LDS Church Changes Pres Benson's Talk

[Niyr]

Much ado about nothing.

Communism today is not the same threat it was back in the 70s.

Also the demographics of the Church is FAR different than it was back in the 70s too.

It's 2023, not 1972. Adjust your clocks accordingly.

So you're saying that it's ok to change a talk because a lot of years have passed?
So, we need to not learn what people said or did, truthfully, years ago because times have changed?
But, even if that was your excuse, it was changed the same year, so your point is moot.

The talk was changed the year he gave it. It was never printed, that I can find, in it's original form by the Church.

[Niemand]

Much ado about nothing.

Communism today is not the same threat it was back in the 70s.

Also the demographics of the Church is FAR different than it was back in the 70s too.

It's 2023, not 1972. Adjust your clocks accordingly.

To be frank (without ill intent I assure), are you that ignorant about communism?

Don't confuse the Soviet Union et al. for communism. That was simply a brand of a distorted economic communism rather than the popular ideological, political and cultural communism that we see today. Although that is not to say that economic communism (EC) is dead. Many EC tendencies are persistent in society still.

Never heard of neo-Marxism, intersectionality, wokism, etc? These are all expressions of communism. Communism, Marxism, etc are just catch phrases. Call it what ever you want, a pile of feces by any other name will still smell as crappy. There is a spectrum of crap if you will. So call it whatever you want but the underlining ideology is revolutionary and destructive. And it's alive and well today.

Just swap out "class" for "race, or sex, or gender, or the like" and voila you have yourself an early 21st century cultural and/or political revolution.

Nearly a quarter of the world's population STILL has a Communist government.

You should know better than this Subcomandante, there is still at least one openly Communist state in Latin America and numerous others, including Mexico in which classical Marxist theory still holds weight.

Mutated forms of Marxism are all the rage. They have huge influence just now. Agenda 2030 is little more than a grander longer version of the five year plan.

[Subcomandante]

Much ado about nothing.

Communism today is not the same threat it was back in the 70s.

Also the demographics of the Church is FAR different than it was back in the 70s too.

It's 2023, not 1972. Adjust your clocks accordingly.

So you're saying that it's ok to change a talk because a lot of years have passed?
So, we need to not learn what people said or did, truthfully, years ago because times have changed?
But, even if that was your excuse, it was changed the same year, so your point is moot.

Read my response to mudflap. I said that a BETTER option would have been to put a disclaimer on the talk for contextual purposes, WITHOUT otherwise modifying the talk.

[Niemand]

Read my response to mudflap. I said that a BETTER option would have been to put a disclaimer on the talk for contextual purposes, WITHOUT otherwise modifying the talk.

This stinks of the Whig Theory of History... which is in a nutshell: "this year is better than last year, and next year will be better than this year", all leading to the inevitable end point of improvement. We'd best be careful of those people and those scriptures and documents from the past, they might pollute us! I wish more people would study classical and mediaeval history, one can learn a lot about the present from it.

[ransomme]

Much ado about nothing.

Communism today is not the same threat it was back in the 70s.

Also the demographics of the Church is FAR different than it was back in the 70s too.

It's 2023, not 1972. Adjust your clocks accordingly.

So you're saying that it's ok to change a talk because a lot of years have passed?
So, we need to not learn what people said or did, truthfully, years ago because times have changed?
But, even if that was your excuse, it was changed the same year, so your point is moot.

Read my response to mudflap. I said that a BETTER option would have been to put a disclaimer on the talk for contextual purposes, WITHOUT otherwise modifying the talk.

What would your disclaimer say, communism isn't a thing anymore so don't worry, be happy?

[JandD6572]

Have any of you thought to question the First Presidency why these changes in Ezra Taft Benson's talks were made?

Let us expound on that.

Does anyone have the right to change what a prophet of God says?

There was no explanation for changing the words of the prophet, so we may assume they either think it is none of our business, or that it requires no explanation. My personal feeling on that is that even if the prophet cleared his throat, it should not be removed or altered.

