Debunking the Progressive Lie About Ezra Taft Benson!
On my Facebook page, I regularly share quotes and conference talks from apostles, prophets, and other Church leaders on a wide variety of topics. But I realized something, whenever I shared anything from Ezra Taft Benson I got hate mail demanding I stop sharing his talks or quotes, saying something along the lines of, "Don't you know he was chastised by the First Presidency for denouncing Socialism? You should not share his talks/quotes."
At first, I was amused by their comments, as the guilty always take the truth to be hard, and that it was simply people rejecting the parts of the gospel that disagree with their political ideology. But then I kept getting the comments/messages and I realized that this lie is far more believed than I thought. So, I decided I'd debunk this progressive lie once and for all. The claim? That socialism is OK. Ezra Taft Benson was a rogue. AND that when he denounced it that he got in trouble for talking about it.
This lie rests on four claims that rely on ignorance, half-truths, or bald-faced lies to be believed. Once each claim is resolved, this lie falls apart exposing those who repeat it as either ignorant or nefarious.
1st. Ignorance of how the official Conference Reports are created.
The Claim: "The Church editing of Ezra Taft Benson's conference addresses is proof he was rogue"
The Explanation: This is a classic example of a common tactic of Satan. Satan loves using something that is factually accurate but then manipulating it in such a way that it leads to a false conclusion. So let's break it down. Were some of Ezra Taft Benson's conference talks edited? Yes. They were. But you need to understand what that means, and to understand that, you need to understand the correlating council of the Church.
The Church has a correlating council whose membership includes the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. One of the jobs of this council is to approve the conference report. The Conference report is the official record of the General Conference. It is basically the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve's way of giving their stamp of approval for each talk. If there is something they feel needs to be edited (misspeak, something that is not correct, or simply something they don't think should be published), then they invite the speaker to edit the talk before the official release of the Conference Report.
Nowadays, most talks are written before General Conference, reviewed, and approved before Conference even starts. Because of this, most members are not aware that talks, historically, have been edited. I have personally listened to all the recordings of General Conference (1969-2021), over 3600+ talks, I can't tell you how many times I have heard AMAZING stories or quotes only to find that the text associated with them is missing or heavily edited. This includes Ezra Taft Benson, but also Thomas S. Monson, Boyd K. Packer, and others. In the case of one talk, they removed it completely from the conference report due to its sensitive nature, but then printed it as a pamphlet to be given to bishops. I highlight this to point out that we do NOT know the reasons for edits; so don't assume.
With the knowledge of understanding how the correlating council compiles the official conference report, and how the editing of talks was routine, you are prepared to debunk the first pillar of ignorance that this lie rests upon. When you hear this claim that Ezra Taft Benson's talks were edited as proof he was rogue, you will know it is NOT true.
2nd. Ignorance of Church History.
The Claim: "Only Ezra Taft Benson talked about Socialism. Everyone else talked about Communism"
The Explanation: It is true that Benson talked a lot about Socialism. But it is false that he was the only apostle who did. In fact, understanding the above information about the correlating council means that the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 approved of Ezra Taft Benson's talks as recorded in the conference reports. Furthermore, there are multiple talks by others like Marion G. Romney, David O. McKay, and J. Reuben Clark Jr. absolutely undressing and attacking Socialism. There is even a First Presidency Statement (and we know how much progressives love those lately) denouncing Socialism!
A simple search on Conference Corpus shows the word "Socialism" being used over 100 times and as far back as 1850! With an additional 17 for "Socialist" (with 329 for "Communism" and another 138 for "Communist") and this is just the OFFICAL Conference Reports, there are over 9 pages of results from a search of "Socialism" on the Church's official website with 4 more pages if one searches "Socialist" For the abovementioned quotes including the First Presidency Statement see this amazing collection of quotes:
3rd. Those were Cold War Era statements and don't apply anymore.
The Claim: "Because these quotes were given during the Cold War, they don't apply anymore and can be ignored"
The Explanation: Yes, many of these statements were given during the Cold War, and some even mention current events and the USSR/Russia. But, it is important to realize that many quotes, though they were given during the Cold War, are not about the Cold War. In many of these talks, they go on to explain the doctrinal reasons why Socialism or Communism are bad. For example, this talk Marion G. Romney gave at BYU. It compares Socialism to the United Order and goes over the doctrines of how the two are incompatible, he details and I quote:
If, in the meantime [while we wait for the Lord to command us to live the United Order again], socialism takes over in America, it will have to be displaced, if need be, by the power of God, because the United Order can never function under socialism or “the welfare state,” for the good and sufficient reason that the principles upon which socialism and the United Order are conceived and operated are inimical.
President Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, April 1966
This talk thoroughly denounced and undressed socialism and exposed it as being against the gospel. The Prophet loved it so much he asked him to give it again in General Conference, which he did a few weeks later. For the full talk see the below video:
4th. They have not been repeated recently, and therefore don't apply anymore.
