I’m not sure why President Benson is so popular lately. Will at Wheat and Tares asked, Were President Benson’s Words Prophetic? In Sunday’s Salt Lake Tribune, FBI files shed light on Ezra Taft Benson, Ike and the Birch Society. In July, I promised to talk about President Benson’s politics, and I guess the timing is right; I’m finally getting back to that post.
R Gary runs a blog called No Death Before the Fall, and I was surprised that my comment was censored by him. Well, here we can talk about things a bit more freely than R Gary allows. (All comments must be approved by him prior to publishing them, unlike my blog that publishes comments immediately. I’m not afraid of disagreement, unlike R. Gary, so long as it remains civil.)
There are quite a few Latter-day Saints that view President Benson as a political hero. Many love to quote President Benson’s “Constitution hanging by a thread” quote. The Tribune even says that Benson is one of the inspirations for the current Tea Party movement. I think R. Gary is similar to most “Bensonites”. They are intensely conservative, and don’t think anything that the politician Ezra Taft Benson said or did was wrong. Let me quote R Gary’s point of view in this comment:
Benson never saw anything wrong with civil rights, only with some of what was being done in the name of civil rights.
Well, that does seem to fly in the face of the title of Benson’s book, ” Civil Rights, Tool of Communist Deception.” It’s out of print, but you can click on a link at Amazon to see if they can get if for the Kindle.
Let me say that I love President Benson as a prophet. His encouragement to read the Book of Mormon was inspired counsel. But, I’m not a big fan of Ezra Taft Benson the politician (and neither were several of the General Authorities, especially Elder Hugh B. Brown.) I’d like to discuss a few things here that R. Gary doesn’t want to address. There were some really incendiary comments where Benson accused certain people, such as Martin Luther King Jr, of being part of a communist conspiracy. Greg Prince outlines some of these quotes in his David O McKay biography. From page 92, Prince quotes the “Minutes of Council Meeting, November 4, 1965” for the following quote:
Elder Benson said he shared the feeling of the Brethren who had expressed themselves on this question, that he was confident in his own mind from a study he had made of the Negro question that we are only seeing something being carried out today that was planned by the highest councils of the communist party twenty years ago, and that Martin Luther King is an agent, if not a power in the Communist party. He said that this whole thing is being directed and supported and promoted by agents of the Communist party, that the Negroes are being used in this whole question of Civil Rights, integration, etc., and that the NAACP are largely made up of men and women who are affiliated with from one to a dozen communist-front organizations, and he thought they would do anything in their power to embarrass the Church.
So does anyone still believe the Civil Rights movement is a Communist Conspiracy, or that MLK was a communist?
Many people like to trumpet the fact that Ezra Taft Benson served as Secretary of Agriculture from 1953-1961 while simultaneously serving as an apostle. From the Tribune article, it is apparent that Benson thought Eisenhower was soft on communism, which seems startling to me considering the fact that Ike was General Eisenhower prior to becoming President Eisenhower. Additionally, Ike took some pretty serious blowback when Gary Powers plane was shot down while spying over the Soviet Union.
The John Birch Society (named after an American Baptist missionary and U.S. military intelligence officer killed by communist forces in China in August 1945) was founded by Robert Welch in 1958. It was a virulently anti-communist society; Benson was not a member, but was a strong advocate. Prince details many efforts by the society to enlist Benson as a member. President McKay denied every request. I liked Prince’s summary on page 279,
Throughout his long tenure as a General Authority, David O. McKay was consistently opposed to Communism. So, uniformly, were his fellow General Authorities. Ironically, once he had become president of the church, opposition to Communism became a seriously divisive issue among the Mormons. On the one hand, McKay gave his special blessing to Ezra Taft Benson as an opponent of Communism, enabling this strong-willed apostle to propagate his ultra-right-wing views among church members–views that included an endorsement of the John Birch Society, founded in Indianapolis, Indiana on December 9, 1958, by Massachusetts candy maker Robert Welch. On the other hand, McKay also responded to General Authorities who, despite their own opposition to Communism, took exception to the extremism of Benson and the John Birch Society. These included Apostles Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee, as well as Hugh B. Brown and N. Eldon Tanner, McKay’s counselors in the First Presidency. Neither Benson nor his protesting colleagues among the apostles ever achieved a clear upper hand with the aging prophet. As a result, both Latter-day Saints who endorsed the extreme views of the John Birch Society and those who opposed them found reason to believe the prophet was on their side, and the divisive issue remained unresolved until McKay’s death in 1970, when his successor, Joseph Fielding Smith, effectively silenced Benson on the subject.
I admit that I’ve know Benson was tied to the John Birch Society, but I didn’t know much. Prince describes a bit of detail on page 286.
In December 1958, a Massachusetts candy maker, Robert Welch, founded a right-wing extremist organization that took up where Joseph McCarthy left off in attacking Communism to target civil rights and government in general, proclaiming that “the greatest enemy of man is, and always has been, government; and that larger and more extensive that government, the greater the enemy.”37 Welch named the organization after an American soldier, John Birch, who was killed by Chinese Communists ten days after the end of World War II. Within a year, Ezra Taft Benson had a close relationship with one of the society’s national leaders. During 1961 he became personally acquainted with Welch,38 and the two men’s political agendas quickly aligned.