The FP lead us to believe that the prophet speaks for God and therefore changing his words are equal to changing God's words. But then, they have also changed words in the Book of Mormon so maybe when they say follow the living prophet, they really mean that God changes his mind so often that dead prophet words are just so yesterday and only words written or spoken since the latest prophet took office can be considered true.

And... this is one of the very reasons I left the church, they paint a weak God, and a God that seemingly changes his mind time and time again.

[blitzinstripes]

The church also took out the SEO searchable text of Joseph Smith drinking beer from the Joseph Smith Papers project.

are you saying that the Q15 et al have been engaging in cover-ups, manipulation of doctrine and the creation of propaganda in a concerted effort to mislead the church membership? For what purpose? Are you saying that they are purposefully leading the church to go under the skirt of the great whore as described in Revelation? Fornication? C'mon Man! That's absurd.

^sarc

edit to add: If JS comes back, I hope to tip one or two with him and discuss all this nonsense.

You and me both. I'll buy the first round.

[endlessQuestions]

Have any of you thought to question the First Presidency why these changes in Ezra Taft Benson's talks were made?

I've thought extensively about it.

How, exactly, would one go about "questioning The First Presidency"?

Because if you know how, I'll go do the questioning.

[blitzinstripes]

I won't say that there are elements of communal living that are not appealing. But such arrangements must be entered into and abided by free will and choice. No one will be forced to live consecration/ United Order. If you WISH to live in Zion, the you will CHOOSE to abide that law. As the collapse of society draws nearer, I have done some research on communal societies and I have seen a few that I believe could be comfortable and sustainable, built upon the agency of the individual whom is free to leave/ end their arrangement at any time.

In fact, I will go as far as saying that I predict that there will be a period of time perhaps during the worst part of tribulation where living in small communals that practice some form of those principles may be one of our only options for survival. Even the Amish could be accused of abiding by some degree of communal order.

Maintaining free agency though, is critical and why Satan's counterfeits inevitably result in wickedness and oppression.

[Serragon]

I won't say that there are elements of communal living that are not appealing. But such arrangements must be entered into and abided by free will and choice. No one will be forced to live consecration/ United Order. If you WISH to live in Zion, the you will CHOOSE to abide that law. As the collapse of society draws nearer, I have done some research on communal societies and I have seen a few that I believe could be comfortable and sustainable, built upon the agency of the individual whom is free to leave/ end their arrangement at any time.

In fact, I will go as far as saying that I predict that there will be a period of time perhaps during the worst part of tribulation where living in small communals that practice some form of those principles may be one of our only options for survival. Even the Amish could be accused of abiding by some degree of communal order.

Maintaining free agency though, is critical and why Satan's counterfeits inevitably result in wickedness and oppression.

Communal living by choice is fine. Communal living by force is not.

The main problems with communal or equitable systems are twofold. First, they have a misunderstanding of human nature. They think inequity and selfish behavior are the result of outside oppression, not an inherent characteristic of humanity. And this leads directly to the second problem, which is they end up having to use force and become totalitarian because people's individual selfish choices will never be able to build an equitable communal society. And that use of force then leads to a class system where greed is monopolized by the ruling class instead of distributed across all of society at the individual level.

[Obrien]

Yeah. The prophet was speaking for God. Being a prophet. So the fake profits changed the words to disregard political beliefs. Because political beliefs are what determines what a person does in every other regard.

They also changed it to omit references to one of the few ideologies which is openly anti-Christian.

I remember hearing stuff in conference that was not included in the written publication of the talks.

A frequent occurence. This is why we need independent recordings.

Or, take the more positive step of ignoring conference and thereby not being subject to the "stuff" or the "stuff" that later gets changed.

[Niemand]

Or, take the more positive step of ignoring conference and thereby not being subject to the "stuff" or the "stuff" that later gets changed.

I'm already doing that. I rarely watch it.

However, there should be a proper record of everything. Otherwise we end up with the situation of Yezhov, the little secret police chief, who disappears from the portrait of Stalin above.