The Claim: "That was 40 years ago, no one has said it recently"
The Explanation: This claim has been used to attack not just the statements of Ezra Taft Benson and other dead prophets, but almost anything not talked about in the last year or two. It stems from a false thesis: because something is old it is no longer applicable.
Let's just talk about the thesis of their argument for a second. This thesis, that would throw away 40-year-old quotes from an apostle, by necessity would also justify throwing away any passage from any prophet ancient or modern that has not been repeated lately. Could you imagine this thesis being used and applied to the Book of Mormon? Doctrine and Covenants? Or the Bible? It could be used to discard everything! "Oh 2nd Nephi might be great, but that was not repeated by 4th Nephi, or in the D&C, it is not valid anymore."
The entire argument sounds illogical. Not only that, Elder Bednar denounced this thesis just last year in General Conference when he said, "Some Church members opine that emergency plans and supplies, food storage, and 72-hour kits must not be important anymore because the Brethren have not spoken recently and extensively about these and related topics in general conference. But repeated admonitions to prepare have been proclaimed by leaders of the Church for decades. The consistency of prophetic counsel over time creates a powerful concert of clarity and a warning volume far louder than solo performances can ever produce."
It does not matter if the statement was given in 2002, 1982, 1942, or even 600 BC. We adhere to the most recent revelations on the topic as the authority still.
Therefore What?
Now that you know these four things, you are able to rebut the lie about Ezra Taft Benson. Not only that, you are prepared to handle other attacks and anti regarding statements from Church leaders and have confidence in the quotes you share. For more on this topic of authoritative quotes see:
Thank you for this clarification. I have a grandson, who is a non-member who brought this up when he was attending a Bible College in Texas a few years ago.
I am glad everything John the Revelator saw in a vision was written down for these last days.
Thank you. This was really wonderful. I’m a 60s child and I remember these prophets and apostles well… I miss them. The Church misses them too.
If the 4th item were true, then everything from every prophet, including Joseph Smith, must be discarded because they haven't been repeated lately. We have been told repeatedly since 1930s to prepare for troubled time, whether, family wise or Church wise, how many times must we be warned to prepare? If the members of the Church has prepared by now, they never will be. Its like the 10 Virgins parable. Five were prepared and 5 weren't. Those that were went into the wedding feast, while the others were left out. With all the events happening in our country and the world, if the members aren't prepared or preparing, those like the 5 foolish virgins will be left out in the cold. I like President Benson, because like myself, he was outspoken was direct in his comments and the truth that he told us. We must remember that the truth is the truth, whether it came in 600 BC, 33 AD, 1830, 1940, 1966 or 2021. The truth doesn't change with age.
I appreciate your insights on these different topics. Keep up this work.
While I know we have members of the Church who lean way left/progressive, I myself have not come across this attack on those you mentioned.
I’m interested to know who you have come across. Some who you know personally or mostly from posts/comments on your posts? Either way I’m happy you’re out there defending our Prophet’s!
This is a great article! Thank you for the time you put into reading and posting this material. It’s so unfortunate that so many members of the church fall for the bumper sticker slogs of the left that sound good, but only ever hurt people.
Hello. I am ignorant. Are you speaking of members of the church who are politically progressive? Or is there a group that are progressive regarding the gospel? And is that ok, or is there a hard stance against progressivism in the church? I am seriously asking for information, without any agenda… Thank you.
Normally it is those who are progressive politically who are upset that the Church is not, so they try to slander the foundations in hopes of getting it changed. Whereas this quote refers to liberals, I think that that term today is too broad as there are many good liberal Latter-day Saints and that the term progressive is more fitting as to what they are talking about. So when I read it I replace liberal with progressive.
"There are those in the Church who speak of themselves as liberals who, as one of our former presidents has said, “read by the lamp of their own conceit.” (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine [Deseret Book Co., 1939], p. 373.) One time I asked one of our Church educational leaders how he would define a liberal in the Church. He answered in one sentence: “A liberal in the Church is merely one who does not have a testimony.”
Dr. John A. Widtsoe, former member of the Quorum of the Twelve and an eminent educator, made a statement relative to this word liberal as it applied to those in the Church. This is what he said:
“The self-called liberal [in the Church] is usually one who has broken with the fundamental principles or guiding philosophy of the group to which he belongs. … He claims membership in an organization but does not believe in its basic concepts; and sets out to reform it by changing its foundations. …
“It is folly to speak of a liberal religion, if that religion claims that it rests upon unchanging truth.”
And then Dr. Widtsoe concludes his statement with this: “It is well to beware of people who go about proclaiming that they are or their churches are liberal. The probabilities are that the structure of their faith is built on sand and will not withstand the storms of truth.” (“Evidences and Reconciliations,” Improvement Era, vol. 44 [1941], p. 609.)"
