Mormon President dies at 97

[Lehl]

Benson was “in o.k. shape” to the end of his days. He became physically very weak towards the end of his life, but his mind never stopped functioning right to the end. His ability to counsel the Church in matters of importance never diminished.

zerinus

That is not what his grandson, pulitzer prize winning journalist Steve Benson has said.

The decisive episode in Benson’s discontent with the church arose not long after his grandfather ascended to the presidency in 1985. Family and others of the inner circle noticed a decline in the elder Benson’s mental and physical state.

Benson said his grandfather would stumble through sermons and sometimes lose track of his words, leading to long silences and discomfort of audiences. A series of strokes led to impaired speech and invalid status. Personal letters to family began to arrive signed by signature machine, Benson said.

While his grandfather slipped into a “semisenile” condition, Benson said, church leaders acted as if all was well, that the prophet was in charge of church affairs. Benson said he soon began to see it as a hoax, a giant cover-up from rank-and-file members. The church, he believed, had boxed itself into a theological corner.

Benson said Mormons sell their church on the premise that "it is being led today by a modern-day, living prophet . . . and his name is Ezra Taft Benson. And he is the sole mouthpiece to whom God reveals his truth to a troubled, searching world.

“As long as the prophet’s alive, he’s got to be functioning, he’s got to be leading, he’s got to be revealing.”

Fearing a loss of power and validation if they admitted that the prophet was incapacitated, Mormon leaders went to great lengths to perpetuate an illusion, Benson said.

“They’d take him out to a function where he’s supposed to turn a spade of earth,” he said. “They’d put his foot on the shovel and take a picture. Or he’d be seen waving to a crowd with a handler manipulating his arm.”

All photos were taken from his grandfather’s left side to hide the medical tube permanently affixed to the right nostril, Benson said.

"He’s been treated like a dimestore mannequin in a window while the business of the enterprise has been conducted behind closed doors, " he said.

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.

You can read Steve’s story here:
lds-mormon.com/benson1.shtml
lds-mormon.com/benson.shtml

 

[ralphinal]

Thanks for the information.

If I may ask another question or two. What if there is a charge of senility? CAn the President be removed? What if there is some other charge?

 

[Lehl]

Thanks for the information.

If I may ask another question or two. What if there is a charge of senility? CAn the President be removed? What if there is some other charge?

That’s the whole point…if a president becomes senile, the Mormons are backed into a “theological corner” as Steven Benson pointed out.

They would never remove the prophet. He can’t retire, either. He is supposedly called by God. Apparently apostles can be given emeritus status if they are mentally or physically unable to continue climbing the ladder, but that is not true of the prophet.

If he truly is a prophet, chosen by God–he wouldn’t go senile because he couldn’t lead the church, and God obviously wouldn’t allow that to happen. So they HAVE to perpetuate the illusion that the ailing “prophet” is perfectly fine as Steven Benson related about his incapacitated grandfather, Ezra Taft Benson–the prophet and president of the church from 1985-1994.

 

[Lehl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphinal
How does one get on the Council of Twelve?

It seems to be mostly nepotism as well as being white. There hasn’t been one nonwhite person in the Quorum of 12.

By revelation. No other criterion is applied.

Don’t forget the ultra-helpful being “Mormon Royalty” (like being related to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or pioneer stock).

 

[zerinus]

Thanks for the information.

If I may ask another question or two. What if there is a charge of senility? CAn the President be removed?

I cannot speak on the charge of “senility” as such, because it has never occurred. However, if the President of the Church became incapacitated through weakness or old age, he would still remain in his office until he died. He has two counselors who would assume to discharge most of his responsibilities. Remember that all the members of the First Presidency are designated prophets, seers, and revelators to the Church, not just the President himself. They hold the “keys of the kingdom” together “in common” with him. The Twelve Apostles also have the same designation.

What if there is some other charge?

What kind of charge? Do you mean a transgression? The President of the Church is human, and like the rest of us is not immune from a mistake or a transgression. In case he is charged with transgression, there is a mechanism in place in the Church so that the accusation can be properly investigated, and if necessary corrective action taken. The President of the Church can be removed from office if charged with transgression. But the likelihood of that happening in real life is near zero.

zerinus

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Réquiem æternam dona ei, Dómine.
Et lux perpétua lúceat ei.
Requiéscat in pace.
Amen.
Anima ejus, et ánimæ ómnium fidélium defunctórum, per misericórdiam Dei requiéscant in pace.
Amen.

