Why is the prophet Ezra Taft Benson often deemed controversial?

[FunkyTown]

So you're saying that you -don't- have to be a member of the John Birch Society to be a good Mormon?

But I just bought the T-shirt!

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

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.

[Wingnut]

What is your response then to the failed prophecy in regards to Missouri temple?

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

What failed prophecy?

[rameumptom]

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.

While this may be true today (and I'm not sure that it is), it was not the case a few decades ago. There is now a focus on the doctrine of Christ, but this is a fairly new thing for the Church.

Prior to the 1980s, many GAs gave opinions on a variety of things over the pulpit. I've heard one endorse the John Birch Society (which the prophet afterward stepped up and stated we do not endorse any organizations). They've given talks on many speculative issues that would not be given today.

Ezra Taft Benson, as an apostle, was a lightning rod. He and Pres Hugh B. Brown were total opposites when it came to politics. Yet back then it was the common thing for apostles to debate their opinions. Joseph F and Joseph Fielding Smith both debated with Elders B.H. Roberts, Widtsoe and Talmage over evolution, science, etc. Many apostles disagreed as to blacks and the priesthood. It is believed by some that when the 1978 revelation on priesthood was received, Elder Peterson was absent in order for it to occur. Of course, Elder McConkie was rather forceful in his belief that blacks would not receive the priesthood until the Millennium.

Still, as Prophet, President Benson left his politics behind. He focused on doctrine and the things that would save mankind. He gave masterful talks to the men, women, youth, children and others in the Church. His best talks as prophet were on Pride and the Book of Mormon. The focus on the Book of Mormon occurred with Pres Benson's talk: if we neglected the Book of Mormon, a curse would fall upon the Church.

[SLC2002GOLD]

What I'm finding very telling in this thread, is that the person who leveled the original "charges"...now having been called on it, has gone radio silent.

[rameumptom]

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.

Sorry, I don't buy this. At all. Pres Brigham Young taught on many occasions that it is up to each of us to gain our own witness of the things taught by the Church leaders. Only when the Spirit has confirmed it to us, is that one thing binding upon us.

The teachings of an apostle are NOT binding upon the Church, unless they reiterate the already established doctrines of the Church. Apostles make mistakes, and they can fall from grace. The Church has excommunicated apostles in the past, and it could happen again.

The Church's official website states that there are core doctrines, doctrine, and then separate teachings of Church leaders (Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom).

Each should be prayerfully considered. But not everything is doctrinal. Pres Hugh B. Brown, disagreed with Pres Benson on issues like Civil Rights, etc. Joseph F. Smith disagreed with James Talmage on evolution. Clearly, they were all going on their personal views, and not on revealed heavenly teachings.

Prophets and apostles of God? Yes. But do not be mistaken that such cannot hold their personal views on issues not yet revealed by God.

[SLC2002GOLD]

Prison Chaplin:

Thank you for the link to the Robert Welch speech, since one good link deserves a few more, I offer up the following.

Link #1: A speech delivered at an annual gathering of the JBS. Please note, this speech was delivered in 1974, listen to it carefully and then ask yourself..."Could he possibly be talking about the current occupant of the White House and his policies"?

YouTube - Mind Blowing Speech By JBS Founder Robert Welch In 1974!

Link #2: A Conference talk delivered by Elder Benson in 1972. I clearly remember many "liberal" members in my ward condemning President Benson for this talk. Prison Chaplin, this talk deals with LDS dogma, just a heads up.

Link #3: A devotional talk delivered by Elder Benson at BYU, in 1966. Listen carefully, with the fall of the Wall, KGB files opened have in fact validated President Benson's views on Communists in our Government.

Today, we argue the legacy of President Benson, a man who's views no matter how controversial have been in many cases validated. Some here venerate the late Hugh B. Brown, a man who's doctrinal foundation I can't argue with. Somewhere I'd like to think that President Benson and President Brown are working together in a new mission field, both I believe having their calling made sure and elect.

[Wingnut]

What I'm finding very telling in this thread, is that the person who leveled the original "charges"...now having been called on it, has gone radio silent.

1) Nobody "leveled any charges." The OP asked for clarification and opinion.

2) If you look at the OP's posting history, you'll see that it's very sporadic.

[SLC2002GOLD]

Wingnut, I was not referring to the OP, I was referring to another person who level some interesting charges, then ran off...

My Bad if i've gotten on the wrong side of your little forum mafia.

[MarginOfError]

Wingers, I think he was referring to the guy that claimed that Elder Benson is only controversial to the people who think they know more than the General Authorities.