[Original_Intent]

Jamestown was kind of an interesting experiment. The newly-arrived Americans did try VOLUNTARY communal living. The first year almost everyone died until they abandoned the idea.

edit: Plymouth colony:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowye ... 76305b6dfe

As William Bradford recorded in his Of Plymouth Plantation, a people who had formerly been known for their virtue and hard work became lazy and unproductive. Resources were squandered, vegetables were allowed to rot on the ground and mass starvation was the result. And where there is starvation, there is plague. After 2 1/2 years, the leaders of the colony decided to abandon their socialist mandate and create a system which honored private property. The colony survived and thrived and the abundance which resulted was what was celebrated at that iconic Thanksgiving feast.As William Bradford recorded in his Of Plymouth Plantation, a people who had formerly been known for their virtue and hard work became lazy and unproductive. Resources were squandered, vegetables were allowed to rot on the ground and mass starvation was the result. And where there is starvation, there is plague. After 2 1/2 years, the leaders of the colony decided to abandon their socialist mandate and create a system which honored private property. The colony survived and thrived and the abundance which resulted was what was celebrated at that iconic Thanksgiving feast.

[Subcomandante]

Much ado about nothing.

Communism today is not the same threat it was back in the 70s.

Also the demographics of the Church is FAR different than it was back in the 70s too.

It's 2023, not 1972. Adjust your clocks accordingly.

So you're saying that it's ok to change a talk because a lot of years have passed?
So, we need to not learn what people said or did, truthfully, years ago because times have changed?
But, even if that was your excuse, it was changed the same year, so your point is moot.

Read my response to mudflap. I said that a BETTER option would have been to put a disclaimer on the talk for contextual purposes, WITHOUT otherwise modifying the talk.

What would your disclaimer say, communism isn't a thing anymore so don't worry, be happy?

The disclaimer would go something like this:

This talk was given during the height of the Cold War, and as such the most visual enemy of the Church (largely an American institution at the time) was the encroachment of communism to many nations around the world. Today communism is no longer considered the grave threat that it was in Elder Benson's time, however, there are many organizations out there who have similar tactics in subterfuge, and people should be ever vigilant not to join these groups. Remember that we are not supposed to support any organization whose principles and teachings contradict those taught by the LDS Church.

[Reluctant Watchman]

The disclaimer would go something like this:

This talk was given during the height of the Cold War, and as such the most visual enemy of the Church (largely an American institution at the time) was the encroachment of communism to many nations around the world. Today communism is no longer considered the grave threat that it was in Elder Benson's time, however, there are many organizations out there who have similar tactics in subterfuge, and people should be ever vigilant not to join these groups. Remember that we are not supposed to support any organization whose principles and teachings contradict those taught by the LDS Church.

The pot calling the kettle black... they can't give away all of their tactics.

[Niyr]

So you're saying that it's ok to change a talk because a lot of years have passed?
So, we need to not learn what people said or did, truthfully, years ago because times have changed?
But, even if that was your excuse, it was changed the same year, so your point is moot.

Read my response to mudflap. I said that a BETTER option would have been to put a disclaimer on the talk for contextual purposes, WITHOUT otherwise modifying the talk.

What would your disclaimer say, communism isn't a thing anymore so don't worry, be happy?

The disclaimer would go something like this:

This talk was given during the height of the Cold War, and as such the most visual enemy of the Church (largely an American institution at the time) was the encroachment of communism to many nations around the world. Today communism is no longer considered the grave threat that it was in Elder Benson's time, however, there are many organizations out there who have similar tactics in subterfuge, and people should be ever vigilant not to join these groups. Remember that we are not supposed to support any organization whose principles and teachings contradict those taught by the LDS Church.

If it was edited at that time (it was), between the moment of the talk and the publication of the talk, what would the proper disclaimer be?

[Subcomandante]

Read my response to mudflap. I said that a BETTER option would have been to put a disclaimer on the talk for contextual purposes, WITHOUT otherwise modifying the talk.