Hope for his salvation, hope for the salvation and conversion of all Mormons.

Amen. My brother left the Catholic faith to become a Mormon. He is a better person since converting, but I think his return to the Catholic Church would make him even better.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[ralphinal]

I cannot speak on the charge of “senility” as such, because it has never occurred. However, if the President of the Church became incapacitated through weakness or old age, he would still remain in his office until he died. He has two counselors who would assume to discharge most of his responsibilities. Remember that all the members of the First Presidency are designated prophets, seers, and revelators to the Church, not just the President himself. They hold the “keys of the kingdom” together “in common” with him. The Twelve Apostles also have the same designation.

What kind of charge? Do you mean a transgression? The President of the Church is human, and like the rest of us is not immune from a mistake or a transgression. In case he is charged with transgression, there is a mechanism in place in the Church so that the accusation can be properly investigated, and if necessary corrective action taken. The President of the Church can be removed from office if charged with transgression. But the likelihood of that happening in real life is near zero.

zerinus

Thanks again, zerinus.

If I may impose. Are the corrective actions spelled out? If i sound anti-Mormon on this next question forgive me. It is my understanding that the President has a certain amount of ability to “re-interpret” the scriptures as time goes on, allowing for changes in doctrine. If this is the case, could he just make his favorite transgression allowed for the president?

 

[zerinus]

Thanks again, zerinus.

If I may impose. Are the corrective actions spelled out?

Yes, you will find it in these verses from the Doctrine and Covenants:

D&C 107:

82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood * shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church *, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood *;

83 And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him.

84 Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.

---

76 But a literal descendant of Aaron has a legal right to the presidency of this priesthood , to the keys of this ministry, to act in the office of bishop independently, without counsellors, except in a case where a President of the High Priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek , is tried, to sit as a judge in Israel.***

If i sound anti-Mormon on this next question forgive me. It is my understanding that the President has a certain amount of ability to “re-interpret” the scriptures as time goes on, allowing for changes in doctrine. If this is the case, could he just make his favorite transgression allowed for the president?

Yes, that is a bit of anti-Mormon propaganda. It is a complete distortion of his powers, what he can and cannot do, and how the whole system works. The President of the Church is not in a position to be able to do any such thing.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

Thanks again.

On the topic of it being a literal decendent of Aaron. How is this established? I know that Mormons have some of the most complete geneologies in the world, but do they really go that far back? If so, how do they make it throught the dark ages? Have any of the DNA people who tested the Native Americans tried to establish proof of this?

 

[zerinus]

Thanks again.

On the topic of it being a literal decendent of Aaron. How is this established? I know that Mormons have some of the most complete geneologies in the world, but do they really go that far back? If so, how do they make it throught the dark ages? Have any of the DNA people who tested the Native Americans tried to establish proof of this?

So far to my knowledge such a person has not been identified. If he were identified, either through genealogical research or by revelation, he would still have to be a member of the Church, and be judged worthy to be called to that position. In the absence of that, a High Priest of the Melchizedek order is appointed to fulfil that calling. Since the Melchizedek Priesthood is the higher priesthood, it can officiate in one of the lesser offices, which is what the office of a bishop is. See D&C 68:14–24;107:15–17.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

So far to my knowledge such a person has not been identified. If he were identified, either through genealogical research or by revelation, he would still have to be a member of the Church, and be judged worthy to be called to that position. In the absence of that, a High Priest of the Melchizedek order is appointed to fulfil that calling. Since the Melchizedek Priesthood is the higher priesthood, it can officiate in one of the lesser offices, which is what the office of a bishop is. See D&C 68:14–24;107:15–17.

zerinus

That makes sense. It is a provision in case it happens, not so mucha requirement of the office. Thanks

 

[Lehl]

Yes, that is a bit of anti-Mormon propaganda. It is a complete distortion of his powers, what he can and cannot do, and how the whole system works. The President of the Church is not in a position to be able to do any such thing.

zerinus

Now granted that ralphinal did not phrase his question quite clearly, but you knew which question he/she was asking.

ralphinal–this is the typical deceptive evasiveness of Mormons when they are confronted with questions they don’t want to answer. Even their General Authorities have mentioned this tactic–Boyd K. Packer:

“I never pay any attention to the questions… If he doesn’t ask the right questions…, I give answers to questions he should have asked.”

 

[ralphinal]

If you take Z’s answer to your question at face value, he just asserted that the president, prophet, seer, revelator and “God’s Mouthpiece on Earth” CANNOT receive new revelation that contradicts earlier revelation thus changing doctrine.

