Ezra Taft Benson: Partisan Politician and Prominent Prophet

By Derek J. Steele

A debate has long raged among both Mormon and non-Mormon alike: When are the words of leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) official church policy and doctrine, and when are they personal opinion?(1)  Apologists of the religion have, with good intention, often sought to quote various leaders in defense of the religion; while antagonists of the religion have done the same, but with the hope that they will somehow “expose” what they perceive as fraudulent behavior of said leaders.  Thus, it behooves us to: first, find out if there is a way to determine when the hierarchy of the Church are giving official doctrine, and when they are merely sharing well-intentioned opinion; and second, use this wisely in an attempt to inform and educate all people.  In so doing, we are provided a unique case study with the life of Ezra Taft Benson: member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles; President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles; Thirteenth President of the LDS Church; and fifteenth United States Secretary of Agriculture.

Normally, an attempt to separate official doctrine from personal opinion within an organization would be practically impossible, but not so with the LDS Church.  As far back as founder Joseph Smith and second LDS Church president Brigham Young, high ranking Church leaders have warned member and non-member alike of the problems arising when they rely too heavily on their leaders for instruction. 

In August of 1831, Joseph Smith received what he shared with his followers as revelation from Deity:

“For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves.  And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.”(2)

In application of this counsel, Smith sought to “teach them [his followers] correct principles” in hopes that they would then be able to “govern themselves” without needing to be instructed in “all things”.(3)  His greatest fear can be summed up in this quote attributed to him, “What a strange people these Mormons are.  They are like a flock of sheep; if I should jump into hell, I believe they would follow me!”(4)

Brigham Young, Smith’s successor as Church president, agreed with Smith’s sentiment, stating:

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him.  I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation.(5) 

Young’s fear was that his followers would simply do whatever he asked, without seeking to know if it was “of God” or not.

Lest we think that this was a sentiment that somehow worked its way out of the teachings of the Church, we can turn to four more contemporary quotes from high ranking Church leaders, namely: J. Reuben Clark, counselor in the First Presidency; Ezra Taft Benson, President of the LDS Church; Dallin H. Oaks, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles; and D. Todd Christofferson, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

President J. Reuben Clark, in an address to Seminary and Institute Personnel, held at Brigham Young University (BYU) in July 1954, stated:

Here we must have in mind—must know—that only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of the Church...

So when any other person, irrespective of who he is, undertakes to do any of these things, you may know he is not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ in so speaking unless he has special authorization from the President of the Church. ...

There have been rare occasions when even the President of the Church in his teaching and preaching has not been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’ You will recall the Prophet Joseph declared that a prophet is not always a prophet. [See Teachings, pg. 278].(6)

In a December 1974 BYU devotional Ezra Taft Benson, then President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, gave this clarifying statement about the role of a prophet, “The most important prophet, so far as we are concerned, is the one who is living in our day and age. This is the prophet who has today's instructions from God to us.”(7) 

Just over five years later, in a devotional at BYU in February of 1980, after having been elevated to the office of President of the LDS Church, Benson gave an even more definitive speech regarding the role of a prophet.  In so doing, he gave fourteen key points as to what a prophet is called to do.  Said Benson:

First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to

speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say 'Thus saith the Lord' to give us scripture.

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

Eighth: The Prophet is not limited by men's reasoning.

Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.

Tenth: The prophet may well advise on civic matters.

Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are

the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldy.

Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—The highest

quorum in the Church.

Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First

Presidency—follow them and be blessed-reject them and suffer.(8)

In combining the aforementioned quotes, one learns that the current prophet has the sole right of interpreting and declaring doctrine.  He alone can do this—not members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles individually and not local leaders, however well-intentioned they may be—only the current prophet has the right and responsibility of declaring and expounding upon doctrine.  However, as previously mentioned, this is not to say that he is always speaking as a prophet.  As Clark stated, quoting Smith, “a prophet is not always a prophet,”(9) and as Elder Dallin H. Oaks clarified, “Revelations from God—the teachings and direction of the Spirit—are not constant.  We believe in continuing revelation, not continuous revelation.  We are often left to work out problems without the dictation or specific direction of the Spirit.”(10)  That being said, Oaks goes on to state that, even though this is the case, “we are never out of our Savior’s sight, and if our judgment leads us to actions beyond the limits of what is permissible and if we are listening to the still, small voice, the Lord will restrain us by the promptings of his Spirit.”(11)

Expounding even further, D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the LDS Church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, reminded those in attendance during the April 2012 General Conference that:

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that ‘a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.’(12)

Based on these words from both high ranking LDS Church leaders and prophets themselves we learn that there is a difference between viewing Church leaders as flawless oracles of God and as fallible, yet inspired, men.(13) 

There is a way to determine whether those in the hierarchy of the Church are giving official doctrine or personal opinion, but it requires effort on the part of the listener.  LDS Church doctrine declares that the gospel of Jesus Christ is perfect, while those who strive to apply its teachings in their everyday lives are not.  Apologists and antagonists should be well warned that in LDS doctrine a penalty is affixed from Deity to those who wrest the scriptures, and that penalty harms both parties—it is that they wallow in fiction and error when they could so easily have the truth.(14)

From time to time, incidents occur in the LDS Church involving its leaders which cause some to question their inspiration.  While many cases could be cited, for the purposes of this paper, only one will be dealt with—the case involving political views preached from the pulpit by Ezra Taft Benson.  A thorough examination into this will give both the reader added insight into the life of a great man, Ezra Taft Benson, and also increase their understanding as to how the LDS Church both learns and grows as an organization, as well as how those which comprise its general membership and leadership hierarchy learn and grow individually.

Ezra Taft Benson, who served as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles from 7 October 1943 until 10 November 1985; and as President of the Church from 10 November 1985 until his death on 30 May 1994, is one of the most outspoken Church leaders in regards to political position and views.  Both supporter and detractor alike have sought to attribute all of his words as being the official doctrine of the Church—which isn’t factual or accurate.  What many people who cite him as being an authority on certain topics fail to realize, or readily acknowledge, is that there were those inside the Church, both general member and those in high responsibility positions alike, who were uncomfortable and did not agree with his political views.  Regardless of this, for some reason both apologists and antagonists still refer to Benson’s words as if they are infallible, pure doctrine.  Looking at what Benson said both before and after he was President of the Church can provide us with added insight into how personal opinions are to be viewed.  

Since we have previously determined a pattern for differentiating between official doctrine and well-intentioned opinion, it behooves us to now apply this to various instances: namely, the oft-referred to quotes of Ezra Taft Benson, in elevating Republican Party values as holy and pure while relegating Democratic Party values as unholy and impure.  In doing so, we could also just as easily erase the terms “Democrat” and “Republican” and insert “Liberal” and “Conservative.”  While social conservative views, such as strong family unity, the roles of men and women, and so on, have been held consistent throughout the duration of the Church’s leadership hierarchy, other views such as liberal monetary plans and socialized medicine are not to be viewed as officially condemned by the Church.  Perhaps it should be well-noted that, while running for President of the United States in 1844 under a third-party, Joseph Smith himself was a proponent of “forming a national bank,” and “favored extending the United States ‘from the east to the west sea,’ but only if Native Americans gave their consent.”(15)  Joseph Smith’s views in politics were progressive at the time, and still remain controversial to many both inside the Church and out.

Ordained as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, on 7 October 1943, Benson’s first official talk delivered in this capacity came one year and one day later, during the October 1944 General Conference of the LDS Church.  In this talk, entitled “A Significant Promise and Solemn Warning,” Benson warned those in attendance that although America had been founded on Christian principles, was becoming “a great power,” and “materially” had “excelled,” the United States was regressing spiritually.  “As a nation” said Benson, “we need the refining and sustaining influences which come from obedience to divine law,” for “without such blessings the future of the nation is insecure.”  As he closed his discourse, he pleaded with those listening to follow the words of Abraham Lincoln, “‘to humble ourselves before the offended power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.’”  With sin increasing and goodness declining in America, Benson asked the question, “But what of the future?”(16)

A careful analysis of his words will evidence nothing but a man who is passionate about the country he loves, and who wanted its citizens to engage in a “nationwide repentance” of sins, because “never before” had they “needed the blessings of Almighty God more than today.”  God’s blessings were needed in many arenas of life, “in the halls of government, in our homes, in the factories and shops, on the farms and on the battlefields of the world.”  Benson’s statements, while being overtly patriotic and Christian, drew heavily from the prophecies and promises contained in the Book of Mormon and not partisan politics of the day.(17)

His second address in the April 1945 LDS General Conference dealt heavily on the importance of missionary work.  Little was said about politics—other than to note the respect he had for those serving in the military at that time.(18)

In the October 1945 LDS General Conference, Benson focused more on the importance of the relationship between agriculture and the economy, stating that, “A sound agriculture is vital to the national economy.”  Having himself become more convinced of the importance between the two, he continued:

For the longer I live, the more certain do I become that what the best of government can do for farmers is of insignificant importance compared with what, by carefully thought out and loyal cooperation, they can do for themselves.  Let us as Latter-day Saints stand on our own feet.  Let us not be inclined to run to a paternalistic government for help when every problem arises, but to attack our problems jointly, and through effective cooperative effort, solve our problems at home.  To me one of the greatest bulwarks we have in this country against all the foreign isms, ‘crackpot’ theories, and the unsound social reforms is the people who live on the land, close to the soil.  The principles of self-help are economically, socially, and spiritually sound.  The Lord will not do for us what we can and should do for ourselves.(19)

Approximately one and a half years later, in the April 1947 LDS General Conference, Benson would add to his agricultural views and increase both his rhetoric and verbal condemnation of specific political systems he was in disagreement with, stating that, “the threat of Godless communism is a stern reality, not only in Europe but also in blessed America.”(20)  From this time forward, he would boldly declare to all who would listen, his view regarding the threat of communism.

