How can anyone take any political position that seems completely absurd to others? Do we expect religious leaders to be any less susceptible to politics than other people? (Granted many refrain from politics, but others do not.) There are a lot of good Christians out there who wonder how anyone that understands the scriptures can vote Republican, and another large number of good Christians who wonder how anyone that understands the scriptures can vote Democratic. IMHO tension between political and spiritual ideals is pretty normal - and probably healthy as a reality check. As a political liberal I'm perfectly happy to concede that Benson was a crackpot politically - but in studying his ministry as president of the Church if his politics is all you come away with you've missed the point completely. His tenure as church president was pretty apolitical, focusing on cleansing the inner vessel, on coming to Christ through increased study of the scriptures (especially the Book of Mormon) and overcoming the temptation of pride.

To the uninformed there is a superficial resemblance between socialism and the United order. The inner realities of the two however, are as different as night and day. - Socialism is imposed by force on people who have no desire to live under it. The United Order is voluntary, not imposed by force. That makes all the difference. The saints were not ready and able to live it when it was given. And apparently we still are not ready and able to do so today.

To answer your original question exactly as asked: Ezra Taft Benson could take such a strong anti-Socialist stance in light of Mormon History because he understood the difference between the United Order, which the church has practiced, and Socialism, which it has never practiced. . This is an understanding you obviously do not have, and apparently do not want.

I didn't take the time to read all of the comments on this thread. So, I may be repeating something that has already been stated. However, the difference between socialism and the united order is in who owns what and who decides what goes into the community "pot". Under socialism, the government owns everything and the government dictates who will get what and how much they will get. It is the government that decides how much of any resource the individuals or family needs. The goal of socialism is to see to it that everyone has the same amount of stuff. Under the United Order, the individuals and families still owned everything. They were in charge of deciding what they needed to support their lifestyles and provide for their necessities. The individuals also decided what of their gain was surplus and, therefore should be given into the community pot for redistribution to those that did not have enough. So, in one case, it is a central government that dictates what everyone will have. Such a system restricts freedom and removes personal responsibility because it takes control out of the hands of the individual. The other system leaves it up to the individuals to decide how much to give. This increases their freedom and personal responsibility. In the end, both systems are similar in that both need a very altruistic society to work. Socialism fails because it takes away the incentive to work hard because people see that doing so is not going to allow them to do any better than those that don't. The united order failed because people were too selfish with their surplus. Thus, they did not give enough into the system to take care of those that were truly needy. So, while there are some superficial similarities between socialism and the united order, there are also some very profound differences. Socialism is all about limiting the freedom of the individuals by taking the decision making power away from them. The united order was about giving the individuals freedom and trusting them to make the right decisions. However, both fail because people are ultimately too selfish with their time and/or resources to make either system work.