Elder Benson Conference Talk/Report (1967)

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

So if the church used to believe and practice such things (polygamy, blacks and the priesthood and the list goes on) -- but they (prophets/apostles) were wrong/mistaken -- then that means it was false doctrine or doctrine just changes to meet societal expectations.  Either way, my original question was:

"If prophets/apostles/leaders are infallible, then how can one truly be sure that their words/guidance (at the time it is given) is, in fact, from God?  Is this done just by the spirit?" 

 

 

The are not infallible.

[waveslider]

I just read the talk and am very impressed by the insight that was given within it. Going beyond the propaganda that is peddled in our mainstream media and seeing what is really going on in our day and age, as well as what was going on back then, it is very easy to see that what was said has been getting played out all around us. The liberal progressive agendas that are pushed by our 6 mainstream media sources are of course hiding these things but if we awaken to the truth we will see it plainly.

I am really impressed with these portions:

"Internal strife and conflict

In such countries as Czechoslovakia, the Communists have used an entirely different method of internal conquest. Instead of the force and violence of a bloody revolution (a "war of national liberation"), parliamentary and political means were used to bring about a more peaceful transition to Communism. The Communist strategists call this alternate plan a "proletarian" revolution.

This plan is as follows: Using unidentified Communist agents and non-Communist sympathizers in key positions in government, in communications media, and in mass organizations, such as labor unions and civil rights groups, demand more and more government power as the solution to all civil rights problems. Total government is the objective of Communism. Without calling it by name, build Communism piece by piece through mass pressures for presidential decrees, court orders, and legislation that appear to be aimed at improving civil rights and other social reforms. If there is social, economic, or educational discrimination, then advocate more government programs and control."

and:

"Awaken citizens to know the menace

6. Lastly, we need a vast awakening of the American people as to the true nature of the Communist blueprint for revolution. Considering the degree to which the controlling influences of the federal government and many of the communications media are now furthering this Communist revolution, it is unrealistic to expect most of our present leaders or the networks to bring about this awakening. In fact, they may be expected to resist it."

Perhaps we should substitute the word, "Communist," for, "Socialist," which leads to Communism when carried out to it's fullest measure anyway, but it rings truer today than it probably did back then IMO. Or we can remain asleep, dreaming the American dream and just complain that these leaders were out of touch and we should just keep watching our T.V.s and buying stuff we don't really need. and keep thinking that it could never happen in this great country of ours.

[canard78]

6 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

So if the church used to believe and practice such things (polygamy, blacks and the priesthood and the list goes on) -- but they (prophets/apostles) were wrong/mistaken -- then that means it was false doctrine or doctrine just changes to meet societal expectations.  Either way, my original question was:

"If prophets/apostles/leaders are infallible, then how can one truly be sure that their words/guidance (at the time it is given) is, in fact, from God?  Is this done just by the spirit?" 

I think you mean fallible?

If prophets are INfallible then they never make a mistake. 

Assuming that, I think your broader question still stands. If a prophet can stand and preach something that is untrue, then it creates a complexity around their role as prophets. 

It's a question of paradigm. 

Does your paradigm allow for Mormon leaders who are error prone in their doctrinal teaching or not?

For many active members there are three broad scenarios:

1) they aren't aware of the occasions when prophets are considered to have "spoken as men," so have not needed to ask themselves that question. 

2) they ARE aware of the "speaking as men" occasions, but their paradigm of what a Mormon prophet needs to be, allows for occasional errors in teaching. 

3) they are aware of the claims of "speaking as men" occasions, but they are defend and justify the actual statement, such that it can be considered "speaking as a prophet," instead of as a man. 

Often, a combination of all three is used. I also think there's a tendency to start from "3" among the better informed members, for certain prophetic statements, and then move to "2", only when the statement is entirely indefensible.

Your question about the implications of fallibility is the right one. I think it's actually far more important than whether this 1967 talk is a case of "2" or "3."

For me, my paradigm of what a prophet, seer and revelator should be like, means that I do not accept that the LDS leadership are prophets. That doesn't mean that someone else can't reasonably have a different paradigm, even with all the same evidence available to them. 

For example, in the 1960s the first presidency wrote a letter (quoting a 1940s letter), stating that their position on mixed raced marriage was that it was "repugnant" and against God's doctrine. 

I've discussed the 1940s letter several times with the good people on this board. For some, it's a defendable statement (type 3), given the children of a mixed race marriage would be deprived of the priesthood in this life... therefore a repugnant consequence. 

For others, it is considered a "type 2" occasion of the first presidency speaking as men, not prophets. It's considered an unfortunate choice of words, but not an indictment on their status as prophets. 

For me, the paradigm I have chosen means that I can't defend it, and I can't excuse or exclude when weighing up the evidence for and against their prophetic status. 

