"Note:
Telephone conversation with Ezra Taft Benson from Washington, D.C. regarding world tour to include Hawaii, Japan, the Far East, and Near East, and finally Rome, Italy where about November 11 to 15, he will be the representative of the government of the United States at an international meeting. He will be one of the scheduled speakers.The American Ambassador has suggested to him that a meeting with the Pope be arranged.
Later, the Presidency decided that if he could avoid such a meeting without embarrassment, 'we would prefer that he do so.'
(see telephone conversation with Bro. Benson following)
Wednesday, October 2, 1957Last evening, October, 1957, Elder Ezra Taft Benson called me by telephone at my home and asked whether or not he should accept a government appointment to go to Rome, Italy. The American Ambassador to Italy there would like to arrange a conference for him with the Pope. I told Brother Benson that I would talk with my counselors this morning and then let him know.
___________________
Telephone conversation with Elder Ezra Taft Benson, Wednesday, October 2, 1957.
(Brother Benson was contacted in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.)
President McKay: Can you hear me, Brother Benson?
Brother Benson: Yes. I am in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
President McKay: Regarding the matter we were discussing yesterday, we are all united in the feeling that if you can in honor, and without embarrassment, avoid that conference it would be well for you to do it.
Brother Benson: All right. I think I can.
President McKay: Was it the Ambassador?
Brother Benson: The American Ambassador to Italy.
President McKay: Yes. I see.
Brother Benson: He is the one who has proposed it. But I think I can avoid it, President McKay, because I am going to be in Rome for a very short time. I have to make an important address for a World Agricultural Congress, and I think the shortness of my stay can probably be used as a reason for not doing so.
President McKay: We have in mind particularly the effect upon our own people.
Brother Benson: Yes. That is the thing that concerned me too.
President McKay: And the dignity that you would have to give to such a conference.
Brother Benson: Yes, that is right.
President McKay: And really they have everything to gain and nothing to lose, and we have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
Brother Benson: I am in full harmony with that feeling.
President McKay: Well that is good. We are glad of that. We all feel that it would be pretty embarrassing to you, and we are helping you out of what might prove to be a conference that will reflect upon our Church.
Brother Benson: Well, I think it could be embarrassing both to me and to the Church.
President McKay: All right.
Brother Benson: I shall do my best, and I think I can work it out.
President McKay: The brethren all send their love to you.
Brother Benson: Thank you and my love to them, and thank you for calling.
President McKay: Thank you, and good-bye."
Where is the anti-Catholicism here?
ReplyDelete"They have everything to gain and nothing to lose" is absolutely accurate.
Setting aside the attention of a high-level cabinet official visiting the Pontiff, it would be a not inconsequential matter for an apostle from the Mormon Church to be seen kow-towing to the Pope- which is precisely how enemies of the Church (such as yourself) would have portrayed it.
Also, this "audience" was not an official government function, nor was it ordered or schedules by the President- whom Benson was officially representing.
Benson was given a choice, and in consultation with men he trusted, declined the opportunity.
What precisely do you think they did wrong?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWhat I've posted above indeed reflects anti-Catholic sentiment. I know it may be hard for you to realize/admit this, since you are reading the quote isolated from its historical context. However, if you additionally read Prince and Wright's award winning biography, "David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism,” you will be in a position to better understand the Catholic tensions that plagued the LDS Church at the time. Tensions that not only played a factor in the above mentioned scenario, but tensions that also motivated David O. McKay to list Catholicism among the two great evils of the world--the second being Communism.
My forthcoming book will provide relevant historical context as well.
Although you may insist that Benson did nothing wrong, would you feel the same way if a Jewish U.S. Secretary of Agriculture refused to meet with Muslim leaders, simply because he feared that it would reflect badly upon his religion? I think most intelligent and reasonable people would agree that religious associations should be irrelevant to how one functions as a representative of the U.S., otherwise they should not serve in that capacity. I don’t say this because I am anti-Semitic (nor do I criticize Benson because I am an “enemy of the LDS Church,” as you claim). I say this because I believe a person who is appointed to represent the United States should do just that: represent the United States, and not their own personal special interests and private affiliations.