Those of us that know better–know that Z just answered the question that SHOULD have been asked which was that the president (you should have used “prophet” in your question), “acting as a man” (they do make that distinction), cannot ‘re-interpret the scriptures as time goes on, allowing for changes in doctrine.’

That is the question Z answered and he answered it correctly that:

However, it was clear that the question you wanted answered was…Can the president of the church, in his capacity as a prophet of God, receive new revelation that contradicts earlier revelation, which will consequently change current doctrine? If this is the case, could the president claim to receive revelation to make his favorite transgression allowed?

I have prayed about re-asking the question in this form. I am still not sure, but I feel it to be intellectually dishonest not to ask Zerinus ot respond. I am quite sure that he has spoken on this before, but the question is here and it is only fair to ask for a reply.

Zerinus,
How do you respond?

 

[zerinus]

I have prayed about re-asking the question in this form. I am still not sure, but I feel it to be intellectually dishonest not to ask Zerinus ot respond. I am quite sure that he has spoken on this before, but the question is here and it is only fair to ask for a reply.

Zerinus,
How do you respond?

There are some posts (and some posters) that as a matter of principle I choose not to respond to. This is one of those. If you believe that this poster has a valid question to ask, you may rephrase it in your own words, and I will try to respond to it.

zerinus

 

[Ecclesiasticus]

I wonder how his passing will impact the growth rate of the Mormon group?

 

[ralphinal]

There are some posts (and some posters) that as a matter of principle I choose not to respond to. This is one of those. If you believe that this poster has a valid question to ask, you may rephrase it in your own words, and I will try to respond to it.

zerinus

Zerinus,
I thought that I had asked the same thing in my own words previously, and I had no issue with your answer. The other poster claims that the difference between the role of president and the role of prophet make a difference. Is this true? Have any previous men in this position ever re-interpreted scripture to change doctrine?

By the way, I have seen some of the exchanges that you have had with some posters on this site, and I fully understand your position about not answering some. Charity and all that.

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus,
I thought that I had asked the same thing in my own words previously, and I had no issue with your answer.

Thank you. So I don’t need to address that issue again!

The other poster claims that the difference between the role of president and the role of prophet make a difference. Is this true?

No, it isn’t. The official title of the President f the Church, as designated by revelation, is the “President of the High Priesthood of the Church,” or the “Presiding High Priest over the Priesthood of the Church” (D&C 107:65–66), which we have shortened to the “President of the Church”. The President of the Church is also designated by revelation to be a “prophet, seer, and revelator” to the whole Church (D&C 107: 91–92; 124:125). So there is no conflict between the two. His correct official title is in fact the “President of the Church”. We call him “the Prophet” by popular demand. That is what people in ordinary conversation like to call him, and we do not object to that; but he is much more than just an ordinary prophet. He is a seer and a revelator, and the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church.

Have any previous men in this position ever re-interpreted scripture to change doctrine?

No.

By the way, I have seen some of the exchanges that you have had with some posters on this site, and I fully understand your position about not answering some. Charity and all that.

“Charity” is not the issue that I have with them. Honesty is.

zerinus

 

[Isa_Almisry]

By revelation. No other criterion is applied.

None of them have got dementia yet! The Lord blesses them with good health and a sound mind.

zerinus

Given what the Mormon hierarchy has taught over the brief nearly two centuries (Adam=Jehovah, Heavenly mother, origin of blacks, Blood Atonement ie. assasination, etc.) I’d take John 9:41 as a warning.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So far to my knowledge such a person has not been identified. If he were identified, either through genealogical research or by revelation, he would still have to be a member of the Church, and be judged worthy to be called to that position. In the absence of that, a High Priest of the Melchizedek order is appointed to fulfil that calling. Since the Melchizedek Priesthood is the higher priesthood, it can officiate in one of the lesser offices, which is what the office of a bishop is. See D&C 68:14–24;107:15–17.

zerinus

Actually their are plenty of identified descendents of Aaron: they are called Kohen, and DNA testing has supported their claim of being descended from one male circa 3,000 years before present, ie. Aaron.

 

[zerinus]

Given what the Mormon hierarchy has taught over the brief nearly two centuries (Adam=Jehovah, Heavenly mother, origin of blacks, Blood Atonement ie. assasination, etc.) I’d take John 9:41 as a warning.

It seems that you might have missed verse 39. I think that that is a warning to you.

zerinus