Yet his statement about communism being godless wasn’t anything out of the ordinary among LDS Church leaders.  In 1936, about seven years before Benson’s call to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the First Presidency of the LDS Church, comprised of: President Heber J. Grant; First Counselor J. Reuben Clark, Jr.; and Second Counselor David O. McKay; issued what some scholars refer to as “the first LDS policy statement regarding Communism” which “would be cited repeatedly in coming decades.”(21)  In this statement the First Presidency declared:

The Church does not interfere, and has no intention of trying to interfere, with the fullest and freest exercise of the political franchise of its members, under and within our Constitution. . . .

But Communism is not a political party nor a political plan under the Constitution; it is a system of government that is the opposite of our Constitutional government, and it would be necessary to destroy our government before communism could be set up in the United States.

Since Communism, established, would destroy our American Constitutional government, to support communism is treasonable to our free institutions, and no patriotic American citizen may become either a communist or supporter of communism. . . .

Communism being thus hostile to loyal American citizenship and incompatible with true Church membership, of necessity no loyal American citizen and no faithful Church member can be a Communist.(22)

Benson’s strong views against what he perceived as the evils of communism were shared by his counterparts in the LDS Church hierarchy.  But why did he all of a sudden switch to becoming more vocal about this aspect of politics?  What caused the shift from the relationship between agriculture and the economy to communism?  One can assert that it most likely had to do with his assignment beginning on 29 January 1946 to Europe, in which he “reopened missionary work as European Mission President and supervised distribution of welfare supplies in Europe after World War II.”(23)  Recounting this assignment, Benson stated:

I shall never forget my feelings when I read in the press the announcement by the First Presidency regarding our call. The magnitude of it seemed overwhelming. They gave us a four-point charge: First, to attend to the spiritual affairs of the Church in Europe; second, to work to make available food, clothing, and bedding to our suffering Saints in all parts of Europe; third, to direct the reorganization of the various missions of Europe; and, fourth, to prepare for the return of missionaries to those countries.(24)

After accompanying him to post-war Europe his traveling companion, Frederick Babbel, recounted that Benson was more than just dedicated to the needs of those they met—he was passionate about them.  During this trip the two had traveled more than 60,000 miles “by plane, train, automobile, ship, jeep, truck, bus, and horse and buggy,”(25) and as Babbel later stated in his memoirs:

By the end of the first year we had received and, for the most part, distributed 92 railway carloads of welfare supplies (about 2,000 tons).  These consisted of food, clothing, utensils, medical supplies, and a host of sundry items. . . . Welfare supplies and packages were shipped primarily from the United States and Canada.  Distribution was made in Britain, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Germany.(26)

Perhaps Benson, serving as an Apostle, felt that he needed to share what he had observed with the members of the Church upon his return.  Writes Kenneth W. Godfrey in the Utah History Encyclopedia:

Following the end of World War II hostilities in 1945, Benson was sent by LDS Church President George Albert Smith to Europe where he spent eight busy months coordinating relief and recovery efforts among Mormons in Europe. This experience intensified his dislike of tyranny, cruelty, and injustice. 

He was featured on the covers of Time magazine and The Saturday Evening Post, he and his family were guests on Edward R. Murrow's television show, ‘Person to Person.’ Believing that ‘no real American wants to be subsidized,’ he urged flexible price supports for agricultural products and called on America's farmers to stand on their own feet. Surprising critics, he survived a full eight years in the cabinet before retiring once more to home and church duties.(27)

Although we don’t know the exact reason, it is apparent that his experiences in post-war Europe left him with an increased sense of patriotism for America, and a severe distaste for other forms of government.  Waiting until almost two and a half years after his call to the Quorum of the Twelve to make even his generally accepted statement about communism being ungodly, one can infer that, upon his return from Europe, he felt responsible to inform the Church membership of the dangers of non-democratic governments.  While he may have held these views before his appointment, it took some time before he felt comfortable sharing them with the body public of the Church.  Yet once he started, he was a freight train which would not be easily derailed.

While Benson’s preaching of politics had minutely increased after his call to Europe in 1946, his political speeches reached new levels of intensity after his call to be United States Secretary of Agriculture in 1952 under the Eisenhower Administration.(28)  Prior to his appointment, when he mentioned politics little, if anything, was in disagreement with other Church leader’s statements.  But now his statements were becoming even more emphatic—which was surprising because, by his own admission, Benson had “feared, in a way” of “getting into politics,” and “would always rather support someone else than to actually hold political office.”(29)  Nevertheless he had accepted the appointment, at the behest of Church President David O. McKay.(30)

In the same year in which Benson accepted the position of Secretary, he also spoke four different times to the membership of the LDS Church in his capacity as Apostle—each time increasing substantially in his use of political rhetoric.  It can be asserted that, even though he had been working in the private sector in Washington, D.C. prior to his appointment, perhaps Benson felt he needed to address his views to both those of his faith and those not of his faith, given his newfound governmental position and responsibility.  The four speeches which he gave are evident in and of themselves of this fact, and will be quoted from hereafter: “Practices Which Endanger,” April 1952 LDS General Conference; “The Growth of the Church,” Address given at BYU 15 April 1952; “The Aftermath of War,” October 1952 General Conference; and, “The LDS Church and Politics,” Address given at BYU 1 December 1952.

In “Practices Which Endanger,” Benson compared the United States at that time to Rome, citing examples from Will Durant’s “The Story of Civilization.”  Upon doing so, Benson stated that, while he loves “this great land in which we live,” and that he prays “for the chief executive and his cabinet and the legislative and judicial branches,” he still wondered “what our founding fathers, our pioneer fathers, would do and say if they were here today.”  He then answered his question, stating: “I’m sure they would give serious reflection to present conditions.  I wonder if they would not recognize that our liberties have already been abridged, that there has been too much of a tendency for use to call upon our federal government every time we felt the need for accomplishment of any particular objective.”  Benson lastly offered this contemplative thought, “I wonder if we haven’t had a tendency to call for help for those things which our forefathers would have done willingly for themselves.”(31)

In wondering what the Founders would do if they were alive at that time, Benson asserted that, “if they were here today, they would apply some very definite tests before any new service or new program were approved.”  Asking his audience to ponder on the following question, “assuming it is needed, be done more efficiently, more effectively by our federal government or should we do it ourselves on the local level?”  Benson asserted again that the Founders would find a “government [which] seems to be inherently wasteful and inefficient,” most likely because “the profit motive and competition—the very life of private enterprise—are largely absent.”  In addition, Benson stated that they would also ask themselves how the proposed plans will “affect the morale and character of the people,” and how they will “affect our free institutions.”(32)

If the Founders were here, said Benson, they “would look for the answers to the decline of public morals,” observing “evidence of weak and vacillating leadership in many places,” and, in making it clear that he is not making partisan claims, states that this weakness is “not confined to one group or party.”(33)

Calling on members of the Church, both “as Latter-day Saints, and as American citizens,” Benson implored them that “we need to rouse ourselves to the problems that confront us as a great Christian nation. . . . Economics and morals are both parts of one inseparable body of truth, and they must be in harmony.”  The only way to return to this is to have a “nationwide return” to the aforementioned “fundamentals,” combined with “a nationwide repentance” in order to “rid this land of corruption.”  “We must,” pleaded Benson as he ended his talk, “return to the fundamental virtues that have made this nation great.”(34)

While speaking on 15 April 1952 to the BYU student body, Benson sought to inform and implore those in attendance as to how they can help with the growth of the Church.  His tone was serious, but not over-bearing, and he focused mostly on how lack of faith and morality had infiltrated those living in America.  To overcome this “faithless materialism,” he implored them to embrace the Church’s standards of tithing, chastity, hard-work, health code, and volunteer service (lay clergy).  These are all “peculiar things” that can help both the Church and the country.  Said Benson:

I know we're living in a world today where many of the principles and ideals of this people are being challenged—challenged by a faithless materialism  You heard President McKay in his keynote address at the conference emphasize some of these facts that people even in America, many of them Christian people (so-called), seem uncertain of their position.  No longer are they certain of what they stand for, what they believe in.  Their faith has been weakened—many cases destroyed—by a godless, faithless, materialism that has become popular in many places to sneer at some of our American traditions—our way of life.  Things that are sacred, things that are important, many people indeed in this nation and other Christian nations look upon morality and purity of life as being old-fashioned.

