The much-heralded talk delivered by ETB (actually put together with the help of his oldest son, Reed, who was a high-ranking member of the John Birch Society) is declared by boiler-plated devout Mormons to be the mind and will of God on what constitutes righteous politics.

Trouble is, the First Presidency quickly distanced itself from the talk and basically said that ETB got it wrong.

Damn.

Which "modern-day prophet" are Mormons to believe?:

"In 1980 Benson gave a BYU devotional on the 'Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophets.' In the talk he proclaimed the right of the LDS prophet to speak and act politically.

"The First Presidency immediately issued a statement that Benson was misquoted (58). However it was difficult to finesse his words for the capacity BYU audience in the 25,000-seat Marriot Center or for the thousands of other Utahns who listened to the broadcast on radio and television (59).

"Within a week the First Presidency released a statement 'reaffirm[ing] that we take no partisan stand as to candidates or political parties, and exercise no constraint on the freedom of individuals to make their own choices in these matters' (60)."

The Mormon who wrote the above analysis concludes:

"The moral of all this? Benson’s political talks were barely tolerated by Church leaders and certainly do not represent the views of the Church itself. Even if as President of the Church he had said, 'Thus saith the Lord…' and proceeded to issue ultra-conservative ideology, I wouldn’t just accept it without investigating it first. This is in harmony with Church teachings:

"'President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when "Thus saith the Lord," comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill.' ( Apostle Charles Penrose, "Millennial Star," vol. 54, p. 191)

"Not only do my investigations and studies lead me to reject Benson’s politics, but even if I felt like he was right, the frequency with which he was rebuked for promulgating such views would give me pause on embracing them myself."

This liberal-squish head Mormon is surely on the fast-track to hell. :)

Footnote citations per the above:

58. Ezra Taft Benson, “Fourteen Fundamentals In Following the Prophets,” transcript, 26 Feb. 1980, fd 24, box 5, Buerger papers; Benson, “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet,” 1980 Devotional Speeches of the Year: BYU Devotional and fireside Addresses (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1981), 26-30; “Prophet’s Word ‘Law’ Benson Tells Group,” Ogden Standard-Examiner, 26 Feb. 1980, A-2; “Benson Backs Prophet on Politics,” Salt Lake Tribune, 27 Feb. 1980, B-3; “Mormon Leader’s Word Is Law-Benson,” San Jose Mercury News, 27 Feb. 1980, A-2; “Interpretations of Speech Not Correct, Church Says,” Ogden Standard-Examiner, 26 Feb. 1980, C-1; “Mormon Professor Says Benson Speech Was Plea Anticipating Rise to LDS Presidency,” Idaho State Journal, 28 Feb. 1980, A-2; “U. Teacher Replies To Benson” and “Savant Hits ‘Theocracy’ He Says Benson Wants,” Salt Lake Tribune 28 Feb. 1980, B-1, B-3; “Pres. Benson Outlines Way to Follow Prophet,” Deseret News “Church News,” 1 Mar. 1980, 14; “No. 2 Mormon Says Leader’s Word is Law,” Los Angeles Times, 1 Mar. 1980, Pt. I, 35; “Benson Speech Stirs speculation on LDS Changes,” Ogden Standard-Examiner, 2 Mar. 1980, A-1, A-5; Sterling M. McMurrin, “Case for Vigilance,” Salt Lake Tribune, 18 Mar. 1980, A-9; Dew, Ezra Taft Benson, 468-69.

