The Real Reason Why Glen Beck Interview Was Pulled

[Hemidakota]

Excerpt: [This part was auto-generated] Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.

Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you.

[This is the personal response] Thank you for your recent e-mail. It was good of you to contact us with your thoughts concerning our decision to pull Karla Dial's “Friday Five” interview with conservative talk-show host Glenn Beck from Focus on the Family Action's CitizenLink Web site. Honest feedback like yours is always welcome here at Focus Action headquarters. Permit me to respond to the concerns you've expressed.

We hope you will understand that we consider Glenn Beck a good friend of our ministry. We have only feelings of deep appreciation for his valuable contributions to the cause of family values and conservative social principles. The same thing can be said with reference to our many supporters within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Time and time again staunch members of the LDS church have contacted us with warm expressions of their enthusiasm for our work, and on every occasion we have tried to make it clear that we welcome their friendship and appreciate their exemplary commitment to moral values. It is impossible to overestimate the value of such allies in the ongoing battle against secularism, “multiculturalism,” and amoral “political correctness.”

Why, then, have we come to regard our initial decision to feature this particular discussion with Glenn Beck on the CitizenLink Web site as an unfortunate miscalculation? For the simple reason that Mr. Beck's book “The Christmas Sweater”, which was the focal point of the interview, moves beyond the range of conservative social concerns and touches upon overtly theological themes. Herein lies the crux of our concern. Much as we respect and appreciate our friends in the LDS Church , it would be dishonest of us to conceal our firm conviction that at its heart, Mormon doctrine is incompatible with Christianity. While there are many forms of worship, modes of religious expression, and even a number of beliefs that Latter-day Saints hold in common with the various Christian denominations, the fact remains that the distinctions that make it unique are of an entirely different order from those that divide these other groups. At its deepest level, Mormon teaching about the nature of God and His Son Jesus Christ sets it apart, in a radical way, from orthodox Christendom.

To cite a specific and extremely important example, the Mormon church does not subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity as defined by the early Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon . In fact, it's our understanding that LDS believe in three *beings* as the godhead – three *separate beings* that are physically separate and distinct individuals who together constitute the presiding council of the heavens. But this is most definitely *not* the Christian view. Christians down through the ages have always believed that the Scriptures bear witness to *one* God who exists in *three* persons subsisting within a *single* essence.

Similarly, orthodox Christians have always maintained the doctrine of the “two natures in Christ” – the teaching that Jesus Himself is *vere homo et vere Deus*, “truly God and truly man.” This, of course, is *logically* inconceivable. And so, through the centuries, theological mavericks of various kinds have tried to “make sense” of the scriptural witness in a number of different ways. The Docetists, for example, said that Jesus only *seemed* to be a man -- that, as God, he could not really have a body of flesh and bones. The Mormons have taken the exact opposite tack: i.e., if Jesus is God, and if Jesus was truly incarnate, then God the Father must *also* have a physical body. Thus the Mormon apostle James E. Talmage writes, “We know that both the Father and the Son are in form and nature perfect men” (_A Study of the Articles of Faith_, pp. 41-42). Here again, the LDS teaching stands in direct contradiction to historic, orthodox Christian doctrine.

These are just a couple of the theological reasons we have for believing that it is important to maintain a clear distinction between the LDS church and orthodox Christian churches. It was our concern to hold this crucial doctrinal line that led us to pull the Glenn Beck interview from our Web site -- nothing more, nothing less.

We noted your request that your name be removed from our mailing list. We would ask that you call us toll-free at 1/800/232-6459 to effect this change.

We hope this reply has clarified our perspective for you. Although Dr. Dobson has been out of the office on a writing trip and only recently became aware of this situation well after the fact, he asked us to pass along his appreciation for caring enough to contact us. Your interest in the work of Focus on the Family Action means a great deal to us. Grace, peace, and God's richest blessings to you.

Ron Hall

Focus on the Family Action 01/02/2009 12:54 PM

Article Link: Meridian Magazine :The Real Reason Why Glen Beck Interview Was Pulled

[FunkyTown]

Fair enough. Mr. Beck stepped in to theological territory. Since they disagree with his theology, they pulled the plug on this.