This stinks of the Whig Theory of History... which is in a nutshell: "this year is better than last year, and next year will be better than this year", all leading to the inevitable end point of improvement. We'd best be careful of those people and those scriptures and documents from the past, they might pollute us! I wish more people would study classical and mediaeval history, one can learn a lot about the present from it.

Nothing is wrong with studying history, Niemand. But things have to be explained in context to the new members.

How would you explain the 1978 Priesthood Revelation to a recently baptized black African individual? As well as the dozens of quotes from past Church leaders justifying the ban up to that point?

[Subcomandante]

Read my response to mudflap. I said that a BETTER option would have been to put a disclaimer on the talk for contextual purposes, WITHOUT otherwise modifying the talk.

What would your disclaimer say, communism isn't a thing anymore so don't worry, be happy?

The disclaimer would go something like this:

This talk was given during the height of the Cold War, and as such the most visual enemy of the Church (largely an American institution at the time) was the encroachment of communism to many nations around the world. Today communism is no longer considered the grave threat that it was in Elder Benson's time, however, there are many organizations out there who have similar tactics in subterfuge, and people should be ever vigilant not to join these groups. Remember that we are not supposed to support any organization whose principles and teachings contradict those taught by the LDS Church.

If it was edited at that time (it was), between the moment of the talk and the publication of the talk, what would the proper disclaimer be?

Read my first response to Mudflap concerning this.

I said it would be better if NO CHANGES were made to the actual talk, that they wrote it out exactly how he spoke it.

But I would also write a disclaimer similar to the one I posted above in my response to RansomedOne, identifying the fact that there are recent converts to the Church that might be taken aback or otherwise surprised at how past Church leaders taught.

The threats that exist today in 2023 are different than those that existed in 1973 or even 1993. The Church will be focused on counteracting today's threats. Not ghosts from 50 years ago.

[Niyr]

What would your disclaimer say, communism isn't a thing anymore so don't worry, be happy?

The disclaimer would go something like this:

This talk was given during the height of the Cold War, and as such the most visual enemy of the Church (largely an American institution at the time) was the encroachment of communism to many nations around the world. Today communism is no longer considered the grave threat that it was in Elder Benson's time, however, there are many organizations out there who have similar tactics in subterfuge, and people should be ever vigilant not to join these groups. Remember that we are not supposed to support any organization whose principles and teachings contradict those taught by the LDS Church.

If it was edited at that time (it was), between the moment of the talk and the publication of the talk, what would the proper disclaimer be?

Read my first response to Mudflap concerning this.

I said it would be better if NO CHANGES were made to the actual talk, that they wrote it out exactly how he spoke it.

But I would also write a disclaimer similar to the one I posted above in my response to RansomedOne, identifying the fact that there are recent converts to the Church that might be taken aback or otherwise surprised at how past Church leaders taught.

The threats that exist today in 2023 are different than those that existed in 1973 or even 1993. The Church will be focused on counteracting today's threats. Not ghosts from 50 years ago.

I'm not talking about today. I'm talking about the talk, given in 1972, and was edited in 1972. What would the disclaimer be for those in 1972, which would be the present day for those in that time. You can't disclaim about past church leaders when it's those leaders saying it in their present day in 1972.

[Niemand]

Read my response to mudflap. I said that a BETTER option would have been to put a disclaimer on the talk for contextual purposes, WITHOUT otherwise modifying the talk.

This stinks of the Whig Theory of History... which is in a nutshell: "this year is better than last year, and next year will be better than this year", all leading to the inevitable end point of improvement. We'd best be careful of those people and those scriptures and documents from the past, they might pollute us! I wish more people would study classical and mediaeval history, one can learn a lot about the present from it.

Nothing is wrong with studying history, Niemand. But things have to be explained in context to the new members.

How would you explain the 1978 Priesthood Revelation to a recently baptized black African individual? As well as the dozens of quotes from past Church leaders justifying the ban up to that point?