59. Ezra Taft Benson, “Fourteen Fundamentals In Following the Prophets,” transcript, 26 Feb. 1980, fd 24, box 5, Buerger papers; Benson, “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet,” 1980 Devotional Speeches of the Year: BYU Devotional and fireside Addresses (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1981), 26-30; “Prophet’s Word ‘Law’ Benson Tells Group,” Ogden Standard-Examiner, 26 Feb. 1980, A-2; “Benson Backs Prophet on Politics,” Salt Lake Tribune, 27 Feb. 1980, B-3; “Mormon Leader’s Word Is Law-Benson,” San Jose Mercury News, 27 Feb. 1980, A-2; “Interpretations of Speech Not Correct, Church Says,” Ogden Standard-Examiner, 26 Feb. 1980, C-1; “Mormon Professor Says Benson Speech Was Plea Anticipating Rise to LDS Presidency,” Idaho State Journal, 28 Feb. 1980, A-2; “U. Teacher Replies To Benson” and “Savant Hits ‘Theocracy’ He Says Benson Wants,” Salt Lake Tribune 28 Feb. 1980, B-1, B-3; “Pres. Benson Outlines Way to Follow Prophet,” Deseret News “Church News,” 1 Mar. 1980, 14; “No. 2 Mormon Says Leader’s Word is Law,” Los Angeles Times, 1 Mar. 1980, Pt. I, 35; “Benson Speech Stirs speculation on LDS Changes,” Ogden Standard-Examiner, 2 Mar. 1980, A-1, A-5; Sterling M. McMurrin, “Case for Vigilance,” Salt Lake Tribune, 18 Mar. 1980, A-9; Dew, Ezra Taft Benson, 468-69.

60. First Presidency statement, 5 Mar. 1980, Deseret News “Church News,” 8 Mar. 1980, 3; “Church Policies and Announcements,” Ensign 10 (Aug. 1980): 79

("Ezra Taft Benson and Politics," on "Mormon Liberals" website," 3 October 2012, at: http://mormonliberals.org/ezra-taft-benson-and-politics/)
_____


Below is additional information on the firestorm that erupted in the wake of ETB's incendiary "Prophet Fundies" sermon--a controversy which, as mentioned above, pulled the First Presidency into the fray via an officially-attempted skinback, and which ultimately resulted in ETB being required to explain himself before a meeting of all the General Authorities.

It is a matter of record that ETB's “Fourteen Fundamentals" sermon was not well received by the Mormon Church's highest levels of hierarchy.

As historian D. Michael Quinn writes in his book, “The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power”:

“. . . [A]t BYU [in February 1980] he [Benson] delivered a 'devotional talk' which proclaimed that right of the LDS prophet to speak and act politically. The First Presidency immediately issued a statement that Benson was misquoted. However, it was difficult to finesse his words for the capacity BYU audience in the 25,000-seat Marriott Center or for the thousands of other Utahns who listened to the broadcast on radio and television of Benson's 'Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophets.' To most observers, Benson's 1980 talk at BYU was an announcement of his own future intentions as Church president.

“On 5 March the First Presidency released a statement 'reaffirm[ing] that we take no partisan stand as to candidates or political parties and exercise no constraint on the freedom of individuals to make their own choices in these matters.' The Church's spokesperson claimed that 'there is not connection between this [First Presidency] letter and a speech by Apostle Ezra Taft Benson to Brigham Young University' a few days before. Those connected with LDS Church headquarters knew otherwise.

“Kimball's son [Edward L. Kimball] affirms that the Church president [Spencer W. Kimball] bore no will feeling toward his long-time associate but 'was concerned about Elder Benson's February 1980 talk at BYU.' The president wanted 'to protect the Church against being misunderstood as espousing ultra-conservative politics or--in this case--espousing an unthinking 'follow the leader' mentality.

“A General Authority revealed that although President Kimball asked Benson to apologize to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, they 'were dissatisfied with his response.' Kimball required him to explain himself to a combined meeting of all General Authorities the following week.” [Quinn writes in footnote 353, p. 469, that “[i]n 1980 a General Authority reported to George T. Boyd the apologies which Kimball required of Benson. Boyd's letter to me (Quinn), 24 September 1992, requested that I not identify his source. Boyd--an in-law of Spencer and Camilla Kimball--also reported this conversation to BYU professor Duane Jeffery early in 1980”].

Quinn reports further on the ETB-caused furor:

“The entire Benson family felt anxious about the outcome of this meeting [the one where President Kimball was requiring ETB to explain himself in front of all the Mormon Church's General Authorities). They [the Benson family] apparently feared the possibility of a formal rebuke. Benson's son [and my father] Mark (the Freemen Institute's 'Vice President in Charge of Development') wrote him a note that morning: 'All will be well--we're praying for you and KNOW all will be well The Lord knows our heart' [original emphasis].

"The meeting went well for Benson who 'explained that the had meant only to reaffirm the divine nature of the prophetic call.' Benson's biographer [Sheri L. Dew] indicates that the most effusively supportive General Authority in attendance was Apostle Boyd K. Packer: 'How I admire, respect and love you. How could anyone hesitate to follow a leader, an example such as you? What a privilege!'