[Misshalfway]

Fair enough. Mr. Beck stepped in to theological territory. Since they disagree with his theology, they pulled the plug on this.

I guess I understand and agree with the "fair enough" comment but why shouldn't Glen step into theological territory and find friendly reception? Isn't brotherhood what Christianity is at its core? Setting down with those who differ and even threaten us in some way? How can you promote tolerance and love of diversity AND then fail to put your money where your mouth is? It continually surprises me the fear people have in even having a friendly dialogue with people who differ from them in their views. Am I afraid to listen to the insights of a Catholic or a Buddhist friend? Certainly not. If they disagreed with Mormon doctrine, why even book Glen in the first place? I don't think they are telling the whole truth about their reasons to cut the interview.

[NeuroTypical]

Yeah, FotF takes a lot of flak from other Christian groups for dealing with us cultish mormons as often as they do anyway. I'm not surprised they are refusing to give Mormons access exposure as we talk religion.

Back in 2003, I looked into working for them, but they had an item on their required statement of faith that I couldn't agree to, and when I inquired about it, they sent back this:

Dear [LM]:

Greetings from Focus on the Family! We would like to thank you for your recent inquiry into employment, and want you to know that we regard your interest in becoming a member of our staff as a compliment and a vote of confidence for the work to which we are called. We're deeply committed to sharing the Good News of Christ with families across the world, and we're encouraged by your desire to be a part of this mission.

As you may know, we are a non-denominational Christian organization. However, our entire ministry is firmly rooted in a conservative, evangelical interpretation of the Scriptures as outlined in our Statement of Faith. While we recognize that many people hold theological perspectives different from our own, it is the intention of our Board of directors that every employee here at Focus on the Family hold these core beliefs in common. Since each of our many outreaches is based on these foundational tenets, it's important that unanimity exist if we are to be successful in carrying out our goals.

If an applicant is unable to sign our Statement of Faith, we would be unable to consider the application further. We hope you will see our decision not as a judgement of one's views, but as a sign of being true to our mission. I hope that adequately answers your question. If I can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you again, for your interest in the ministry of Focus on the Family.

Sincerely,

[xxx]

Manager, Applicant Services

[Hemidakota]

As they stated, we do not believe in the secular Christ.

[FunkyTown]

I guess I understand and agree with the "fair enough" comment but why shouldn't Glen step into theological territory and find friendly reception?

I'm a little concerned about this. Theologically, disagreeing with those you think are unbiblical is necessary. Paul said this in 2nd Corinthians, 12-14

"But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

"

In other words, just because someone seems a righteous follower of Christ doesn't mean they are and many transform themselves in to such.

In fact, in Revelations it speaks of a lying spirit deceiving many and every member who has been a missionary has heard the old "Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"

And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."(Matthew 7:21-23).

The truth is, as Christians we are required to stand up for the truth. They believe we are not the truth because we believe in some pretty radical things compared to them. If they believe we are deceived, it is their solemn duty to say so regardless of how we feel. I'm grateful they care enough to tell the truth. I disagree and think we can sustain our positions biblically, spiritually and before God. I believe the LDS church to be the truth, given forth by God and His Son, Jesus Christ.

It has always been so: The prophets have always been stoned and even Jesus himself was not accepted by those who followed the traditional ways. We can not be offended by it, but merely educate and let the spirit convict those who are willing to listen.

It has always been so.

[Islander]

I don't buy the story about "theological differences". There are darker forces at work here. Since 1830 our doctrine has been articulated by leaders and members of the Church. There is no new insight into "what Mormons believe" and if they did not know is because they did not care to check. FoF wanted to produce the the segment but some of their wealthy patrons want nothing to do with LDS doctrine or people.

This is the unfortunate work of those that seek to speak of evil all the days of their lives rather than to seek to be a light on the hill for the cause of good.

[DigitalShadow]

I don't buy the story about "theological differences". There are darker forces at work here. Since 1830 our doctrine has been articulated by leaders and members of the Church. There is no new insight into "what Mormons believe" and if they did not know is because they did not care to check. FoF wanted to produce the the segment but some of their wealthy patrons want nothing to do with LDS doctrine or people.