I hope that we will continue our faith in the government of this great land; in the sacredness of family ties and all those things that have been so precious and dear to our forefathers.  I hope we'll be true to our heritage and grateful for our blessings.  I hope that we'll be honest in our dealings, loyal to our leadership, true to those standards which have helped to build this great church and this great nation.(35)

Benson’s remedy for the “godless, faithless materialism” was to be true to the standards which helped build both the Church and the nation reach the success it had—to have faith in the government, be honest with one another, loyal to the leadership, and build strong family ties.

Building off his General Conference speech “Practices Which Endanger,” Benson recounted his experiences in postwar Europe in “The Aftermath of War”, stating that “It is a saddening thing to see people who have lost their freedom—the right to choose—who have lost their right to move about freely, to assemble together as we meet here today.”(36)

While this saddened him, he also praised those who took an interest in political affairs of the various nations to which they belonged, but also reminding them of the more important duty of priesthood responsibility:

We honor you because of your interest in political affairs, and we have confidence that you will always remember that no political power or office which may ever come to you will even approach in importance the great blessing and honor which came to you when you were ordained to the Holy Priesthood of God.(37)

Lastly, Benson states that, while both politics and worldly endeavors are important, they are “but a means to an end.”  As he states, “We are but stewards here in mortality.  God will hold us accountable for the use of the material things with which he has blessed us.  Let us ever remember that the end is spiritual.”(38)

During this same General Conference, then President David O. McKay made the following statement:

… Twice, during the conference, reference has been made to the fact that we are approaching a general election, in which tension becomes high; sometimes feelings are engendered; often false reports are made; and innocent people are misjudged. . . .

In the Church, there are members who favor the Democratic party.  There are other members who sincerely believe and advocate the principles and ideals of the Republican party.  The First Presidency, the Council of the Twelve, and other officers who constitute the General Authorities of the Church, preside over members of both political parties.

… The welfare of all members of the Church is equally considered by the President, his Counselors, and the General Authorities.  Both political parties will be treated impartially.”(39)

In addition to the aforementioned statement, after recounting a trip to Europe, McKay stated:

I am sorry that I must now sound a note of discouragement, for I cannot refrain from referring to the attitude of selfishness, distrust, and hatred manifest by the leaders of communism.  How they hate America, and everything American!  They are not only anti-American—they are anti-Christian!

…By the Iron Curtain they scheme to keep Western influence out of Russia and prevent Russians from becoming acquainted with the West…

Largely because of their nefarious schemes and false ideologies, civilization is facing a crisis.  We are in a period of uncertainty, of international tension.  Not infrequently we see manifest among people a feeling of impending crisis in which is fear that the atom bomb might bring to a tragic end present-day civilization…

Well, brethren and sisters, let us not despair.  A man’s comfort in time of ease and peace, as well as in time of stress and danger, will be found in the depths of the sincerity of his belief in an Eternal Being, his faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ…

God bless the Church.  It is worldwide.  Its influence should be felt by all nations.  May his spirit influence men everywhere and incline their hearts toward good will and peace.  May divine guidance be given the priesthood, who hold the responsibility of declaring to an indifferent world the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ.(40)

Perhaps these statements contributed to Benson’s belief that anything he viewed as being anti-American should be eradicated—for anti-American agendas had potential of leading to godless Communism—and that was something he was unwilling to stand idly by and allow to occur.

As previously mentioned, during a Devotional Address at BYU in December of 1952, Benson recounted how he didn’t want to be Secretary of Agriculture, stating that “I can’t imagine anyone in his right mind wanting it,” and also “I’ve always feared, in a way, getting into politics.  I’ve never had any particular desire in the direction,” and “I would always rather support someone else than to actually hold political office,” but put these feelings aside and did so at the encouragement of President David O. McKay.  In fact, no one else was even under consideration by General-turned-President Eisenhower for the position to which Benson was appointed.(41)

In the course of his talk, Benson made such statements as: “I’d rather be dead that lose my liberty,” and “I have no fear we’ll ever lose it because of invasion from the outside, but I do have fear that it may slip away from us because of our own indifference, our own negligence as citizens of this land.”  Imploring his audience, he continued, “I plead with you…that you take an active interest in matters pertaining to the future of this country…no group of people have ever attained the standard of living which is ours.”  Even though citizens of this country had attained a high standard of living, he warned those listening that after they had “become acquainted with what has been accomplished,” even through constructive criticism in hopes of improving the “American way of life,” they should remember to “not surrender…not give up,” and “not jeopardize that system which has made America great.”(42)  Ultimately Benson, in instructing all citizens to be informed and active in political affairs, had warned against doing so at the sacrifice of the system which the Founders had set in motion.

In closing his talk Benson applied an experience in regards to politics, and then stated that this may have been the way God chose to put the cause of the Mormons before the world.  “I think of that great struggle referred to by Brother Wilkinson when Senator Smoot was trying to take his seat in the Senate.  The hearings went on for weeks” and “it was easy to see…that it was not Reed Smoot who was on trial; it was the Church and people whom he represented.”  Benson continued, “our Standard Works, private papers of the First Presidency, confidential items were placed in the records,” until “finally the President of the Church was placed on the witness stand, not for hours but for days.”  Benson then states that “I wonder if the Lord didn’t have a hand in it.”  Said Benson, “I sometimes think, too, that one of the reasons why he permitted, yea, directed some of the early leaders of the Church to enter into the sacred relationship of plural marriage was for the purpose of publicizing his people.”  Finally, at the conclusion of his address, Benson stated, “Men’s ways are not God’s ways.  Maybe it’s his way of getting Mormonism before the world.”(43)

This increased political interest spilled over into the following year, and during the General Conference of April 1953, Benson firmly instructed the members of the Church of the great responsibility facing both them and those who represent them in various government positions.  Said Benson:

To me it is a great honor and a privilege to serve the government of the United States of America. Our problems are numerous, complex, and difficult…I have felt the power of the faith and prayers of the Saints and Christian people generally throughout this nation, who believe in many of those eternal principles that are embodied in the gospel, the principles for which we stand as a people.

I am grateful that I have been able to get men closely associated with me who love America, who believe that the Constitution of this land embodies eternal principles. They are men of faith, men who are willing to join with me weekly in prayer in our staff meetings, men who love our free institutions, men who want to keep America strong, men who are willing to sacrifice financially in order to serve the government of the United States, this blessed land in which we live…

I love this great nation in which we live…It is my firm belief that the God of heaven raised up the founding fathers and inspired them to establish the Constitution of this land, and I believe that is Mormon doctrine…

I would like to appeal to the Latter-day Saints, and all within the range of my voice today… that we pray for the President of the United States. He is our President. He needs our faith and prayers. He has my confidence, as do the men associated with him in the cabinet.

As we bow our heads in prayer in cabinet meeting each Friday morning, I thank God that we still have in America men of faith who are not too proud to bow before the Almighty and seek his inspiration. We may not agree with all of the President's policies, and I hope if we do not, we will express ourselves vigorously and freely, either policies advocated or policies adopted. I hope the issues will be debated freely from one end of the land to the other because therein is safety. There is always safety in an informed public.