--Mike
Thanks for sharing this, Mike. Seen in the context of Prince's bio, this is interesting indeed.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to your book.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo those who don't have Prince and Wright's biography on David O. McKay, googlebooks provides a preview of the volume here:
ReplyDeletehttp://books.google.com/books?id=3UBXLIkLEQwC&pg=PA112#v=onepage&q&f=false
(you will need to copy/paste this entire url directly)
"Relationships With Roman Catholicism" starts on p. 112.
See page 121 where Prince and Wright mention the Benson/McKay conversation about meeting with the Pope.
Interesting stuff. Isolated by itself, I agree with the others that this isn't necessarily anti-Catholic sentiment. Of course I'm not familiar with the context.
ReplyDeleteGood luck working on the book. Sorry I won't see you at the MHA Conference.
I am a convert to the LDS Church, and I have seen evidence of deep seated anti-Catholic sentiments among a lot of my fellow Mormon Church members. especially among those who have come to the mid-west from Utah or Idaho, where they have met very few Catholics or none.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteyou wrote:
"Although you may insist that Benson did nothing wrong, would you feel the same way if a Jewish U.S. Secretary of Agriculture refused to meet with Muslim leaders, simply because he feared that it would reflect badly upon his religion? I think most intelligent and reasonable people would agree that religious associations should be irrelevant to how one functions as a representative of the U.S., otherwise they should not serve in that capacity. I don’t say this because I am anti-Semitic (nor do I criticize Benson because I am an “enemy of the LDS Church,” as you claim). I say this because I believe a person who is appointed to represent the United States should do just that: represent the United States, and not their own personal special interests and private affiliations."
I see your idea of "intelligent and reasonable people" means simply those who agree with you.
Two points:
1) As a cabinet secretary, ETB was not "appointed to represent the United States." He was appointed to advise the US President on matters pertaining to his portfolio. Career diplomats are "appointed to represent the United States," but ETB was not one. Yes, his duties involved travelling and meeting people; but pressing the flesh with foreign religious leaders is not what he was "appointed" to do.
2) ETB's status as an Apostle was in no wise a "private affiliation." It was an important public function that he entered into some ten years before Eisenhower appointed him, and continued to the end of his life, 33 years after his term in cabinet ended. To call it his "own personal special interest" is to understate it beyond the limits of acceptable downplaying, to and past the point of brazen misrepresentation.
If anyone is at fault, it was Eisenhower, for appointing to his cabinet someone who was not religiously neutral. Funnily enough, I don't see you trying to stick it to him. I wonder why?
But you did get one thing right: it was a good "example of how the LDS Church influenced his political service." Because *he* saw an issue which *he* then raised with his colleagues, and after listening to their advice, *he* made the decision which seemed best to *him*.
Perhaps you see something sinister about that. However, you may find that there are "intelligent and reasonable people" who do not.
Regards,
Pahoran
To any member or student of the church who lived through the 50's 60's and 70s, there is no surprise here. The anti catholic behavior and rhetoric was unchristian at best. Great and Abominable, Church of he Devil, Mark of the beast, were all terms routinely describing the Catholic Church. Anticatholic rhetoric of Latin American missionaries, (I was one of them) was horrible toward non mormons during that era. The Missionary lessons emphasized the "false doctrines"of non LDS churches. Although the church is taking a "kinder, gentler" approach to other religions now, it is intellectually dishonest to pretend the past was other than what it was. So.... to previous commenters, "anonymous" and Daniel, I would encourage you to not equate truth regarding the churches problematic past with with anti mormonism.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Antley: Interesting stuff. Isolated by itself, I agree with the others that this isn't necessarily anti-Catholic sentiment. Of course I'm not familiar with the context.