Dew, however, conveniently leaves out critical elements of the controversy which led to the negative reaction of the First Presidency to ETB's BYU sermon. Instead, she attempts to explain it away by writing that “[w]hile the talk generated a great deal of publicity, for his part President Benson had intended it to simply underscore President' Kimball's prophetic call.

Dew goes on to faithfully report:

"During the April 1980 monthly meeting of the General Authorities, President Benson explained that he meant only to reaffirm the divine nature of the prophetic call. It was a faith-building, emotional experience. His family was aware of his concerns and had been praying for him. When he returned to his office that day, he found a phone message from Reed and a brief letter from Mark: 'All will be well—we're praying for you and KNOW all will be well. The Lord knows your heart. There was also a brief message from Elder Packer: 'How I admire, respect and love you. How could anyone hesitate to follow a leader, an example such as you? What a privilege!'"

(Sheri L. Dew, “”Ezra Taft Benson: A Biography," Chapter 22, "The Expanding Church" [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1987], p. 469)


Quinn adds a Benson-Bircher connection that Dew fails to mention:

“A few months later Benson wrote to his 'Dear Friends' at the Birch national headquarters.” [Quinn notes in footnote 355, p. 469, that this ETB letter to the Birch national headquarters “was in response to a get-well card with messages from each Birch staff member”].

(D. Michael Quinn, “The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power,” in Chapter 3, “Ezra Taft Benson: A Study in Inter-Quorum Conflict” [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, in association with Smith Research Associates, 1997], pp. 110-11; and p. 469, fn 349-355)
_____


Now, the reasons why I think "Ezra Taft Benson's" sermon on "The Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" wasn't actually written by ETB, based, among other things, on my own experience with his son, Reed.

Indeed, we cam title this portion, "Reed, My Lips: The Pen Behind the Throne in Ezra Taft Benson's 'Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet' Sermon"

I'm quite confident that my uncle Reed (ETB's oldest child) at least had a hand in writing the "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" BYU devotional sermon that is inaccurately attributed to ETB.

--First, Reed was very close to his father Ezra Taft Benson and was a regular, tight and trusted political advisor to him. Reed was, as noted up top, at one time a high-ranking official in the John Birch Society, having established its Washington, D.C., chapter and also having served in its Utah organization leadership ranks. Reed's influence on my grandfather's political views were obvious, given that he (ETB) told me in personal correspondece that the John Birch Society was second only to the Mormon Church in battling worldwide Communism--and recommended/subscribed me to Birch Society magazines for what he regarded as my political benefit.

--Second, there is a clear pattern of connection between ETB's sermons and behind-the-scenes efforts of others in researching and writing them for him. A primary case of this is the research and writing of "ETB's" sermon, "Beware of Pride," done by May Benson, wife of Reed Benson. Here's the link on that episode:

("Proof That the Mormon Church is True: Its Prophet, Seer and Revelator Heavily Plagiarized C.S. Lewis in an Official General Conference Sermon," posted by Steve Benson, "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board, 10 November 2010, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,26707,26707#msg-26707)

--Third, from my own interaction with Reed, he was known to use a phrase that actually appears in the "Fourteen Fundamentals" talk. It shows up under the point in the sermon where ETB/Reed is declaring that the living Mormon prophet of God can speak for the Lord on politics or any other matter, for that matter.

That phrase is "Hit pigeons flutter."

I remember one night standing outside the then-Provo river bottoms home of Reed, where he urged me to fight the good fight in my editorial cartoons and not to worry about the negative reaction and criticism I would receive for expressing "the truth" in my points of view.

In dispensing that advice, Reed told me to remember that "hit pigeons flutter." (By the way, I never heard my grandfather used that phrase).

That phrase appears as follows in the "Fourteen Fundamentals" sermon:

"Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

“'Thou hast declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear,' complained Nephi’s brethren. But Nephi answered by saying, 'the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center' (1 Nephi 16:1, 3). Or, to put it in another prophet’s words, 'Hit pigeons flutter.'