I think regarding the priesthood ban, we would have to be above board and honest about what was said and done, whatever one thought of the matter.

Covering uo history rarely ends well.

There were certainly black priests in the early Restoration movement. That's a matter of record. But it would also be disingenuous if we also pretended that all the Curse of Ham statements etc hadn't been said.

I think ironically both the priesthood ban and the priesthood extension were both performed for political reasons. The north-south situation of the mid-19th century and the civil rights movement of the 60s and 70s.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Do you think the ban was political?

[FrankOne]

I won't say that there are elements of communal living that are not appealing. But such arrangements must be entered into and abided by free will and choice. No one will be forced to live consecration/ United Order. If you WISH to live in Zion, the you will CHOOSE to abide that law. As the collapse of society draws nearer, I have done some research on communal societies and I have seen a few that I believe could be comfortable and sustainable, built upon the agency of the individual whom is free to leave/ end their arrangement at any time.

In fact, I will go as far as saying that I predict that there will be a period of time perhaps during the worst part of tribulation where living in small communals that practice some form of those principles may be one of our only options for survival. Even the Amish could be accused of abiding by some degree of communal order.

Maintaining free agency though, is critical and why Satan's counterfeits inevitably result in wickedness and oppression.

Communal living by choice is fine. Communal living by force is not.

The main problems with communal or equitable systems are twofold. First, they have a misunderstanding of human nature. They think inequity and selfish behavior are the result of outside oppression, not an inherent characteristic of humanity. And this leads directly to the second problem, which is they end up having to use force and become totalitarian because people's individual selfish choices will never be able to build an equitable communal society. And that use of force then leads to a class system where greed is monopolized by the ruling class instead of distributed across all of society at the individual level.

^ the cutting truth. i love it. i really enjoy being frank. (tongue in cheek)

in general, human nature is in direct contradiction to peace

all divorces and problems in relationships are a result of conflict of personal desire. The most important thing to most anyone is what they want.

then you have a rare fraction of the population that recognizes the animal/natural man nature and works daily on not gratifying it. These types are self aware. These types would choose to live in communion with others as more of an exercise in perfection than anything else. To be as the sun (Son), giving freely to all without respect of persons, whether they be lazy or hard working, right or wrong, sinful or pure, deserving or undeserving. Who could do this? The men of today?

A plyg woman that ran a dairy near me once told me : "The refining work and lesson of 'the principle' for women is sharing a man in marriage . The refining work for a man is living the law of consecration. "

very wise words. refiners fires. Men don't work and play well with those that they deem lesser than themselves. (undeserving).

the plight of man is wearisome, is it not?

the path to perfection is a very difficult endeavor. Desire and fear are the root of all problems.

[Niemand]

The disclaimer would go something like this:

This talk was given during the height of the Cold War, and as such the most visual enemy of the Church (largely an American institution at the time) was the encroachment of communism to many nations around the world. Today communism is no longer considered the grave threat that it was in Elder Benson's time, however, there are many organizations out there who have similar tactics in subterfuge, and people should be ever vigilant not to join these groups. Remember that we are not supposed to support any organization whose principles and teachings contradict those taught by the LDS Church.

One billion Chinese still live under the control of the Communist Party, as do Cubans, Vietnamese, half of Korea etc. While Vietnam is returning to some semblance of normality and Cuba is much better than it used to be, North Korea is still awful and China's cold-bloodedness is in large part a Marxist legacy.

I think it's obvious that China is the most repressive major country and probably the most dangerous (more so than Russia, and probably more so than the USA.)

Antonio Gramsci proposed a "long march through the institutions" and that seems to be exactly what we are seeing in the west. The education system seems to be very badly affected.

[Light Seeker]

given many of the comments on communism, I'm wondering how few on FF know what communism is? Communism in its intended form taught years ago, isn't a totalitarian, oligarch runs social system! Russia has no communes. China has communal concepts for the poor and rural but no one else. Both of these countries are totalitarian regimes. China is run by the CCCP or communist party. Russia is run by the powerful oligarchs. Even in Benson's talks there are two things. Communist ideology and totalitarian regimes that take away freedom. Seems here people think any evil dictator or even warlord is some how tied to the communist ideology?

