Why is the prophet Ezra Taft Benson often deemed controversial?


dorave
 Share

Recommended Posts

Moksha...Sadly, from what I've seen so far, you're the queen of damnation by faint praise, when it comes to Church Leadership...

Hey, I'm a guy. Furthermore, I draw strength and inspiration from many of the wonderful things said and done by Church leaders. I certainly have said good things about Presidents Monson and Hinckley, about Joseph Smith, about Apostles like Hugh B. Brown and Dieter Uchtdorf, members like Eugene England and Lowell Bennion and the many acts of kindness and decency that occur daily.

I further believe that Church and politics should stand apart and that when the Church does good deeds it should not be viewed in terms of politics, such as in the Church supporting nondiscrimination in housing or carrying for the poor. These are demonstrations of the Church's own goodness and not manifestations of politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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?"

Prison Chaplin...you seem to enjoy being seduced by the culteral Mormons here...Might I offer you another Yoplait?

I have heard our leaders decry the so-called ERA, I've heard them decry Same Sex Marriages, I've heard them decry pornography, and was grateful in all three cases for their wisdom, insight and calling. Can Moshka say the same?

Would you disagree with them on these issues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.

Reading some of the statements here, I thought no wonder some people think we are a cult.

General Authorities are General Authorities. Not necessarily smarter than your average member. Not everything said in General Conference by them is doctrine (should I mention Elder Dunn?) and a LOT of it, is opinion. WE are the ones that need to be in tune with the Spirit to know the difference rather than ASSUME that everything said is inspired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

:clap::clap::clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still love you, Moksha.

But I need to back up these fine gentlemen calling you a cultural Mormon because you didn't toe the party line when a single member of the Presidency said something.

Yes, I recognize that another member of the Presidency disagreed with him.

Yes, I recognize that Jesus' apostles themselves sometimes disagreed with one another.

And yes, I recognize that... Hunh. I guess I'm saying I agree with you, Moksha. :o That it's okay to differ on political things. Hunh. :o

Although, to be fair, I'm going to probably just not argue any points on this. This is a silly thread designed to breed nothing but contention. If I do post, it will most likely be posts utterly devoid of any argument. I'll most likely respond to any arguments with 'Nuh uh!' or 'Your FACE is a socialist!'

I know why threads like these really get created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?"

It would make me uncomfortable, and I'm a conservative-libertarian! The problem with JBS isn't that there are not a lot of truths in the organization, but that they sometimes go too far into conspiracies. Ezra Taft Benson wrote the forward on Gary Allen's book, "None Dare Call it Conspiracy". It was due to his endorsement that I read the book way back in the 1970s, not long after I joined the Church. The conspiracies in it were intriguing, and for a young person, believable. Since then, I've learned the importance any book with such claims must have good documentation. Allen's book has none, though much of the actual historical data can be verified, his conspiracy points for the most part cannot.

While I keep an open mind on all of this, I do not accept it simply because one apostle recommended the book. Elder Benson may have recommended in General Conference in 1972 that members should read the book, but that does not mean that every other GA agreed with its contents.

You'll note that as Prophet, he did not mention the JBS nor Gary Allen's book, nor his own political writings. That proved to me, and many others that were uncertain about his political views, that God did call him as prophet. He focused on what was truly important. Since he did not have 11 other apostles to balance out his statements, he now had to teach as a prophet, and not as one of several voices in a quorum of 12.

For Pres McKay, Elders Benson and McConkie were perhaps the two major firebrands he had to deal with among the General Authorities. They were at that time of the old school, where apostles spoke their opinions from the pulpit, unless the prophet called them to task. Yet, in the 1980s, both had major changes occur in their Conference teachings and demeanors. They wrote less speculatively, and focused on doctrine. Elder McConkie's greatest sermon was not based upon Mormon Doctrine the book, but on Christ's Doctrine - and his testimony of the Lord given in his last Conference before his death. President Benson's greatest sermons were not on communism, but on Pride, the Book of Mormon, and families.

This shows that apostles, while called of God, are also human and have opinions, but can also grow and mature in stature.