In other words, my paradigm means that the "repugnant" statement (given by two different presidencies, in the recent past) is part of the set of evidences leading me to the conclusion that they are not prophets. 

Your bigger question is to choose what your paradigm will be... and then get on with your life. 

[thesometimesaint]

Velvet Revolution.

[Ouagadougou]

14 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I'm curious, did you live through this era? 

FYI there were 159 race riots in the summer of 1967. If you didn't live through this era I can give you more history of the era.

No I wasn't...but I have read enough about MLK's Civil Rights Movement to realize it wasn't some communist conspiracy...

[Ouagadougou]

6 hours ago, canard78 said:

I think you mean fallible?

If prophets are INfallible then they never make a mistake. 

Assuming that, I think your broader question still stands. If a prophet can stand and preach something that is untrue, then it creates a complexity around their role as prophets. 

It's a question of paradigm. 

Does your paradigm allow for Mormon leaders who are error prone in their doctrinal teaching or not?

For many active members there are three broad scenarios:

1) they aren't aware of the occasions when prophets are considered to have "spoken as men," so have not needed to ask themselves that question. 

2) they ARE aware of the "speaking as men" occasions, but their paradigm of what a Mormon prophet needs to be, allows for occasional errors in teaching. 

3) they are aware of the claims of "speaking as men" occasions, but they are defend and justify the actual statement, such that it can be considered "speaking as a prophet," instead of as a man. 

Often, a combination of all three is used. I also think there's a tendency to start from "3" among the better informed members, for certain prophetic statements, and then move to "2", only when the statement is entirely indefensible.

Your question about the implications of fallibility is the right one. I think it's actually far more important than whether this 1967 talk is a case of "2" or "3."

For me, my paradigm of what a prophet, seer and revelator should be like, means that I do not accept that the LDS leadership are prophets. That doesn't mean that someone else can't reasonably have a different paradigm, even with all the same evidence available to them. 

For example, in the 1960s the first presidency wrote a letter (quoting a 1940s letter), stating that their position on mixed raced marriage was that it was "repugnant" and against God's doctrine. 

I've discussed the 1940s letter several times with the good people on this board. For some, it's a defendable statement (type 3), given the children of a mixed race marriage would be deprived of the priesthood in this life... therefore a repugnant consequence. 

For others, it is considered a "type 2" occasion of the first presidency speaking as men, not prophets. It's considered an unfortunate choice of words, but not an indictment on their status as prophets. 

For me, the paradigm I have chosen means that I can't defend it, and I can't excuse or exclude when weighing up the evidence for and against their prophetic status. 

In other words, my paradigm means that the "repugnant" statement (given by two different presidencies, in the recent past) is part of the set of evidences leading me to the conclusion that they are not prophets. 

Your bigger question is to choose what your paradigm will be... and then get on with your life. 

Oops! 😀 Yes, "fallible"... I just corrected it.  

[Ouagadougou]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The are not infallible.

Oops! 😀 My original post had fallible but I thought I wrote fallible or "not infallible" here... I just corrected it.  

[Ouagadougou]

8 hours ago, waveslider said:

I just read the talk and am very impressed by the insight that was given within it. Going beyond the propaganda that is peddled in our mainstream media and seeing what is really going on in our day and age, as well as what was going on back then, it is very easy to see that what was said has been getting played out all around us. The liberal progressive agendas that are pushed by our 6 mainstream media sources are of course hiding these things but if we awaken to the truth we will see it plainly.

I am really impressed with these portions:

"Internal strife and conflict

In such countries as Czechoslovakia, the Communists have used an entirely different method of internal conquest. Instead of the force and violence of a bloody revolution (a "war of national liberation"), parliamentary and political means were used to bring about a more peaceful transition to Communism. The Communist strategists call this alternate plan a "proletarian" revolution.

This plan is as follows: Using unidentified Communist agents and non-Communist sympathizers in key positions in government, in communications media, and in mass organizations, such as labor unions and civil rights groups, demand more and more government power as the solution to all civil rights problems. Total government is the objective of Communism. Without calling it by name, build Communism piece by piece through mass pressures for presidential decrees, court orders, and legislation that appear to be aimed at improving civil rights and other social reforms. If there is social, economic, or educational discrimination, then advocate more government programs and control."

and:

"Awaken citizens to know the menace

6. Lastly, we need a vast awakening of the American people as to the true nature of the Communist blueprint for revolution. Considering the degree to which the controlling influences of the federal government and many of the communications media are now furthering this Communist revolution, it is unrealistic to expect most of our present leaders or the networks to bring about this awakening. In fact, they may be expected to resist it."