But let us pray that the chief executive will make no serious mistakes. Let us pray for the Congress of the United States. They are made up mostly of good men, fine public servants, who want to do what is right. They also want to please their constituents, and I hope you will be wise in what you ask of them. Don't ask them for anything that is unsound. Don't put your own selfish, narrow desires ahead of the public welfare…

Pray also for the great judicial branch of the government--these men who have been called and given the great responsibility of interpreting the laws of the land. May they have the power and influence of the Spirit of heaven that as they interpret those laws they may do so in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution in a manner pleasing to our Heavenly Father.(44)

While Benson’s political rhetoric continued to escalate to those inside the Church, he was also facing some opposition in his governmental position.  Wanting to implement a less-government involved form of free-enterprise in regards to certain agriculture crops, like wheat, Benson found himself at odds with Richard Nixon, a rising star in the Republican Party, and the current vice president. With Eisenhower’s administration coming to a close, Benson found himself at odds over varying views with the vice president in regards to agriculture.  As Benson stated in an unsent letter included in his published memoirs:

For seven long years my associates and I, in USDA, have fought against great odds, a combination of weak-kneed Republicans and socialistic Democrats, to bring some sense into a senseless program for our farmers, especially in the Midwest. . . . Sometimes I’m almost tempted to respond to the suggestions of friends and strangers from all segments of America and get into the presidential free-for-all myself.  Not that victory would be possible, but it might present a more effective opportunity to tell the American people something of the politics of agriculture. . . . As President Ike said to me in 1953, “If a thing is right it should be done.  And if it’s right it will prove to be good politics.”  I can only add that if the time ever comes when what is right is not good politics, it will be a sad day for America.(45)

As Benson continued to preach his political views from the pulpit, some inside the Church hierarchy grew increasingly frustrated with his constant slanted view of politics.  While many agreed with his views, they didn’t agree with his use of Church position to promote them.  Especially distressing was his close affiliation with the John Birch Society, which will be addressed more in depth later on in this report.(46)

While Benson spoke out about his political views, other members of the Church’s hierarchy did not find themselves supportive of his statements.  One such was Hugh B. Brown, who served alongside Benson in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and later as a counselor in the First Presidency.  Having lived in Canada for some time, Brown’s political views found him aligning with the Democratic Party.  As BYU President Ernest Wilkinson would write in his personal diary in 1961 regarding the somewhat polarizing political relationship of Benson and Brown:

I then had a conference with Brother Benson, who is very much concerned over the socialistic tendencies of Brother Brown.  I then had a conference with President Brown, who is very much concerned over the super-patriotic tendencies of Brother Benson.  It is apparent that I am caught in the center.  I think Brother Benson, as a matter of principle, is right, but he has made some strategic mistakes.(47)

While it is true that Benson held strong political views, it should be mentioned that he was never a card carrying member of the John Birch Society.  However, with that being said, it is apparent that his speeches and sermons drew heavily upon Birch Society themes.  In response to what many perceived as acceptance of their views, the Church’s First Presidency issued statements regarding its official stance.(48)  One such is found in an article published by The Press-Courier, on 5 January 1963, entitled “Birch methods condemned by Mormons,” which reads:

The methods used by the John Birch Society were termed a ‘great disservice’ to the anti-Communist cause yesterday by the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons).

The church’s first presidency issued a statement which said it deplored efforts by society officers to ‘align the church and its leadership with their partisan views.’

‘We denounce communism as being anti-Christian, anti-American, and the enemy of freedom,’ the statement said, ‘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.’

The policy statement was signed by LDS President David O. McKay and his two counselors, Henry D. Hoyle and Hugh B. Brown.

‘We deplore the presumption of some politicians, especially officers, co-ordinators and members of the John Birch Society, who undertake to align the church and its leadership with their partisan views,’ the church officials said.

The Utah co-ordinator for the Birch Society, Reed A. Benson, eldest son of Mormon apostle and former Agriculture Secretary Ezra Taft Benson, refused to comment on the statement.(49)

Later on that year, Congressman Ralph R. Harding (D-Idaho) gave a scathing speech on the floor of the House of Representatives condemning the assertions by Benson that Communism was infiltrating the government of the United States to the extent he claimed.  Senior Washington correspondent for The Spokesman-Review, Frank Hewlett, quoted the words of Harding to the House, that “it is most unfortunate that Elder Benson cannot take off the cloak of apostleship of the Mormon Church when he attends these right-wing extremist meetings,” referring to statements attribute to Benson at a dinner for John Birch Society founder Robert Welch.  “For some time now,” stated Harding, “I have observed the attempts of the John Birch Society to use the Mormon Church in building its membership and in promoting distrust of loyal Americans.”  Harding felt that he “could not be loyal either to my church or my country if I remain silent.”  Harding also addressed Benson’s declining to say whether he agreed or not with Birch Society founder Welch’s comments about Eisenhower being a Communist agent, stating “The least Mr. Benson could have done is to have defended without qualification the patriotism of a loyal American president who had defended him through eight stormy years as secretary of agriculture.”  Harding was also quoted as saying, “It is time to stop apologizing to our friends for the activities of Ezra Taft Benson and to let Americans everywhere know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the majority of our members do not approve of the John Birch Society, Mr. Welch or his reckless charges against loyal Americans.”(50)

In response to Harding’s statements regarding Benson and the LDS Church, a senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Joseph Fielding Smith, wrote a letter to Harding in support of his statements regarding Benson.  In this letter Smith wrote, “I think it is time that Brother Benson forgot all about politics and settled down to his duties as a member of the Council of the Twelve,” and that Benson “is going to take a mission to Europe in the near future and by the time he returns I hope he will get all of the political notions out of his system.”(51)  Smith is also recorded in BYU President Ernest Wilkinson’s diary as stating, “I am glad to report to you 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.  When he returns I hope his blood will be purified.”(52) 

Soon news leaked of Smith’s letter to Harding, and various press outlets published their findings, pushing the Church even further into the limelight.  Seeking to obtain a response to allegations that Smith and other Church leaders were attempting to quell Benson’s political appetite, The Associated Press contacted Smith, and wrote:

President Smith, when contacted in his Salt Lake apartment Thursday afternoon, said he had written to Rep. Harding late last year stating that Elder Benson was on his way to Great Britain to serve as a mission president.

“I don’t recall writing ‘When he returns, I hope his blood will be purified.’  If I did write such a statement, I meant that when he returned he would be free of all political ties,” President Smith declared.

The church official said his letter was personal to Rep. Harding and was not intended for publication.(53)

Based on this incident involving Harding, many have concluded that Benson was, in fact, sent to preside over postwar Europe in an attempt to alleviate his passion for American politics.  What those who espouse this view fail to notice is that, as previously mentioned, it is entirely plausible that Benson’s deep-rooted love for politics came after his first assignment to Europe, and also that Smith’s letter to Harding, the original containing such statements as cited by the aforementioned newspapers, merely state one man’s hopes for one of his contemporaries.  Anyone with knowledge of the LDS Church hierarchal system knows that Smith had no authority to, in and of himself, send Benson anywhere.  As previously stated, when asked to respond to these comments, Smith clarified his intention as hoping that Benson “would be free of all political ties” when he returned.(54)  It is unfounded to assume that the sole reason Benson was called to go to Europe was to quench his thirst for politics, especially given Smith’s clarification of remarks—they don’t offer sufficient evidence that Smith wanted anything other than for Benson to put his religious responsibility ahead of his promoting his political agendas. 

In the midst of all of this, biographer Sheri Dew writes that Benson felt he was merely doing what the prophet had asked of him: “Elder Benson knew he had a mandate from the prophet,” because “on more than one occasion President McKay privately encouraged him to speak out on freedom.”  Dew continues by citing both Benson’s journal and a personal memorandum:

On August 20, 1963, for example, Elder Benson indicated in a personal memorandum that he had once again met with President McKay and indicated he would ‘never say another word on the subject [of freedom] if that was President McKay’s wish.  [President McKay] said he wanted me to continue to speak out with the assurance I had his support as I have had in the past.’  Elder Benson’s first priority was following the prophet, as a journal entry on October 2, 1963 indicates: ‘My one desire is to do what the Lord and His mouthpiece, President McKay, would have me to do.’(55)

In spite of the differing views, and perhaps seeking to bring unity at a turbulent time, an official statement from the First Presidency during the 1964 campaign attempted to quash partisan politics and bring clarity to what Church leaders felt were the main concerns facing the nation:

We find ourselves now immersed in a great political campaign in America for the purpose of selecting candidates for office in local, state, and national positions.  We urged you as citizens to participate in this great democratic process, in accordance with your honest political convictions.

However, above all else, strive to support good and conscientious candidates, of either party, who are aware of the great dangers inherent in communism, and who are truly dedicated to the Constitution in the tradition of our Founding Fathers.

They should also pledge their sincere fealty to our way of liberty—a liberty which aims at the preservation of both personal and property rights.

Study the issues, analyze the candidates on these grounds, and then exercise your franchise as free men and women.(56)

This official statement left enough room for those on both sides of the aisle to still be free to exercise their voice in their particular party, while also unifying the Church membership as how to properly defend the Constitution and protect individual liberties.