Benson tried to tie Socialism to Communism. On October 1961 General Conference, Benson said (noted on page 287 of Prince’s book),
“Communism is fundamentally socialism. We will never win our fight against communism by making concessions to socialism. Communism and socialism, closely related, must be defeated on principle….No true Latter-day Saint and no true American can be a socialist or a communist or support programs leading in that direction.”42
The conflict between Benson and moderate church leaders, particularly Hugh B. Brown, was tactical rather than strategic. “Certainly all of us are against Communism,” Brown wrote to a personal correspondent in 1961. But that end did not justify certain means, and he was overtly critical of the means of the John Birch Society:
The Church has not taken any stand officially relating to these various groups who nominate themselves as guardians of our freedom, except in the case of the John Birch Society, and we are definitely against their methods….We do not think dividing our own people, casting reflections on our government officials, or calling everybody Communists who do not agree with the political views of certain individuals is the proper way to fight Communism. We think the Church should be a modifying, steadying institution and our leaders, or even members, should not become hysterical or take hasty action.43
Prince describes some discussions between Brown, Benson, and McKay. From page 288,
Brown pointed out one consequence for church members of Benson’s broad-brush attack: “All the people of Scandinavia are under Socialistic governments and certainly are not Communists. Brother Benson’s talk ties them together and makes them equally abominable. If this is true, our people in Europe who are living under a Socialist government are living out of harmony with the Church.”45
Prince continues to discuss differences of opinions regarding the John Birch Society. The Society continued to make extreme statements–even calling former president Eisenhower a “tool of the Communists”. Amazingly, Benson did not refute the statement. From page 295,
Welch had recently published a book, The Politician, in which he accused Dwight Eisenhower of being a tool of the Communists: “On January 20, 1953, Dwight Eisenhower was inaugurated as the thirty-fourth President of the United States. He thus became, automatically and immediately, captain and quarterback of the free-world team, and in the fight against Communism. In our firm opinion he had been planted in that position, by Communists for the purpose of throwing the game.”75 Asked if he agreed with Welch’s statement, Benson sidestepped the question, refused to defend Eisenhower, and stated merely that Eisenhower “supported me in matters of agriculture. In other areas we had differences.”76
Say what? This is mind boggling to me. Democratic Mormon Congressman Ralph Harding from Idaho condemned Benson in Congress a few days later. Harding supported the current Republican President Eisenhower. Prince states that reactions to Harding’s comments were mixed. President Eisenhower sent Harding an appreciative letter. On page 297,
I am grateful for your letter and for the speech that you made in Congress concerning the support and encouragement that the former Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Benson, has allegedly been giving to a Mr. Welch, said to be the founder and leader of the John Birch Society. Your honest and unselfish effort to set the record straight is something that warms my heart.
Frankly, because I rarely read such trash as I understand “The Politician” to be, I had never before read the specific accusations made against me by Robert Welch. But it is good to know that when they were brought to your attention you disregarded all partisan influences to express your honest convictions about the matter. It is indeed difficult to understand how a man, who professes himself to be an anti-Communist, can so brazenly accuse another–whose entire life’s record has been one of refutation of Communist theory, practice and purposes–of Communist tendencies or leanings.
With my best wishes and personal regard,
Dwight D. Eisenhower81
A year later, when L. Ralph Mecham escorted Ernest L. Wilkinson, then running fo the U.S. Senate, to meet with Eisenhower, the former president again brought up Benson’s actions. Long afterward, Mecham recalled:
When I took Ernest Wilkinson up to Gettysburg to visit with Eisenhower, I believe in the spring of 1963, to get Eisenhower’s blessing for Wilkinson in his Senate campaign, Ike was almost wistful. We had a great conversation about many things. In the course of it he asked us quizzically, “Whatever happened to Ezra?” or something like that. The implication was clear. He could not understand, I believe, why a man to whom he had been so loyal had not reciprocated that loyalty but instead had adopted the extremist views of the John Birch Society.82
On page 298, Prince states,
Benson’s actions put McKay in a dilemma. On the one hand, McKay was uncomfortable with the rising tide of criticism directed at Benson, both from church members and from national media. On the other hand, McKay thought highly of Benson, prized his intense loyal support, and shared his deep visceral disdain for Communism. While Benson’s tactics occasionally caused embarrassment and distress for McKay, neither man every questioned the goal.
Less than a month after the Robert Welch dinner McKay called Benson to preside over the European Mission, which meant that Benson would be out of the country (and out of the spotlight) for two years. McKay gave Benson the news privately, and the accounts that both men left of the meeting show that it was upbeat, with no hint that Benson was being “punished” or “exiled.”