[SLC2002GOLD]

Wingers, I think he was referring to the guy that claimed that Elder Benson is only controversial to the people who think they know more than the General Authorities.

Correct, I was referring to the poster who claimed the President Benson had made some charge "at a GOP fundraiser" that one "Couldn't be a Democrat and a good Latter Day Saint"

As I re-read my post, I can see the confusion, my apologies.

Having said that, I have yet to find the original quote anywhere?

I recall when Ernie Wilkinson won the GOP nomination for the US Senate from Utah, the Church was very silent on his candidacy.

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

I agree with your larger point. I'd just rather not see it reinforced by (inadvertent, I'm sure) misstatements of what those "personal opinions" actually were.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[MarginOfError]

Correct, I was referring to the poster who claimed the President Benson had made some charge "at a GOP fundraiser" that one "Couldn't be a Democrat and a good Latter Day Saint"

As I re-read my post, I can see the confusion, my apologies.

Having said that, I have yet to find the original quote anywhere?

I recall when Ernie Wilkinson won the GOP nomination for the US Senate from Utah, the Church was very silent on his candidacy.

I find it more interesting that you are trying to call out Daniel for his claim when you initially claimed that Elder Benson was only controversial to those who thought they knew better than the General Authorities. Yet, you have taken to thanking the posts of those that explain why Elder Benson was so controversial. You seem to want to have it both ways, and you have yet to demonstrate the veracity of your claim any more than Daniel.

But, for what it's worth, in the book I mentioned earlier, there's a comment about how shortly before President McKay's death, he released a letter to the Church about how active members of the Communist party could be members of the Church and be members of good standing. It's possible that Daniel was getting his parties crossed.

[SLC2002GOLD]

MOE...Let me offer up a few comments that may or may not clarify my views and position on this issue.

First off, let me say that I find the excessive nit picking my many on this site to be somewhat oppressive. My comment about about "Those just a little smarter than your average GA" is really a blanket comment on many I find on this site. I'm sure this will further get your knickers in a twist, and so be it. Daniel made a blanket accusation, one that is as old as the dirt under your sandals, he has yet to offer up any back up other than..."The movers ate my proof"

I realize that there is clearly a mafia pecking order here, one that I'm sure I'll never get my button in.

Having said that, I'm here to enjoy myself, not impress you or anyother member of the "family"

[SLC2002GOLD]

MOE...I'm curious...Have you actually read "David O. McKay...and the rise of modern Mormonism"?

[MarginOfError]

MOE...Let me offer up a few comments that may or may not clarify my views and position on this issue.

First off, let me say that I find the excessive nit picking my many on this site to be somewhat oppressive. My comment about about "Those just a little smarter than your average GA" is really a blanket comment on many I find on this site. I'm sure this will further get your knickers in a twist, and so be it. Daniel made a blanket accusation, one that is as old as the dirt under your sandals, he has yet to offer up any back up other than..."The movers ate my proof"

I realize that there is clearly a mafia pecking order here, one that I'm sure I'll never get my button in.

Having said that, I'm here to enjoy myself, not impress you or anyother member of the "family"

As lame as his backup was, it was more than you offered.

I didn't ask you to impress me or anyone else. I merely chose to point out that you are criticizing Daniel for failing to back up claims when you are not backing up your own. I only think that's fair.

MOE...I'm curious...Have you actually read "David O. McKay...and the rise of modern Mormonism"?

I've read a few chapters. I look forward to reading more of it.

Edited May 10, 2010 by MarginOfError

[SLC2002GOLD]

As lame as his backup was, it was more than you offered.

I didn't ask you to impress me or anyone else. I merely chose to point out that you are criticizing Daniel for failing to back up claims when you are not backing up your own. I only think that's fair.

I've read a few chapters. I look forward to reading more of it.

It's a profound book, and an excellent read.

Claire Middlemiss kept copious records and thanks to Wright and Prince we gain a keen insight into President McKay...

When you've finished it (it took me less than 48 hours to devour it) I would enjoy discussing several chapters and in gaining your insight to them.

[Intrigued]

My bad. I realize I was coming off fairly aggressive. Shoulda gone to bed sooner.

Give me a direct reference and I'll give you a response.

Doctrine and Covenants 84

"5 For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house."

It didn't get done. As Whitmer said.. it did not make him any less of a prophet. It reinforced the idea that he was human. Heck, for all I know it could have been a lesson in humility for him.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Intrigued

[Wingnut]

Doctrine and Covenants 84

"5 For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house."

