. . . in order to keep his political extremism in check and to protect the image of the Mormon Church from being too badly damaged in the process.

I received some interesting information recently from a reliable source about my grandfather Ezra Taft Benson's first official day as Mormon Church president, sworn in as such on 6 April 1986. Apparently things did not go as he and his cohorts had planned.

First, though, by way of background:

Throughout his career as an LDS apostle, my grandfather had been strongly pressured by right-wing elements in the Mormon Church to advance their political agenda. He had eagerly complied--being led and encouraged in his responses to these demands by the influence of his oldest child, Reed Benson, whose own career had included being a high-ranking official in the John Birch Society.

However, ETB's uber-conservativism had resulted in him being "slapped down" by Church higher-ups. He had, for example, gotten into serious trouble with the First Presidency of David O. McKay, when he was forced (after strong complaints from counselor Hugh B. Brown) to retract his public assertion that the Mormon Church officially supported the Birch Society.

When McKay died in January 1970 and Joseph Fielding Smith became Church president, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve convened a confidental pre-General Conference meeting. Harold B. Lee, who had been appointed as Smith's first counselor in the First Presidency and was conducting the meeting, reportedly turned to ETB and said, "Brother Benson, you will confine yourself to a subject that is befitting of your calling in the Quorum." Lee then turned to Smith and asked Smith if Lee's order to ETB was in keeping with Smith's wishes. Smith replied that it was. ETB ended up speaking on reading the scriptures.

Fast forward to April 1986. ETB had become acting president of the Mormon Church when Spencer W. Kimball died in November 1985. ETB was planning to give a sermon as the Church's newly sworn-in president at this conference--the contents of which were being kept from the Quorum. The sermon reportedly dealt with three subjects: "evolution, political matters and the role of women."

Reid Bankhead, a notoriously conservative member of BYU's religion faculty at the time and a colleague of my uncle Reed in the same department, was said to have been involved in the crafting of ETB's intended sermon. I know from my own personal observation how close Reid Bankhead and Reed Benson, in fact, were. One day, as an undergraduate student at BYU, I was walking across campus to the Joseph Smith building in the company of the two Reeds. (I was the third Reed in the group, having gotten my middle name from my uncle). Bankhead had recently self-published an anti-evolution screed which he was handing out to students in his classes, entitled, "The Fall of Adam, the Atonement of Christ and Organic Evolution." Its premise was that organic evolution was a doctrine of the Devil and was officially opposed by the Mormon Church. I recall Bankhead telling my uncle of his design to use the pamphlet to "smoke out" BYU professors in the science departments who were advocating organic evolution. "We'll make them choose," he declared, "between Charles Darwin and the gospel of Jesus Christ." My uncle nodded approvingly.

So, in April 1986, ETB was prepared to deliver his inaugural sermon as Church president on the topics of evolution, politics and women--but no one had, as yet, seen a copy of it. (I suspect that Reed was helping to keep it close to the vest). ETB's reported plan was to deliver the sermon in the first session of General Conference--the purpose being to quickly and boldly showcase ETB as God's prophet carrying a message that needed to be heard (and that would be music to the ears of ETB's right-wing Church chorus).

However, ETB's counselors in the First Presidency--Gordon B. Hinckley in first position and Thomas S. Monson in second--apparently got wind of ETB's calculated barnburner and fearing it would be "polarizing," argued that unless ETB "knew" he was speaking the will of God, he should not deliver the sermon.

What is said to have subsequently followed:

--ETB's sustaining as president of the Mormon Church was delayed until the last session on the last day of the April 1986 General Conference, so that he would come across as a prophet for all the people and not, out of the chute, simply as one for his camp of far-right political supporters.

--ETB didn't deliver the speech that Bankhead (and his son Reed) and reportedly helped him write.

Welcome to the machinations behind the curtain
_____


**Finally, from two members of the Quorum of the Twelve: How the First Presidency counselors operate in keeping the Church President in line:

Back in September 1993, when I met behind closed doors in the downtown Salt Lake City offices of the Church Administration Building with Apostles Dallin H. Oaks and Neal A. Maxwell, they informed me how the counselors in the First Presidency actually "handle" the LDS Church president, in helping to make. sure that he was kept in line.

Maxwell, for instance, instructed me as to how revelation for the Mormon Church was actually received.

He said that Joseph Smith's role as unilaterally revealing doctrine in behalf of the LDS Church was a practice not continued by subsequent Mormon prophets.

Maxwell claimed there are four levels of fundamental Church doctrine:

(1) doctrines revealed by the prophet speaking alone;

(2) doctrines revealed by the prophet in conjunction with his First Presidency counselors;

(3) doctrines revealed in First Presidency statements, with the words of the First Presidency assuming "a special status;" and

(4) doctrines revealed by official declaration.

Maxwell and Oaks, together, asserted that what the President of the Mormon Church said must be in compliance with the Standard Works of the Church in order to be accepted as scripture.

Maxwell and Oaks also told me that that when Brigham Young taught what Oaks called the "false" doctrine of Adam-God, it was because he was a young prophet who was in need of the help of some good counselors.