During subsequent years, Benson continued preaching against those who sought to destroy the freedoms afforded citizens of the United States.  His rhetoric mostly addressed the continuation of a Mormon doctrine—that there was a war in heaven in which God presented a plan of happiness, Christ volunteered to fulfill the savior role, while Satan sought to revise the plan so that all would be saved whether they wanted to be or not.  Sides were chosen, and those who selected Christ came to Earth with bodies, while those who chose Satan came to Earth as well, but as spirits devoid of physical bodies.  According to Mormon belief, the battle between freedom and oppression started long before man inhabited the Earth and continues to this day.(57)

Benson’s statements regarding freedom verses oppression during the time period of 1965 until the early part of 1967 came, perhaps, as a personal interpretation of what then President David O. McKay had been preaching—defense of the Constitution, and support of government agencies which were geared towards rooting out Communism.(58)  Benson viewed himself as one who was merely supporting the Prophet: citing another occasion when similar methods had occurred.(59)

Emphasizing his standing on following the living prophet, Benson asked the rhetorical question, “Should it be of concern to us when the mouthpiece of the Lord keeps constantly and consistently raising his voice of warning about the loss of our freedom as he has over the years?”(60)  In February of 1966 he took a hardline stance on the issue, declaring that, “diplomatic recognition and aid, trade and negotiations with the Communists” was causing “our Republic and Constitution” to be “destroyed while the enemies of freedom are being aided.”(61)

In answering his previously asked question in a subsequent Conference of the Church over one year later, Benson stated that, while “man has many duties,” he still “has no excuse that can compensate for his loss of liberty.”(62)  In this same speech Benson stated that “whenever possible, I have tried to speak out,” and “it is for this very reason that certain people in Washington have bitterly criticized me.  They don’t want people to hear the message,” because “it embarrasses them.  The things which are destroying the Constitution are the things they have been voting for.”(63)  Later on that same month in a different speech, Benson would expound upon an earlier condemnation that the Supreme Court was leading the nation down to atheism, by claiming that, through “one tragic decision after another” the Court was also “leading us down the road to communism.”(64)

In spite of all this, Benson, in at least three separate talks, called on the priesthood to live up to its responsibility of helping America preserve its freedom.  In April of 1965 Benson assertively implored those with the priesthood that “a good deal of the responsibility lies with the priesthood of this Church as to what happens to America”(65)  He would reemphasize this again in the October 1966 General Conference by asserting that, “we of the priesthood, members of his [Christ’s] restored Church, might well provide the balance of power to save our freedom,”(66)  Once again, during a BYU Devotional on 25 October 1966 he would declare that, “we can, as a Priesthood, provide the balance of power to preserve our freedom and save this nation from bondage.”(67)  Even in spite of battling against, “the greatest, most insidious propaganda campaign of all time,” Benson gave his assurances that “the fight for freedom is God’s fight.”(68)  

In sum, during 1965 until the early part of 1967, Benson had both fought rigorously for the preservation of freedom and defense of the Constitution, and preached his personal application to statements made by McKay.  Benson had repeatedly taught in principle that, “an ounce of energy in the preservation of freedom is worth a ton of effort to get it back once it is lost.”(69)

Expanding on a theme mentioned in a previous talk in which he had claimed that the Communists were gaining ground through the “so-called civil rights movement,” Benson clarified that he wasn’t against civil rights as an ideology: “There is nothing wrong with civil rights,” he stated, “it’s what is being done in the name of civil rights that is shocking.”  Going further, Benson said:

“I warn you, unless we wake up soon and do something about the Conspiracy the Communist-inspired civil rights riots of the past will pale into insignificance compared to the bloodshed and destruction that lie ahead in the near future.”(70)

Elaborating further on the specific evils of Communism during the September/October 1967 session of General Conference, Benson asserted with more clarity his view that the Civil Rights Movement was being used as a means of promoting the Communist agenda: “there is no doubt that the so-called civil rights movement as it exists today is used as a Communist program for revolution in America,” similar to “agrarian reform was used…to take over China and Cuba.”  Benson stated that anyone who wants to know this can have their suspicions “confirmed by an objective study of Communist literature and activities,” such as “knowledgeable Negroes and others who have worked within the Communist movement” can attest to.(71)

Many claim that this is sufficient evidence to prove that Benson was against the rights of all men, mainly embodied in the Civil Rights Movement, but this simply wasn’t the case.  Benson stated in the same talk that “there is nothing wrong with civil rights” that “it is what’s being done in the name of civil rights that is alarming.”  He went on to say how “as far back as 1928 the Communists declared that the cultural, economic, and social differences between the races in America could be exploited by them to create the animosity, fear, and hatred…that would be necessary…for their revolution.”(72)

For Benson to assert that this movement was used as a tool of Communist deception was overreaching his authority and expertise.  Yet even though his statements asserted this, it also bears repeating that he was not against civil rights.  Perhaps it was due to this clause he inserted that no other high-ranking Church leader deemed it appropriate to contradict his statements. 

In any case, Benson’s preaching of politics did not subside, but continued to increase.  In a 21 May 1968 devotional delivered to BYU students, Benson gave one of his most politically charged speeches to that time.  Expounding on previous statements from then President of the LDS Church David O. McKay, Benson attempted to give practical application to them, something which even McKay himself did not do.  While McKay had, in fact, stated that communism was a persistent evil, and a threat to the democracy of the United States, he never attributed this to any specific U.S. government agencies.(73)

This, however, did not prevent Benson from doing so.  Quoting McKay, Benson reiterated that “The position of this Church on the subject of communism has never changed.  We consider it the greatest satanical threat to peace, prosperity, and the spread of God’s work among men that exists on the face of the earth.”(74)  In addition, Benson elaborated his own view that, “I would not deal with a nation which treats another such as Russia has treated America.  It is a condition which cannot be permitted to exist.”(75)  Transposing McKay’s words about Russia onto the handling of the situations with Cuba and China, respectively, Benson continued, “And once we’ve helped the communists to take over a nation such as China and Cuba, we do all in our power to keep the anti-communists from freeing their land.  We even negotiate with these butchers and sign treaties with these criminals who have no respect for treaties.”  Benson also asserts:

But we extend the advantage of diplomatic recognition to their puppets when they come to power.  We send them billions in foreign aid.  We’ve trained their pilots.  We ship them wheat.  Through cultural and other exchanges, their spies come to America.  We supply them know-how.  We extend them credit.  We buy their goods.  Their propaganda goes through our mails at our expense.  We’ve helped them in their conquests through secret agreements.  Our government does all it can to keep the anti-communists from coming to power in any country.(76)

Benson then went on to accuse various U.S. government agencies, such as the Supreme Court and Office of Economic Security, as having conspirators who, as in Book of Mormon times, “were able to fill the judgment seats, usurp power, destroy justice, condemn the righteous, and let the guilty and the wicked go unpunished.”  After accusing the highest Court in the land of “hamstringing the police, destroying property rights, encouraging civil disobedience, undermining state sovereignty, and so forth,” he asks those in attendance, “Do you see any parallel between this and the present day decisions of our Supreme Court?”(77)

Benson also, in addition to the Supreme Court, called out the foreign aid program as having “in reality had the net effect of promoting communism,” stating that it was “designed, supposedly, to help nations, it overall effect has been to keep socialist governments in business, enhance the communists, discourage free enterprise and demoralize the anti-communists.”  He again queried the audience with the rhetorical question, “Why do they allow the Office of Economic Opportunity to be the means of providing finances and programs for the communist revolutionaries and their allies who plan to ravage and burn down America?”(78)

Lastly, Benson stated that, “communism is tightening its strangle hold on America and the world because of the help it is receiving increasingly from right within our own government.”  He then alleges the heavy handed phrase, “Americans are destroying America.”(79)

What did Benson offer as a solution to this corruption which he asserted as having spread even to the highest Court in the land?  Encourage the government leaders to stop blatantly funding communist sympathizers and proponents: “For let the government of the United States stop helping communism and communists all over the world, and in a short period of time the conspiracy would be in retreat and in due time would collapse.”(80)

This increase, as evidenced by the aforementioned speech, caused high ranking church leaders to become more and more concerned, especially when McKay’s words had been used to give specific examples in support of the accusations levied by Benson.  Among those growing more concerned was Hugh B. Brown, now the First Counselor in the First Presidency of the LDS Church.(81)  As mentioned previously, Brown was a known Democrat, and although he shared some of the same views as Benson in regards to condemnation of Communism; their past disagreement on other various points would continue to escalate and spill out into the public arena even more.(82) 

During his 1968 Commencement speech, given to BYU graduates, Brown drew a definitive correlation between his political views and those of Benson.  While it may be unsubstantiated to believe that the sole reason for Brown’s political comments was to refute those of Benson, one cannot help but notice that there is a distinct comparison made between the two speeches.  As Assistant LDS Church Historian James Allen wrote in regards to Brown’s address, “Here he beautifully portrayed the true spirit of political debate when he cautioned the young voters not to engage in defaming personalities.”(83)  Allen also includes this portion of Brown’s talk, which portion has apparently been edited from the address found on BYU’s Speeches website:

You young people are leaving your university at the time in which our nation is engaged in an abrasive and increasingly strident process of electing a president.  I wonder if you would permit me, one who has managed to survive a number of these events, to pass on to you a few words of counsel.