While in some ways I miss the strong lessons and opinions taught in General Conference in the 1970s, I really enjoy the unity of the Brethren as they all focus on the true mission of the Church: bringing souls unto Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everything said in General Conference by them is doctrine (should I mention Elder Dunn?) and a LOT of it, is opinion.

Elder Dunn was a story teller, not a creator of strange, new doctrines.

And I'll post again:

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).

Sooooo... do I adhere to the beliefs of anonymous Suzie from an online forum that is filled with every possible opinion known to mankind, or do I believe a church publication specifically designed to teach the fundamentals of truth? Choices, choices...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elder Dunn was a story teller, not a creator of strange, new doctrines.

And I'll post again:

Sooooo... do I adhere to the beliefs of anonymous Suzie from an online forum that is filled with every possible opinion known to mankind, or do I believe a church publication specifically designed to teach the fundamentals of truth? Choices, choices...

Is it 'Quote the church leader to prove we're right' day? YAY!

Here we must have in mind—must know—that only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church....

When any man, except the President of the Church, undertakes to proclaim one unsettled doctrine, as among two or more doctrines in dispute, as the settled doctrine of the Church, we may know that he is not "moved upon by the Holy Ghost," unless he is acting under the direction and by the authority of the President.

Of these things we may have a confident assurance without chance for doubt or quibbling.

—J. Reuben Clark, Jr., "Church Leaders and the Scriptures," [orginal title "When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?"] Immortality and Eternal Life: Reflections from the Writings and Messages of President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Vol, 2, (1969-70): 221; address to Seminary and Institute Teachers, BYU (7 July 1954); reproduced in Church News (31 July 1954); also reprinted in Dialogue 12/2 (Summer 1979): 68–81.

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency...and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles...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. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

—LDS Newsroom, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine," lds.org (4 May 2007)

Are we quoting church leaders? YAY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I further believe that Church and politics should stand apart and that when the Church does good deeds it should not be viewed in terms of politics, such as in the Church supporting nondiscrimination in housing or carrying for the poor. These are demonstrations of the Church's own goodness and not manifestations of politics.

Translation:

"Supporting specific pieces of legislation is not inherently political if that legislation is sponsored by Democrats or toes the Democratic party platform."

Welcome to Wonderland.

Of course, this does provide the answer to Matthew's question as to how Benson managed to "'mess the Church up' in extreme politics". If Leftist activity is inherently apolitical, then refusing to indulge in such activity may be inherently political. By refusing to extend the priesthood to women, sanction gay sex, quit preaching about that troublesome "chastity" nonsense, dismiss the Book of Mormon as "divine fiction", or allow people who openly denied that the Church leadership had any divine authority to (ulp!) lead the Church to remain in full fellowship, Benson was in fact engaging in outrageous political behavior and single-handedly dragged the Church to Hell in a handbasket.

That, in the eyes of many, is Ezra Taft Benson's true flaw--that he wouldn't let the LDS Church jump onto the bandwagon of denominations like the Episcopalians or the Communities of Christ that, during his presidency, were becoming so much more enlightened (read: "liberal"). One can only hope that President Monson will undo some of Benson's reactionary agenda.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I find it rather humorous when anti-LDS individuals such as yourself pull talking points from various sources without understanding.

Did you know, by asserting that was a false prophecy, that you are asserting that one of Jesus the Christ’s prophecies in the NT is also false?

Really, the fact that Joseph Smith was able to prophecy that it would be during the same "this generation" as the Savior was referencing, speaks more to Joseph's calling as a prophet than against it.

Now, please Intrigued, back to the topic at hand rather than trying to insert irrelevant and untrue anti-lds discussion in various threads. If you have something to contribute that is good, praiseworthy, and relevant, it's greatly welcomed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prison Chaplin...you seem to enjoy being seduced by the culteral Mormons here...Might I offer you another Yoplait?

I have heard our leaders decry the so-called ERA, I've heard them decry Same Sex Marriages, I've heard them decry pornography, and was grateful in all three cases for their wisdom, insight and calling. Can Moshka say the same?