Edited 25 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2013 02:12PM by steve benson.

Great Post top

I took Reed Benson's class as freshman at the Y. I read that In His Steps book that he gave out for extra credit. It was truly awful. Reed advocated for it because it showed how these preachers were willing to help the poor learn the gospel in an idealic fashion. What I saw when I read it was that these preachers gave up their ministry among their dwindling congregations of the wealthy and educated for the much more pliable and easy to teach (manipulate?) impoverished and uneducated. They gave up on those that were difficult to turn from their sins for those that would more easily do so.

He also mentioned a time or two that he had seen a revelation written, I think, by Joseph Smith that had not been published publicly yet. I've always wondered what that was.

I almost wish he had delivered that speech. What would have happened if Mormons and the world had to be a bit more uncomfortable? Had to choose. All the namby pamby crab, not saying what they mean, be everything to everyone is making it easy for them to get by with the lies.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Welcome to the machinations behind the curtain.

I wonder if your grandfather was the last of the "non-handler" LDS prophets?

My great grandfather was a handler who climbed the ranks. I sure of it. Hinckley was a handler. Monson was a handler.

Mormonism today is a corporation of ladder climbing handlers more than the old boys club it was at the turn of the 20th Century. This isn't saying it isn't an old boys club but it is more like one in a big corporation than a group of old boys who moved their 19th Century cult out to a wasteland to escape Americans who didn't like their cultist politically conformist club...

I'm not sure how to say this tactfully, so please don't take offense. I grew up and continued to live on the West side of the Salt Lake Valley, out where the democrats grow and everybody's grandpa, dad, brother and husband belonged to a union. Even the people who were TBM thought ETB was a wing nut. I had heard many people say that if he became the prophet, they would leave the church. To be honest, I was one of them.

When ETB did become the President of the Church, some people stopped going to church and watched to see what he would do, and others continued to attend waiting for him to do something super right wing.

If he had given the talk you mentioned, I probably would have been a free woman in 1986. As it was, the fact that he didn't do anything right wing was a testimony to me that God really was in charge. Turns out it was just the men behind the curtain.

. . . I think he could have really connected with, embraced and expressed his natural sense of humor in very healthy ways, as well as lived much more globally. After all, he traveled the world as Secretary of Ag under Ike, met many varieties of people and personalties, as well as experienced the realities of unique cultures so apart from and different than his own.

But, in the end, the familiarity of his Idaho farm roots with its simple Mormon moralisms of black and white/good vs. evil made him vulnerable to Bircher conspiratorial goofiness and to a resolutely stubborn, even simplistic, way of compartmentalizing and judging the outside world. In many ways, he had a good heart but his appendages tended toward the bizarre. :)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2013 01:55AM by steve benson.

It does make one wonder how far people would follow this 'church'

For example, would followers protest high profile funerals in support of the Westboro Baptist if Monson or Packer commanded it?

I know they never would make that particular demand because the public relations would be so hard to spin.

However, where is the line? LDS Inc is so demanding, regarding money, time, family, thought, adherence, white shirts, etc. how much is enough?

"ETB didn't deliver the speech that Bankhead (and his son Reed) and reportedly helped him write."

Why? If he's head honcho, why couldn't he do this if he wanted to? Who would/could stop him? And how?

Didn't Monson pull a quick one by announcing new ages for women missionaries at the last conference, when no one else knew he was doing so? Couldn't ETB have read the speech he wanted to, once he got to the pulpit?

. . . not by God's prophets. What they say ultimately goes. These seasoned professionals move from administration to administration (much like civil servants do in secular government). Their job is to keep the company going in a profitable and PR-greased direction and to use their practical and business skills to maximize survival and growth potential by pursuing goals that accord with the worldly interests of the Church. (Hinckley, in particular, has been a modern example of those media-savvy martial Mormon arts in action).

The "prophetic inspiration" stuff is window dressing for the masses who pay the tithing that the Church uses as seed money to invest in real estate, communication networks, malls and cattle farms. ETB and other "prophets" can be, and of necessity, are managed in such a way as to not impede LDS Inc.'s more pressing ventures.

In the name of Jesus Christ. Cash in.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2013 02:01AM by steve benson.

It's just like what happens in the corporate world. Speeches are written by a posse of PR people who carefully choose each word. The speakers are just good puppets.

I saw first hand how GBH and TSM "handled" ETB.

In 1987 my family and I were invited to meet with ETB, in his office, prior to a meeting of the First Presidency. He was charming and gracious with us. However, I sensed he was nervous/apprehensive about his FP meeting. At the time I took it as a sign of his humility. Someone who had been so high up in the U.S. government nervous about a church meeting?

When his counsellors arrived they were all smiles and handshakes, but anxious to 'get down to business'. I always liked GBH but TSM, from my first one on one with him in 1974 (39 years ago, yikes!), I have found him egocentric, false and single minded.

Looking back, the counsellors were the dominant players in that presidency, both of whom became presidents.

