This can partly be attributed to the fact that progressive and left-wing political opinions, parties, and movements have often been suppressed throughout our nation’s history. Because of this, most Americans today lack basic knowledge concerning left-wing ideas, progressivism or socialism and its many forms, branches, and political philosophies. To the average American, the word “socialism” conjures images of Soviet Russia, China, and North Korea, and often socialism is equated with any progressive viewpoint. The majority of Americans would be surprised to learn that first world nations such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Spain and France could be labeled socialist to some extent, yet often surpass the U.S. in standard of living, democratic participation, average and median incomes, and even social mobility.
For the large majority of Latter-day Saints in the U.S. however, no form of success under progressive legislation or socialism can ever do away with the words of a Prophet, and there is one Prophet in particular whose words are drawn upon to denounce anything even resembling socialism. That Prophet was President Ezra Taft Benson. In the Church, it is almost impossible to discuss such topics as universal healthcare, social services for low-income citizens and their families, low-income housing, Social Security, or regulating the market without being challenged by someone quoting President Benson's right-wing personal political opinions.
The most troubling thing to a member of the Church who leans to the left politically, is that President Benson’s political opinions and a large number of those who accept them as the words of God, convey the message that anyone who disagrees is either being duped by Satan himself, is on the road to apostasy, or has already apostatized and is not to be considered a “true” saint. Often, it is so troubling and such a point of contention, that progressive members come to feel that they are not valid members because they hold views and opinions different than a Prophets. Ironically, the polarizing effect of President Benson’s political rhetoric has been a dividing force among Latter-day Saints since the time they began caming forth from his mouth, and often to the dismay of Church leaders.
I should stop here to note that from here on out I will no longer refer to President Benson as President Benson, except when I am referring to him during the time when he was in fact President. You see, claiming these comments were made by President Benson suggests to the minds of many that his position as President of the Church later in life gives these opinions undue divine authority. The fact is, however, that the overwhelming majority of Benson’s polarizing political comments, talks and teachings were given long before he ever became President of the Church. In other words, they were given before the mantel of the Prophet fell upon him, and they ceased in his later life (as Church officials put it, Benson had moderated his political views and that politics was "not really his agenda anymore.").
Despite the fact that some Church members devoted to sanctifying their conservative political agenda as divine endlessly quote Benson when it comes to politics, being sure to add that they are “the words of a Prophet of God,” Benson was not in fact the Prophet of God at the time of these political speeches, writings and statements. Not that this should matter much. The point is not that Benson was Elder Benson and not President Benson at the time he gave such talks as “The Proper Role of Government” or wrote the paranoid book, "An Enemy Hath Done This." The point is that Benson’s political views and rhetoric never had the unanimous support of Church leadership, and were never official, representative of the Church itself, or doctrinal... they were simply opinions, and as opinions they are subject to critical examination. In fact, more often than not, Benson's political talks, speeches, comments and activities upset Church leaders, caused division among the membership, brought embarrassment to the Church, and on several occasions resulted in Benson being chastised by his priesthood leaders within the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency.
In 1974, for example, Benson famously told an interviewer who was interviewing him as a prominent Republican and political figure, that it would be difficult for a member of the Church to be a Democrat if they knew and understood the gospel. Of course, at the time this was said, a Democrat by the name of Marion G. Romney was Second Counselor in the First Presidency. Just 4 years earlier, Democrat Hugh B. Brown was First Counselor in the First Presidency, having filled the position previously held by Democrat J. Reuben Clark. This caused a major uproar within the Church and letters poured into the offices of General Authorities, not only because it hinted that First Presidency members did not know and understand the gospel, but a large portion of Church members were Democrats at the time, this being a time when the majority of Church members were still Democrats.
As mentioned previously, Elder Benson was chastised on several occasions by Church leadership for having inappropriately used Church buildings, Church meetings, and his callings as Stake President and later Apostle, to promote his personal political views and agenda. For instance, in 1962, Elder Benson gave permission for a stake center in Los Angeles to be used by the Republican Party and its candidate for California State Governor, Richard Nixon. Once President David O. McKay learned of it, he felt forced to give permission to the Democratic candidate, Pat Brown, in order for the Church to maintain it's position as politically neutral. In a First Presidency letter sent to all stakes shortly after the incident, President McKay noted that the Church was opposed to the idea of a chapel, normally reserved for sacred purposes, being used for partisan politics and political gain, noting that attempts to use them in this way did the Church a tremendous disservice.
