Talk:Ezra Taft Benson

Old conversations

I added the following as 2nd 'graph in Ezra Taft Benson:

(His family should not be confused with that of another Western political figure of the next generation, Lloyd Bentsen.)

A WP colleague may have been right in removing it, summarizing:

Deleted comment about Lloyd Bentsen. Not in any way relevant, nor likely that anyone would confuse or even relate the two.

Unlikely things do happen. So my confusion, that led to my doing the research that led in turn to my addition of the "don't confuse" text, doesn't guarantee that such confusion is likely! But on the other hand, it does make it possible that my colleague has underestimated that likelihood. And more eyeballs than our four can be applied to making that judgement in the long term.
--Jerzy(t) 03:13, 2004 May 20 (UTC)

Lloyd Bentsen

You are absolutely right. This was my first time to actually edit an article, and as soon as I posted my comments/deletion, I realized how rude my comments/action appeared. Please forgive...I'm new to this. I'm actually a direct descendant of Ezra T. Benson (Ezra Taft Benson's grandfather), so to me there is obviously no confusion between ETB and Lloyd Bentsen--but I totally acknowledge that I'm not the "average" reader.

Thanks for your patience with me. I will use much more tact/patience/collaboration in the future.

[Two 'graphs by User:207.46.238.136 precede this. --Jerzy(t)]

Just a friendly note, please sign all your posts. You can do this by typing three tildes, thus: ~~~. Using four tildes, ~~~~, adds a time stamp. The latter form is what most Wikipedians use. Cheers! —Frecklefoot 18:57, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

207, i didn't find you rude or unreasonable, and i apologize if my agnostic approach to this came across as irony intended to make you look bad. What i said about eyeballs means that even when two of us agree, we don't know we've got it right. The effectiveness of Wiki lies in our "editing boldly", making lots of mistakes, and getting lots of feedback.

You edited boldly, and were off to a good start by doing so; don't get embarrassed or whatever, and start holding back.

And by the way, i'm not sure i've ever seen a note quite like the one i wrote; i'm waiting to see if others think it was "encyclopedic". Your edit called my attention, indirectly, to that issue, and further thot resulted in another way of attacking the same issue, which you'll see if you link via the "What links here" link on Lloyd Bentsen; probably still the last item on that list by the time you look at it. (I thot i had already done the equivalent re Ezra Taft Benson, but i'll get to that soon.) I probably wouldn't have gotten around to thinking of it soon, if you hadn't enhanced the discussion by offering your opinion. So accept my thanks, instead of my accepting your apology, OK?

--Jerzy(t) 23:29, 2004 May 20 (UTC)

It's a deal. Btw...though a newbie, I am quickly realizing how Wikipdedia can become a religion. Consider this my baptism.  :) Thanks!!! Brolap 21:53, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I never once associated Ezra Taft Benson with Lloyd Bentsen. However, I've always wondered where the "Taft" in his name came from? Is he any relation to the Tafts who are somewhat of a political dynasty in Ohio, with William Howard Taft being the 27th President, his son and grandson each serving as U.S. Senators, and his great-grandson being the current Governor of Ohio? 198.86.235.111 20:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. See the Taft family entry. Acsenray 19:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Japanese IW

Hi, why are there two interwiki links to Japanese? --Amir E. Aharoni 17:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Outed" vs. "Ousted"

I changed the term "outed" to "ousted;" the term "outed" is confusing, as it generally relates to one being discovered to be a homosexual, whereas "ousted" is generally the term used in politics for one who is forced out of his position. BarrettBrown 03:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

From Talk:Ezra Taft Benson/Comments

The following was origionally posted to Talk:Ezra Taft Benson/Comments, but should have been posted here, so moved. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand that Benson attended and graduated from Iowa State College (now University)in Ames, Iowa. However, I don't have any dates. 70.246.50.126 03:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Russel Lane

External links

I would like to add the following link to the external resources part of this page. It has several relevant quotes from P. Benson. I have to get consensus before I add it, or it will be considered spam; so if anyone is familiar with P. Benson, please review the link and comment up or down in this talk page. Link. Thank you. -Micahburnett 05:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Does it strike anyone else as excessive that this article contains external links to apparently every General Conference talk that President Benson ever gave? -- 159.182.1.4 00:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Confusing misplaced modifier in article.