…
Regardless of McKay’s intent, however, the move was widely seen as a rebuff to Benson’s political activism, in spite of the fact that four other General Authorities–Mark E. Peterson, N. Eldon Tanner, Marion D. Hanks, and Alvin R. Dyer–had presided over missions in Europe within the previous three years. The same day that McKay met with Benson, one of McKay’s sons expressed such a sentiment in a letter to Congressman Harding: “We shall all be relieved when Elder Benson ceases to resist counsel and returns to a concentration on those affairs befitting his office. It is my feeling that there will be an immediate and noticeable curtailment of his Birch Society activities.”85 Two weeks later, Harding received a letter from Joseph Fielding Smith, president of the Quorum of the Twelve, that conveyed a similar message: “I think it is time for him and for the church and all concerned, if he would settle down to his present duties and let all political matters take their course. He is going to take a mission to Europe in the near future and by the time he returns I hope he will get all the political notions out of his system.”86
Reaction in the press was mixed. The church-owned Deseret News reported the story with a benign headline, “Elder Benson to Direct European Mission,” while the story ran in the Ogden Standard-Examiner under the provocative headline: “Apostle Benson Denies Being Sent into ‘Exile’ for Political Views.”87 The National Observer attempted a balanced perspective over the John Birch Society Campaign”:
The Benson connection with the John Birch Society has created somewhat of a “schism” in the Mormon Church. To a few Mormons, Birch philosophies appear to coincide with church doctrine….But to others, especially those in the liberal Republican and Democratic ranks, the John Birch Society still meant political extremism, and they began asking for Ezra Taft’s scalp….When the elder Benson received his new assignment to Europe many of his critics said the Mormon Church was “shipping out Benson to get rid of him.” But to this charge, the former Secretary of Agriculture declared: “Ridiculous–members of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles are subject to call anywhere in the world at any time. That’s our job, and I welcome the call with all my heart.” President McKay, who called Mr. Benson on this mission also termed the charge ridiculous. He, too, said the mission was a routine church assignment for a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.88
On the eve of his departure for Europe, Benson stirred up yet more controversy. On December 13, he delivered a farewell speech in Logan, a third of which was either a direct quotation or paraphrase from Robert Welch’s manifesto, The Blue Book. Particularly inflammatory was a direct quotation from The Blue Book, that was given wide publicity in a subsequent article by nationally syndicated columnist Drew Pearson.89 Benson charged that the United States government was so infiltrated with Communists that the American people “can no longer resist the Communist conspiracy as free citizens, but can resist Communist tyranny only be themselves becoming conspirators against established government.”90
Prince discusses even more dialogue supporting/excoriating Benson. From page 302,
In May 1963, Louis Midgely, a faculty member in Brigham Young University’s Political Science Department, published a scalding article in the student newspaper that again fanned the flames of controversy:
I have been asked by the Editor at the Daily Universe to make some comments on the John Birch Society. It is difficult to believe that anyone at a university–anyone who reads and thinks–would take such a movement seriously….The man who wrote The Politician did so to inform his followers that former President Eisenhower was a communist. Of course he provides no evidence but the usual collection of garbage. For absurdity, the charge against Ike would have to be placed next to the belief, as far as I know, held by no one, that President McKay is secretly Catholic. What Welch-Birch really wants is to return to a world without taxes, the U.N., labor unions, racial minorities demanding some kind of legal equality; Birchers want a world without fluoridation, the Soviet Union, large cities and emerging nations and all the rest that goes with our world.”98
The most interesting part of the story of Benson was his foray into presidential politics, and the conundrum among the Brethren as to whether to support Benson or popular Michigan governor George Romney, father of Mitt Romney and brother-in-law to then current apostle Marion G. Romney. I hadn’t realized that Benson might actually run for U.S. president. From page 315,
McKay’s attention was deflected momentarily from the John Birch Society by another of Benson’s political initiatives: his proposed candidacy for U.S. president. Months earlier, Benson had presented to McKay a rather nebulous plan whereby he and Senator Strom Thurmond would press the Republican Party for reforms, with the intent of forming a third party if they were not successful. That plan, however, had not included presidential aspirations. In mid-April 1966, Benson met with McKay and described “The 1976 Committee,” to be composed of 100 prominent men from throughout the country, which proposed to nominate Benson for president and Thurmond for vice president. McKay repeated his resistance to forming a third party, to which Benson replied that he also was “opposed to this, but this Committee and movement might result in a realignment between the two political parties.” McKay responded “that this nation is rapidly moving down the road to soul-destroying socialism, and that I hoped and prayed that the efforts of the 1976 Committee would be successful in stemming the tide.” He told Benson “to let them go ahead and wait and see what develops.” Benson presented him with proposed statements that he and McKay might make if the committee moved as planned to propose his nomination, to which McKay agreed. McKay’s statement ended with the words “his doing so has my full approval.”143
…
Benson’s bid for president of the United States ran out of momentum and was discontinued a year before the 1968 political conventions. Still it placed McKay in the awkward position of trying to maintain political neutrality toward one Mormon presidential candidate who genuinely was a serious contender, Michigan Governor George Romney, while at the same time endorsing the candidacy of Benson, who was never regarded as a serious candidate. A lengthy article in the Wall Street Journal noted the dilemma, pointing out that Benson “obtained from David McKay, the 92-year old prophet and president of the Mormon Church, an unpublished letter giving full approval to any campaign that Mr. Benson might make….’What Benson is doing could rend the church,’ says a Western governor, ‘and that would be bad for the West.'”143
…[from page 321]
Benson’s political activism diminished abruptly upon McKay’s death, for he lost his patron and protector. McKay was succeeded by Joseph Fielding Smith and subsequently, Harold B. Lee, both of whom had strongly objected to Benson’s political activities during McKay’s presidency. A comparison of Benson’s talks before and after McKay’s death attests tot he effectiveness in curtailing his political extremism.
I am sure that there are some ardent supporters of President Benson’s politics. What do you make of his accusations about Martin Luther King and President Eisenhower being tools of the Communists?
Mormon Heretic 
MH, great post, I wish I had more time to comment. But thanks for posting that Amazon link to ETB’s publication. I find it interesting that it was published in 1969 (rather late in the civil rights movement, no?) and that the publisher was Deseret Book Co. No wonder so many members take his political views as gospel doctrine. Any idea as to what he had to say in it?
I’ve often wondered whether ETB ever made any trips to Scandinavia. And if he did, what did he think of it? Did he like it here? Did he view us as Soviet sympathizers? Would have been interesting to ask him all these questions. 🙂
Re: “I’m not sure why President Benson is so popular lately.”
Benson isn’t popular with everyone. Prophets never are. And criticism proves more about the critic than it does about the prophet (more here)
His status as Apostle and Prophet mean that his politics will always be with us.
I think this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Thanks.
Any insights into why W&T gave Will a platform?
My father was one of many who served in Europe under Ike during WWII. When ETB called him a communist or suggested he was a communist dupe, my dad just about went ballistic. Had he been active in the church at the time, I know for a fact he neither could nor would have sustained him for anything. To attack a true American hero the way Benson did was, in his mind, unforgivable. In a way, Benson was one of the forerunners of today’s politics of paranoia. It was destructive to the nation and to many, many innocent individuals. Pres. Benson may have been a great church leader, but he left a terrible political legacy behind him, one we are still paying for.]]>
man, the paranoia of that time…almost rivals the paranoia of our time, except that our church leaders today seem to be on more stable ground.