This is the unfortunate work of those that seek to speak of evil all the days of their lives rather than to seek to be a light on the hill for the cause of good.

And I'm sure that they think there are darker forces at work in the LDS church leading poor Christians astray. Not everyone who theologically disagrees with you is motivated by dark forces.

[Hemidakota]

I don't buy the story about "theological differences". There are darker forces at work here. Since 1830 our doctrine has been articulated by leaders and members of the Church. There is no new insight into "what Mormons believe" and if they did not know is because they did not care to check. FoF wanted to produce the the segment but some of their wealthy patrons want nothing to do with LDS doctrine or people.

This is the unfortunate work of those that seek to speak of evil all the days of their lives rather than to seek to be a light on the hill for the cause of good.

Unfortunately we cannot serve two masters.

[FunkyTown]

I don't buy the story about "theological differences". There are darker forces at work here. Since 1830 our doctrine has been articulated by leaders and members of the Church. There is no new insight into "what Mormons believe" and if they did not know is because they did not care to check. FoF wanted to produce the the segment but some of their wealthy patrons want nothing to do with LDS doctrine or people.

This is the unfortunate work of those that seek to speak of evil all the days of their lives rather than to seek to be a light on the hill for the cause of good.

I disagree. There is no new insight in to "what Mormons Believe" and a hundred and fifty years ago, those same protestant churches wouldn't have allowed us to speak in their pulpits, either. While darker interests are being served, I doubt that this is due to the machinations of the wicked.

[Islander]

And I'm sure that they think there are darker forces at work in the LDS church leading poor Christians astray. Not everyone who theologically disagrees with you is motivated by dark forces.

In a perfect world perhaps. The issue here is they produced the segment, they posted and then withdrew it. Initially those involved, regardless of the theological differences saw value in the book and the humanistic ideals behind it. It is obvious that the segment was pulled after "other considerations." That is what I refer to as dark forces; those not directly involved but with significant influence that have an agenda and do not care about the greater good. Those were the ones that decided that the article/segment lacked value since the ideological differences (prior deemed of no consequence for the purposes of the segment) suddenly became a rift the plunged good will to its death. Do not buy it.

I also think the position is quite hypocritical. "Give money, support and energy to a cause WE champion and we'll acknowledge (LDS support) it. But WE will not publicly showcase anything you (LDS) do since there are ideological differences we find irreconcilable."

Sad.

[bytor2112]

I think there is new insight as to what we believe as evidenced by the rapid growth of the church and the vast amount of information available via the internet. The light can't be contained by misinformation and the gospel will continue to flood the earth. I wish some of these so--called Christian orthodox organizations were as concerned with there own beliefs and history as they were with ours.

[RobertP]

That's perfect. If I felt to cancel or pull something I had published, I hope I would be able to. Once again, it sort of backfired anyway. I wouldn't have heard about this at all if it hadn't been cancelled.

[Justice]

I don't buy the story about "theological differences". There are darker forces at work here. Since 1830 our doctrine has been articulated by leaders and members of the Church. There is no new insight into "what Mormons believe" and if they did not know is because they did not care to check. FoF wanted to produce the the segment but some of their wealthy patrons want nothing to do with LDS doctrine or people.

This is the unfortunate work of those that seek to speak of evil all the days of their lives rather than to seek to be a light on the hill for the cause of good.

I hear the sound of the nail being hit on the head.

This is the danger of practicing priestcraft, or receiving money for your "ministry." If you don't do what those who give money want you to do, you can either change your view of what you think to be true and keep the money, or you can keep your view and possibly loose your ministry's finances. Either way your ministry fails.

I don't find it surprising at all that the Book of Mormon so thoroughly condemns this practice.

[Just_A_Guy]

This is the danger of practicing priestcraft, or receiving money for your "ministry."

Let's not get carried away here. The LDS Church also pays its senior leadership.

[Islander]

Let's not get carried away here. The LDS Church also pays its senior leadership.

You must be kidding.

[Hemidakota]

I think there is new insight as to what we believe as evidenced by the rapid growth of the church and the vast amount of information available via the internet. The light can't be contained by misinformation and the gospel will continue to flood the earth. I wish some of these so--called Christian orthodox organizations were as concerned with there own beliefs and history as they were with ours.

