Was Ezra Taft Benson Silenced??

[Ben McClintock]

http://www.mormonchronicle.com/the-edit ... n-apostle/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the April of 1972 General Conference, then Elder, Ezra Taft Benson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles gave a talk that still causes controversy and raises questions to this day, about what was actually meant. He recommended that all members of the Church read The John Birch Society book, None Dare Call it Conspiracy. He said, “There is no conspiracy theory in the Book of Mormon—it is a conspiracy fact. And along this line I would highly recommend to you a new book entitled, ‘None Dare Call It Conspiracy’.” However, this recommendation did not make it into the official version of the conference report, and remains edited out to this day.

read the rest at the link above

[karend77]

I love President Benson. However, recommending a book during General Conference was probably an error in judgement on his part. After Conference they probably talked with him and together they decided it would be more appropriate to leave that out. if that same talk had been given anywhere else, the endorsment might have stayed.

[Original_Intent]

I have wondered if President Benson's later "diminished capacity" was because he was bringing the church under too much condemnation, by sharing truths that the membership were incapable of living - or those who disagreed with his views might say he was "silenced" or in other words this was a method of "removing him out of his place" to avoid him leading the saints astray.

Yet another example where we will be required to make a judgement and we will be held responsible if we are able to judge correctly.

[Ben McClintock]

I love President Benson. However, recommending a book during General Conference was probably an error in judgement on his part. After Conference they probably talked with him and together they decided it would be more appropriate to leave that out. if that same talk had been given anywhere else, the endorsment might have stayed.

did you even read the article?

[Original_Intent]

It is a short article and worth reading.

[karend77]

I love President Benson. However, recommending a book during General Conference was probably an error in judgement on his part. After Conference they probably talked with him and together they decided it would be more appropriate to leave that out. if that same talk had been given anywhere else, the endorsment might have stayed.

did you even read the article?

I read the talk in the Ensign and I also watched a video of the talk where the part about the book was left in, and the article. Endorsing a book has consequences, and the article states he was concerned with those behind the iron curtain.

[HeirofNumenor]

I liked his reasoning about those from Eastern European countries at that General Conference....

Interestingly only 9 years later we got permission to build a temple in East Germany. Once that was dedicated in 1985, at the height of the Cold War... (IMO) the Spirit of God was able to spread forth over the Warsaw Pact nations, until we got permission to send missionaries into/out from East Germany (Feb 89), the people in E. Europe began protesting (August 89), culminating with the Fall of the Berlin Wall (Nov 9, 89), missionaries to Eastern Europe, and the end to the USSR (Dec 25, 92)....we now have several missions and stakes in Russia - and a temple in Ukraine.

We only see a portion of what is happening/what they see....

[lundbaek]

If you think President Benson was silenced, read the First Presidency Statement of 15 January 1987; read his 18 September 1987 address at the Bicentennial Ball in SLC; read his October 1987 General Conference talk "Our Divine Constitution". Silenced? You gotta be joking! Then read his October 1988 General Conference talk "I Testify...", especially his statement about the Constitution and another about secret combinations.

[JohnnyL]

I love President Benson. However, recommending a book during General Conference was probably an error in judgement on his part. After Conference they probably talked with him and together they decided it would be more appropriate to leave that out. if that same talk had been given anywhere else, the endorsment might have stayed.

This sounds really sound. Just like sometimes you can/ should say things at an activity that would be inappropriate during church meetings, or even in a talk that would be inappropriate for a testimony.

[sbsion]

by who.......the Lord, or TPTB?

[JohnnyL]

yes, as a matter of fact he was, but not concerning this article or that statement.

Brilliant!

I think it was a time of seeing if the Saints would listen, but... I wonder if the other leaders had been more honest, and supported what he had talked about, and the members had done what the Lord told us to do through him, things would have gone much better...

A story from a present family member (from my best memory, I heard it many years ago from them): Pres. Benson was often really out of it/ unresponsive to everyone, especially more towards the end. (What Steve Benson wrote at the time seems to not have been dishonest.) But near the very end when asked if he there was anything more, he became very lucid, sat up, and spoke very clearly that he had said all the Lord had told him to say. Then he went back out of it. Anyway, kind of a final testimony.

[Col. Flagg]

The sad reality is that our church now functions more like a corporation than a religious institution and it is no more further evidenced than the fact that we incorporated clear back in 1851 and signed the IRS' 501c3 (going tax-exempt in exchange for political silence) back in the late '60's (coincidentally, about the same time our church leaders stopped challenging and exposing evils stemming from government).

[Ben McClintock]

(going tax-exempt in exchange for political silence) back in the late '60's (coincidentally, about the same time our church leaders stopped challenging and exposing evils stemming from government).

you keep making that claim but have NEVER backed it up. getting tiring (-|

BrianM has shown that somethings actually stopped in the 1890's as far as calling out the government, but the things stated from the 1900's to the 1960's continued until at the least the 1980's

[creator]

...(The Church) signed the IRS' 501c3 (going tax-exempt in exchange for political silence) back in the late '60's (coincidentally, about the same time our church leaders stopped challenging and exposing evils stemming from government).

It was in the 1890's when a big change took place in regards to Church leaders not speaking out as much on the things the U.S. government was doing to abridge our freedom. I could post more on my observations on the various phases in changes on tone on that... but basically you have different tone in messages from (1) Joseph Smith to about Lorenzo Snow, then (2) Joseph F. Smith to George Albert Smith, (3) David O. McKay to Ezra Taft Benson, (4) Howard W. Hunter, Hinckley, Monson... (this probably deserves its own thread).

Regarding 501c3, (Col. Flagg / Truth B Known) you never really addressed my comments in the past:
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 55#p177155" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 44#p189444" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The conclusion, based on facts about 501c3 is that 501c3 status does nothing to prevent the Church from promoting the principles of Liberty. See those comments for actual facts/proof/evidence.

[Col. Flagg]

Regarding 501c3, (Col. Flagg / Truth B Known) you never really addressed my comments in the past:
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 55#p177155" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 44#p189444" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The conclusion, based on facts about 501c3 is that 501c3 status does nothing to prevent the Church from promoting the principles of Liberty. See those comments for actual facts/proof/evidence.

In order to be a 501c3 tax-exempt entity to the IRS, you cannot, as a religious institution, become involved in or speak out for or against political issues (unless they are also religious in nature, such as homosexuality, gay marriage, etc.). It was a clever way for the IRS to buy the silence from USA churches. Chuck Baldwin often speaks out against this - here's one of his recent articles about it:

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin662.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[/quote]
That's not proof the Church was silenced because of 501c3. Evidence shows they continued to speak the same for several decades.

Still waiting for proof, until then it's testifying falsely against the leaders of the Lords Church. :-w

[SpeedRacer]

He was literally silenced at the end of his life. I was only a youth, but it stirred the soul.

[sbsion]

so was HBL?

[Thinker]

so was HBL?

I've wondered that also.
I don't think we'll ever know some of the things that go on behind closed doors.
Since finances are kept secret, we have reason to believe it is intended that way.

"Speak nothing but the truth and you'll soon be considered dangerous." -A. Brilliant