ReplyDeleteMe: Hi Jospeh. Did you get a chance to check out Prince and Wright's book I linked to? If not, you can read about the Church's concurrent struggle with anti-Catholic sentiment here: http://books.google.com/books?id=3UBXLIkLEQwC&pg=PA112#v=onepage&q&f=false
Joseph: Good luck working on the book. Sorry I won't see you at the MHA Conference.
Me: Thanks. I am sure we will cross paths in future conferences to come. I look forward to it.
Pahoran wrote: I see your idea of "intelligent and reasonable people" means simply those who agree with you.
ReplyDeleteMe: Did you happen to see that I said "most"? Instead of speaking in absolutes as you often do--see for example http://tinyurl.com/2ajyupp--now you (for some strange reason) project your absolute thinking upon MY commentary.
Pahoran continues: 1) As a cabinet secretary, ETB was not "appointed to represent the United States." He was appointed to advise the US President on matters pertaining to his portfolio.
Me: You are splitting hairs, Pahoran. I don't know how things are in New Zealand (where you live), but here in the U.S. the appointment must be confirmed by the Senate.
Pahoran continues: 2) ETB's status as an Apostle was in no wise a "private affiliation."
Me: I wasn't strictly speaking about his Apostleship. Granted, it may have been better for me to say “religious affiliation,” but what I said was in no way erroneous since his affiliation with the church was BOTH private and public.
Pahoran: To call it his "own personal special interest" is to understate it beyond the limits of acceptable downplaying, to and past the point of brazen misrepresentation.
Me: LOL! You crack me up, Pahoran.
Pahoran: If anyone is at fault, it was Eisenhower, for appointing to his cabinet someone who was not religiously neutral. Funnily enough, I don't see you trying to stick it to him. I wonder why?
Me: My commentary on this blog post was limited to a few sentences. Obviously there are a LOT of things that I didn’t talk about. But why would I blame Eisenhower anyway? Do you have reason to believe that Eisenhower knew Benson was turning to Prophet McKay for advice about how he should function in the capacity of the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture? Do you have any reason to believe that Eisenhower was fine with Benson basing his decision on anti-Catholic biases, and fears about how the meeting would make his church look?
I wrote in response to Pahoran: I wasn't strictly speaking about his Apostleship. Granted, it may have been better for me to say “religious affiliation,” but what I said was in no way erroneous since his affiliation with the church was BOTH private and public.
ReplyDelete------
I should also point out that just before I mentioned "special interests and private affiliations," I gave a comparison, asking Anonymous, "would you feel the same way if a Jewish U.S. Secretary of Agriculture refused to meet with Muslim leaders, simply because he feared that it would reflect badly upon his religion?" Had Pahoran read my commentary more carefully, it should have been clear to to him that I wasn't merely talking about ET Benson--let alone his Apostleship.
As usual, Pahoran's rant (claiming that I had "understate[d] it beyond the limits of acceptable downplaying, to and past the point of brazen misrepresentation") is baseless balderdash. If anyone is brazenly misrepresenting things on this blog, it is he.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteyou wrote:
"But why would I blame Eisenhower anyway? Do you have reason to believe that Eisenhower knew Benson was turning to Prophet McKay for advice about how he should function in the capacity of the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture?"
Two points:
1) As someone who is out of touch with normative LDS usage, you wouldn't realise this, but "Prophet" is not a salutation. He was "President McKay."
2) Elder Benson was *NOT* "turning to [President] McKay for advice about how he should function in the capacity of the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture." He was asking him for advice about whether he should meet with a foreign religious leader *IN ADDITION TO* his actual work as US Secretary of Agriculture. His purpose for being in Rome was, as you perfectly well know, something else.
"I should also point out that just before I mentioned 'special interests and private affiliations,' I gave a comparison, asking Anonymous, 'would you feel the same way if a Jewish U.S. Secretary of Agriculture refused to meet with Muslim leaders, simply because he feared that it would reflect badly upon his religion?' Had Pahoran read my commentary more carefully, it should have been clear to to him that I wasn't merely talking about ET Benson--let alone his Apostleship."