Ironically, TSM is being handled by his counsellors (or more likely others). I say this because I do not think Eyring and Uchtdorf have the necessary clout. The current power factions will be the Packer camp and the Oaks/Holland camp, in my opinion.

Anyway Steve, thanks for your insight.

Tom

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,973524



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2013 02:02PM by steve benson.

junior apostles over the more senior ones in an effort to prevent from being "handled"?

Hmmmm.....

Releve,
I remember the same sort of feelings of doubt about Benson being expressed where I was living at the time he was made President. I was in Canada. Prior to his calling, a lot of people felt he would not be called because of his political beleifs. For myself at the time, I saw the fact that he didn't come out with political stuff, as being proof of his calling as prophet. Like you, I may have left then, if he had spoken as he wished. As it was I hung around for few more years. Interesting stuff, how he was controlled. I wonder how the men feel at that level, STILL being controlled???

I just wish they had let him give the speech as written. If I had left TSCC at that time it would have taken pressure off my marriage, the jury is out on whether that would have changed anything that happened later, but it might have. I also had two daughters ages 15 and 12 whose lives could have been different if their mother had been the feminist she wanted to be instead of the molly Mormon clone she tried to be.

Having worked at several major corporations, I am aware of how people are handled--subtly, but openly if necessary.

Many a time we've had a 'reformist' COO appointed who has lots of out of the box thinking, but then the apparachiks get hold of him: "Sir, you may want to rethink that ..." or "this will effect many people, let's do a study first." Then there is the always popular ignoring of new polices on the part of those who are charge to implement them. Once or twice I've even heard handlers say, "No, we're not going to do that, and if you persist in pushing it, I will go to the Board of Directors and dish some dirt."

Not ever having been a 'tog gun' in an organization (especially a 'reformist' top-gun'), I find it difficult to see how I would be manipulated or 'controlled'.

However, I see how this process is done. I've watched re-runs of the BBC comedy program, "Yes, Prime Minister" in which it is quite obvious that it is the civil service - the bureaucracy - which really runs the government, and they just 'tolerate' the various prime ministers who come and go after each election. The 'Permanent Secretary' Sir Humphrey Appleby was in actual control of the government. (I don't know if this program is/was broadcast in the U.S.).

Also, I do remember that Nixon was controlled - or 'bottled-up' - at one point in his presidency. Towards the end of his days in the White House, those around Nixon saw that he was 'losing it' mentally and emotionally. Secretary of Defense James Schlessinger sent orders out that individual military units were not to take orders directly from Nixon or the White House, and to follow orders that went through the traditional chain-of-command (Sec of Defense -> Joint Chiefs of Staff -> etc.).

I could see that an out-of-control or reformist Profit could be bottled up the same way: try to advise/convince/warn him differently, and - if that didn't work - to ignore him and limit his exposure to the public/press, and let the wheels of the organization run on as before. Even if he were to make a surprise announcement in Gen. Conference, the 'system' could bury it by not acting on it or implementing it.

He then becomes a puppet of the System.

Another question, then: How many LDS Corp Profits were 'puppets'? Which ones? Have all of the recent LDS Corp presidents become puppets throughout their tenure, or mainly at the end (when they became too frail mentally to function)?

My answer to your question "How many LDS Corp Profits were 'puppets'? Which ones? Have all of the recent LDS Corp presidents become puppets throughout their tenure, or mainly at the end (when they became too frail mentally to function)?" would be:-

GBH was definitely not a puppet. In fact he was puppeteer to other profits - ETB, HWH

SWK was his own man until the end - no puppet but would certainly have been bullied by GBH and TSM. Packer has always been a bully and had his camp of supporters.

Harold B.Lee was too short term, but they certainly needed him out of the way for the priesthood to be given to blacks.

Joseph Fielding Smith was not a puppet. In fact, the church was steeped in his dogmatic views for decades before he was profit, and the views were perpetuated by his son in law Bruce R. McConkie. Now, both of them are disowned because of their 'false' teachings. Yet, JSF was titled the foremost Mormon theologian in his time.

David O. McKay was probably his own man but had to be diplomatic towards the nuts in the Quorum, as he was more 'nuanced' and tried to appear better educated.

I took a religion class from Reid Bankhead. Total douche.

Sometime in the mid 70s, my dad gave me the Bircher screed, None Dare Call It Conspiracy. I was 11 or so, and completely apolitical. Needless to say, it bewildered me. We were living in Flagstaff, AZ at the time, in the moridor, but removed from the core. My dad was and remains impressionable, and it is clear to me now that the leaders of the 2nd ward had given him a stack of the books and encouraged him to distribute them. ETBs influence was discernible. In retrospect, I am learning the significance of events of my past, informed in part by posts like this.

There's something I don't get about the Mormon church. Why is the top guy not allowed to do more or less as he pleases? Apparently, from this story, the top guy is not the CEO. He is just on the "board". He has to have a consensus to proceed. So here's one question...how do "they" keep a prophet in line? Do they threaten to narc him up and put him out of sight? Do they threaten to vote him out? Because that might not go over well with members...

