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 
Tara (re #50): I hope you don’t mind that I reprinted your well stated comment on my own blog (here). Your point of view is refreshing in this context and much appreciated.
@Steve
I looked over his blog and I didn’t get the sense that he didn’t allow for any disagreement. I saw plenty of it in the few posts that I checked. In fact, I don’t think I saw any agreement with him. If there was any, it was outnumbered by those who disagree.
As far as allowing stuff to circulate, I think there are plenty of blogs that can counter R Gary’s, but then again, there are so many falsehoods circulating on the internet with no way to sufficiently counter them all. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with R Gary’s views, btw. Just making an observation.
Tara,
The issue is not the Benson & The Birchers disagreed with Eisenhower’s policies as President.
It is this view, expressed in the book The Politician by Robert Welch the founder of the John Birch Society which Benson specifically agreed with:
Page 266: “For the sake of honesty, however, I want to confess here my own conviction that Eisenhower’s motivation is more ideological than opportunistic. Or, to put it bluntly, I personally think that he has been sympathetic to ultimate Communist aims, realistically willing to use Communist means to help them achieve their goals, knowingly accepting and abiding by Communist orders, and consciously serving the Communist conspiracy, for all of his adult life.”
The blunt point was the Welch & Benson claimed the President Eisenhower, the hero of D-Day and the liberator of Europe was a willing conspirator of the Communists. This attack hurt the President to the core. It was utterly evil and grotesque.
That is why the harshness.
Tara,
You are not seeing what was censored.
@R. Gary
Well, I didn’t expect that, but that’s fine. I do think, however, that it would be nice for you to offer MH an explanation, even if in private, as to why you’ve chosen to censor him. I can understand why he might be frustrated even if I disagree with how he’s chosen to handle it.
@Steve
I’d be interested to know the reasons behind those beliefs. I’d bet that even if his reasons were ultimately wrong, he had what he considered to be good ones and that he wasn’t making baseless accusations. I don’t think being a hero or a liberator automatically makes you immune from wrong-doing.
Tara,
I’m going to be really harsh.
Robert Welch had not one ounce of proof. Not one. He slandered President Eisenhower, General George C. Marshall (behind our forces in the Pacific & Europe), Allen Dulles (head of the CIA) and literally dozens and dozens of others. With not one shred of evidence. Not one. Ever.
Welch was not a historian or a researcher. He used the Hitler method of making bizarre, over-the-top claims and then hiding behind undisclosed, secret evidence. The man was a CANDY MAKER and yet he had these willing minions, including Elder Benson.
Above, I gave you the quote from J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, who was named by Robert Welch & Benson as the leading U.S. expert on Communism in a letter to Welch: “I further stated 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.” This was after Welch wrote Hoover after being denounced by him in a press conference.
The FBI wrote in detail about Robert Welch and his methods. They never found one single incidence where they named a true communist agent. They just slandered fellow Americans.
President Hugh B. Brown who was in the First Presidency at the time this was happening said the following: “[B]eware of those who feel obliged to prove their own patriotism by calling into question the loyalty of others.” Brown and the First Presidency met to discuss the John Birch Society and he noted afterwards: “We agreed that we had done the right thing in letting the members of the Church and the world know that the Church does not in any way endorse or subscribe to the John Birch Society.”
Robert Welch was an evil man. The John Birch Society was/is a plague on the body politic. Ezra Taft Benson was wrong to be involved with these folks and support their beliefs.
Tara re: “I do think, however, that it would be nice for you to offer MH an explanation, even if in private, as to why you’ve chosen to censor him.”
I tried to do that last night (here). But you pretty much captured the essence of it when you said; “He may just want to preserve a certain tone so that it doesn’t become contentious.” I think that sums it up quite well. Thank you again for your tempering influence on this discussion.
@Steve
What was so harsh about that? I hope that wasn’t sarcasm directed at me because of my comment to MH.