So why does everyone get upset at Benson’s polical activism and right-wing views but no one gets upset that McKay supported Benson’s activities and statements? McKay didn’t forcefully support Benson, but plainly he gave him quiet support behind the scenes and refused to exercise the power of his office as President of the Church to protect the Church’s interests. The fact that Benson’s activism went away when McKay passed away shows, I think, that the real problem was McKay’s approach to presiding over the Church.
This also raises some questions about Prince’s judgement. He wrote a very useful book, but the fact that, in his eyes, Benson could do no right and McKay could do no wrong suggests he didn’t really thinking about the issue very deeply.
Dave, I think that Benson is symptomatic of a larger issue for me. I will not call it a problem because it is what it is. I think McKay kept Benson in line, but I also think he was very sympathetic.
I don’t know if Prince’s book deals with the fact the President Benson wanted to run as the vice presidential candidate on George Wallace’s third party in 1968. President McKay, to his everlasting credit, would not give Benson permission to do so. Having him run on the Wallace ticket would of been an absolute disater for the church.
If you read the biography of President Kimball on his presidency “lengthen your stride” it points out that president Kimball called Brother Benson on the carpet after his “14 principles of following the prophet” that was cited twice in the last conference.
I sustained President Benson a a prophet and leader of the church but never sustained his political and social views. I consider his actiivites from his call as an apostle in 1943 to his leaving his job as secretary of agriculture in 1960 as a net positive for the church, his mission to Europe in the immediate wake of World War II to help the saints in thier physical and spiritual recovery, his service in the cabinet and the positive impact that had on the public image of the church, (he was on the Edward R. Murrow show ,person to person and on national television showed the country what a family home eveing was like.)
His activites and preachingfrom 1960 to his call as church president in in 1985 coupled with is involvement with the Birch Society were a net negative for the church.
I tend to believe that there was an unspken understading between the other brethern and President Benson when he became president of the church that he would cease the public preaching of his right wing views. His emphasis ont he book of mormon amde his serive as president a net positive for the church from 1985 to his death in 1995.
I suppose most of us would be satisfied to have most of our life as net positive in serivce to the church and our fellow men and hope the lord would fogive the times when our actions were a net negative.]]>
fd, I can’t say for certain, but I am pretty sure benson visited scandanavia. as an avowed anti-socialist, I suspect he wasn’t impressed. as for his book about civil rights, I don’t know what was in it, but I don’t think it was very good.
r gary, please defend benson’s statements about mlk and eisenhower as communist tools. you won’t get censored here, unlike your blog and I think that says a lot about the difference between you and me. I am not afraid of freedom of ideas, unlike you.
chris, some of the admins at wheat and tares don’t want to get too liberal and asked for a conservative voice. will answered. once again, we aren’t afraid of censorship, unlike some of the conservative bloggers that shut you down if you don’t agree.
dave, I thought prince highlighted mckay’s weaknesses as well as strengths, so I disagree with you characterization that mckay could do no wrong and benson no right. clearly mckay supported benson and agreed with his politics, but mckay also supported brown, smith, tanner and others who disagreed with benson. a weakness of mckay was that he gave conflicting signals.
it’s true, r gary, MH didn’t remove my comments from that earlier post where I and his friends really got into it over the Islamic cultural center. 🙂
The attack on Eisenhower was despicable. But, it was only the beginning for the John Birch Society and led to it being denounced by conservatives such as Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley.
The Society later turned to claiming the world was secretly run by a cabal bankers, who manipulated events behind the scenes. This conspiracy directed the Communist, Western governments, the media, industry, etc.
Two of key books were Gary Allen’s “None Dare Call It Conspiracy” and Cleon Skousen’s “The Naked Capitalist”. Both plagiarized a book “Tragedy & Hope” by Professor Carrol Quigley which discussed the connections among British elites (ie. private schools, clubs, etc.).
The funny thing is that Quigley never identified such a conspiracy, writing about Skousen: “Skousen’s book is full of misrepresentations and factual errors. He claims that I have written of a conspiracy of the super-rich who are pro-Communist and wish to take over the world and that I’m a member of this group. But I never called it a conspiracy and don’t regard it as such. I’m not an ‘insider’ of these rich persons, although Skousen thinks so. I happen to know some of them and liked them, although I disagreed with some of the things they did before 1940.”
The part that was disturbing about all of this is that bankers really meant Jews (almost all the key string-pullers are Jewish). It was highly, highly anti-Semitic and based upon an earlier fraud “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.
Benson endorsed both books and promoted them (he was on the cover of “None Dare Call It Conspiracy”. Both books continued to be circulated today.
And, the idea of Jews conspiring to run the world continues.
Last week, Glenn Beck was engaged in the latest outgrowth of this thought when he spent a couple days demeaning George Soros, the billionaire liberal activist. I strongly disagree with Soros’ politics but this was beyond the pale.
Beck claimed that Soros had, as a 14 year old in Hungary, gone around and helped collect property that had been confiscated from the Nazis and that he loved doing it. The truth was highly disturbing. Soros, who was Jewish, was saved by his father bribing a local official to claim the boy as his son. The official did collect property. But the joy Soros experienced was not in stealing property from Jews sent to concentration camps, it was in avoiding the Nazis and getting out of hiding for the first time in his teen years. He saw his neighbors and family members drug off to the camps and yet he was able to survive.