"Said President Harold B. Lee:

"'You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. . . . Your safety and ours depends upon whether or not we follow. . . . Let’s keep our eye on the President of the Church.' (in 'Conference Report,' October 1970, pp. 152-53)

"But it is the living prophet who really upsets the world. 'Even in the Church,' said President Kimball, 'many are prone to garnish the sepulchers of yesterday’s prophets and mentally stone the living ones' ('Instructor,' 95:257).

"Why? Because the living prophet gets at what we need to know now, and the world prefers that prophets either be dead or mind their own business. Some so-called experts of political science want the prophet to keep still on politics. Some would-be authorities on evolution want the prophet to keep still on evolution. And so the list goes on and on.

"How we respond to the words of a living prophet when he tells us what we need to know, but would rather not hear, is a test of our faithfulness.

"Said President Marion G. Romney, 'It is an easy thing to believe in the dead prophets.' And then he gives this illustration:

"'One day when President Grant was living, I sat in my office across the street following a general conference. A man came over to see me, an elderly man. He was very upset about what had been said in this conference by some of the Brethren, including myself. I could tell from his speech that he came from a foreign land. After I had quieted him enough so he would listen, I said, “Why did you come to America?” “I am here because a prophet of God told me to come.” “Who was the prophet.” I continued. “Wilford Woodruff.” “Do you believe Wilford Woodruff was a prophet of God?” “Yes, I do.” “Do you believe that President Joseph F. Smith was a prophet of God?” “Yes, sir.”

"'Then came the sixty-four dollar question. "Do you believe that Heber J. Grant is a prophet of God?" His answer, “I think he ought to keep his mouth shut about old age assistance.”

"'Now I tell you that a man in his position is on the way to apostasy. He is forfeiting his chances for eternal life. So is everyone who cannot follow the living Prophet of God.' (in "Conference Report," April 1953, p. 125]'"

(To read the sermon in its entirety, see Ezra Taft Benson, "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet," devotional address, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 26 February 1980, at: http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6751)

**********


So, there you have it: "The Foreseen Fundamentals in Following the Deceptions of the 'Prophet.'"



Edited 22 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2013 02:34AM by steve benson.

IGNORE THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

The prophet didn't even write it? Does this mean that I can write a "revelation" then hack Monson's teleprompter and make it become doctrine?

I was in the Marriott Center for that talk. It rubbed me the wrong way. I should have known then I was to be an apostate.

Seems like Mormons could easily avoid gaffes like this and just about everything Bruce McClunkie said if they would just man up and publish an official "catechism" that contains everything they believe. They never will, because they know investigators will read it and it would just come off as weird.

All of the above that is written is extremely interesting, but the church appears to endorse the 1980 sermon of ETB. It was spoken of and supported in the 2010 October Conference by two 70's talks and then was included in Sunday school lesson plans Feb 20th to March 20th, 2011 as teachings to members to learn. The 14 points of following the Prophet is alive and well. YUCK talk about anti-mormon writings to turn people away from the church - This talk ranks very high in my book to make people think twice before joining a church with this kind of doctrine! My two bits!

. . . among the faithful rank-and-file membership coalesces around the initially problem-causing sermon. Time dulls details and the Mormon Cult is confident that most members will have no meaningful institutional memory of a controversy that, say, in this case erupted over 30 years ago.

Why does LDS, Inc. do this?

Because as problematic in the short term as sermons like ETB's can be, they nonetheless in the long run serve to reinforce blind obedience in Mormon "prophets" and thus help keep the tithing rolling in.

The Mormon Cult is dishonest but it ain't stupid.



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2013 12:15AM by steve benson.

If you search "following prophet" on LDS.org, that talk is the first hit:

http://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=following+prophet

If that isn't actually doctrine, it's bit disingenuous on the church's part...

Have your cake and eat it too!

That's what it initially did here with ETB's talk.

The fact that it is using the same sermon today is a useful indicator on how the Mormon Cult waffles, retreats, denies its history and then returns to certain tactics and positions of the past, given the needs of the moment--all in the name of so-called "modern revelation."

The Mormon Machiavellian objective here is to get TBMs to commit to "following the prophet."

The Cult will re-embrace even officially-rejected sermons like ETB's if by so doing it advances that tithe-producing agenda.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2013 04:15PM by steve benson.