So in other words, Welch was the modern-day equivalent of an Alex Jones?
I would still be curious to know what led Pres. Benson to subscribe to these beliefs. I doubt he did it casually. I’m not saying I believe he was correct in what he did, lest I be misunderstood yet again here. I just don’t feel comfortable describing it as evil.
@R. Gary
I only meant that you might be more specific as it seems he didn’t see anything wrong with his comment and seemed to feel that he was abiding by your rules. However, that is up to your discretion. I am not privy to all the exchanges that have occurred, as Steve has pointed out to me.
Tara — Good points.
Benson said that his boy joined the Birchers and that he read their material and liked them.
He got deeply involved in far, far right politics doing speeches, giving blurbs for books, petitioning President McKay to have Welch speak at general conference, etc.
What I have never understood is why he didn’t realize how nutty it was. I’ve wondered how much of a role his boy played in all this.
@Steve
Well, I got briefly sucked into that kind of mindset a couple years ago, and you don’t do it because it sounds nutty. You do it because it makes a lot of sense. I have to admit, conspiracists are very good at weaving tales. They can’t be proven or disproven, which is probably why they’ve been able to survive and go through so many incarnations.
I think it is especially appealing to church members because of all the warnings about secret combinations in the Book of Mormon. As members, we know there are secret combinations in our day because we’ve been warned of them. It’s a very natural fit. The problem is trying to discern what the secret combinations may be. I try really hard not to be fearful, and paranoid, and suspicious of everyone and everything, because I think that it is contrary to the teachings of the church. Others view their subscribing to conspiracy as looking for signs. I call it prophesying.
ah, Alex Jones. Modern equivalent of Robert Welch. Tara, why do you think someone like Alex Jones has anything of value to say?
Let’s review R Gary’s comment policies and my actual comment that got censored.
——–
R Gray, 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.)
———–
Ok, I didn’t break rule #1.
1. Think about, explore, and consider various sides of many questions “without looking for flaws in the Church or its leaders.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, June 1996, p. 6.)
Ok, I asked R Gary for his opinion about Eisenhower. The question I asked didn’t address flaws of church leaders. R Gary asks us to “Think about, explore, and consider various sides of many questions”. Censorship only considers ONE side, not various sides. R Gary broke the rule, not me.
R Gary asked if I had read Benson’s writings, in Benson’s own words, and I replied that I had. No rule broken.
2. Politely disagree without being disagreeable. Was I impolite with my censored comment on R Gary’s blog? Absolutely not.
3. Acknowledge the sincerity of those whose positions we cannot accept. My comment didn’t really address anybody’s sincerity. No rule broken.
But let me address the issue. I believe Benson was sincerely wrong, I believe R Gary is sincerely wrong. I am sincere in my beliefs, but my comment didn’t address sincerity. I adhered to his rule.
4. Speak of principles rather than personalities. I didn’t address anyone’s personality in the censored comment. I asked an opinion. I stated that R Gary mischaracterized my opinion. I didn’t say anything inflammatory in the censored comment.
R Gary, which one of your rules did I break? I don’t see a violation here.
When a person censors comments, then the rest of the world doesn’t get to hear both sides of the story. R Gary, Tara thinks I was harsh. I didn’t censor her. See the difference?
I could get upset and censor Tara’s comment. You are not as generous with different points of view as I am.
You don’t follow your own rule #1: Think about, explore, and consider various sides of many questions. You censor those that disagree with you, so your blog is an echo chamber, allowing only those who agree with you. Clearly you follow the second part of rule #1 when you talk about issues “without looking for flaws in the Church or its leaders.” However, R Gary, you only want people to consider your opinion on your blog. You do not want to consider “various sides of many questions” or you wouldn’t censor people at the drop of a hat.