Beck went onto to claim that Soros had toppled four governments and now wanted to do the same to the U.S. In truth, Soros had provided funds for U.S. efforts to dispose the communist governments in Czechoslovakia, Ukraine and Georgia as part of the Reagan & Bush Administrations.
These statements led the Jewish Anti-Defamation League to denounce Glenn Beck for anti-Semitic behavior last week.
The John Birch Society, Benson’s support, Cleon Skousen’s books, etc. are political extremism at its worst. None are worthy of the Church or members.
I hear ya chris.
I want to point out one political issue I am in complete agreement with ezra taft benson: farm subsidies. benson was against them, and even made the cover of time magazine for his stand. bravo. farm subsidies are a terrible idea. it is welfare for farmers. it is too bad benson wasn’t able to eliminate them while he was secretary of agriculture.
I want to apologize for all the spelling errors in my post. Thank goodness for spell check when we have it.
Spot on, Steve
I’m conservative but I find Glenn Beck highly disturbing.
The bit Soros was bad.
But, he has a long history of pushing conspiracy — his blackboards claiming this person or group is secretly doing this or that. I’ve been around liberals and they rarely are that clever. They do what they believe openly (and, often, wrongly in my opinion).
Beck loves Cleon Skousen. That is problematic. Skousen was essentially a fraud. He got his start claiming that he had worked for the FBI and investigated Communists. In truth, he had been a low level administrator at the Bureau and never did field work. J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI actually had a memo outlining how Skousen misrepresented his background.
Skousen, as noted above, wrote a book (“The Naked Capitalist”) which was, at best, a cut-and-paste job. At worst, it was plagiarism. But, regardless, the book outlining a global conspiracy was simply made-up.
He spoke repeatedly at conferences with white supremacists and other radicals.
Skousen then formed the Freemen Institute to “study” the Constitution and wrote books like the “5000 Year Leap” pushed by Beck. All of his “historical” work was almost laughable in its errors, flat-out falsehoods, etc.
Glen Beck is a blight on the American political landscape — and that is coming from some one who would hack much of federal spending, eliminate programs, end Obamacare, and was raised reading William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan speeches.
“These statements led the Jewish Anti-Defamation League to denounce Glenn Beck for anti-Semitic behavior last week.”
http://bigjournalism.com/jdunetz/2010/11/15/who-really-throws-around-the-terms-nazi-fascist-the-progressives-of-course/#more-143781
http://www.youtube.com/user/yidwithlid#p/a/u/1/iZqu6jhnZHw
oops, guess they didn’t call mean to call him an anti-Semite after all. He’s Mormon after all. I don’t know very many Mormon who are anti-Semitic, unless you believe they are by default just because there is political disagreements against liberals who happen to be Jewish.
Jettboy does not know many Mormon anti-semites. There must not be any. He probably doesn’t know any Mormon racists. There must not be any of those either.
Chris H, exactly. Since I don’t know any than it becomes you and not me to prove who is or isn’t one. Mormons will have to be innocent until proven guilty because numbers point to the less likely than more likely.
I am pretty sure that most Mormons are like you. That sucks for me.
Here is the the Anti-Defamation League’s original statement: http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5906_52.htm
I stand by my original characterization.
@Dan
Except that instead of Commies our leaders feel it’s the homosexuals that are ruining America as we know it. We aren’t of the woods yet.
Steve,
I am also conservative and I have to agree with a lot of what you are saying about Glen Beck. I have family who considers his words near-prophecy (that is my characterization). They believe that “he is being led by the spirit” and that he may be “one of God’s tools for us.” At least they believe that “he can make mistakes just like the prophets of the church,” so maybe that’s one good thing? I characterize what he does as fear-mongering, however they see what he is doing as warning us, just like the prophets do, so that we are prepared for whatever may happen. After all, “people could easily consider the prophets of the church to be fear mongers, since they tell it like it is and it ain’t always pretty,” right? It’s very frustrating. I wish I knew a better way to handle it.
I’m not sure if you are labeling Beck as an anti-Semite, but if you are, I’m not sure I would agree with that. I didn’t watch much of what he said about Soros last week, as I try to avoid Beck as much as possible, except when a family member sends me a link, so I’m not sure what all was said. What I did hear or read (can’t remember which) I wouldn’t consider to be anti-Semitic. Perhaps a possible mischaracterization of Soros, but certainly not anti-Semitic. But I’m not sure I totally disagree with Beck’s characterization either. Maybe Soros didn’t enjoy what he was doing in confiscating the property of Jews, but he felt no guilt or remorse at all for his part in it. That says something about a person. He’s also expressed that he feels no guilt or remorse for his part in the financial collapse of Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan and Russia. After all, he says, “I am basically there to–to make money. I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of–of what I do.” I think a person can certainly understand the realities of a situation, such as in the case of the Jews’ property being confiscated with or without the help of Soros, but to still not feel any guilt or remorse even under that kind of realization is very inhumane, it seems to me. I think any decent person would still suffer from the pangs of conscience. I am concerned when someone doesn’t feel those normal feelings. Someone like that, to me, is amoral.
Tara,
Here’s the thing to understand about Glenn Beck’s anti-semitic rant against George Soros. Glenn Beck is not a Jew. Soros is a Jew. Glenn Beck used very similar language/imagery/phrasing that previous fascistic organizations used against Jews (like the Birch Society, which blamed the Jews behind banks as the puppetmasters of the world—like the Rothschilds)(and like the Germans in the 1920s and 1930s who also blamed secret puppetmaster Jews for the problems of the world). Who knows, maybe you’re one of those hardcore right-wingers who actually believe there’s a conspiracy out there by ultra rich bankers to dominate the world. Just realize, at the heart of that conspiracy is anti-semitism, because the bankers in question, are Jews. And instead of outright accusing Jews of world domination, you shift it to secret banking cabals. Well, who do you think runs the Rothschild banking cabal? Jews.