How does it work?

You raise a good point because as sole owner of the corporate sole, he should be able to do anything he pleases.

Steve Benson has previously mentioned suspicious use of the ETB 'signature' machine by his counsellors. I am sure they have drawn up legal agreements, with the help of Kirton McConkie, to control the top guy should he try anything not to their liking.

My experiences with GBH and SWK suggest they were pretty much in control but not so with ETB and HWH. Somehow GBH, with the lawyers, figured out ways to control the profit but GBH, being the initiator, also knew how he could do what he wanted as profit.

TSM would also have been in on the act but it appears he is rather quiet and ineffective, maybe due to his mental capacity. The opposing factions seem to be battling it out, with the Holland/Oaks camp winning. When did a profit have such junior and powerless counsellors? I mean ETB had GBH and TSM, two of the toughest.

anointedone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When did a profit have such junior
> and powerless counsellors?

Packer has been neutralized - see Ensign Editors.

Monson wants the control in his "First Presidency" but the Oaks/Holland faction is running LDS Inc. and doling out favors to probably people like Ballard and Eyring and Uchy. In my opinion, as I have no idea.

I just know Monson appears to be in control but a limited liability kind of control not a Hinckley "Man Behind The Curtain" control...

From time to time the topic arises on this board about the secret transfer of administrative power from my debilitated grandfather, then-president of the Mormon Church Ezra Taft Benson, to his First Presidency counselors, Gordon B. Hinckley and Thomas S. Monson--a move that was done in clear violation of established LDS Church procedure on succession.

In a previous thread, RfM poster “theoutlander” notes positive proof of that fact (as discovered in and publicly reported from the incorporation documents for the Mormon Church)--documents which prove conclusively that the Mormon Church is in the business of deliberately deceiving its members:

“I was just reading an interesting article titled 'Drawing the Line on Religion' and it made me wonder at what point do you think leadership in the Church is made aware of the scam they are perpetrating? Does that make sense? I mean at some point along the way (maybe when you get as high up as being a GA) the truth has got to come out.

“Maybe this will help you understand what I'm talking about. The article, as I understood it, was about Steve Benson's disenchantment with the Church and how that all came about. About half way through the writer states the following:

“'A reporter at the paper [the 'Salt Lake Tribune'] sifted some eye-popping information from Utah's corporation records. The published report said the corporation that manages the Church effected in 1989 a transfer of power from Ezra Taft Benson to his two counselors, Gordon Hinckley and Thomas Monson. That was done the same year that his grandfather last was seen in public, Benson said.

"'This is what's so ironic,' he said. 'The church leaders and members are saying, “Steve, where's your faith? Don't you have faith God could raise Ezra Taft Benson to speak and lead the church?” But in secret the leaders of the church had amended the faith that God would do that. . . . They put their faith not in God but in the lawyers who transacted the papers and who actually assured the transfer of power to them.'

“I have to think that there were more involved in the cover up than just Hinckley and Monson, so that's what made me wonder, "How many people really know the truth, and how far along do they get before they know?

“I think most people in the forum can agree that we've figured out this scam for ourselves, but I think it would be interesting to know how many in Church Leadership know and help to perpetuate the lie. Make sense?”

(“Church Leadership & The Truth," posted by:”theoutlander,” on “Recovery from Mormonism” bulletin board, 14 April 2012, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,474354,474354#msg-474354)


Similarly, in an earlier thread, RfM poster "orlovna" wrote of the media-reported Mormon Church's use of then-LDS Church president ETB's signature machine/autopen to facilitate a backroom transfer of governing authority from ETB to his two First Presidency counselors, Hinckley and Monson:

" . . . Steve Benson ha[s] posted, here at RfM, about his incapacitated grandfather, at a time when Messrs. Hinckley and Monson took full (and undue) advantage of it (viz., that situation).

"I [meaning poster 'olovna'] 'alleged' (for that is what it is) [to the 'Salt Lake Tribune'] that Hinckley and Benson [*editing note: this should read "Hinckley and Monson" not "Hinckley and Benson"] crafted and drafted a backroom-deal type of document: one for each of them (requiring ETB's 'signature' on both).

"I told the ['Salt Lake Tribune'] readers that, in essence, they could check it out, through the freedom of information act (This was implied, more than factually stated).

"Perhaps ETB's grandson can affirm that the facsimile of Prez. Benson's signature that many, here, were able to view, was indeed the selfsame one that was 'affixed to' those two identical documents that Hinckley and Monson had submitted to the Utah Corporation Commission, back in the mid-90s [*editing note: the signature machine transfer of authority actually took place in 1989], before Pro$it Benson died."
_____


Below is more detailed background information on that secret power transfer, via ETB's signature machine, of LDS Church operating authority:

By 1993, my grandfather was on his last mental and physical legs, being in full decline on both counts.

He exhibited only brief moments of awareness of his surroundings and was unable to carry on meaningful conversations, including with members of his own family.