One of the founding fathers proclaimed that he would defend the rights of someone to speak even if he vehemently disagreed with the opinion expressed. R Gary, you should defend those rights of freedom on your blog, instead of censoring them. I followed your rules better than you do. Allow various opinions. I wasn’t disagreeable there. I got disagreeable here because your censorship policy flies in the face of freedom of speech that the founding fathers proclaimed. Yes, I’ve been disagreeable here. Open up your blog, or respond to my question about Ike here. You’re no friend of freedom when you hide behind censorship.
@Tara
A bit of irony . . the John Birch Society is a secret society.
If you ever want to read something interesting, get a copy of The Blue Book. It is their bible how to organize. They are set up like communist cells with local organizations that really don’t know about other cells. The Birch plan is to fight the communist using their own techniques.
They do some public things, mostly guest speeches on occasion. But, their primary means is to infiltrate other groups or set up sham groups. You rarely see Birchers doing anything openly. Many of the tea party groups are actually John Birch fronts (not all).
In fact, I would think it fair to say that the John Birch Society is the largest single secret society in the U.S. today in the area of politics.
Dan, I don’t think you understood what I was saying. I think perhaps that if you weren’t focusing on what’s wrong with what I say, you might occasionally find agreement with me.
Mormon Heretic: I get it. You see *my* enforcement of *my* comment policies as despotism. In an effort to say this so that it won’t be understood, I’m going to explain my comment policies in different words. Both of the following descriptions clarify and mean the same thing to me as the four points I published in 2005. If you really want to understand *my* comment policies, read on.
1. You have a commenter, Tara. You are lucky to have her visiting your blog in my opinion. One thing she understands that you don’t even seem to see is that I “may just want to preserve a certain tone so that it doesn’t become contentious.” Maybe (in my view) you have been leaning toward contentious all along and your last comment, although just a straw, was in fact the *last* straw. I don’t expect you to agree with that or even understand this (I’ll be surprised if you do). But that is another way of understanding my comment policies.
2. Here’s another way. There are two commenters on this thread with whom I have interacted. They have very distinct and contrasting styles. One is gentle and thoughtful. Like a young fawn, she enters the china shop with slow, small steps and examines the wares carefully to learn what she can, making every effort to cause no harm. The other is harsh and severe. He enters the china shop like a bull, wanting only to be seen and heard, not caring at all about the wares. MH, my friend, sometimes my blog is my china shop. Do you get it?
Tara,
See, I agree with Steve, even though I know he doesn’t agree with liberals generally. That’s because he gives absolutely no weight to an idiot like Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck is not sincere. He’s not good at heart. He’s a charlatan. He’s a liar. He’s a deceiver. There is little good about him. He gives Mormonism a black eye just like Cleon Skousen. I may agree with you on some things, Tara, but you give too much deference to conspiracy theorists for my trust.
R Gary,
Please let me play the role of a fawn in your China shop. Which rule did I break with my censored comment?
@Dan
First of all, what does Steve have to do with anything? We’re talking about my comments that you consistently look to rip apart? You haven’t agreed with me on anything. And what does trust have to do with correctly interpreting my comments?
@Steve
Has the Birch society always operated in such a secretive fashion or is that an evolution? Perhaps Benson wouldn’t have agreed with the deceptions it engages in. I think it’s also worth noting that Benson never joined, correct? Do you think he didn’t because he was discouraged from doing so by the brethren or because he wasn’t comfortable with fully embracing them?
Heretic: Unless I completely misunderstand your current and previous posts about Ezra Taft Benson, the majority of your words and the words you have quoted were chosen by you to discredit certain things that he said and did. I could be wrong, but I view your primary focus in these discussions as “looking for flaws” in Ezra Taft Benson. Nay, more than “looking for flaws.” Much more. Verbal abuse of Ezra Taft Benson is apparently welcome in these discussions and you yourself turn the same form of abuse on me simply because I don’t believe you have a complete and correct understanding of the life and teachings of Ezra Taft Benson.
Your comments are colored by everything you’ve previously said on the subject and by the comments of others that you’ve published unchallenged for the past four months. It didn’t have to be anything particular that you said, it was just time. Time to draw a line in the sand and say, “Enough!”