First I would like you to be reassured that the leaders of both major political parties in this land are men of integrity and unquestioned patriotism.  Beware of those who feel obliged to prove their own patriotism by calling into question the loyalty of others.  Be skeptical of those who attempt to demonstrate their love of country by demeaning its institutions.  Know that men of both major political parties who bear the nation’s executive, legislative, and judicial branches are men of unquestioned loyalty and we should stand by and support them, and this refers not only to one party but to all.  Strive to develop a maturity of mind and emotion and a depth of spirit which enables you to differ with others on matters of politics without calling into question the integrity of those with whom you differ.  Allow within the bounds of your definition of religious orthodoxy variation of political belief.  Do not have the temerity to dogmatize on issues where the Lord has seen fit to be silent.(84)

Given what Benson had said ten days earlier, it is easy to see why many view these remarks as a direct response to claims by Benson that Communism was deeply entrenched in the government system of the United States of America.(85)

Regardless of the intent of Brown’s statements, Benson did not subside.  In October of 1968 General Conference, Benson stated:               

A category of government activity that not only requires the closest scrutiny but that also poses a grave danger to our continued freedom is the activity not within the proper sphere of government. No one has the authority to grant such powers as welfare programs, schemes for redistributing the wealth, and activities that coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning. There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise it in my behalf. If I do not have that right, I cannot delegate it.

If we permit government to manufacture its own authority and to create self-proclaimed powers not delegated to it by the people, then the creature exceeds the creator and becomes master. Who is to say ‘this far, but no farther’? What clear principle will stay the hand of government from reaching farther and farther into our daily lives? Grover Cleveland said that ‘though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.’

Once government steps over this clear line between the protective or negative role into the aggressive role of redistributing the wealth through taxation and providing so-called ‘benefits’ for some of its citizens, it becomes a means for legalized plunder.

No government in the history of mankind has ever created any wealth. People who work create wealth.(86)

While comments like these were the new norm with Benson, one is left to ponder as to why, if his statements were so distressing to hierarchal members of the LDS Church, why he wasn’t asked to refrain sooner, or at all.  Perhaps the words of Hugh B. Brown, given to the BYU student body on May 13, 1969, offer an insight into the reason:

We live in an age when freedom of the mind is suppressed over much of the world.  We must preserve this freedom in the Church and in America and resist all efforts of earnest men to suppress it, for when it is suppressed, we might lose the liberties vouchsafed in the Constitution of the United States.(87)

Perhaps the fear that the Church would end up embodying in itself Communist principles was so relevant that Church leaders were permissible of Benson’s comments to the extent they were.  Yet, and unbeknownst to many, a change in the preaching and passion of politics by Benson was about to occur.

In a 21 June 1983 Salt Lake Tribune article entitled “Mormons? ‘Many Liberals,’” the Associated Press is cited as being the conductor of a February 1974 interview with then-Apostle Ezra Taft Benson, in which he was asked if a faithful Mormon could be a liberal Democrat.  Benson’s response was, “I think it would be very hard if he was living the gospel and understood it.”(88)  In response to this statement, the same Salt Lake Tribune article quoted two-term Idaho Democrat congressman Ralph Harding as retorting:

In fact it is much easier to be a faithful Latter-day Saint and a liberal Democrat than it is to be a faithful church member and a member of the John Birch Society . . . Compassion and tolerance are attributes that are found in faithful church members and liberal Democrats, but seldom in John Birchers and other extreme rightwingers.(89)

Despite the harsh words of Harding directed to him, Benson continued to push his partisan views, but this was only to be for a short time more.

On November 10, 1985, following the death of Spencer W. Kimball, Benson became the thirteenth President of the LDS Church.  What is especially interesting is that, after he was appointed to this office, his passionate views about specific political groups subsided.  Before his appointment, he had been the author of such books as “The Red Carpet” and “Civil Rights: Tool of Communist Deception.”  After being called to be president and prophet, he now was the author of such books as “The Constitution: A Heavenly Banner,” “Come Listen to a Prophet’s Voice,” and “Elect Women of God.”  Perhaps his most politically charged address came in the General Conference of 1987, which he called on members of the Church to do four things, namely: “be righteous;” “learn the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers;” “become involved in civic affairs to see that we are properly represented;” and, lastly “make our influence felt by our vote, our letters, our teaching, and our advice.”(90) 

He then went on to say that “the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith” by both the “righteous citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom,” and “enlightened member of this Church…men and women who understand and abide the principles of the Constitution.”  As he closed his address, he stated, “I reverence the Constitution of the United States as a sacred document.  To me its words are akin to the revelations of God, for God has placed His stamp of approval upon it.”  God himself, said Benson, “sent some of His choicest spirits to lay the foundation of this government, and He has now sent other choice spirits to help preserve it.”(91)

Even though he didn’t give up politics completely, his inflammatory remarks attributing Communism and socialism to specific U.S. government branches and agencies subsided.  With the mantle of responsibility accompanying his call as Church president and prophet, he was charged with declaring doctrine—not promulgating his personal opinion.  As such, his efforts turned more to the religious aspect of government, and his religious responsibilities in general. 

One thing we can learn from this episode in LDS Church history is that politics and religion, at least when it comes to Church hierarchy leadership, are best kept separate.  Even though some leaders within the LDS Church vary as to their personal views of government, the official statement of the Church is still that of neutrality, albeit still reserving the right to intervene when it feels there are moral implications.(92)  As then President Gordon B. Hinckley stated during an interview with Larry King in 1998, “The Church does not become involved in politics.  We don’t favor any candidate.  We don’t permit our buildings to be used for political purposes.  We don’t favor any party.”(93)  And, in stark contrast to the statement attributed to Benson by the Associated Press approximately seventeen years earlier, Hinckley commented in response to a question asked by Jack Cushman of The New York Times during a National Press Club Newsmakers Luncheon question and answer session in March of 2000, the following:

Q. Given the platform and positions taken by the Democratic Party, can you be a good church member and a Democrat?

A. Yes, I think so. I don't know why you couldn't. It depends on what you believe as a Democrat in terms of some things. There are some things we don't subscribe to. We've got lots of Democrats in the church, lots of them, and they are good people. I don't worry about that too much. This is Washington. I better be careful of what I say. Well, we've got a Democratic presidency and another candidate marked out for the future.(94)

What we can glean from the political and apostolic life of Ezra Taft Benson is that, as previously mentioned, even members of the Quorum of the Twelve, while inspired and dedicated to the work of the LDS Church, are still afforded more leeway in their talks and views, regardless the setting and audience, than the President of the Church.  As author Jeffrey Carl Fox asserts, “No one knows definitively whether Benson moderated his rhetoric because of the decreasing threat of communism, because he wanted to avoid the topic while serving as church president, or because he had a change of heart.  Perhaps it was for all of these reasons combined.”  We may never know exactly why the change occurred; only that it did.  During a fitting tribute to Benson in1994, Gordon B. Hinckley, then the First Counselor in the First Presidency of the LDS Church, made these comments about Benson:

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.(95)

Perhaps the best summation of the life of Ezra Taft Benson can be summed up in his own words, given during a December 1952 BYU Devotional, “Men’s ways are not God’s ways.  Maybe it’s his way of getting Mormonism before the world.”  Yes, maybe Benson’s political partisan policy posturing had been one of God’s many means of getting Mormonism before the world.(96)

1.       It should be noted that while there is a difference between the two terms policy and doctrine, for the purposes of this report they will be viewed as one in the same, as long as they have been sanctioned by the LDS Church.

2.       Joseph Smith, et al., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, edited by B.H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1902-1912: vols. 1-6; 1932: vol. 7), http://byustudies2.byu.edu/hc/hcpgs/hc.aspx (accessed on 24 September 2012): 1:190-95.

3.       James R. Clark, ed., Messages of the First Presidency (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75, 6 Volumes), 3:54.

4.       “Politics and Mormons,” Macomb Journal, 25 January 1877, p. 2.

5.       Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, ed. John A. Widtsoe (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1954), 135.