I personally witnessed his condition deteriorate to this state over the course of several years.

By 1993, he had had a suffered from series of significant health setbacks, including blood clots on the brain, a stroke and a heart attack, all of which had been downplayed to one degree or another by the Church.

My grandfather eventually died in May 1994, barely a year after the conference to which you refer.

By September 1993, even Apostles Dallin H. Oaks and Neal A. Maxwell were personally (but only privately) confirming the reality of ETB's increasingly debilitated state.

In a visit that month with my then-spouse and I in Maxwell's Church Administration Building office, Oaks admitted that my grandfather's health was declining steadily (a fact that we both, as well as our children, already knew from personal visits with him in the confines of his apartment overlooking Temple Square).

Oaks said the Quorum of the Twelve rotated in pairs each week to visit my grandfather at the apartment, with the purpose of only to check in on how he was doing, not to engage in administrative action or to discuss major issues, since my grandfather was incapable of doing any such thing.

Maxwell said that when Church members asked him how the prophet was doing, he would reply only that "he is not in pain."

They said that major administrative decisions were not being made, given the inability of my grandfather to be involved in the process.

I asked Oaks why he didn't come out and set the record straight on my grandfather's health, especially since the Church Public Relations Department, headed by Don LeFevre at the time, was issuing press releases significantly misrepresenting my grandfather's actual mental and physical condition.

Oaks responded by waving dismissively in the direction of the the Church Office Building (which we could see through the windows of Maxwell's office) and saying, "I don't know what goes on over there in the high rise."

I then asked Maxwell why he didn't speak up on the actual state of my grandfather's health.

Maxwell replied by saying he already had several responsibilities and "didn't need any more."

Oaks then urged me to deal with the issue of my grandfather's health through "back channels," rather than in the public square (a sure-fire remedy for deep-sixing the whole thing).

I chose not to follow that advice.

A few weeks later, during 1993 October Conference, I encountered Don LeFevre of the Church PR Department and asked him why he was releasing statements about the health of my grandfather that were clearly not true.

LeFevre told me, "All my statements have been approved by my superiors."

I responded, "Don, that doesn't make them true."

LeFevre simply replied, "Steve, this is a difficult job."

It is a matter of public record (thanks to the reporting of the "Salt Lake Tribune") that--in direct contravention of established protocol for the transfer of power in the event that the Church president should die OR become incapacitated--Hinckely and Monson had the power of attorney over LDS corporate affairs shifted to them in the Church's incorporation documents a few years before my grandfather's death (see Mormon apostle James E. Talmadge's treatment of Church governance procedures in his book, "Articles of Faith").

Instead of having the First Presidency dissolved and an acting president installed to administer the affairs of the Church in a situation when the sitting president was unable to perform his duties, Hinckely and Monson had legal authority to run the Mormon empire transferred directly to them by the highly unusual method of employing my grandfather's autopen signature machine on Church incorporation documents (see an account of this episode in historian D. Michael Quinn's book, "Extensions of Power").
_____


Here's a breakdown of the details that, in and of themselves, should be enough for any honest Mormon to leave the lying LDS Church:

--I informed Quinn of this surreptitious power grab and he found it significant enough to write that Monson and Hinckley secretly conspired to angle himself into the position of de facto Church president, in clear violation of official Mormon Church governance protocol:

"By May 1989 . . . counselors [Hinckley and Monson] felt it necessary to execute legal documents giving them Ezra Taft Benson's 'power of attorney [which] shall not be affected by his "disability" or "incompetence.'"

"However, Benson was already affected by that 'disability.'

"Despite a notarized statement by the First Presidency's secretary, President Benson did not sign those documents himself. A signature machine produced Benson's identical signatures on these legal documents.

"Without public acknowledgment, this machine-signed document formally ended an official provision for dissolving the First Presidency that had been in print for ninety years. Since 1899 the book 'Articles of Faith,' 'Written By Appointment; and Published By the Church,' had specified that the 'First Presidency is disorganized through the death or disability of the President.'

"However, this 1989 document specified that the counselors would not dissolve the First Presidency or surrender their powers despite the fact of the church president's 'disability' or 'incompetence.'

"The current apostles have supported this policy, even though the officially published 'Articles of Faith' continues to specify that when there is 'disability of the President, the directing authority in [church] government reverts at once to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles." (D. Michael Quinn, "The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power" [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books], pp. 58-59,; fn 243-245, p. 432)
_____


--The “Salt Lake Tribune” affirmed the story through its own investigative reporting efforts:

"In the years before his death President Benson suffered from poor health, suffering from blood clots in the brain, strokes, and heart attacks. During this time, Benson almost never appeared in public, and First Counselor Gordon B. Hinckley took on many of Benson's official duties, as he had done as Second Counselor in Kimball's last years.

"Joining Hinckley in this task was Thomas S. Monson, and the two of them received legal power of attorney to act in Benson's behalf in LDS corporate affairs. Important ecclesiastical and family documents continued to be signed in Benson's name, with the aid of a signature machine.