@MH
I’m guessing the “tone” was the rule you broke. But that’s just a guess. And of course, it is difficult to always accurately convey our true tone in writing. You may not have intended to come across as contentious, but it may have appeared so to R Gary. I recall in a recent discussion, you characterized several of my comments as conveying a tone of frustration, when in fact, I admitted that only one of them was written in frustration.
Sorry, R Gary and I were apparently posting around the same time.
@R. Gary
I too have a problem with how MH so casually (it seems) condemns leaders of the church, or as you well described it, “looking for flaws”. It is something that makes me terribly uncomfortable for a number of reasons. So I completely understand where you are coming from there. I think that we can disagree with leaders of the church, but I think we need to be careful about how hard we come down on them in our judgements. As much as we may know, we don’t have all the details, and we haven’t walked in their shoes.
Tara,
The John Birch Society was formed this way since the beginning. You can probably find The Blue Book (at one time they had an initiative to donate it to every public library.
The secrecy was there very, very early. If you read the National Review articles above (written in the 1960s) you’ll get a great overview.
As to Benson not joining, I’ve heard that he asked and was turned down and that he never asked. But, his wife joined as did at least two of his boys (one was a national leader).
Tara: Elder Dallin H. Oaks has identified five procedures we can use to address disagreements with Church leaders (click here). I’ve adopted these as my personal rules and found them to be very effective.
But, it is important to understand that Benson’s hard right political stuff was condemned by a host of church leaders at the time: Hugh B. Brown (1st Counselor in the First Presidency), N. Eldon Tanner, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, etc.
What is unique in the past decade or so is that ultraconservatives have resurrected Benson’s old political stuff and raised it to the level of untouchable, arguing that because he later became prophet, his earlier material is now equivalent to canon. And, they resist heartily any criticism.
Benson changed considerably. As prophet, he was known for talking about pride and the Book of Mormon. Yet, his ultra-right friends want to revive the earlier form.
That is the real shame today.
R Gary,
Yes, I do think you have some massive misunderstandings of my comments about Benson. But rather than try to discuss them, you censor them. How am I supposed to clear up misunderstandings? Your censorship is extremely heavy handed, and inhibits your understanding. Do you really want to engage in understanding, or are you merely interested in voicing your opinion unopposed?
From your comment, I gather that no rule was actually broken on your blog. What I wrote on my blog was enough to get censored, but I have different rules here. I obeyed your rules on your blog and got censored anyway. That seems a bit capricious to me, and doesn’t sit very well with me. If you have rules and don’t follow them, can you understand why a person gets a bit fed up? (I’m not justifying, but asking if you sincerely understand.)
Tara, my tone has been a bit harsh here toward R Gary, but I don’t censor comments. You and I have had many agreements and disagreements. We’ve each warned each other about tone. But I never got so fed up that I have censored comments. If I’m in the wrong, I’ll apologize. But getting censored by R Gary for not breaking comment policies is ridiculous. His comment policy should say “If you don’t agree with me, and I don’t like you, I’ll censor your comments. And if you write something I don’t like on your blog, I’ll censor you on my blog.” That’s truth in advertising, unlike his feigned claim that he is open to “various sides of many questions”. He’s not open at all, as evidenced by his clear censorship. Censorship deserves harsh criticism when one claims to be open to “various sides of many questions.” I was polite there and still got censored. I’ll call a spade a spade over here.
So yes R Gary, you won’t get censored by me over here for disagreeing with me. I wish the same was at your blog, but I welcome your point of view. The only thing that will get you censored here without warning is vulgarity or links to porn or spam sites. (Usually I warn people first anyway.)
After that long tangent, do you believe that Ike is a Communist tool?