6.       Joshua Reuben Clark, Jr., “When are the Writings and Sermons of Church Leaders entitled to the Claim of Scripture?” Address to Seminary and Institute Personnel, Brigham Young University, 7 July 1954, http:emp.byui.edu/marrottr/ClarkWhenAreWritings.pdf (accessed 24 September 2012 from Robert L. Marrott, faculty member at BYU-Idaho, website).

7.       Ezra Taft Benson, “Jesus Christ—Gifts and Expectations,” Brigham Young University Devotional Address, 10 December 1974, http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=90 (accessed 24 September 2012).

8.       Ezra Taft Benson, “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet,” Brigham Young University Devotional Address, 26 February 1980, http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=88 (accessed 24 September 2012).

9.       Clark, Jr., “When are the Writings and Sermons of Church Leaders entitled to the Claim of Scripture?” BYU Address, 7 July 1954.

10.    Dallin H. Oaks, “Teaching and Learning by the Spirit,” Ensign, March 1997, http://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/03/teaching-and-learning-by-the-spirit?lang=eng (accessed 24 September 2012).

11.    Ibid.

12.    David Todd Christofferson, “The Doctrine of Christ,” Ensign (Conference Report), May 2012, http://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/05/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng (accessed 24 September 2012).

13.    “Using your agency to choose His will, and not slackening even when the going gets hard, will not make you God’s puppet; it will make you like Him.”

see David Todd Christofferson, “Moral Agency,” Brigham Young University Devotional Address, 31 January 2006, http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=1515 (accessed 24 September 2012).

14.    “For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it.”

see The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Containing Revelations Given to Joseph Smith, the Prophet, with Some Additions by His Successors in the Presidency of the Church (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981), 245 (Section 123:12).

15.    Smith, et al., History of the Church, edited by B.H. Roberts: 6:205-6, 208. as cited in: Arnold K. Garr, “Joseph Smith: Campaign for President of the United States,” Ensign, February 2009, http://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/02/joseph-smith-campaign-for-president-of-the-united-states?lang=eng (accessed on 24 September 2012).

16.    Ezra Taft Benson, “A Significant Promise and Solemn Warning,” Conference Report, October 1944.

17.    Ibid.

18.    Ezra Taft Benson, “Obligations Resting Upon the Church,” Report of the Annual Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, April 1945 (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, annual); hereafter cited as Conference Report.

19.    Ezra Taft Benson, “It is my Purpose to Provide,” Conference Report, October 1945.

20.    Ibid.

21.    Gregory A. Prince, “The Red Peril, The Candy Maker, and the Apostle: David O. McKay’s Confrontation with Communism,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 37 (2) (Summer 2004): 37-94.

22.    First Presidency, “Warning to Church Members,” July 3, 1936, Improvement Era 39, no. 8 (August 1936): 488.

23.    LDS Church, “Ezra Taft Benson—Significant Events,” Church History Website, http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/controllers/potcController.jsp?leader=13&topic=events (accessed on 24 September 2012).

24.    Ezra Taft Benson, “God’s Directing Hand,” Conference Report, April 1947.

25.    Frederick Babbel, On Wings of Faith: My Daily Walk with a Prophet (Springville, Utah: Cedar Fort, Incorporated, 1998), 178.  as cited in: Larry E. Morris, “Elder Ezra Taft Benson’s Incredible Experiences in Postwar Europe,” The FARMS Review, 20/1 (2008): 67-72.

26.    Babbel, On Wings of Faith: My Daily Walk with a Prophet, 164.  as cited in: Morris, “Elder Ezra Taft Benson’s Incredible Experiences in Postwar Europe,” The FARMS Review.

27.    Kenneth W. Godfrey, “Ezra Taft Benson,” in Utah History Encyclopedia, ed. Allan K. Powell et al (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1994) http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/b/BENSON,EZRA.html (accessed on 24 September 2012).

28.    It is interesting to note that, according to Benson, he didn’t want to hold political office:

I can say to you frankly, my brothers and sisters, I didn’t want to be Secretary of Agriculture.  I can’t imagine anyone in his right mind wanting it. . . .I’ve always feared, in a way, getting into politics.  I’ve never had any particular desire in the direction.  I’ve always had a deep interest in seeing men elected to office who represented the ideals and standards which have meant so much to me in my life, and I would always rather support someone else than to actually hold political office.

see Ezra Taft Benson, “The LDS Church and Politics,” Brigham Young University Devotional Address, 1 December 1952, http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=1630 (audio only; accessed on 24 September 2012).

29.    Ibid.

30.   It should be noted that not everyone met Benson’s appointment with approval.  As biographer Sheri Dew writes, “The general secretary of the American Council of Churches, for example, was indignant, though misinformed, when he said, ‘Informed Christians are perfectly aware that…pagan religions are no more hostile to the Biblical evangelical Christian faith than is Mormonism….I think it is rather unfortunate that the President named him as a member of his cabinet.’”  see William Harllee Bordeaux to Robert Tate Allen, September 11, 1953; as cited in Dew, Ezra Taft Benson: A Biography (Salt Lake City, UT.: Deseret Book Company, 1987), 257.

31.    Ezra Taft Benson, “Practices Which Endanger,” Conference Report, April 1952.

32.   Ibid.

33.   Ibid.

34.   Ibid.

35.    Ezra Taft Benson, “The Growth of the Church,” Brigham Young University Devotional Address, 15 April 1952, http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=1634 (audio only; accessed on 26 September 2012).

36.    Ezra Taft Benson, “The Aftermath of War,” Conference Report, October 1952.

37.   Ibid.

38.   Ibid.

39.    David O. McKay, Conference Report, October 1952.

40.    David O. McKay, “Conditions in Church Encouraging—Prospects Bright,” Conference Report, October 1952.

41.    Benson recounted this experience, stating that, “I went in to meet, for the first time, General Eisenhower. . .We were together for about thirty minutes, and at the outset it was made very clear that the decision had been made.  There was no one else under consideration.”
see Ezra Taft Benson, “The LDS Church and Politics,” Brigham Young University Devotional Address, 1 December 1952, http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=1630 (audio only; accessed on 24 September 2012).

42.   Ibid.

43.    Ibid.

44.    Ezra Taft Benson, “A Great Honor and a Privilege,” Conference Report, April 1953.

45.    Ezra Taft Benson, Cross Fire: The Eight Years with Eisenhower (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, 1962), 504.  as cited in: Gary James Bergera, “‘Weak-Kneed Republicans and Socialist Democrats’: Ezra Taft Benson as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, 1953-61, Part 2,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 41 (4): 71-72.

46.    According to its website, the John Birch Society’s mission is, “To bring about less government, more responsibility, and — with God's help — a better world by providing leadership, education, and organized volunteer action in accordance with moral and Constitutional principles.” see http://www.jbs.org/about-jbs/core-principles (accessed on 24 September 2012).

47.    Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries, 29 December 1961: as cited in Gregory A. Prince and William Robert Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005), 287.

48.    In a personal letter, Brown wrote the following:

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.

see Hugh B. Brown to Alicia Bingham, December 28, 1961, Box 48, fd. 21, Firmage Papers: as cited in Gregory A. Prince and William Robert Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005), 287.

49.    United Press International (UPI), “Birch Methods Condemned by Mormons,” The Press-Courier, 5 January 1963.

50.    Frank Hewlett, “Fellow Mormon Hits Benson,” The Spokesman-Review, 27 September 1963.

51.    Smith to Harding, 30 Oct. 1963, photocopy in folder 2, box 4, King Papers, and in folder 22, box 5, Buerger Papers.

52.    Wilkinson Diary, 14 Dec. 1963; Joseph Fielding Smith to Congressman Ralph Harding, 23 Dec. 1963.

53.   “Ike Praises Idaho Solon for Benson Criticism,” Salt Lake Tribune, 21 February 1964.

54.   Ibid.

55.    See Memorandum, August 20, 1963, Ezra Taft Benson Personal Files; as cited in Dew, Ezra Taft Benson: A Biography (Salt Lake City, UT.: Deseret Book Company, 1987), 372.

56.    Deseret News, November 2, 1964.

57.    One example of this comes from Benson himself: “But freedom is a weighty matter of the law; the lesser principles of the gospel you should keep but not leave this one undone.  We may have to balance and manage our time better.  Your other church work will be limited once you lose your freedom as our Saints have found out in Czechoslovakia, Poland, and many other nations.”

see Ezra Taft Benson, “Not Commanded in All Things,” Conference Report, April 1965.

58.    Benson references the following two quotes from President David O. McKay: “Supporting the FBI, the police, and the congressional committees investigating Communism, and various organizations that are attempting to awaken the people through educational means is a policy we warmly endorse for all our people.”