The issue today, isn't communism, it is socialism. Socialism allows corporations both private and state owned and provide social programs in return for continued power. This isn't what Marx, Lenin and Mao preached but more what the implemented.

Again, I don't see a single reference to any communal social order as being from Christ, no matter what social programs Joseph tried (and failed) to implement. Anyone so far that has claimed otherwise has no evidence to stand on. With that said, what Lenin tried (initially) and JS are pretty darn close, despite laundered LDS writing on the United Order (United Firm at the time).

The book quoted by ETB in this very talk which was redacted, None Dare Call It A Conspiracy by Gary Allen explicitly states:

“In keeping with the fact that almost everybody seems to have his own definition of Communism, we are going to give you ours, and then we will attempt to prove to you that it is the only valid one. Communism: AN INTERNATIONAL, CONSPIRATORIAL DRIVE FOR POWER ON THE PART OF MEN IN HIGH PLACES WILLING TO USE ANY MEANS TO BRING ABOUT THEIR DESIRED AIM—GLOBAL CONQUEST.” (None Dare Call It A Conspiracy, Gary Allen, p. 21.)

I highly recommend reading this book for anyone who hasn't. You won't think in terms of some kind of commune. But you will recognize the truth of it: we are being duped into accepting an international conspiratorial effort to bring about global conquest. This is Satan's endgame. Plain and simple. Socialism is the stepping stone to communism.

Two more great books to read are the Naked Socialist and Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen which illustrates the following:

naked communist.jpg


communist approach.jpg

I need to know how you added that photo . Please .

[marc]

given many of the comments on communism, I'm wondering how few on FF know what communism is? Communism in its intended form taught years ago, isn't a totalitarian, oligarch runs social system! Russia has no communes. China has communal concepts for the poor and rural but no one else. Both of these countries are totalitarian regimes. China is run by the CCCP or communist party. Russia is run by the powerful oligarchs. Even in Benson's talks there are two things. Communist ideology and totalitarian regimes that take away freedom. Seems here people think any evil dictator or even warlord is some how tied to the communist ideology?

The issue today, isn't communism, it is socialism. Socialism allows corporations both private and state owned and provide social programs in return for continued power. This isn't what Marx, Lenin and Mao preached but more what the implemented.

Again, I don't see a single reference to any communal social order as being from Christ, no matter what social programs Joseph tried (and failed) to implement. Anyone so far that has claimed otherwise has no evidence to stand on. With that said, what Lenin tried (initially) and JS are pretty darn close, despite laundered LDS writing on the United Order (United Firm at the time).

The book quoted by ETB in this very talk which was redacted, None Dare Call It A Conspiracy by Gary Allen explicitly states:

“In keeping with the fact that almost everybody seems to have his own definition of Communism, we are going to give you ours, and then we will attempt to prove to you that it is the only valid one. Communism: AN INTERNATIONAL, CONSPIRATORIAL DRIVE FOR POWER ON THE PART OF MEN IN HIGH PLACES WILLING TO USE ANY MEANS TO BRING ABOUT THEIR DESIRED AIM—GLOBAL CONQUEST.” (None Dare Call It A Conspiracy, Gary Allen, p. 21.)

I highly recommend reading this book for anyone who hasn't. You won't think in terms of some kind of commune. But you will recognize the truth of it: we are being duped into accepting an international conspiratorial effort to bring about global conquest. This is Satan's endgame. Plain and simple. Socialism is the stepping stone to communism.

Two more great books to read are the Naked Socialist and Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen which illustrates the following:

naked communist.jpg


communist approach.jpg

I need to know how you added that photo . Please .

Sure! When you are replying to a comment, before you hit submit, look at the lower left hand of the page where it says Options and Attachments. Click on Attchments and click the blue ADD FILES button. Select your image from your device and continue following the prompts such as Place In Line. Presto!