Exactly. You tried to sweep his apostleship under the rug as if it were not relevant; because, of course, you know that it is.
By comparing an LDS apostle to just any Jew, you have intentionally made an invalid comparison. A valid comparison might have been something along the lines of:
"Would you feel the same way if a Jewish Chief Rabbi had been appointed U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, and subsequently was asked by an ambassador to meet with Muslim religious leaders, in a situation where he would be expected to bow down before them, and refused to simply because he feared that it would reflect badly upon his religion, but still fully discharged the duties of his office and the reason for his visit to that country?"
Why didn't your analogy look like that, Mike?
"As usual, Pahoran's rant (claiming that I had 'understate[d] it beyond the limits of acceptable downplaying, to and past the point of brazen misrepresentation') is baseless balderdash. If anyone is brazenly misrepresenting things on this blog, it is he."
Why do you continue to say such things Mike, when you know them to be false?
Why don't you come clean, Mike, and tell your audience the real conclusion you are trying to adduce from this historical footnote?
Here, let me help you: what relevance do you think this has to the question of whether an LDS non-apostle would be a good risk as president of the US?
Regards,
Pahoran
Pahoran: As someone who is out of touch with normative LDS usage, you wouldn't realise this, but "Prophet" is not a salutation. He was "President McKay."
ReplyDeleteMe: Ah yes... Your tin foil mind reading cap gives you the power to discern what I'm "out of touch with." Could it be that I simply *choose* not to march to the beat of the same drum that you goosestep to?
Pahoran: 2) Elder Benson was *NOT* "turning to [President] McKay for advice about how he should function in the capacity of the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture."
Me: Sure he was.
Pahoran: He was asking him for advice about whether he should meet with a foreign religious leader *IN ADDITION TO* his actual work as US Secretary of Agriculture. His purpose for being in Rome was, as you perfectly well know, something else.
Me: It is quite possible for someone under the capacity of U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to do *both.* What business do you think he was asked to meet the Pope for? To teach him the missionary discussions? {chuckle} Why did President *and* Prophet McKay call it “a government appointment to go to Rome”? Under what “government” position would he accept such an appointment, if not the position of US Secretary of Agriculture?
Pahoran: Exactly. You tried to sweep his apostleship under the rug as if it were not relevant; because, of course, you know that it is.
Me: Then why do you suppose I started my blog post by identifying him as an “LDS Apostle”? {chuckle} I am afraid common sense isn’t your friend right now, Pahoran.
Pahoran: By comparing an LDS apostle to just any Jew, you have intentionally made an invalid comparison.
Me: No I didn’t. The blurring of church/state lines would still exist whether he was an Apostle, Rabbi, alter boy, or amateur apologist (like yourself).
Pahoran: A valid comparison might have been something along the lines of: [yadda... yadda... yadda...] Why didn't your analogy look like that, Mike?
Me: Because I didn’t hire you to be my editor.
Pahoran: Why do you continue to say such things Mike, when you know them to be false?
Me: Your psychic powers are failing you, Pahoran. Try your magic 8-ball next time.
Pahoran: Why don't you come clean, Mike, and tell your audience the real conclusion you are trying to adduce from this historical footnote?
Me: As I explained at the intro of my opening post, I was writing a sequel to my previous piece on Benson and the John Birch Society. The first showed how his politics influenced his religious service, and now this post shows how his religion influenced his political service. Comprende?
Pahoran: Here, let me help you: what relevance do you think this has to the question of whether an LDS non-apostle would be a good risk as president of the US?
Me: If you are alluding to Romney and Reid... sure, the topic of discussion is relevant to their possible candidacies. And I would say that *if* your opinion on the matter represents the general attitude of the Church (which I am not sure it does), and *if* Romney and Reid felt the same way as you (which I doubt, especially for Reid), then I think our country would have a genuine reason for concern. Now, would that concern be high enough for me to vote for Palin or Huckabee over Romney in the primaries? Absolutely not. As I’ve said before, if I had to choose between those three, I’d vote for Romney in a heartbeat.