"There was some controversy as to whether Benson's actual mental health during this time was accurately portrayed by the Church. According to Church spokesman Don LeFevre, Hinckley and Monson reviewed major church decisions with Benson in his home, where he was attended by a staff of nurses.

"However, according to Benson's grandson Steve Benson, who later became a vocal, anti-Mormon critic of the church that he quit, the elder Benson by about 1993 was living in a sweatsuit, fed by others, and incapable of recognizing others or speaking coherently.

"Steve Benson stated that in a private meeting with apostle Dallin H. Oaks, Oaks explained to the younger Benson that the apostles rotated in pairs each week to visit the elder Benson at the apartment socially, but that Benson was incapable of conducting official business. . . .

"The fact that President Benson's counselors did not have a great deal of confidence in his ability to function became evident when documents filed with the state of Utah were examined by the 'Salt Lake Tribune':

"'Documents on file with the state of Utah are strong evidence that the parent corporation of the Mormon Church no longer is being directed by its president, Ezra Taft Benson.

"'It is the first time since the corporation was founded 70 years ago that anyone other than the church president has obtained total authority over Utah's most powerful corporation.

"'The documents, at the Utah Department of Commerce, were signed with a machine that duplicates the signature of 94 year-old President Benson. They were filed six months before President Benson . . . made his last public speech.

"'Church leaders said this week the filings and the use of a signature machine were routine, and done with President Benson's approval.... Today, the corporation owns all church assets--including a multi-billion dollar portfolio of financial and property holdings. . . .

"'Entitled "Certificates of Authority' and dated May 23, 1989, the documents say Presidents Hinckley and Monson can keep those complete powers--even if President Benson becomes disabled or is determined by a court to be incompetent. . . . the church made no announcement of the change. It has continued to portray President Benson as the ultimate power behind church affairs. . . .

"'Fran Fish, notary public administrator for the state Department of Commerce, said signatures written by machine are legal . . . .

"'Still, Ms. Fish . . . said use of a signature machine on state corporate filings 'is certainly out of the norm.'. . . Steve Benson . . . has said that his aging grandfather no longer possesses the mental faculties to handle church affairs.

"'"The church has misrepresented the condition of President Benson and stated flatly that his role as prophet has in no way been impeded," Steve Benson said this week. "My grandfather has become a storefront mannequin while the business of the store is conducted behind closed doors."

"'He said a signature machine has replaced his grandfather's hand on all personal and family correspondence.”Evidently," Steve Benson said, "the signature machine had not been programmed to sign, 'Grandpa.'"'"('Salt Lake Tribune,' August 15, 1993)"

(To view the actual signature machine-created signature of Ezra Taft Benson on the incorporation documents mentioned above, see "Hinckley Monson and Ezra Taft Benson's Signature Machine," by "cricket" [Steven Clark], 30 December 2006, at: http://www.salamandersociety.com/legal/; see also, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, "Mormon Inquisition?: LDS Leaders Move to Repress Rebellion," under "Non-Functional Prophets," in "Salt Lake City Messenger," No. 85, November 1993, at: http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no85.htm)
_____


--The journalism trade magazine, “Editor & Publisher” also reported on the backroom power transfer:

"[Steve] Benson's views seemingly were verified by an article in the Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lake City. A reporter at the paper sifted some eye-popping information from Utah's corporation records. The published report said the corporation that manages the church effected in 1989 a transfer of power from Ezra Taft Benson to his two counselors, Gordon Hinckley and Thomas Monson. That was done the same year that his grandfather last was seen in public, Benson said.

"'This is what's so ironic,' he said.’The church leaders and members are saying, 'Steve, where's your faith? Don't you have faith God could raise Ezra Taft Benson to speak and lead the church?' But in secret the leaders of the church had amended the faith that God would do that. . . . They put their faith not in God but in the lawyers who transacted the papers and who actually assured the transfer of power to them.'" (Walt Jayroe, "Drawing the Line on Religion," in "Editor & Publisher," 1994, at: http://www.lds-mormon.com/benson1.shtml)
_____


--Further reporting:

"[Mormon] Church leaders acknowledge[d] that during the past four years Gordon B. Hinckley and Thomas S. Monson have held absolute control, legally, of the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Though a signature machine was used to append Benson's signature to documents transferring control from Benson to Hinckley and Monson, the two certificates of authority filed in May, 1989, were declared legal (in 'Salt Lake Tribune,' 15 August 1993, p. C 1)." (Timothy Oliver, Rick Branch, and James Walker, "Historical Events, Notable Doctrines: Mormonism Overview," in "Watchman Expositor," vol. 13, #4, 1996, at: http://www.watchman.org/lds/ldshst96.htm)
_____


--Hinckley, plain and simple, lied to Mormon Church members in General Conference about the extent and severity of ETB's rapidly failing health.