Are you assessing this solely from Glenn Beck’s piece? Or do you actually know the real details of Soros’s thoughts on what had occurred when he was a child?
Could it be one reason why he “overthrew” the Hungarian communist party?
Are you falling for this because Soros is liberal and you hate liberals?
Tara,
A couple clarifying point.
First, the governments that Beck claimed Soros had toppled were Communist governments in Eastern Europe.
Second, Soros when he was 14 did go around with a government official who was helping the Nazis deal with Jews. He said he didn’t feel guilt because he wasn’t responsible. Beck went further and claimed he was joyful during this time but that was referring to the fact that he was out of hiding. Soros has never claimed that enjoyed hurting fellow Jews. That was a deception on Beck’s part.
This story summarizes the incident from a Jewish perspective: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-10/glenn-becks-anti-semitic-attack-on-george-soros/
Here is the take of a Jewish blog: http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/focus-u-s-a/glenn-beck-george-soros-and-a-row-about-the-holocaust-1.324381
Pay particular attention to the transcripts from Beck’s show.
And, here is an article from Commentary, the Jewish conservative magazine: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/soros-is-no-good-guy–but-beck-s-holocaust-remarks-are-dead-wrong-15578
@Dan
I understand that Soros is a Jew and Beck isn’t. I also understand the conspiracy theories that you mention. But I don’t believe that everyone who subscribes to such theories are all of the opinion that it is a Jewish conspiracy. Certainly, they may believe that a large number of Jews are involved, but not that it is a movement that is designed to promote a Jewish cause. For some, the conspiracy is strictly about money and power. I know there are some who do believe it is a Jewish conspiracy, but I also know there are some who don’t. So to equate all those kind of conspiracies to anti-Semitism isn’t a fair assessment. I think you have to examine them individually.
And no, I’m not one of those who subscribe to those conspiracies, which I thought I made clear by my disapproval of Beck. I suppose if I did subscribe to those conspiracies, I would really like Beck.
Are you assessing this solely from Glenn Beck’s piece? Or do you actually know the real details of Soros’s thoughts on what had occurred when he was a child?
I hadn’t seen the entire Beck piece and so I was not exposed to that assessment. I only just read about that from one of the links that Steve gave. The assessment I gave was my own.
Are you falling for this because Soros is liberal and you hate liberals?
I don’t hate liberals. I hate liberalism. There is a difference.
Let me be clear. I’m not agreeing with Beck entirely here. I think I was pretty clear in my previous comment that I have a problem with Beck. But just because I have a problem with the man, or any man for that matter, doesn’t mean that everything he says is wrong. There may be merit to some of the things he says. So while Beck may be over the top in his analysis, I hold out the possibility that there is some merit, however small that may be, to what he’s said.
@Steve
First, the governments that Beck claimed Soros had toppled were Communist governments in Eastern Europe.
Yes, but what were his motivations for doing so? Was it just for money, or was he seeking to rid the world of communism to whatever extent he could? What I’m seeing from him is that he is an equal opportunist, and that he might not have any trouble doing that to any country, communist or not, including the US if it meant making him more money. I may not be correct in that, which is why I am asking, what was his motivation?
He said he didn’t feel guilt because he wasn’t responsible.
I understand that he wasn’t responsible. I wouldn’t expect him to feel responsible. I would hope that anyone in that situation would be able to come to the realization that they were not responsible. The thing is, that would be very hard for most people to do, and even if they did have that realization, there still should be some kind of remorse. And when you pair this lack of remorse with the lack of remorse he expressed for the financial collapse of several countries, you have to scratch your head, and that’s what I’m doing. I don’t know enough about the man to make a blanket judgement.
Beck went further and claimed he was joyful during this time but that was referring to the fact that he was out of hiding. Soros has never claimed that enjoyed hurting fellow Jews.
I pointed out that I thought that was probably a mischaracterization by Beck.
r gary,
I am still waiting to hear your response to benson’s statements about eisenhower. (was the heat too high, so you got out of the kitchen?)
Tara —
We are really pretty close, overall.
On the collapse of governments, this was purely and altruistic act by Soros. The Reagan Administration approached folks to finance pro-democracy groups in Eastern Europe. Soros was one of the contributors.
What was odd about this is that Soros had made a considerable fortune in currency speculation and has hurt other countries doing so. But, Beck criticized him for toppling Communist governments in Eastern Europe.
Please be careful on the slander on Soros’ actions as a 14 year old. Read some of the Jewish sources I mentioned above. I can add a bit. Much of the Soros family and associates were murdered by the Nazis. Soros’ dad protected his son by placing him with a low-level government official who, in exchange for a bribe, claimed the boy was his son.
That protected George Soros from the Nazis. The quote about “joy” referenced the fact that he was able to go around with this official in public after being locked up hiding for most of the years from age 10-14. Of course he felt joy being able to get into the sunshine.
Beck’s innuendo on this was plain grotesque. He should apologize. I bet he will not.
P.S. Be careful on the conspiracy stuff. It all — and I mean all of it — has roots in Antisemitism. CFRs, Trilaterialists, Bilderbergers, etc are all codewords for Jews. Let me give an example. Not too long ago, a Mormon blogger wrote about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and claimed it showed that the Federal Reserve was part of a conspiracy. That document was forged by the Czar’s secret police to frame Jews for economic problems in Russia. The blogger thought it was insightful even though it was the key document used to justify pogroms in Russia from 1900 on and was heavily used by Hitler. My point is even if a conspiracy theorist doesn’t hate Jews, the materials they use are rooted in that.