Mike, a very interesting conversation you found and posted. It found this conversation very educational.
ReplyDeleteI think someone earlier in this thread pointed out the most salient factor here. The whole problem Elder Benson and the hierarchy was concerned about was that of public symbolism.
First of all, there is the simple juxtaposition of status between Elder Benson as an 'Apostle of the Lord' (no matter his role in civil government) and that of the Pope, as viceroy of Satan, (no matter what he or anyone else might think he is).
To the fundamentally minded, in the case of an Apostle of the Lord crossing paths with an emmisary of Satan, the ONLY appropriate outcome would be the same as occured when Peter met Simon. It would utterly behoove the Apostle of the Lord, in his inalienable role and responsibility to God, to directly expose, denounce, and call that man of sin to repentance, (no matter what anyone else might think, for Simon was a highly regarded man of popular acclaim in his time). This is simply what Apostles (should) do when they encounter emmisaries of Satan. At the very least, it would have devolved upon Benson to proclaim the 'true gospel' to the Pope.
I think we can readily agree with Benson and Mackay, how this would have been an awkward and embarassing situation for Benson, for the Mormon Church, and, not to mention, for the viceroy of Satan as well.
But that is not the worst of it. The worst of it is that before proceeding to expose, denounce, and proselyte the Pope, according the unwritten rules of protocol, Benson, the 'Apostle of the Lord' would have been expected to bow to and kiss the ring, or the foot, or the butt, or whatever, of the Pope, the viceroy of Satan. Failure to do this, would have been in itself a major affront to the time honored and accepted customs and decorum of diplomacy. Some heads of state even do this, but unfortunately for an 'Apostle of the Lord' to do so - well that would hardly do.
Meeting the Pope, would have put Benson, and the Mormon Church, between a rock and a hard place. And so he and the hierarchy found it more politically prudent to "USE the shortness of (Benson's) stay . . . AS A REASON for not doing so."
Even a simple refusal of the proposed meeting would have been too honest and too "embarassing".
Joe in Oregon,
ReplyDeleteYour bigoted comments (calling the Pope the “viceroy of Satan”) aside...
Kissing rings, cheeks, standing when they enter the room, bowing, ensuring that you don't turn your back, etc., are formalities not limited to visits with the Pope. These are symbolic gestures of courtesy and respect. Similarly (though with less formality), LDS etiquette says it is proper to stand when the LDS prophet enters the room.
Not a big deal, really. Even for me—one who does not believe the LDS Prophet to be God’s chosen representative on earth.
But I thank you for your comments none the less, Joe. Not only because they illustrate well the sad reality that some Latter-day Saints still struggle with anti-Catholic sentiment... but also because they reminded me of this humorous Colbert Report skit: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/270737/april-14-2010/president-obama-bows-again
I think you need to lighten up.
--Mike
And this is the very reason that the idea of a Mitt Romney presidency terrifies me. I grew up in the church during the years when Ezra Taft Benson was president. Benson's service in the Eisenhower cabinet was the stuff of legend. Mormons believed and taught their children that Benson was a great man, called of God, not only to lead the church, but the nation. We were taught that he had been divinely appointed to the position of Secretary of Agriculture so that he could carry out the mission of the church. We were taught that he had faithfully executed his duties, not as an adviser to the President, nor on behalf of the United States of America, but as God's chosen representative of the one true church.
ReplyDeleteMany Mormons today believe that God will one day appoint a Mormon as President of the United States in order to "restore the constitution" and to preside until the beginning of the apocalypse and the second coming of Christ. Even those who are not quite as radical expect that a Mormon president would advance the interests of the church. Because as all Mormons know, faithfulness to the church is paramount. Given that fact, I believe it is fair and right for Mitt Romney to be questioned about his beliefs and about whether he considers his primary allegiance to be to the Constitution of the United States or to the LDS church.