Would you disagree with them on these issues?

My actual question is...MUST Moksha say that he is grateful for those words of wisdom? Is ideological/political compliance with GA's a requirement of faithful membership?

My quandry is that I have the complete liberty to applaud their words today, and dismiss them tomorrow. If a GA, or even the President of your church came out and supported the national discontinuation of civil marriages, in favor of civil unions, so that marriage could be left to communities of faith, would you be required to applaud? I wouldn't, and my guess is that many here would not feel they had to. Yet, you seem to suggest that, to be faithful, you would have to agree. No?

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We wonder how the Israelites after seeing the great miracles performed on their behalf could so quickly turn to idolatry, sin and faithlessness when Moses tarried in the mountain. I am sure the conversations then were the same as now. "Oh Moses is just a man, not everything he says is necessarily the word of God. He has his own opinions, we have a right to our own opinions. Why is he any more knowledgeable or inspired then we? Are we supposed to wait on every word he says or can we not think for ourselves? We can know truth for ourselves , what makes him so special? He is just a man as we are."

Are we so different than the Israelites? Look what happened to them. The earth opened and swallowed them up. Are we not taking the same path as they?

God has promised to cleanse His Church before the Second Coming of Christ. In this great sifting will we be found as wheat or tares?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rosa, yours is a passionate call to follow the prophets. However, are you suggesting that when a political opinion of a prophet becomes known, the faithful are bound to comport with that viewpoint, or be cast aside as tares? Isn't that what this string is about--discerning the opinions of prophets from their prophetic words?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We wonder how the Israelites after seeing the great miracles performed on their behalf could so quickly turn to idolatry, sin and faithlessness when Moses tarried in the mountain. I am sure the conversations then were the same as now. "Oh Moses is just a man, not everything he says is necessarily the word of God. He has his own opinions, we have a right to our own opinions. Why is he any more knowledgeable or inspired then we? Are we supposed to wait on every word he says or can we not think for ourselves? We can know truth for ourselves , what makes him so special? He is just a man as we are."

Are we so different than the Israelites? Look what happened to them. The earth opened and swallowed them up. Are we not taking the same path as they?

God has promised to cleanse His Church before the Second Coming of Christ. In this great sifting will we be found as wheat or tares?

Yes, we are in quite a different position than the Israelites under Moses. For starters, we don't live under a theistic form of government. For the Israelites, the kingdom of God and the earthly kingdom were one and the same. That is not a luxury that we are afforded.

Second, Moses was prone to opinion, and even received correction and guidance from other mortals-the chief example being from Jethro.

Third, Moses wasn't perfect, as evidenced when he struck the rock to bring forth water. There is plenty of evidence in the scriptures to indicate that Moses was a an imperfect man who could be reasonably questioned on some matters. But the sins of the Israelites were not administrative. The errors of the Israelites were those where they doubted God's power to deliver them from bondage and starvation. The errors or the Israelites were those where they doubted that God would make good on his promise to deliver them the Promised Land. The Israelites failed when they chose to turn away from the spiritual truths that Moses taught, not so much the temporal implementations.

With regards to Elder Benson, perhaps you should clarify why I should give his political opinions any more weight than I gave Elder Brown's? At the time, Elder Brown was Elder Benson's senior, so wouldn't that make Elder Brown's opinions "closer to God's?" Or do Elder Benson's political statements always trump Elder Brown's because Elder Benson lived long enough to become President of the Church?

I'd very much like to know your explanation about who we should follow when apostles disagree with each other, but only one of them is brash enough to vocalize his opinion. Are we only supposed to consider the words of the most outspoken?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if people are talking past each other here. Maybe i'm the only one, but i don't see any contradiction between the quotes offered by Prodigal_Son, FunkyTown and myself. I thought they rather supported each other. Am i missing something?

I believe the prophets are human and have their own opinions on some things. I do not believe those opinions come into General Conference talks very often. If they do they are few and far between. I choose to focus on the thousands of times they don't as opposed to the few times they may. I've come to think of General Conference as repetition of doctrine.