Excellent piece. This 14 points business, whatever its meaning to ETB or whoever wrote it, and Bruce McConkie's rabid freeburn on the Morg's political position, along with the Birch Society's attempt to politicize the Morg, and Skousen's hair-raising polemics, caused many to experience relief at the passing of ETB. For a few years there, the Morg seemed on the edge of becoming flat-out bizarre.

Do you think he would have given that talk if he had been allowed to run as VP on the George Wallace Presidential ticket some years before? If by some miscarriage of intelligence he and Wallace had won?

. . . it would have been with the strict understanding that ETB was opting out of his apostle-speaking gigship, which would mean he would have to wait until his service to segregationist seekers of the White House was finished. (That was basically the policy that was applied to ETB when he worked for eight years (1952-60) as President Eisenhower's Secretary of Agriculture.

But McKay turned down not only ETB's request the he be allowed to join Wallace as his VP sidekick on the American Party ticket, McKay also turned down Wallace's direct request that he (McKay) reconsider his decision. Although McKay himself was an open supporter of the Mormon Church's racist anti-Black priesthood ban, he drew the line with ETB. That says something.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2015 11:45PM by steve benson.

Church Doctrine through a revolving door, darkly.

Its' deja vu all over again. How laughable.

. . . was (according to a good source) reportedly prevented from doing any writing of the Church's approved version of ETB's biography.

The reason? Reed's reputation as a political extremist was not something LDS Church leaders wanted to deal with when it came to producing a "faith promoting" puff piece on ETB'S controversial life and times (which included ETB's sermonizing track record of reactionary racism; his fanatical support for the John Birch Society in which Reed was once a high-ranking leader; and his right-wing politics that were too extreme for top leaders of the Mormon Church, including David O. Mckay, Hugh B. Brown and Joseph Fielding Smith).

Thus, Reed was shut out of putting together the biography of his own father. The task went, instead, to trusted Mormon sanitizing agent Sheri Dew, with research assistance from my cousin, Flora Parker (daughter of ETB's daughter, Beverly).



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 05/20/2015 03:16AM by steve benson.

Prophet?" The title rings a distant bell.

Thank you, I just reviewed the 14 points again, and wow. In summary the prophet can talk about anything, even if he doesn't know anything about it, and those that are going to hell are the ones who have knowledge and can call "the Prophet" on his bullshit. Very inspiring stuff.

the Sharpest Point of this is... at least seems to me... is the conflict/contrast with Hugh Brown's "Profiles of a Prophet"
wherein he says that prophetic statements Will Be proceeded (after-said?) as "Thus Saith The Lord".


this contrast is a 100%, straight across the board contradiction; I'm amazed that LDS keeps publishing it.

Thanks for your essay. Rumors persist among the press corp that el Stompenfuhrer is being briefed against. Should you hear a ripple on the melifluous Morg grapevine that he is as good as history, please could you nod us the wink. Hope you are chipper, Best regards esias

Oops, not your venerable kin of course, but the less than kind Pecker-head Packer. I am too much i' the sun. Esias

By its actions the LDS Church has actually affirmed support for ETB's position.

Endorsing candidates is legally dicey, but that hasn't stopped them from being politically engaged in other ways. Recent LDS prophets have offered full-throated support to quash marriage equality in several states, closely watch all efforts to liberalize Utah liquor laws, invited one Richard Cheney to speak at BYU with a secret handshake and Cecil Samuelson told students protesting that speaking engagement that the were on thin honor code ice...on and on.

If the LDS Church were not so top down "follow the prophet" oriented, this political activism would not bother me quite as much as it does. If a more democratically governed church puts out a statement on public policy that is a reflection of the view of the members, and those issues continue to be debated internally and externally. In the LDS context the thinking has been done, and the members get the message, march and vote accordingly.

This reminds me of my TBM relatives. Whenever a church leader spoke they acted like whatever was said was so intellectually deep
and that they had received something so truly amazing that only they could grasp it and how lucky they were to hear it.

They would sit around for hours reflecting on what a bunch of bigoted old men said that if anyone else had said it, they would have said that it was stupid.

Man, I don't miss those people and their self righteous B.S.

You are back, yeah!

Uh, what just happened?

Miss The Steve of Benson . . .