Notice how, in this Mormon Church account of a Hinckley October 1992 General Conference talk, he mentioned nothing about ETB's deteriorating and debilitating mental condition indeed, he spoke only of his weak physical state, thereby misleadingly implying that ETB was still mentally functional--which was not the case at all. (If ETB had, in fact, been regarded as being mentally functional enough to make adminstraive decisions as Mormon Church president, there would have been no need for a surreptious power hand-over by signature machine to Hinckley and Monson):

“President Gordon B. Hinckley's account of a dramatic experience aboard a jetliner as it approached the airport set the tone for his Sunday morning address.

“President Hinckley, first counselor in the First Presidency, was returning from a regional conference when the captain announced that there was an emergency and asked passengers to obey crew members' instructions. An off-duty pilot, recognizing President Hinckley, told him, 'The primary control system has failed, but I think we are going to be all right. They have managed to get the landing gear down and the flaps down.'

"'Strangely, I felt no fear,' President Hinckley recalled. 'I knew that a redundancy system had been built into the plane to handle just such an emergency, and that the crew had been well-trained.'

“The congregation laughed when he said, 'I also knew that the effectiveness of that redundancy system would be known in a minute or two when the rubber hit the runway.'

“The aircraft landed without mishap. 'The crew were appropriately applauded, and some of us expressed to the Lord our gratitude,' President Hinckley related.

"'I have reflected on this experience in terms of the Church of which we are members.'

“Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, but the earthly head is the prophet, he explained, adding that while President Ezra Taft Benson holds all the keys of the priesthood, he has reached an age that places limitations on his PHYSICAL activities [emphasis added], as have prophets in the past.

"'Some people, evidently not knowing the system, worry that because of the president's age, the Church faces a crisis. They seem not to realize that there is a backup system. In the very nature of this system, there is always on board a trained crew, if I may so speak of them. They have been thoroughly schooled in Church procedures. More importantly, they also hold the keys of the eternal priesthood of God.'

“Each of the 15 men ordained as apostles holds the keys of the priesthood, but only the president has the right to exercise them in their fullness, President Hinckley explained.

“'We who serve as counselors recognize and know the parameters of our authority and our responsibility. Our only desire is to assist and help our leader with the tremendous burdens of his office. The Church is growing large, with more than 8 million members now. . . . The responsibilities are many and varied.

"'But I can say that regardless of the circumstances, the work goes forward in an orderly and wonderful way. As it was during the time when President Kimball was ill, we have moved without hesitation where there is well-established policy. Where there is no firmly established policy, we have talked with the president and received his approval before taking action. Let it never be said that there has been any disposition to assume authority or to do anything or say anything or teach anything which might be at variance with the wishes of him who has been put in his place by the Lord.'

“Quoting D&C 107:23-24, President Hinckley said the Council of the Twelve Apostles form a quorum equal in power and authority to the First Presidency, but they are always under the direction of the First Presidency.

“President Hinckley contrasted the work of the Lord with the process of electing government officials: 'No member of the Church in his right mind would think of applying for ecclesiastical office.' Rather, he said, Church officers are called of God by prophecy and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority.

“He expressed confidence that all General Authorities confess to the Lord their weaknesses and plead for strength and wisdom.
“He said the Brethren pray together and periodically partake of the sacrament together, and from various backgrounds and experiences, discuss problems and ways to improve and strengthen the work.

"'At the outset of these discussions, there may be various points of view. But before the discussion is ended, there is total unanimity, else no action is taken. The Lord Himself has declared that such unity is an absolute necessity.'

“He affirmed that the General Authorities would never lead the Church astray because the Lord Jesus Christ has the power to remove any found remiss in his duty or teaching that which is not in harmony with His divine will.

"'I say for each and all of us that we have no personal agenda. We have only the Lord's agenda. There are those who criticize when we issue a statement of counsel or warning. Please know that our pleadings are not motivated by any selfish desire. Please know that our warnings are not without substance and reason. Please know that the decisions to speak out on various matters are not reached without deliberation, discussion and prayer. Please know that our only ambition is to help each of you with your problems, your struggles, your families, your lives.'"

(“Built-in 'Backup' System Keeps Church on Course,” Gordon B. Hinckley, sermon at LDS General Conference,” published in “Church News,” 10 October 1992, at: http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/21783/Built-in-backup-system-keeps-Church-on-course.html


Hinckley continued the same deceptive theme throughout the same Conference, having kicked of the Saturday session with the same misdirect:

“My brethren and sisters, President Benson ordinarily would speak to us in the opening session of the conference and extend his warm welcome. We regret that he is not with us. He would wish to be here, and we wish that he were here. It is becoming increasingly hard for him to get out. His age makes public appearances difficult. He is now in his ninety-fourth year. It is not easy for him to do what he once did with such vigor and enthusiasm. His strong and vibrant voice has stirred all of us in times past. His eloquence in expounding the gospel and his tremendous testimony of this work, persuasive in its tone and cogency, have lifted all who have heard him. We miss him and pray that the Lord will comfort him and bless him that he may enjoy much of happiness for the remainder of his life.

“His burdens became much heavier when his beloved companion, Sister Flora Amussen Benson, passed away on August 14. They had been married for nearly sixty-six years. They have been an example to the entire Church. He now feels the terrible loneliness that comes to a man with the death of a gifted and beautiful wife, the mother of his children, his great support and comfort.