As for Benson not joining the John Birch Society, Prince makes it very clear that Benson wanted to join. He also tried to get President McKay on the cover of the Birch society magazine. McKay refused to let Benson join, and refused to be on the cover. So the fact that Benson never joined had every bit to do with the fact that McKay was concerned about the image of the Birch society. Benson clearly advocated the society’s beliefs and was happy his son joined. the society thought the church was fertile recruiting grounds and Benson encouraged efforts by Mormons to join.
Tara, I support Benson as a prophet, not a politician. It is R Gary that is conflating the two. I support Brown, Smith, and Lee’s position and their discomfort with Benson’s inflammatory rhetoric about Communism. To say I don’t support church leaders seems to be very inaccurate.
I don’t support racism, or wrong-headed political rhetoric no matter the source, be that Glenn Beck, Ezra Benson, Bill Clinton, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, or Al Sharpton. I believe we have a right and a duty to announce our opinions, no matter what leader expresses them.
There’s a very appropriate post about Unity: See http://www.wheatandtares.org/2010/11/15/the-virtue-of-unity/
Free Agency is not censorship. Unity doesn’t mean censorship.
Heretic: Here are two articles that I wrote several years ago (click here and here). After you read them through, if you’re still unclear as to how I see Eisenhower in relation to communism we can discuss it further.
FBI FILES ON BIRCH SOCIETY:
This report explains why J. Edgar Hoover and senior FBI officials within the Bureau’s Domestic Intelligence Division concluded in FBI memos that the JBS was “extremist”, “irrational” and “irresponsible”
http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1
CONSERVATIVE CRITICS OF ROBERT WELCH and BIRCH SOCIETY:
Contrary to claims made by the Birch Society about the alleged “left-wing” origins of JBS criticism, the most potent adverse comments about the JBS have always originated from the right-side of the political spectrum. This report presents a representative sample of such comments.
http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-4
PERSONS DESCRIBED BY BIRCH SOCIETY AS “EXPERTS” ON COMMUNISM:
Two former FBI Special Agents who endorsed the Birch Society after they retired from the FBI are often cited by Birch Society members and supporters as knowledgeable, reliable, and authoritative sources of information on the communist movement.
However, their FBI personnel files reveal that senior FBI officials did not have a very high regard for their post-FBI endeavors.
In the case of Dan Smoot, just prior to his retirement from the FBI he was censured, placed on probation, and transferred to a small, insignificant field office as a disciplinary measure.
Both reports include detailed critiques of statements and assertions made by these former FBI Special Agents.
DAN SMOOT:
http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/smoot
W. CLEON SKOUSEN
http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/skousen
With respect to the LDS position on the JBS:
See 1/4/63 Deseret News article, page B1, entitled “Church Sets Policy In Birch Society”, for following First Presidency quote:
“We deplore the presumption of some politicians, especially officers, co-ordinators and members of the John Birch Society, who undertake to align the Church or its leadership with their partisan views.
“We encourage our members to exercise the right of citizenship, to vote according to their own convictions, but no one should seek or pretend to have our approval of their adherence to any extremist ideologies.
“We denounce communism as being anti-Christian, anti-American, and the enemy of freedom, but we think they who pretend to fight it by casting aspersions on our elected officers or other fellow citizens do the anti-Communist cause a great disservice.”
Also see October 1992 Stake Presidents document entitled “Profile of the Splinter Group Members Or Others With Troublesome Ideologies” which lists 20 warning signs of apostasy. Third on the list was “John Birch membership or leanings.”
There is a long history of internal disputes about the JBS and its doctrines within the Mormon hierarchy. In October 1961, for example, Ezra Taft Benson stated that “the internal threat to the American way of life is in the secret alliance which exists between the more advanced Social Democrats and the hard-core Communist conspiracy” and he described the “insidious infiltration of communist agents and sympathizers into almost every segment of American life.”