Perhaps we should substitute the word, "Communist," for, "Socialist," which leads to Communism when carried out to it's fullest measure anyway, but it rings truer today than it probably did back then IMO. Or we can remain asleep, dreaming the American dream and just complain that these leaders were out of touch and we should just keep watching our T.V.s and buying stuff we don't really need. and keep thinking that it could never happen in this great country of ours.

In retrospect, you think MLK's Civil Rights Movement was what he stated below in this talk?

"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 just as agrarian reform was used by the Communists to take over China and Cuba."

I think this talk is deplorable...but that's my own opinion.  😀

[Ouagadougou]

14 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I'm curious, did you live through this era? 

FYI there were 159 race riots in the summer of 1967. If you didn't live through this era I can give you more history of the era.

No, I wasn't alive during this era, my parents did -- one lived in CA at the time and supported the Civil Rights Movement.  

[Ouagadougou]

7 hours ago, canard78 said:

I think you mean fallible?

If prophets are INfallible then they never make a mistake. 

Assuming that, I think your broader question still stands. If a prophet can stand and preach something that is untrue, then it creates a complexity around their role as prophets. 

It's a question of paradigm. 

Does your paradigm allow for Mormon leaders who are error prone in their doctrinal teaching or not?

For many active members there are three broad scenarios:

1) they aren't aware of the occasions when prophets are considered to have "spoken as men," so have not needed to ask themselves that question. 

2) they ARE aware of the "speaking as men" occasions, but their paradigm of what a Mormon prophet needs to be, allows for occasional errors in teaching. 

3) they are aware of the claims of "speaking as men" occasions, but they are defend and justify the actual statement, such that it can be considered "speaking as a prophet," instead of as a man. 

Often, a combination of all three is used. I also think there's a tendency to start from "3" among the better informed members, for certain prophetic statements, and then move to "2", only when the statement is entirely indefensible.

Your question about the implications of fallibility is the right one. I think it's actually far more important than whether this 1967 talk is a case of "2" or "3."

For me, my paradigm of what a prophet, seer and revelator should be like, means that I do not accept that the LDS leadership are prophets. That doesn't mean that someone else can't reasonably have a different paradigm, even with all the same evidence available to them. 

For example, in the 1960s the first presidency wrote a letter (quoting a 1940s letter), stating that their position on mixed raced marriage was that it was "repugnant" and against God's doctrine. 

I've discussed the 1940s letter several times with the good people on this board. For some, it's a defendable statement (type 3), given the children of a mixed race marriage would be deprived of the priesthood in this life... therefore a repugnant consequence. 

For others, it is considered a "type 2" occasion of the first presidency speaking as men, not prophets. It's considered an unfortunate choice of words, but not an indictment on their status as prophets. 

For me, the paradigm I have chosen means that I can't defend it, and I can't excuse or exclude when weighing up the evidence for and against their prophetic status. 

In other words, my paradigm means that the "repugnant" statement (given by two different presidencies, in the recent past) is part of the set of evidences leading me to the conclusion that they are not prophets. 

Your bigger question is to choose what your paradigm will be... and then get on with your life. 

I meant "fallible" 😀

I am of the belief now (just over the last few years) that these men are not prophets.  I am interested to see how others make it work for them, especially when you take into consideration all the doctrine/policies that have changed since the origins of Mormonism, along with the many controversial statements past leaders have made.  

[Ouagadougou]

12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Of course not.  In hind sight it is just embarrassing and shows just how far off the mark some leaders can go.

I agree.  I am in no way trying to make fun of Elder Benson; rather, I want to understand how others continue to trust church leaders when they are so far off the mark.  

[Ouagadougou]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why would you hope that? 

So the prophet of the church and top leadership were/are aware of what is getting presented at a conference to millions of people.  Also, to ensure other leaders/speakers don't just talk as men and are speaking in accordance with what the prophet of the church approves/wants.  

I don't know how conference talks work, but are you saying they don't get reviewed/vetted/approved by top leadership?  They just assign a topic and let the speaker go with it?

[thesometimesaint]

The good thing is that the infallible God still chooses to talk to us very fallible mortals.

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

So the prophet of the church and top leadership were/are aware of what is getting presented at a conference to millions of people.  Also, to ensure other leaders/speakers don't just talk as men and are speaking in accordance with what the prophet of the church approves/wants.  

I don't know how conference talks work, but are you saying they don't get reviewed/vetted/approved by top leadership?  They just assign a topic and let the speaker go with it?

God doesn't make sock-puppets. 

[rodheadlee]

14 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

No I wasn't...but I have read enough about MLK's Civil Rights Movement to realize it wasn't some communist conspiracy...