Tara, I need to reiterate that there is much to blast Soros for. But, what Beck did was highly inappropriate.
Tara,
And who is behind the money and power, Tara? In every single case regarding the conspiracy theories bandied about by Bircher types, it goes back to Jewish bankers.
I have. They’re all about the Rothschild bankers (they would be Jews, btw). Cleon Skousen’s secret combination enemies? Jews. Bircher’s secret banker enemies? Jews. German Nazis’ secret enemies? Jews.
There is no merit to what he has to say. Glenn Beck twists reality, Tara. He deserves our harshest scorn. He deserves to be ignominiously whipped in public and banished from our public discourse. That’s what he deserves.
That would be a capitalist, just fyi. It’s funny how a true fighter against communism is no longer a hero these days.
But you’ve made blanket judgments of him because he’s liberal, Tara.
Steve,
Exactly.
I just posted the following comment on R Gary’s blog. Does anyone think he will publish it, or will it be censored?
————–
What do you have to say about Benson’s statement to J. Edgar Hoover?
“In my study of the [communist] conspiracy, which I am sure is weak compared with your own, the consequences of Mr. Eisenhower’s actions in dealing with the communists have been tragic,” Benson wrote.
See the 4th paragraph in this article from the SL Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/50349153-78/benson-hoover-fbi-society.html.csp
Gary has posted his response. Essentially he quoted Benson’s statement that he had read Welch’s book, supported his son serving in the John Birch Society and he thought it was a key actor in the fight against international communism/socialism.
I’m going to tackle the point directly. Benson’s support of Robert Welch and his sick claims about Eisenhower was extraordinarily wrong.
I’ve read The Politician. It’s central thesis is that Communism strengthened during the Eisenhower Presidency and claimed that the reason had to be that Eisenhower was a) A Communist agent or b) a willing dupe.
Both claims were — and are — silly. I need to note, again, that Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley and a host of other conservative leaders flat out contradicted Welch because of this and “read him out” of the conservative movement.
Here is the definitive treatment on the organization by William F. Buckley and the leading U.S. conservative publication, National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/nroriginals/?q=YzM0ODg0YTEyNzhkM2RjNGQzOTY5ODI5MWVkZjk3NWI=&w=MQ==
It is true that during the Eisenhower Administration that the Communism spread worldwide. But, to blame that on President Eisenhower is idiocy. The Communists during this period were aggressive but that doesn’t show complicity. In fact, the facts show the opposite. He was the guy who confronted them around the world by building America’s nuclear forces, rebuilding our conventional forces after the post-WWII drawdown and unleashed the CIA. Post World War II the Soviets and their allies were on the March. In the U.S., Eisenhower’s FBI caught Communist spies and helped our foreign allies smoke out numerous enemy agents. Eisenhower supported Israel against the Arabs (who were backed by the Soviets), engaged so-called liberation forces in South & Central America and Africa, and battled the Soviets in the U.N.
This smear was utterly beyond the pale. It was based on absolutely nothing except a bald claim by an idiot candy maker (Welch).
Benson’s support of Welch plain nutty, wrongheaded and the damage continues until today.
I just quickly reread part of National Review’s treatment of the John Birch Society. Below are some quotes from the magazine, American Opinion, that show how off base the society is:
. . .
Civil Rights? Selma: “. . . a horde of termites from all over the country, led by half-crazed ministers and professors, swarmed over the small town of Selma, Alabama, in a typical demonstration of Communist activism.” The Civil Rights Act of 1964: “[It was a] part of the pattern for the Communist takeover of America.” In general: “. . . [it is] an obvious fact that the whole racial agitation was designed and is directed by the international Communist conspiracy.”
. . .
The death of Kennedy? “. . . The Communists were able to exploit their assassination of Kennedy.” (“It is gossip in Washington that Earl Warren succeeded in destroying all copies of the pertinent part of a motion picture film which showed who escorted Jack Ruby through the police lines so that he could silence Oswald.”)
The Federal Government? “Communist domination of many of the departments of the Federal Government is too obvious to require much comment.”
Foreign policy? “As for Vietnam, one thing is certain: no action really detrimental to the Communists is conceivable or even possible, so long as Rusk, McNamara, and Katzenbach remain in power.”
The Dominican Republic? “. . . the policy that began with the landing of Marines in Santo Domingo [came] under the direction of what often seems to be Communist headquarters in Washington — officially called the State Department.”
Summary? “The important point is that Americans can expect only defeat so long as they are commanded by their enemies.”
. . .
This is the opinions that Benson was backing. There is no valid defense.
Here is the second part of National Review’s expose of the John Birch Society: http://www.nationalreview.com/nroriginals/?q=NTllNmI2NTY1NWI4Y2YxYWQ5NmNhYThkN2Q0MzdiZTk=&w=MA==
On November 23, 1964, J. Edgar Hoover sent a letter to Robert Welch, head of the John Birch Society, in response to an inquiry from Mr. Welch about a press conference of Mr. Hoover:
“I further states that I have no respect for the head of the Society. This was based upon your action in linking the names of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the late John Foster Dulles, and former CIA Director Allen Dulles with communism.”
Welch was a Class A-1 kook.
Typo (good grief, I’ve had a lot): “I further stated”
how exactly do you respond to someone who claims that Americans are commanded by their enemies? What’s left except to, well, kill your enemies, even if they are your commanders? I mean, WTF?!??!?!
Steve, I really didn’t know much about the John Birch Society until reading the Prince book. Wow. I enjoyed the BYU editorial: “It is difficult to believe that anyone at a university–anyone who reads and thinks–would take such a movement seriously.” R Gary is a piece of work. I can’t believe he seems to endorse Benson’s attacks on Eisenhower. Wow.