Furthermore, i've seen many claims but no references. If someone could provide a reference of when an opinion was spouted as doctrine during General Conference, i'd love to look at it in it's full context (as the quote from FunkyTown suggested).

Thanks. That's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elder Dunn was a story teller, not a creator of strange, new doctrines.

And some of those stories (as we know) were entirely fabricated and he was a Seventy. Can you see the point that NOT everything said in General Conference by a General Authority is ALWAYS doctrinal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We wonder how the Israelites after seeing the great miracles performed on their behalf could so quickly turn to idolatry, sin and faithlessness when Moses tarried in the mountain. I am sure the conversations then were the same as now. "Oh Moses is just a man, not everything he says is necessarily the word of God. He has his own opinions, we have a right to our own opinions. Why is he any more knowledgeable or inspired then we? Are we supposed to wait on every word he says or can we not think for ourselves? We can know truth for ourselves , what makes him so special? He is just a man as we are."

Are we so different than the Israelites? Look what happened to them. The earth opened and swallowed them up. Are we not taking the same path as they?

God has promised to cleanse His Church before the Second Coming of Christ. In this great sifting will we be found as wheat or tares?

Amen and Amen, Rosabella...At times the forums resemble an electronic calf....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And some of those stories (as we know) were entirely fabricated and he was a Seventy. Can you see the point that NOT everything said in General Conference by a General Authority is ALWAYS doctrinal?

AND...He was held accountable, confessed, repented and asked for forgiviness...

I'll stack his record and reputation and his Testimony against anyone on these threads...including myself...TYVM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AND...He was held accountable, confessed, repented and asked for forgiviness...

I'll stack his record and reputation and his Testimony against anyone on these threads...including myself...TYVM

You're missing the point (purposely?) The point AGAIN is that just because someone is a General Authority and speaks on General Conference does NOT mean everything said is inspired or doctrinal. That's the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rosa, yours is a passionate call to follow the prophets. However, are you suggesting that when a political opinion of a prophet becomes known, the faithful are bound to comport with that viewpoint, or be cast aside as tares? Isn't that what this string is about--discerning the opinions of prophets from their prophetic words?

I'd very much like to know your explanation about who we should follow when apostles disagree with each other, but only one of them is brash enough to vocalize his opinion. Are we only supposed to consider the words of the most outspoken?

My stance on this thread is primarily to state that what the Brethren say at conference is to be taken not with a grain of salt as many have alluded to, but to recognizes the Brethren when speaking at Conference are wearing the mantle of Prophet, Seer and Revelator. If not at Conference then when are they wearing the mantle? It should be clear and quite obvious that they are speaking as God's mouthpieces at Conference since they speaking to the whole Church and the world proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ and calling all to repentance.

I am not quite sure where these statements come from about the Brethren always disagreeing with each other I find them to be very much in agreement.

I could post pages of quotes where the Brethren have stood on Communism and Socialism and even how it is of the devil and a counterfeit of the United Order. If anyone would like me to post those I will. They only echo President Benson's warnings.

My intent was not to go into the political details but state my complete faith in the Brethren and the fact that if my view differs from theirs I am the one that molds my view to fit what is said at Conference and within the publications of the Church. I am not a blind follower, I seek out to understand the whys but I do not doubt that what they say is correct. I chose this religion. I picked it out of all the worlds religions. I believe it is the Restored Church of Jesus Christ.

I do not pick and choose what I will accept or reject from the counsels of Prophets and Apostles. I have already decided the Church is true and so are the doctrines and I seek out to understand them better. When one feels they need to pick and choose what they deem as correct or incorrect doctrines that the Prophet and Apostles state at conference and in Church publications they are on a very slippery slope to apostasy. Every apostate Mormon dismissed things that the Prophets and Apostles have said. Some then reject the words of other Prophets in the Bible and even the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. Where does it end? We might as well say all the prophets of the bible merely stating there own opinions.

I chose to believe and have a personal testimony and witness that God does call Prophets to guide His flock. We have the choice and the freedom to not listen to their words, but that does not make their words any less true words of God.

Edited by Rosabella
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share