First Presidency counsellor Hugh Brown interpreted these remarks as endorsing JBS doctrine and he subsequently answered an inquiry about the JBS by writing that “we [the First Presidency] are definitely against their methods” and he observed that “we do not think dividing our own people, casting reflections on our government officials, or calling everybody a Communist who does not agree with the political views of certain individuals is the proper way to fight Communism.” [Brown 12/18/61 letter to Mrs. Alicia Bingham].
In April 1962 Brown wrote, in an obvious reference to the Birch Society: “Let us not undermine our government or accuse those who hold office of being soft on communism…{or} by destroying faith in our elected officials under the guise of fighting communism.” [Improvement Era , June 1962, “Honor The Priesthood”, page 450]
After Ezra Taft Benson explicitly endorsed the JBS, Brown described himself as “disgusted” with Benson’s pro-JBS activities and if they did not cease, he suggested “some disciplinary action should be taken.” [Hugh Brown to Gustive O. Larson, 11/11/62].
In October 1962, Ezra T. Benson’s son, Reed, became JBS Coordinator in Utah. Reed used chapels to speak to stake meetings about the JBS. Hugh Brown wrote in November 1962 that “It is certainly regrettable [Benson] is permitted to continue to peddle his bunk in our Church houses.”
R. Gary, Tara
I think both of you are mischaracterizing MH’s approach and intent. I don’t see him looking for flaws at all. I believe his purpose is to enlighten and discuss topics that can’t easily be found anywhere else. I have always found MH to vehemently defend the church and its leaders, even while exposing their warts.
I for one am finding this topic very interesting. I didn’t know any of these things before this blog post.
R. Gary
I don’t think its healthy to give someone a pass on 80 years of life simply because they were prophet the last 10. Wrong is wrong, no matter the source. Benson was wrong here.
Steve mentions that Benson changed greatly during his time as prophet. I slightly disagree with that statement. I’m not so sure he changed, but rather became more tempered. I like MH’s description much better, that Benson could still be used as a tool for good despite his shortcomings (paraphrase). This is in harmony with everything MH has always said regarding prophets…that they are men, and as men they are not perfect.
Don’t treat Benson as if he was perfect. To do so is a lie.
Tara
Perhaps Creep was a bit strong, but I don’t have time to dig for the 1 thing with merit, when it is wrapped in dozens of unscrupulous statements. In short I don’t have time (or make time) for Glen Beck because I have no respect for him. He is too insincere. All he cares about is ratings. He is not trying to educate or discuss. He is just trying to win his time slot. I agree that he is a black eye to LDS.
see, Bishop Rick, there are things we can agree on. 🙂
@Bishop Rick
That’s fine. I can understand that, but I don’t have to like it, anymore than MH has to like that I always side with the leaders of the church. I don’t have a problem with discussing controversial topics. The problem for me comes when harsh judgements are made against people, particularly church leaders, when all the facts are not available, and when those people are not here to defend themselves.
President Benson was prophet for much longer than 10 years. An apostle is a prophet, seer, and revelator just like the President of the Church.
You said perhaps creep was a bit strong, but you may as well have stuck with that description considering the rest of your comment. You continued to describe him as insincere and only concerned about his ratings. I’d say, considering the kinds of things he talks about, if he’s only doing it for ratings and isn’t concerned with the truth, then that would pretty much be the definition of creep.
But I disagree with your assessment. Honestly, it is rare that I listen to him. I’ve tried listening to him, but it is painful, so I just can’t. But I don’t get a sense of insincerity from him. I do believe he is sincere. I just think that he is overly dramatic, and that probably has a lot to do with trying to attract an audience. There’s nothing wrong with that though. It’s just a matter of preference. I think that he engages too much in fear mongering. And yeah, he’s probably got a bit of an inflated ego.
When you have a big problem with the message, it’s hard not to find a whole lot wrong with the messenger, even if it may not be entirely accurate. Take for instance, Keith Olberman. I can’t stand him. I could give you a number of criticisms of him, but insincere is not one of them. I think it’s too easy to incorrectly judge intentions, especially when we already have a bias against someone. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their intentions, that is, unless I know they are blatantly lying.