Even to the point of redefining earlier doctrine, principles, and historical facts. As the globe is given technology, our resources when put to good use can help us in furthering truths and expound upon them with greater clarity than anytime before.

Having now collected over 220,000 articles and 7,000 electronic books, it never fails to amaze me the amount of talent and endearing members who seek to further the expansion of truths throughout the world.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Hemidakota]

Let's not get carried away here. The LDS Church also pays its senior leadership.

Not out of tithing guy....it comes from church businesses which are taxed. It is nothing more than cost of living allowance and travel expensives. That is a big difference from other secular religions. I am sure some will chime in on their own religion clergy and how they are paid.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Just_A_Guy]

Not out of tithing guy....it comes from church businesses which are taxed.

Do we know that for certain? I've not seen anything on it one way or the other.

It is nothing more than cost of living allowance and travel expensives.

Which, I'm sure, is how adherents of other religions would characterize the pay of their own clergy. As you say, I look forward to hearing from them. My understanding is that, barring a few well-publicized cases, becoming a clergyman is a remarkably ineffective way to become wealthy.

I just think we need to be careful when we make smug assertions about the evils of a "paid clergy". We have one, too--and IIRC, in the late 19th century even LDS bishops received some remuneration.

[Lyle]

Do we know that for certain? I've not seen anything on it one way or the other.

Which, I'm sure, is how adherents of other religions would characterize the pay of their own clergy. As you say, I look forward to hearing from them. My understanding is that, barring a few well-publicized cases, becoming a clergyman is a remarkably ineffective way to become wealthy.

I just think we need to be careful when we make smug assertions about the evils of a "paid clergy". We have one, too--and IIRC, in the late 19th century even LDS bishops received some remuneration.

tithing slip

bi annually funds and spending is reported at conferences which every member is expected to attend. they are then published in the following monthly publication the ensign. there have been no major misappropriation of church gathered funds ever. i think CNN or it was mike walace who reported on this once because they were quite shocked about the fact such a religion could gather tithes from 10 percent of their members annual incomes and spend it on building chapels temples and meeting houses only. all other funds are from generous donations and from business ventures. senior members are held strictly accountable for the funds that are spent and do not go out and buy boats cars yachts or anything other than travel expenses and and the like. feel free to look into it and not believe me. bishops and stake presidents don't get paid neither do the teachers or leaders of the quorums....please dont take our word for it.

[Misshalfway]

The idea of orthodox Christianity kinda cracks me up. With so many "churches" and such a wide variety of beliefs, how can any of them really claim "orthodoxy" in the first place? Seems to me you can pick your version of the truth and be considered orthodox -- just as long as you ain't a mormon.

[refman]

Excerpt: [This part was auto-generated] Much as we respect and appreciate our friends in the LDS Church , it would be dishonest of us to conceal our firm conviction that at its heart, Mormon doctrine is incompatible with Christianity.

Further proof that the world does not understant our doctrine or our books of scripture. Mormon Doctrine is not the "heart" of our faith.

[NeuroTypical]

Just out of curiosity, when would y'all guess was the last time a non-LDS person gave a sermon at the tabernacle? Would you expect to find out about a religious-themed event held there where a non-LDS person prayed at the pulpit?

Well, it happened on Sunday, Nov 14, 2004. It was Ravi Zacharias and Standing Together Ministries , you can see the whole 2 hours here.

A few news stories:

Deseret News - Evangelical preaches at Salt Lake Tabernacle

Christianity Today - Ravi Zacharias, Rich Mouw Speak in Mormon Tabernacle

LM

[Moksha]

Usually right-wing ideological bonds transcend theological differences. After all, the Christmas Sweater is not mission critical like rejecting Mitt Romney due to his Mormon beliefs. Therefore, I must conclude that they currently do not need any financial support for whatever mischief they are brewing up at this time. That need however will change and then we can be buddies again.

[Hemidakota]

"If there is any truth found in other religions, we will accept and expand upon them."

Edited January 13, 2009 by Hemidakota