Dan, I have always found the acronym WTF to be too vulgar for my tastes, and I’d prefer it if commenters don’t use it. Thanks. But I agree with your comment.
I’m curious to see if my comment on R Gary’s blog gets censored. (He seems much too scared to debate this unless he controls the mic.) I said:
R Gary, I never said Ezra Taft Benson was a tool of the adversary, nor do I think that. You’re making huge assumptions here. If you want to know what I think, ask me, don’t make assumptions.
My question was directed to you: Do you (R. Gary) think Eisenhower was a tool of the Communists? (I know what Benson thought, because I read the words he wrote.)
I had forgotten about the quotes in the John Birch Society magazine.
The one that has me the most upset is the one about Selma, Alabama:”. . . a horde of termites from all over the country, led by half-crazed ministers and professors, swarmed over the small town of Selma, Alabama, in a typical demonstration of Communist activism.”
That was referring to the March 7, 1965 march where 600 perfectly peaceful civil rights activists were attacked by George Wallace’s state troopers with nightsticks, tear gas and charged by horseback-mounted police. Awful.
And, the John Birch Society called the marchers “termites”. Ugh.
Benson was flat out wrong in his support of the Society, Welch and the characterization of Eisenhower. End of story.
no problem MH, I won’t use it again.
I think that Benson’s statements about MLK and Ike tell a story that many faithful LDS do not want to hear. Couple that with his willingness to run on a George Wallace ticket and nothing more needs to be said.
No need to sugar coat any statements about Benson simply because he outlived all the other Apostles before him.
His views were flat out wrong and not in harmony with anyone claiming to represent a Christ-based faith.
Tara,
A word of advise. If you don’t know all the facts, never give Beck the benefit of the doubt. That is not a slam either. You have admitted to not knowing all the facts, and I think you know more about this topic than I do. I just think Beck is a sensationalist creep who lacks ethics. In the case of Beck, I disbelieve him first unless I can prove otherwise.
I got censored again by r gary, but I can’t tell which one of the comment policies I broke on his blog. apparently my question was too tough to handle when I actually asked his opinion. maybe r gary disagreed with benson on Ike, but didn’t want to admit it? who knows. he is too chicken to answer the question and hides behind censorship. that says a lot about him.
r gary, tell the whole story about benson’s politics. the Ike stuff is an important episode and shouldn’t be censored away.
benson can be wrong about ike without being a tool of the adversary. certainly joseph fielding smith and harold b lee believed benson was a good man and not a tool of the adversary. you should follow those 2 propets examples, not the one calling ike a communist tool. that is ridiculous.
you control the mic on your blog, but if you’re too chicken to engage in true debate, you deserve the lumps you’re taking here. your censorship has more similarities to dictatorial regimes (like the crusades, hitler, stalin, or mao) than the freedom you pretend that benson was promoting. the politics of benson were inspired by fear, not love of god. yet god still was able to use benson as a tool for good, as evidenced by his wonderful emphasis on the book of mormon while prophet. that is a great lesson for all of us.
and for the record, benson’s position on farm subsidies was 100% correct. I wish farm subsidies could be eliminated now. that is one political issue I completely agree with benson on. so benson wasn’t wrong about everything. but he was wrong about ike and mlk.
@Bishop Rick
I haven’t given Beck the benefit of the doubt. I agree that he is too sensationalist and I don’t believe anything I hear from him unless I can confirm it. But I don’t think he is a creep. He’s doing what he thinks is right, regardless of how misguided he may be. I only said that I don’t believe that just because I or anyone else have negative opinions of him or his tactics doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have anything of merit to say.
@mh
It sounds like you are being a bit harsh with R Gary and it is not reflecting well on you, in my opinion. You may not like his censorship, but it is his right to do it without being compared to Hitler or Stalin. After all, he isn’t manipulating an entire country or brutally killing people in the process. Also, you have the option to avoid his blog if you don’t like how he runs it. No one is going to force you to stay. And please, let’s not compare freedom of speech to private censorship.
The name calling and the putting words in his mouth is sounding very childish too. You might try finding out why he chooses to censor instead of assuming that it’s out of fear. He may just want to preserve a certain tone so that it doesn’t become contentious. I can understand and see no problem with that. Not everyone shares, or should feel compelled to share, your views about censorship on their own blogs. You need to respect his choices without acting like a dictator yourself.
@Tara
Tara,
My sense with Gary is that he fills strongly about certain things (no evolution, Benson’s political views). He will lay out a quote from a general authority. If anyone disagrees with the particular general authority’s view, he shuts the dissenter down, usually pretending that nothing had been said.
The unfortunate part with that approach is that it allows flawed views to circulate year after year. I have neighbors who think Benson on politics is the equivalent of Deity. I suspect many have such folks in their ward. I personally think that is why some of the deeply flawed Benson stuff still goes around — because folks are afraid to admit that he made some significant mistakes when he embraced the John Birch Society and its fanatical leader.
Hopefully the discussion above will keep folks from falling for this stuff.
Argh . . Not fills . . “feels”.
@mh
I’m curious why the Ike/Benson episode is so important. So he disagreed with Ike. What’s the big deal? He thought Ike was being too helpful to the communist cause (even if perhaps unintentionally). Maybe he was wrong about that, but why is it so important? Maybe I’m missing something, because I’m certainly not feeling the concern over this issue that you apparently do.
Honestly, I’m fairly neutral here. I want to side with Benson, but at the same time I understand that he was probably over the top with his politics, so it’s really hard to take him seriously. As a prophet though, I have a hard time completely discounting everything he said politically just because he may have been over the top. As with Beck, maybe there’s a lot of sensationalism that we have to wade through, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any merit there.