Unfortunately, Benson repeatedly ignored counsel, chastisement, and disciplinary action from Church leadership. When he was called to serve in Europe as a Mission President, many looked at the call as the Church's attempt to deal with his problematic behavior by physically removing him from the United States. Now that scholars can access correspondence and other unpublished information from Church authorities at the time, this view gains credibility. For example, on the day his father met with Benson to tell him he was being sent to Europe, President McKay’s son sent a letter to Congressman Ralph Harding. In the letter he said, “We shall all be relieved when Elder Benson ceases to resist counsel and returns to a concentration on those affairs befitting his office.”
Such statements and frustration with Benson’s political rhetoric and activities, as well as his involvement with the extreme right-wing John Birch Society also appear in the private correspondence of Church leaders. Two weeks after McKay’s son wrote Congressman Harding, Joseph Fielding Smith, who was President of the Quorum of the Twelve at the time, also sent a letter to Harding writing; “I think it is time Brother Benson forgot all about politics and settled down to his duties as a member of the Council of the Twelve…It would be better 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.” In the letter, President Smith also expressed distaste for the Birch Society and Benson’s involvement with it, adding “I am glad to report that it will be some time before we hear anything from Brother Benson, who is now on his way to Great Britain where I suppose he will be, at least for the next two years.” Elder Benson even tried, at one point, to get the John Birch Society to publish their magazine with a photo of David O. McKay on the cover. McKay emphatically told them, "I don't want anything to do with it. I do not want my name associated with the John Birch Society." In 1963, the First Presidency felt compelled to make an official statement, which many saw as directed towards Elder Benson without naming him specifically. In it the First Presidency stated, "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." Commenting on a personal meeting he had with David O. McKay about the statement, Hugh B. Brown said, "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."
Distaste for Benson’s political rhetoric and activites seems to have strongly affected Hugh B. Brown, First Counselor in the First Presidency at the time. Often Elder Benson would make a politically charged statement in public, and this would be followed by another public statement by Brown contradicting it. After one particular incident when Elder Benson spoke at BYU in 1968, questioning the loyalty and patriotism of people on the left and making claims that the Civil Rights Movement and it's leaders were really Communists trying to bring down America, Hugh B. Brown came to BYU to speak himself. In his address he stated that"at a time when radicals of the right and left would inflame race against race, avoid those who preach evil doctrines of racism... beware those who feel obliged to prove their own patriotism by calling into question the loyalty of others." At the time, this was widely interpreted as a direct attack on Elder Benson's talk 10 days earlier. This also seems to hold weight now that we can access information previously not publicly available. For instance, after Elder Benson was sent to Europe, Brown received a letter from U.S. Under-Secretary of State W. Averill Harriman which asked how long Ezra Taft Benson would be outside the United States. President Brown’s response was a short but telling one, “If I had my way, he’d never come back!”
To the dismay of many Church leaders, Benson continued to insert his personal political views into his callings and talks even after his return from Europe. However, it eventually died down and by the time he was called as President of the Church, and toward the end of his life, they ceased altogether. When he became President of the Church, he took the calling very seriously and finally adhered to the counsel he had been recieving, to focus on his duties in the Church without mixing in his political opinions. In fact, by the end of his Presidency, the Church and president Benson had not only distanced themselves from his earlier views, but began to discipline members of the Church that were putting too much emphasis on Benson's views from 30 years earlier as well as other prominent conservative members (such as Cleon Skousen). Members were counselled to avoid involvement with the John Birch Society, an organization that Benson himself had told members earlier to join. Some members were even excommunicated for refusing to disassociate themselves from the John Birch Society and the far-right politics once advocated by Benson.
Despite all this, and unfortunately for American Mormon culture, Benson’s views have become integrated into the political mainstream of members in the United States today. Benson’s McCarthy era anti-progressive opinions have been drawn upon widely to give the impression that the Church, and even God himself are opposed not only to Communism, but any form of socialism, progressivism, or anything that is not firmly on the right of the political spectrum. Right-wing bloggers, and even right-wing Fox News host Glenn Beck have drawn upon the words of Benson in their attempts to move the nation further to the right. Look on YouTube and you will find a plethora of videos of Benson's views proclaiming they are prophetic words. I myself once sat through a Sunday School lesson in which one of Ezra Taft Benson's political talks at BYU was played for the class (a violation of Church policy regarding appropriate materials for Church meetings).
When President Benson passed away, Gordon B. Hinckley gave a talk called "Farewell to a Prophet" to commemorate President Benson. In the talk, Hinckley made this comment:
"I am confident that it was out of what he saw of the bitter fruit of dictatorship that he developed his strong feelings, almost hatred, for communism and socialism. That distaste grew through the years as he witnessed the heavy-handed oppression and suffering of the peoples of Eastern Europe under what he repeatedly described as godless communism."
