong, not guilty, not at fault...but controversial?

See here the accusation of Welch that President Eisenhower was an agent of the Soviet Union, and the rejection of many conservative leaders to his influence. Bill Buckley, Barry Goldwater and the John Birch Society | Fort Liberty

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not disagree that President Benson IS controversial. The same is true today of Elder Oaks and Elder Packer. We can go back further. Joseph Smith is a controversial topic, so is the Lord Jesus Christ for many. Pretty much all prophets through out history have been controversial. Look at Noah he was mocked and was ridiculed and laughed at until the rain fell. Jesus Christ was crucified because He was controversial. I would be more worried if he was well-embraced by the world then that he is rejected. There are prophets that have gained respect from "some" in the world but not the majority.

Just my thoughts on being controversial ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though this has grown too argumentative, I fear, I would submit that anyone foolish enough to declare Benson's (or any other seer's) PROPHECIES as 'off' (such as the civil rights claims) is erroneously assuming that they, too, can see the beginning from the end.

How many of you on this thread have the mantle of seership?

Um, yeah. That's what I thought.

You (meaning all of us), therefore, cannot comment on whether prophecies have been completed and come to fruition. You're as blind as the wicked Nephites who put a timeline on the prophecies of Samuel the Lamanite and declared death to all believers.

Perhaps you are the one who is blind, though. That's a very black and white stance for an issue that may not be black and white at all. What is your response then to the failed prophecy in regards to Missouri temple? Also, the founder of your Church disagrees with your assessment entirely.

“Joseph …received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon… they failed entirely to sell the copy-right, returning without any money… we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation…and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: ‘Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil.’

http://www.4mormon.org/downloads/mormon/ldsprophets/addressbelieversp31.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you are the one who is blind, though. That's a very black and white stance for an issue that may not be black and white at all.

Sure it is. If I somehow lost my life by following one of the Apostles of Christ, God would credit to him my fall. I would not be held accountable for being obedient.

And because that will NEVER happen, I'm 100% secure in my willingness to follow the brethren through anything.

I defy you to show me any valid 'failed prophecy' of an active Apostle that would jeopardize my standing with God, had I adhered and adapted to it.

SHOW ME EXACTLY WHERE AND HOW MY ETERNAL SOUL IS AT RISK FOR BLINDLY TRUSTING ANY OF THESE SPECIAL WITNESSES OF JESUS CHRIST.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, Intrigued, the Lord's promises are always contingent. They are IF-THEN promises. And David Whitmer was guilty on more than one occasion of claiming false prophecy from Joseph.

The Joseph Smith Papers are doing a good job of tracking down actual, physical proof that Whitmer's claims are untrue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure it is. If I somehow lost my life by following one of the Apostles of Christ, God would credit to him my fall. I would not be held accountable for being obedient.

And because that will NEVER happen, I'm 100% secure in my willingness to follow the brethren through anything.

I defy you to show me any valid 'failed prophecy' of an active Apostle that would jeopardize my standing with God, had I adhered and adapted to it.

SHOW ME EXACTLY WHERE AND HOW MY ETERNAL SOUL IS AT RISK FOR BLINDLY TRUSTING ANY OF THESE SPECIAL WITNESSES OF JESUS CHRIST.

By the way, Intrigued, the Lord's promises are always contingent. They are IF-THEN promises. And David Whitmer was guilty on more than one occasion of claiming false prophecy from Joseph.

The Joseph Smith Papers are doing a good job of tracking down actual, physical proof that Whitmer's claims are untrue.

First off buddy -- relax. Where on earth did I even hint that your soul is at risk or whatever? So when prophecies of the past fail, you simply say 'well show me a recent one', and that's hardly fair. If I showed you one would you not then simply ask for one more (and so on)? I'm not casting doubt by any means. I'm just taking Joseph Smiths stance (a man who you have a 'testimony' of) when he said that not all revelations are from God.