(McKay, The Improvement Era, June 1966, 477); and, “Next to being one in worshiping God, there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States.” (McKay, The Instructor, February 1956, 34).

see Benson, “Our Immediate Responsibility,” BYU Address, 25 October 1966. http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=1611 (audio only; accessed 27 September 2012).

59.    Consider Benson’s words, “Years ago Elder Joseph F. Merrill of the Council of the Twelve encouraged the members of the Church to join right-to-work leagues and President Heber J. Grant concurred.  For our day, President David O. McKay has called communism the greatest threat to the Church, and it is certainly the greatest moral threat this country has ever faced.”

see Benson, Conference Report, April 1965.

60.   Ibid.

61.   Benson, “Stand up for Freedom,” Presented to the Utah Forum for the American Idea at the Assembly Hall at Temple Square, 11 February 1966.  Also, from the same source, Benson gave the following ten reasons as to how: “Our Republic and Constitution are being destroyed while the enemies of freedom are being aided…1. By diplomatic recognition and aid, trade and negotiations with the Communists; By disarmament of our military defenses; 3. By destruction of our security laws and the promotion of atheism by decisions of the Supreme Court; 4. By loss of sovereignty and solvency to international commitments and membership in world organizations; 5. By undermining of local law enforcement agencies and Congressional investigation committees; 6. By usurpations by the Executive and the Judicial branches of our Federal Government; 7. By lawlessness in the name of civil rights; 8. By staggering national debt with inflation and the corruption of the currency; 9. By a multiplicity of executive orders and federal programs which greatly weaken local and state government; 10. By the sacrificing of American manhood by engaging in wars we apparently have no intention of winning.”

62.   Benson, Conference Report, October 1966.

63.   Ibid.

64.    Benson, “Our Immediate Responsibility,” BYU Address, 25 October 1966. http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=1611 (audio only; accessed 27 September 2012).

see also: “The Supreme Court misinterprets the true meaning of the first amendment, and are now leading this Christian nation down the road to atheism.” in David O. McKay, Church News, 22 June 1963.

65.   Benson, Conference Report, April 1965.

66.   Benson, Conference Report, October 1966.

67.   Benson, “Our Immediate Responsibility,” BYU Address, 25 October 1966.

68.   Benson, “Prepare, Then Fear Not,” Conference Report, April 1967.

69.   Benson, Conference Report, April 1967.

70.  Benson, “Our Immediate Responsibility,” BYU Address, 25 October 1966.

71.    Ezra Taft Benson, “Trust Not in the Arm of Flesh,” Conference Report, October 1967, 34-39.

Consider also that this view was not unique to Mormons, for many Americans also held this view:  “The anti-communist purges and near totalitarian social environment” had “a devastating effect upon the cause of blacks’ civil rights and civil liberties” because the “paranoid mood of anti-communist America made it difficult for any other reasonable reform movement to exist.”  see Manning Marable, Race, Reform and Rebellion: The Second Reconstruction in Black America, 1945-1982 (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1984), 18. as cited in Eric Arnesen, “Civil Rights and the Cold War at Home: Postwar Activism, Anticommunism, and the Decline of the Left,” paper written for The George Washington University in January 2012, http://www.history.ucsb.edu/projects/labor/speakers/documents/arnesen.civilrights.pdf (accessed on 25 September 2012).

72.    Benson, “Trust Not in the Arm of Flesh,” Conference Report, October 1967, 34-39.

73.    Ezra Taft Benson, “The Book of Mormon Warns America,” Brigham Young University Devotional Address, 21 May 1968, http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=1619 (audio only; accessed 24 September 2012).

74.    David O. McKay, “Only One Standard of Morality,” (as read by his son Robert R. McKay), Conference Report, April 1966, http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1479 (accessed 24 September 2012).

see also Benson, “Trust Not in the Arm of Flesh,” Conference Report, October 1967, 34-39.

75.   David O. McKay, Deseret News (Church News weekly section), 6 August 1952. as cited in: Benson, “The Book of Mormon Warns America,” BYU Address, 21 May 1968.

76.    Benson, “The Book of Mormon Warns America,” BYU Address, 21 May 1968.

77.  Ibid.

78.    Ibid.

79.    Ibid.

80.    Ibid.

81.    In a book excerpt from An Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown, Brown is quoted as stating:

More than ever, as I think back since I returned to the United States in 1927, I would still choose to be a Democrat rather than a Republican. I realize that by that choice I would be in the minority — almost a minority of one -— among the General Authorities, since most of them are Republicans. But my conversion to the principles of the Democratic party has been complete, and as time goes on I become more and more convinced that the Democrats have the right philosophy, both in foreign policy and in their refusal to look back or to stand still. Theirs is the party of progress. I do not want to give a political speech, but I am more of a Democrat now than I ever was.

see Hugh B. Brown, ed. Edwin Brown Firmage, “Hugh B. Brown: The Early Years,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 21 (2): 27.

82.    Brown is again quoted as saying:

The truculent and blasphemous attempts of communist ideologies to erase Christ from their literature and to expunge all memory of him from the hearts and minds of men, in order to degrade and enslave men, must fail, for as God made man in his own image, so his image is indelibly stamped on the souls of men, and instinctively they know that they are the sons of God.  The challenge of evil with its inevitable confusion tends to make the relevance of Christ’s life and message more apparent and the application of his divine teachings more urgent.

see Hugh B. Brown, “Jesus the Christ,” Conference Report, April 1959, 110-112. http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1012 (accessed on 24 September 2012).

83.    James B. Allen, “The American Presidency and the Mormons,” Ensign, October 1972, http://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/10/the-american-presidency-and-the-mormons?lang=eng (accessed 24 September 2012).

84.    It should be noted that the quoted portion of Brown’s Commencement Address is not found in BYU’s online audio archive of the address; see Hugh B. Brown, “God is the Gardener,” Brigham Young University Commencement Address, 31 May 1968, http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=111 (audio only; accessed 25 September 2012); but rather in: James B. Allen, “The American Presidency and the Mormons,” Ensign, October 1972:47, http://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/10/the-american-presidency-and-the-mormons (accessed 26 September 2012).

85.    It should be mentioned that Brown’s comments pertain to the Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam War, and the soon to be had presidential election between Richard Nixon (R), Hubert Humphrey (D), and George Wallace (I), which came due to Lyndon B. Johnson’s announcement that he would step down as commander in chief—all of which were topics addressed and accusations levied by Benson ten days prior.

86.    Ezra Taft Benson, “The Proper Role of Government,” Conference Report, October 1968, 17-22.

87.    Hugh B. Brown, “An Eternal Quest—Freedom of the Mind,” Brigham Young University Devotional Address, 13 May 1969, http://president.byu.edu/documents/brown.htm (accessed 24 September 2012).

88.    “Mormons? ‘Many Liberals,’” Salt Lake Tribune, 21 June 1983, B-1, B-8.

89.   Ibid.

90.   Ezra Taft Benson, “Our Divine Constitution,” Conference Report, November 1987, 4.

91.   Ibid.

92.    Compare and contrast this with the words of Dallin H. Oaks:

I come now to the first two fundamental citizen responsibilities that have been compromised in my lifetime in the United States: serving in the military and paying taxes.

Modern opponents of compulsory military service and of enforced payment of taxes have this common objection. Both claim that the government compulsion to do these unpopular things interferes with freedom. The issue, they say, is freedom versus slavery.

The problem with this argument is that it proves too much. It would take us back to the toothless Articles of Confederation from which our inspired Constitution rescued us. A government that cannot compel military service or a government that cannot compel the payment of taxes is not much of a government.

At root, these objections to government compulsion are objections to the whole idea of government. Such objections are contrary to Christian doctrine. Jesus did not preach sedition. He taught his followers to “Render… unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s” (Matt. 22:21). His apostles taught the same, as I have already noted.

see Dallin H. Oaks, “Some Responsibilities of Citizenship,” Provo’s 1994 Freedom Festival Patriotic Service, http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=668 (audio only; accessed on 24 September 2012).

93.   Gordon B. Hinckley. Interview with Larry King. Larry King Live. CNN, Los Angeles. 8 September 1998.

94.    Gordon B. Hinckley. “Q and A with President Gordon B. Hinckley: Questions from Jack Cushman, The New York Times.”  National Press Club, National Press Club Newsmakers Luncheon.  8 March 2000. http://english.byu.edu/faculty/youngb/pres-hinckley-politics.htm (accessed on 24 September 2012).

95.    Gordon B. Hinckley, “Farewell to a Prophet,” Ensign, July 1994, http://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/07/farewell-to-a-prophet?lang=eng (accessed 24 September 2012).

96.   Ezra Taft Benson, “The LDS Church and Politics,” Brigham Young University Devotional Address, 1 December 1952, http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=1630 (audio only; accessed on 24 September 2012).