A bit of clarification to the first sentence of the last paragraph: “even if that assessment may not be entirely accurate.”
R Gary, I read your first link in the entirety. Not once did I see a reference to Eisenhower. The 2nd link was to a book you wrote. I read the beginning, but not the whole thing. I did a word search for the word “Eisenhower” and came up empty again. So, no I did not get an answer to the question, “do you believe that Ike is a Communist tool?”
Now I could try to make assumptions, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth. I want to be careful, and I don’t want to jump to conclusions to what you believe. That is why I am asking you specifically for your feelings on President Eisenhower. Forgive me if you think you have answered the question, but I don’t believe you have answered your feelings about Eisenhower clearly, and I would like you to make an explicit statement connecting/refuting Eisenhower to Communism so that I am not accused of misquoting or misunderstanding you.
Your first link was very interesting in that you tried to tie President Benson’s statements about a Communist conspiracy from the 60’s to his statements of the 80’s as prophet when he discussed secret combinations. You said,
Your second link had an interesting quote as well.
I’ll stop here. Honestly, I think it is interesting that you are tying Benson’s statements about Communism from the 60’s to his statements about secret combinations from the 80’s. I haven’t seen anyone make that connection before, and I think you might be on to something. I find it absolutely intriguing.
I am hoping that you clear up your thoughts about Eisenhower’s ties to Communism.
Bishop Rick, thanks. I believe his purpose is to enlighten and discuss topics that can’t easily be found anywhere else. Exactly. I’m sure R Gary shares that purpose as well. We all have our different approaches to things, however.
I have always found MH to vehemently defend the church and its leaders, even while exposing their warts. Yes Tara. Have you forgotten Zelph’s blog where you and I agreed on nearly all topics? I was quite forceful in defending the Mormon response to the Haun’s Mill Massacre, and defended the church quite vigorously on other topics as well over there, didn’t I? (Back then, it seemed like we were tag team partners–at least I thought so.) While Bishop Rick and I have agreed lately, we’ve had more than our share of disagreements on various topics as well, such as my recent post on the Ground Zero mosque.
@ernie1241
I am so delighted to see your posting. I have been collecting Birch material for years. Stumbled on your material a few months. It is truly the best available anywhere and would highly recommend that anyone interested in a detailed account of Birch extremism review your linked material.
And, so needed.
I am honored to make your acquaintance.
I was waiting for the false equivalency to show up. As if Keith Olbermann is the opposite of Glenn Beck. heh…I wait patiently for the Mormon liberal equivalent of Glenn Beck: Harry Reid, to be used.
Tara, if Glenn Beck actually was honest, then you might have a case of equivalency with Keith Olbermann, who rants a little too loud, but who otherwise is fairly accurate with his facts and history.
@Tara
I agree with you on Beck. I think he is overly dramatic. His crying reminds of the girls (and guys) I knew in high school debate who used the same technique.
But, I believe he is a true believer. I think he is the fervent convert who joins the church and then dived in whole hog into all kinds of assorted doctrines.
P.S. I have to share with you something I think you will laugh at. After our discussion of Bircher secretism, I remembered that in 1959, they set a national goal of taking over every local PTA in the U.S. They thought they would be a great platform to attack “communists” in the school system.
Later, they tried to tackle local service clubs.
Today, I think they focus on local political organizations. In my area, they came in as a group this year to elect local GOP officers as a single slate. Our local paper has had a lot of fun with them. They support investigating Communists/Socialists in the Mayor’s office & school board. They keep turning local GOP meetings into constitutional seminars given by someone with no background in the area. Most have stopped going. Ironically, they neglected the basics like raising money, opening a headquarters and actually turning out voters (first time that has happened in 30 years). They’ll be gone next year.