It didn't get done. As Whitmer said.. it did not make him any less of a prophet. It reinforced the idea that he was human. Heck, for all I know it could have been a lesson in humility for him.

And where exactly does it specifically state that it refers to Missouri? At the time this revelation was received, the early saints lived in Kirtland, OH. D&C 84 is a revelation received in September 1832. Construction began on the Kirtland temple in the summer of 1833, and it was completed and dedicated in 1836. With regard to a cloud resting upon it, you may find anecdotes and personal journal entries regarding the day of dedication to be quite interesting.

[Moksha]

Not necessarily wrong, not guilty, not at fault...but controversial?

What???! You would have us fail to deny the obvious?

Messing the Church up in extreme politics that even to this day have repercussions, was not a good thing. Mammon and Caesar were not even invited to the banquet, let alone holding seats of honor.

[prisonchaplain]

What???! You would have us fail to deny the obvious?

Messing the Church up in extreme politics that even to this day have repercussions, was not a good thing. Mammon and Caesar were not even invited to the banquet, let alone holding seats of honor.

Well, I'm not immersed in this subject as much as others. So, when I said that I would not dare to say a former president of your church was wrong, it was because:

1. I only referred to his membership in the JBS

2. As a non-member, it is simply not my place to do much more than ask questions. At least that's my take on my role.

And, FWIW, I'm double-minded on Christian involvement in politics. I don't want or like that many presume evangelicals, for example, all but have to be Pro-Life, Republican, Anti-Gay (an unfair, but understandable accusation), and (again, to be unfair) anti-environment. On the other hand, it pleases that many evangelicals support the rights of unborn babes, support maintaining traditional marriage, and oppose excessive environmental regulation. Further, I happen to be Republican, and I'm glad many of my fellow evangelicals are too.

So, while it's wrong to co-opt the evangelistic gospel mission of the church, sometimes we must speak the truth to power, based on our prayerful understanding of how God's Word speaks to the general state of society. All that to say, politics should not dominate the church, but church people shouldn't have to forfeit their political rights because of their faith.

Edited May 10, 2010 by prisonchaplain

[Moksha]

So, while it's wrong to co-opt the evangelistic gospel mission of the church, sometimes we must speak the truth to power, based on our prayerful understanding of how God's Word speaks to the general state of society. All that to say, politics should not dominate the church, but church people shouldn't have to forfeit their political rights because of their faith.

Still we both acknowledge that politics can indeed override the path for some, who insist that pure political partisanship be a requirement for membership, as in "Join the GOP before you can be of the body of Christ". What do you say to fellow evangelicals who espouse this view?

[Matthew0059]

What???! You would have us fail to deny the obvious?

Messing the Church up in extreme politics that even to this day have repercussions, was not a good thing.

1.) Where did he "mess the Church up" in extreme politics? Where are the repercussions?

2.) Aren't you happy when you (think you) see the Church doing this with left-wing politics (i.e., supporting a law affirming the rights of gays to housing in SLC; the addition of "caring for the poor" as a fourth mission of the Church)?

Mammon and Caesar were not even invited to the banquet, let alone holding seats of honor.

I doubt you could yet explain the meaning of Doctrine and Covenants 82:22 or Luke 16:9. Until you understand these things, lecturing others on the roles of government and worldly wealth is not only silly, but harmful to your own spirituality.

[prisonchaplain]

"Join the GOP before you can be of the body of Christ". What do you say to fellow evangelicals who espouse this view?

They are few, far between, and generally make national news for their foolishness. Of course, on a personal level, we do too often hear, "I don't see how a good Christian can possibly vote for/support so and so or such and such!!!" Sometimes I'll then play Demo's advocate, or simply remind that I'm thankful Jesus did not make politics a primary concern of the Kingdom.

[prisonchaplain]

1.) Where did he "mess the Church up" in extreme politics? Where are the repercussions?

Okay, without saying that any LDS President has ever done this, let me just pose the general question...if one, speaking during a General Conference, did say to the effect that good LDS Saints ought to strongly consider joining and supporting the righteous cause of the John Birch Society, would that make anyone uncomfortable here? Would it be chalked up to a prophet's opinion? Would it be doctrine, since it was uttered during General Conference? Are there those who say, "Well, a prophet said it, so I'll do it. If it's wrong, I cannot be judged by God for following the prophets?"

[SLC2002GOLD]

Moksha...Sadly, from what I've seen so far, you're the queen of damnation by faint praise, when it comes to Church Leadership...Maybe you need more acidophilus in your yogurt?