“Our hearts reach out to him in sympathy and love. We pray that the Lord will comfort him and sustain him and bring gladness into his heart while he yet remains with us as the prophet of God.

“He has asked that we go forward with the conference. We do so with his encouragement and with a prayer in our hearts that we will be blessed of the Lord—all who speak—that there may be a great spiritual outpouring among the Saints who will meet in many places and under a great variety of circumstances.”

(“Sin Will Not Prevail,” Gordon B. Hinckley, October 1992 General Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, reprinted in “Ensign,” November 1992, at: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1992/10/sin-will-not-prevail?lang=eng)

**************


Ezra Taft Benson was not meaningfully leading and/or directing the Mormon Church as its president--either physically or mentally--in his final years.

LDS apostles Oaks and Maxwell privately admitted that fact to me, in direct contradiction of Hinckley's public lies.

Furthermore, if, as Hinckley claimed, he (Hinckley) had no “personal agenda,” then why did Hinckley and Monson choose not to inform the general Mormon Church membership that they had, as far back as 1989, secretly transferred authority to run LDS, Inc. from ETB to them, via ETB's personal signature machine, without ETB being present for the transfer?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Subterfuge.

The LDS Church is rotten to the core but, alas, listen to the true-believing LDS snore. Never let the facts get in the way of a good Mormon myth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2013 01:31PM by steve benson.

Thanks Steve. Hopefully your account above is archived somewhere on this site.

In the later years of your grandfather's life I was told repeatedly by GAs that no important decision was being made in the church without ETB's agreement. This often meant waiting patiently for a lucid moment in order that he could make that decision. The mantra was the prophet is still in charge.

Turns out to be lies. GBH has been the powerhouse since 1981 when he was brought into the SWK presidency due to the ill health of Tanner and Romney. Obviously TSM became an able accomplice although, ironically, when TSM has ultimate power he seems to be 'incapacitated' and needs handling. I did not get the impression GBH was ever handled. Neither did he show signs of senility or dementia. His health issues were physical - cancer - rather than a lessening of his mental abilities.

OK, I know I'm going to sound a bit like Oliver Stone (although I really did like his movie JFK and the recent Savages movie, but I digress...).

I get that there could be a legal framework, that we don't know about, wherein financial decisions of various church businesses are controlled by a group or sub-group of apostles. Thus any sale or change in the direction of a business would not necessarily be under the sole control of the profit.

BUT, when it comes to church policy, the ability to control a person who is presented to be the leader to the outside world, seems like it would be much more difficult. The prophet by tradition gets to talk about three times in a general conference. He can say things there and be heard by many members at one time. If some of the other big 14 didn't like what he said, it implies they know what he is going to say before he says it, first of all. Then it implies they have the "power" to make him say what "they" want. And that is a mystery and the only thing I can think of is pretty nefarious. "Tom, if you start talking about crusading against any more gay marriage initiatives, we'll change your medications, if you know what I mean!" Yikes, he backs down and talks about widows and feel good stuff instead. ETB didn't talk about John Birch stuff as the profit. He had one very interesting talk that I remember about the secret combinations in our country, and that happened to be his last public talk (in general conference)....hummm???

They know the money and the machine is what inspired and keeps things moving. They would know that while they can talk at firesides and devotionals more opening they cannot do so in GC. Also, I believe if they don't have a groupie following they basically only get a travel schedule and an office. Not "real" power. The real power is in the hidden, and unseen movement of favors and stuff ala mafia-like influencing (without the violence.)

Oh the conspiracy theories this adds fuel to. I bet Monson and Hinkley had to take him to a pink room and beat him till he agreed to not give that sermon.;-) SARCASM

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,816731,816731

There can be a point in an organization's life where "Cash flow takes control". The institution becomes so large and complicated, and operational divisions have worked so hard to make themselves as "indispensable as possible", that eventually the tail starts waging the dog.

Original ideals can become replaced by the institution's deeply-rooted commercial commitments and vital equities. Financial survival becomes the priority. The people who manage that issue, manage everything -- regardless of titles. They are often the real power behind the throne.

In Mormonism everyone, in every bureaucracy, lobbies for power and budgets. however, virtually no one lobbies for the ordinary member. That is how it comes to be that the church builds multi-billion-dollar shopping malls while members end up scrubbing toilets!

The institution becomes addicted to the financial process itself and may not be able to find a way out even if it wanted to.

Cash flow has become the real source of revelation in Mormonism.

You are right.

We often overlook the power of the Presiding Bishop. Also, the Church Budget Officer wields considerable power, although he can easily be replaced because he is an employee. However, he knows too much so has to be encouraged to keep quiet.

I wonder what David Burton (previous PB) did wrong. Dave was a very powerful man when I knew him (when Hales was PB), though most members knew nothing of him.

I took the BoM from Reid Bankhead. I have a copy of that pamphlet on evolution somewhere. I should scan it and post it here.