Ok just curious if you were aware of the violence surrounding the Civil Rights movement.? For example, Did you know the 82nd and 101st Airborne were called out to the 1968 Detroit riot. Over 2000 buildings were burned down etc During the Watts riots we could see L.A. burning from 40 miles away. Do you know who the Weathermen were? The Black Panthers? Did you know the Anti War movement and the Civil Rights movement were running simultaneous in the 60s? This stuff was on the TV every single night from the assassination of President Kennedy onward. Were you aware that in the summer of 1967 there were 159 race riots in the US alone? Hundreds died, thousands were wounded, The National Guard was killing students as well as rioters And you don't think the Cold War caused Russia to send agents to America to help foment unrest? Man I wished I could go through life that naive.

[Ouagadougou]

13 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Ok just curious if you were aware of the violence surrounding the Civil Rights movement.? For example, Did you know the 82nd and 101st Airborne were called out to the 1968 Detroit riot. Over 2000 buildings were burned down etc During the Watts riots we could see L.A. burning from 40 miles away. Do you know who the Weathermen were? The Black Panthers? Did you know the Anti War movement and the Civil Rights movement were running simultaneous in the 60s? This stuff was on the TV every single night from the assassination of President Kennedy onward. Were you aware that in the summer of 1967 there were 159 race riots in the US alone? Hundreds died, thousands were wounded, The National Guard was killing students as well as rioters And you don't think the Cold War caused Russia to send agents to America to help foment unrest? Man I wished I could go through life that naive.

Of course I knew there was a great deal of unrest in the US during that time, but to think that MLK's underlying message was just a communist plot is naive, IMO.  

[theplains]

18 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Hello all!

I just read the conference talk titled "Trust Not in the Arm of Flesh" given by Elder Benson (apostle at the time) in Oct 1967.  Having read this conference talk/report, I'm shocked that some of these words came from an apostle who was supposed to be the Lord's mouthpiece at that time.  For example:

http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1569&era=yes

"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 just as agrarian reform was used by the Communists to take over China and Cuba."

There are other parts of this talk that I find extremely disturbing, but, even if Elder Benson was just speaking as a man (during a general conference talk), then surely his talk was still vetted/reviewed by the 1st Presidency/prophet, correct?

If you believe everything you hear at General Conference, you may be deceived. If the speaker speaks a lie,
he must be disciplined before he keeps on deceiving people.

Regards,
Jim

[thesometimesaint]

When did Jesus come back in glory that I missed it?

[thesometimesaint]

54 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Ok just curious if you were aware of the violence surrounding the Civil Rights movement.? For example, Did you know the 82nd and 101st Airborne were called out to the 1968 Detroit riot. Over 2000 buildings were burned down etc During the Watts riots we could see L.A. burning from 40 miles away. Do you know who the Weathermen were? The Black Panthers? Did you know the Anti War movement and the Civil Rights movement were running simultaneous in the 60s? This stuff was on the TV every single night from the assassination of President Kennedy onward. Were you aware that in the summer of 1967 there were 159 race riots in the US alone? Hundreds died, thousands were wounded, The National Guard was killing students as well as rioters And you don't think the Cold War caused Russia to send agents to America to help foment unrest? Man I wished I could go through life that naive.

The biggest riot in US history was in New York city in the US Civil War.

[CV75]

19 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I, in no way, think Elder Benson's talk is from God or inspired by God.  Do you?  

In what way(s) do you think Elder Benson's talk is not from God or inspired by God? I ask so that I can answer in a way that I can communicate as best I can with your perspective.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Of course I knew there was a great deal of unrest in the US during that time, but to think that MLK's underlying message was just a communist plot is naive, IMO.  

After 18 hours of clarification (and hopefully a second, more careful read of the talk), why haven't you disabused yourself of the notion that Elder Benson asserted that "MLK's underlying message was just a communist plot?" All he said was that it was being co-opted and misused by a threatening contingency for its own interests.

Edited November 27, 2016 by CV75

[Duncan]

Correct me if I am wrong but I think that the 1st Presidency told then Elder Benson to stick to religious topics and not political ones. I 'd have to dig up the source. Some of these topics are American in nature, not universal ones. I doubt the Communists were trying to infiltrate Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan!

[Marmonboy]

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Of course I knew there was a great deal of unrest in the US during that time, but to think that MLK's underlying message was just a communist plot is naive, IMO.  

I don't think that MLK was a commie, or that the civil rights movement was a bad thing. But to be so naive as to believe that the progressives/leftists/communists weren't using the unrest to further their own agenda is, well, naive.

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The biggest riot in US history was in New York city in the US Civil War.

Yeah but we're setting the context for Benson's talk in 1967.

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Of course I knew there was a great deal of unrest in the US during that time, but to think that MLK's underlying message was just a communist plot is naive, IMO.  

I fully agree. I just wanted to set the stage for Benson't talk.Carry on.