I am starting this subject to try and clear up a confusing misplaced modifier in the Biography section of the article. The relevant confusing paragraph states: "Born on a farm in Whitney, Idaho, Benson was the oldest of eleven children. He was the great grandson of another Ezra Taft Benson, now known as "Ezra T. Benson", who was appointed by Brigham Young as a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles from 1846 on. Beginning his academic career at Utah State University, he was a 1926 graduate of Brigham Young University (after serving a church mission in Britain from 1921 to 1923)." The way it is currently worded, it sounds as if President Benson's great-grandfather, Ezra T. Benson, was the one who began his academic career at Utah State University, graduating from BYU in 1926. I know that's not the meaning we were trying to convey, but I don't know how we could fix that. Any thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Beginning his academic career at Utah State University, the younger Benson was a 1926 graduate of Brigham Young University..." ? Just a suggestion ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I like that rewording. If there are no objections within the next few days, let's go with that. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

picture

you can use this one [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.63.89 (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a member of the John Birch Society

Benson was not a member of the John Birch Society. He was a supporter of the organization’s cause and members of his family were in the Society, but he was not on the rolls of the organization. (Matthew R. Lee) 15:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No evidence for age as a factor in ordination

It may be possible that Spencer W. Kimball was ordained an apostle before Ezra Taft Benson as a result of age but I find no evidence to support this claim.

Spencer W. Kimball was extended the called 18 days before Ezra Taft Benson. He is senior to Benson in both his calling and ordination. Here are two sources on the timing of the calls:

Kimball was extended the called to “fill one of the vacancies in the Quorum” of the Twelve by President J. Reuben Clark Jr. on July 8, 1943 (Kimball, Edward L., Kimball, Andrew E. Spencer W. Kimball. Bookcraft, Inc. 1977, p.188-189).

Benson was extended the called to be a member of the Council of the Twelve by President Heber J. Grant on July 26, 1943 (Dew, Sheri. Ezra Taft Benson: A Biography. Deseret Book Company. 1987, p. 174).

Both were ordained by President Heber J. Grant in the Salt Lake Temple on October 7, 1943.

It could be true that age was the factor in who was called first but I find no evidence to support this claim.

I understand that this is a completely different issue than whether or not Benson was called to fill vacancy in the Quorum created by the death of Sylvester Q. Cannon or Rudger Clawson. Because Cannon died first it is my opinon that Kimball filled the vacancy created by Cannon's death and Benson fileld the vacancy created by the death of Clawson. Until this, like the claim related to age about, is verified it is only opinon.

Removing the text: “a decision that was made because Kimball was older than Benson” due to lack of evidence.

(Matthew R. Lee) 01:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Shocking but true

Hard to believe that such a "respected" religious leader would write the foreword to a book like this. Ugh. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the shock value of the cover, the text of the foreward seems to be unavailable anywhere. A cursory search for the above shows that the person making the biggest deal of this was Benson's grandson Steve Benson - who (reading his other writings) seems to have quite the chip on his shoulder regarding his grandfather. He advertises his stance against the LDS church and just about anything associated with it. I dont think this trivial rises to the level of inclusion in this article. To illuminate: when reading the old quotes of E.T. Benson as noted by by Steve Benson, it quickly becomes clear that most (if not all) of these statements are taken out of context an pieced together for a more inflammatory effect. The bulk of them come from a talk given in 1967. When read more critically than a cursory glance looking for buzzwords, you see that the talk is more about communists than black people. In that very talk, E.T. Benson qualifies his statements thus:

"First of all, we must not place the blame upon Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder. Not one in a thousand Americans-black or white-really understands the full implications of today's civil rights agitation. The planning, direction, and leadership come from the Communists, and most of those are white men who fully intend to destroy America by spilling Negro blood, rather than their own."

While not very PC language, the intent is obviously *not* advocating violence against African Americans. E.T. Benson was a noted anti-communist, and in the 1950s and 1960s, such conspiracy theories abounded at every level of society and government; And he uses the vocabulary of that time to express his views. But using today's PC-paintbrush to color him as a racist isn't clearly representing the person. And throwing trivial (out-of-context) factoids out there doesnt do justice, or give perspective. Nothingofwater (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source?