Harold B. Lee
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1971/06/the-iron-rod?lang=eng
@Jeremy, and you're convinced by your own delusion that the liberals he meant then are the same as now? Why? Why are you against progress in the church? Why do you live by the lamp of your own deceit and seeking other conservative apostates to follow you rather than living prophets? Are you upset that President Nelson has more of a following than you?
Triggered much? Let's break it down.
"you’re convinced by your own delusion that the liberals he meant then are the same as now? Why?"
The answer to that one is simple to those who actually listened to the talks, they did not simply say "LABEL X is bad! Don't be LABEL X" They said liberals are bad BECAUSE and then explained what they were doing that was wrong. You are correct, the term liberal has changed, in my opinion, based on the REASONS listed in the context of the quotes denouncing liberals I think it is more properly applied to progressives today than liberals.
"Why are you against progress in the church?"
Progress in the Church? Surely you mean changing the doctrines. Truly Harold B. Lee spoke about you. He denounced progressivism when he taught,
"Why do you live by the lamp of your own deceit and seeking other conservative apostates to follow you rather than living prophets?"
No idea what you are talking about. I am following the prophets. If anyone is walking by the lamp of their own conceit it is those who seek to "make progress" in the Church like you.
"Are you upset that President Nelson has more of a following than you?"
Why would I be mad? He is the prophet of the Lord. I am merely a member missionary. If I had more followers than the prophet then that would be a red flag that something is wrong.
You spout a lot of angry rhetoric but, like more progressives, it is full of doctrinal ignorance and nonsensicalness. Have a good day!
@Jeremy, There is a big difference in being liberal in the church and being politically liberal. If we listen to what is being taught by our current general authorities, the stand of the church is that there are positives on both sides of the political aisle. It is also important to note that the First Presidency was concerned about the talks given by Elder Benson, particularly in the 1960s. He was asked to stay away from politics in his church talks. See David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism. That said, Ezra Taft Benson was a great man and a marvelous prophet of God.
Hey R. Ross.
I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with being liberal, I think that the true danger is progressivism. It is the cancer that eats away from the inside. There were many, and are many, faithful liberal leaning memebrs. Jesus is neither a democrat, nor a republican (See https://mylifebygogogoff.com/2021/01/jesus-is-not-a-republican-or-a-democrat-so-stop-trying-to-make-him-one.html).
That being said, I do think that this idea that Benson was overly political in his conference talks is born in ignorance. Having listened to all the talks back to 1935, there were many FAR FAR FAR more political than Benson. Outside of conference he may have stepped over the line, but inside, his messaging was extremely consistent with the other prophets and apostles talks I have read.
Regarding #4 as your quote from Elder Bednar touched on, there was a time of warning while the wheat and tares grew together, but now is the drying time, making ready for the harvest. Those who will listen have listened. Those who only want to pick and choose what they will listen to will be left hanging when the full harvest comes. And they will receive less and less of the word until they know nothing of the word.
It is true that we have heard very little condemnation of socialism or communism for quite some time from general authorities. To me the obvious reason is the effort to get other countries to allow the church to function as much as possible in those countries. One of the main arguments the church makes to leaders of countries hesitant to allow the church full functionality is that we support the existing government structure, whatever it might be. It is easy to see why speaking negatively of any governmental or political structure would be counterproductive at this point in history. God knows how to chose his battles.
@Alan Bylund, this is simply nonsense. There are many countries that have legalized, and even go so far as to support, gay marriage among its citizens, yet the Church does not remain silent on the subject, despite it being very likely to cause even more upset than our position on Socialism.
In 2018 conference President Nelson as an inspired prophet of god said using M-rmon instead of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a major victory for Satan and Ezra T Benson wasn’t inspired because he used the terms LDS, the church, and Mormon repeatedly. Ezra even sang I am a M-rmon Boy in General Conference. Both can’t be inspired to say the opposite!
What??? What are you talking about. If we rejected the council of President Nelson and still use the name Mormon that is a victory for Satan. He did not say others in the past were bad for saying it.
“Because these quotes were given during the Cold War, they don’t apply anymore and can be ignored”
Oh my, this is Dennis Lange's (a rabid leftist radical who has been in my FB groups for ten years running) stock answer to this same question. Anything said by any of the Brethren negative about socialism/communism is "a relic of the Cold War." Never mind that much of what has been said about it was said in the 1930s before WWII had even begun. Never mind as well that the church's view of socialism or egalitarian collectivism of any kind has been perennial and unanimous since anything has ever been stated about it by the church.
Benson is a rock of offence and stone of stumbling for "progmo" members.
I greatly appreciate you writing this article and including your sources. Timely and sorely needed. I thank you deeply, as a young millennial who is seeing his generation trying to ruin the gospel of Jesus Christ to justify their awful political ideas, and as an educator seeing the school system eagerly doing the same.