I’m not a fan of Harry Reid or Keith Olbermann. For one thing, Olbermann is a Yankee fan…. That’s bad enough, even if you ignore his rants on politics. It’s too bad he and Dan Patrick split up–they were pretty dang funny though. 🙂
I followed one of Ernie’s links and came to some stupendous quotes on the Eisenhower issue:
Ronald Reagan (10/28/66 at Commonwealth Club – San Francisco, when asked about Robert Welch:
“I think his statements about President Eisenhower are thoroughly reprehensible.”
Sen. Barry Goldwater (upon reading Welch’s unpublished “private letter” The Politician)
“Goldwater telephoned Welch and reportedly stated: ‘I want no part in this. I won’t even have it around. If you were smart, you’d burn every copy you have.” (Robert Alan Goldberg book, Barry Goldwater, Yale University Press, 1995, p. 137)
Richard Nixon (Hayward CA Daily Review, Associated Press, “Nixon Endorsed, Birch Issue Fought”, 3/5/62, p1)
Nixon told California Republican Assembly: “It is essential that Republicans disassociate themselves from any organizations whose members are required to take dictation from a man who has attacked President Eisenhower as a ‘dedicated conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy’.”
Pat Buchanan re JBS/Welch on President Eisenhower (Washington Post, 9/13/2000, pC1)
“My own view is that he was an excellent president, second only to Ronald Reagan since World War II.”
George F. Will column 8/24/05 — comparing JBS to Cindy Sheehan:
In the 1960s, just as conservatism was beginning to grow from a fringe tendency into what it has become — the nation’s most potent persuasion — it was threatened by a boarding party of people not much, if any, loonier than Sheehan. The John Birch Society, whose catechism included the novel tenet that Dwight Eisenhower was an agent of the Kremlin, was not numerous — its membership probably never numbered more than 100,000 — but its power to taint all of conservatism was huge, particularly given the media’s eagerness to abet the tainting. Responsible conservatives, especially William F. Buckley and his National Review, repelled the boarders, driving them into the dark cave where, today, they ferociously guard the secret of their size from a nation no longer curious about it.
I’ve been doing some of my own research into JBS. Here’s something I turned up, written by Cleon Skousen. It addresses the vilification of the JBS. I think it sounds reasonable enough. I’m curious for opinions (besides Dan’s) of it. It reminds me a lot of the kinds of attacks used against the TEA parties today. I’m just wondering if they’ve been unfairly vilified. I’m not saying that it would mean that there isn’t anything extreme about the group, just that maybe it’s been made out to be much worse than it is.
Tara, do you think Eisenhower is a Communist tool?
@Tara
I was just reading something by Ernie that directly addresses the Skousen defense of the John Birch Society. It also deals with Skousen’s fabricated background in the FBI.
http://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/skousen
Regarding my thoughts about Eisenhower’s ties to Communism. As I explained in those two articles, it is my belief that Communism was not run from Moscow or Peking, but by a secret combination of influential and widely respected non-Communists from within the United States and Europe. That said, I would disagree that Eisenhower was a “tool of the Communists” because technically he was a tool of the secret combination that controls Communism.
Regarding the prophet versus the politician, and conflating the two. You aver that Benson’s “encouragement to read the Book of Mormon was inspired counsel.” (OP) Later, in a comment, you again applaud Benson’s “wonderful emphasis on the book of mormon while prophet.” (comment #48)
Okay, let’s look at what Benson as Prophet said about the Book of Mormon:
This message was Benson’s talk to the Regional Representatives on the eve of his FIRST general conference as Prophet. He went on to give the same talk more than twenty times in regional and area conferences during his first year as Church President (see Church News, Dec. 21, 1986, p.3). He gave a copy of this talk to the general authorities in a temple meeting on March 5th, 1987 (see Ensign, Mar. 1994, p.61). He also published this talk as his Jan. 1988 First Presidency message.
In the meantime, he also gave many other talks about the Book of Mormon. But based on the number of times he repeated this talk, its message should be considered the core of the central theme of his administration.
And most of us would probably agree.