The quote attributed to Benson regarding Martin Luther King, Jr. was from the student newspaper of the University of Utah. I think a more reliable source should be used for a quote like that. Alanraywiki (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added an additional source ~ David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, by Gregory A. Prince & William Robert Wright, University of Utah Press, 2005, ISBN 0874808227, pgs 72-73, 92-93, 473. The partial passages can be seen on google books ---> here.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a much better source. School newspapers may be okay as a reference for school events, but I believe the consensus is that they are not reliable sources beyond that. Thanks for finding the new reference. Alanraywiki (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Archive?

Is it time to archive this talk page? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Apostle/U.S. federal office holder

I agree with User:FyzixFighter's edit here, which removed the suggestion that only Benson and Brigham Young held a U.S. federal office while they were an apostle of the LDS Church. In addition to Reed Smoot, there was also George Q. Cannon, who was delegate to the House of Representatives from Utah Territory beginning in 1873. If I'm not mistaken, Thomas S. Monson was also appointed by Ronald Reagan to be on a Presidential commission on community service and volunteerism, though that may not qualify as quite the same thing as a "federal office". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"None Dare Call it A Conspiracy"

The article states that Benson recommended all Mormons read the above titled tract. A keyword search of the general conference address cited reveals neither the name, "None Dare Call it A Conspiracy," nor the author's name, Gary Allen. Josephah8 (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephah8 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have since watched the footage of this talk, and indeed he does bring up Gary Allen's "None Dare Call it A Conspiracy." It doesn't seem to be in the text of the address.Josephah8 (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ad hominem criticisms and assumptions about Steve Benson & D. Michael Quinn are not of any real value to the content of this article, and should be avoided. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the editor and am sorry for any earlier comments involving personal attacks on Steve Benson and D. Michael Quinn. I hope that I have not embarrassed anyone or made anyone feel targeted. I sincerely apologize and request that my account will not be blocked because of my inappropriate behavior. Thecoatman1 (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is Merlo Pusey not considered a reliable source?

Jgstokes reverted my edits. Why is a book by Merlo J. Pusey, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and Washington Post editorial-page writer (and LDS, who knew Benson during his two stays in DC) not considered a reliable source? The book's URL is in the edits so anyone can verify that I cited it accurately. Ylee (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The edits look good to me, and Pusey is certainly a reliable source. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 18:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Let the record show I never impugned the source. My explanation was that the edits were taken out of context and were inaccurate. In rereading the source, I can see that I was in error. I was basing my judgment on the first part of what I had read, which says nothing about Benson's call. The later pages do, however, so that was a major oversight on my part. I ask forgiveness for my hastiness in jumping to this conclusion. I will be more careful in the future. Sorry. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

Propose changing to Infobox Officeholder, as appears here. Please note that this continues to accommodate the specific features and religious terminology included in the LDS Infobox in a clear, aesthetically pleasing and respectful way, while also far better accommodating Benson's political career. The current infobox features his tenure as Agriculture in a clunky, and frankly inappropriate way; the bizarre "in office" stripe looks more like an "Incumbent" stripe as featured in Infobox Officeholder, and his partisan affiliation is included with his predecessor and successor, rather than with personal information as seen in nearly all other infoboxes. While it could be argued that the use of an LDS Infobox is standard for all church presidents, I would argue that the use of Infobox Officeholder is standard used across the articles of all Agriculture Secretaries! Quite frankly, this seems like a specific case where Infobox Officeholder would appropriately be used.--Ministre d'État (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

As noted in the edit summary I did, I feel efforts to alter and not use the long-standing, existing infobox template doesn't make a significant difference. It moves the information up for his service as Sec of Ag up and plops it square in the middle of various church service roles he had. That seems more clunky than it not shows. It would limit the consistent use with other church presidents and places where inserting the template into a listing or other situation would not be possible. I would not characterize the current use as inappropriate, but I would note that it would be good to include Eisenhower in the portion of the box about Benson's service. ChristensenMJ (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree fully with ChristensenMJ. The current infobox should stay, as it is consistent with infoboxes for others that have held the same positions in the LDS Church that Benson has held. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The Black Hammer

Benson wrote the forward to a book that is controversial both due to its cover and content. I'd thought about posting the book cover in the article, but it is a bit disturbing. I thought I'd ask the Wikipedia community for their thoughts. My vote is to put it in the article. Here is the image: Epachamo (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, I can't legally post a book cover on the talk page. I've been bold and put it in the article in as NPOV way as possible, trying to explain Benson's motivations in a way that he would have agreed with. Epachamo (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)