Are you really sure that you want to cast doubt on Whitmers reputation as an honest man? After all.. he was a witness to the golden plates. Besides, Whitmer has said that Joseph Smiths failed prophecy does not make him any less of a Prophet.

Also, what was your response in regards to the temple in Missouri point I raised?

Edited by Intrigued
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

JAG i think you missed my post in Mormon musics thread about how picking apart a post losses the meaning. We can debate the history of the American communist movement til we are blue in the face but that isn't the point of my response. The point is that Prophets are subject to there own opinions (as Daniel2020 pointed out) there opinions are not always accurate, and most importantly the idea that the members whom don't share them are less then "real" latter day saints (I.E. "so called") is derisive and insulting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not disagree that President Benson IS controversial. The same is true today of Elder Oaks and Elder Packer. We can go back further. Joseph Smith is a controversial topic, so is the Lord Jesus Christ for many. Pretty much all prophets through out history have been controversial. Look at Noah he was mocked and was ridiculed and laughed at until the rain fell. Jesus Christ was crucified because He was controversial. I would be more worried if he was well-embraced by the world then that he is rejected. There are prophets that have gained respect from "some" in the world but not the majority.

Just my thoughts on being controversial ;)

So you're not really lds and think you're smarter then the GAs too;)

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

:rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a repost from another thread (the post was mine)

I came across the book David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (link: David O. McKay and the rise of ... - Google Book Search) as I looked for more information about this topic. The chapter entitled “Confrontation with Communism” is especially salient. Some points that may need to be brought up in reference to this thread are:

  • Ezra Taft Benson was not the President of the Church when he endorsed the John Birch Society. He was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve.
  • There were several in the leadership of the Church who were very much displeased with Benson’s endorsement (and affiliated political activities), including Elders Hugh B. Brown and N. Eldon Tanner (First and Second Counselors to President David O. McKay).
  • Elders Brown and Tanner both had seniority over Elder Benson, and Elder Brown even once suggested disciplinary action may be necessary.
  • President McKay found himself in a position where he had to mediate the political schisms that existed between Benson and others in the Church leadership. He was careful never to endorse either side of the debate.
  • President McKay made reference to fighting atheistic communism, indicating that it was the godless component of the government structure that was most damning of it.

The chapter I have mentioned goes into great detail about the frustrations that Elder Benson’s involvement with the John Birch Society caused the Church and its leadership. It makes it pretty clear that Benson’s views were his own, and not shared by all those he served with, nor with those who were his seniors in Church government. I find it particularly interesting that other Church leaders were concerned that Benson’s actions would confuse members about what was doctrine and what was personal opinion.

So in reference to the original question, “With such LDS luminaries as Ezra T. Benson, Cleon Skousen, and J. Rueben Clark supporting the group in the past, I was wondering how members of the Church feel about the Birch Society today and why,” the proper answer is that they may feel however they like—and as you have seen, they do. But we must be careful to understand that one’s opinion of the John Birch Society has no relevance at all to one’s commitment, understanding, or practice of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, yes, Elder Benson was controversial. Yes, he had a tendency to adamantly express his political opinions, and yes, there were those in Church leadership that thought that his expressions could confuse members as to what was doctrine and what was opinion.

But it's really hard to boil down these conversations into simple statements. Understanding all of the nuances of this debate could (and should) take up tomes. It requires a firm knowledge of what Soviet communism was like and how it operated (accusations of communism in today's politics are nothing like what Soviet communism was). Making sense of Benson's controversial character requires a solid education in politics and religion. This is something I'm not sure the average contemporary Benson supporter really has, as evidenced by the accusations that liberals are turning our country into a socialist and fascist government.

The more I read on the topic, the more it becomes clear to me that Elder Benson was sometimes expressing his bias and opinion, and sometimes his actions were inappropriate (he made many efforts, some of them a little sneaky, to align the Church with the John Birch Society). But often, his comments were accurate in their time frame, and always, his discourse in doctrine was correct.

Elder Benson is only controversial when you dive into politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share