It seems clear that Hinckley is not attaching any authority to Benson's views, and distinguishing them as being Benson's personal views based on his personal experiences with Soviet style Communism and its widely accepted interpretation of socialism in 1950's and 1960's. Socialism and progressivism as it appears in the industrialized democratic countries of today had not developed to the point we see today, and would have been foreign to the concept of socialism most people understood at the time.
Much of Benson’s political rhetoric was taught from the pulpit, and perhaps this is why many members accept them as authoritative today. We as members should ask ourselves, however, does that sanctify them? Should we be so ready to accept uncritically the opinions given by Church authorities when given over the pulpit? After all, today the Church recognizes that opinion based and often erroneous teachings such as those regarding blacks and the priesthood, and the use of birth control were all being taught from the pulpit, at the same time Benson’s political views were being disseminated. Should we then ask if it is the person who speaks that matters? After all, Benson was a Church Elder and later became a Prophet. I don't believe so. While we should give due weight to the words of wise men, we should never forget that it is not the opinions and philosophies of these men that we hold sacred, rather it is the revelations of God given to us through that man. When they are not revelations given through the proper procedure, we must weigh them as we would any man's opinions.
Throughout our Church’s history, Prophets have reminded us that a Prophet is a man like any other. He is subject to limited understanding, personal opinion, and to error. Were it not so, we would also have to accept Benson’s less popular opinions, such as his teachings that Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist and that the civil rights movement a communist conspiracy to overthrow the US government. Even in the scriptures we are warned about the possibility that Prophets can adhere to opinions, views and beliefs that are not supported by our Heavenly Father. The Prophet Jonas we read was extremely prejudiced against the people of Nineveh, so much so that he cared more for the life of his beloved shade tree than the entire population of that city. When commanded to preach repentance to those people he fled from his duty, not because he feared preaching, but because he did not want the hated Ninevites to repent and be forgiven but preferred they suffer without such an opportunity. We should not read that account without learning the lesson that even a Prophet can err when it comes to personal interpretations and opinions.
Prophets are not robots; God has still blessed them with the qualities and experiences of human life. As Brigham Young once pointed out, if it were not so, he would have been taken into heaven long ago. What this means to us is that as long as imperfect human beings are called to fulfill such callings as Prophet, we can expect them at times to be subject to limited understanding, personal opinion, and erroneous beliefs as much as any other man. Recognizing when that man speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost and when he does not, and being capable of recieving confirmation of the Holy Ghost ourselves when truth is spoken, that is what we should put emphasis on, not a man’s position.
The ongoing controversy that Ezra Taft Benson's political opinions have created within the Church also illustrates the wisdom of the Church's position regarding the fact that at times Church leaders may simultaneously hold political office. In the late 1800's, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve decided that no member in a high-ranking Church leadership position could run for political office without the consent of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency. This Church policy still stands today, Benson himself having had to request consent from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve before accepting his post as Secretary of Agriculture under President Eisenhower. This Church policy is best known for nearly causing B.H. Roberts to leave the Church, he feeling that it was not the Church's business whether he ran for political office or not, as well as causing Apostle Moses Thatcher to resign from his calling as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. I think the wisdom behind the First Presidency and the Twelve's decision becomes clear when we see what happens to the political opinions of someone who is a political figure and a Church leader simultaneously. As in the case of Ezra Taft Benson, a Church leader who is also a political figure can potentially mislead the membership into believing that personal political opinions are sanctioned and endorsed by the Church itself. The Church seems to have learned this lesson with all the contention, disunity and controversy caused by Benson's mixing his political calling and his civil service, and it is very likely this is the reason prominent LDS political figures, such as Mitt Romney and Harry Reid, are not called to hold high level Church leadership positions while serving in a political capacity.
I know that many reading this may have already experienced cultural pressure and feelings of not fitting in due to the sometimes overpowering conservative sentiment among the membership in the United States. Perhaps someone has used the words of Ezra Taft Benson as a weapon to make you feel as though you are not a “true” saint. If you feel this way, or if you sometimes feel this way, remember, if agreeing with Benson’s political views was a requirement for true sainthood, as some would have us believe, than the list of “phony” saints would include many prominent Saints in our recent history. Saints such as Joseph Fielding Smith, David O. McKay and Hugh B. Brown, among others. I strongly believe God is not a partisan. I also believe that learning about the world around us, studying and evaluating what works and what does not in improving the lives of our brothers and sisters here on Earth is a worthy venture, no matter what political ideology it may hail from.
No comments:
Post a Comment