The Real Reason Why Glen Beck Interview Was Pulled

[Just_A_Guy]

Lyle, just to clarify: I am active LDS, and I daresay I'm as familiar with the church's financial procedures as most members; generally speaking I am very comfortable with them. I was responding to a claim about the evils of a paid ministry by pointing out that "The LDS Church also pays its senior leadership". Which is true.

I was not suggesting that funds are mismanaged. I was not suggesting that church leaders are growing rich off the labors of the membership. I was just trying to counteract the implication (all-too-common within Mormonism) that the bulk of Protestant ministers are only in it for the money.

I would also note that the following extract from your post just isn't true:

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.

Listen closely at the next Conference. What they're really saying is that the Church has audited itself (or that it has been audited by an independent firm--I don't remember the specifics) and that everything is in order. They do not provide specifics as to how church funds have been spent. Haven't done it for fifty years now.

[Misshalfway]

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.

Standing for the truth doesn't always mean throwing people on the street. We are talking about a Christmas book.....not the crusades!

I guess I better start a little book burning in my own library. Hmmm.....should I start with C.S. Lewis and then perhaps move on to all the rest who I have loved but who don't understand the the Godhead. Heaven forbid I expose myself to anyone who doesn't believe EXACTLY everything I do. :::shaking head:::

(sorry about being sarcastic. guess I am just in that sort of mood today and this kind stuff just seems idiotic after a while. I suppose I wish, at least, that mainstream Christianity could get honest with itself about the origins and evolution and ....how shall I say....branching out of its own doctrine and stop pointing fingers at the one group that turns their theology on its head while it isn't even remotely threatened by its own twists and turns or honest about how it is.)

[Hemidakota]

"Never cross the path of a angry woman."

[Palerider]

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.

nothing to be carefull about....the Church does not pay them.....if you call living expenses and what Hemi stated...then so be it....and they might make something if they publish a book....

and please provide a reference where it states there was an income payed to Bishops.....

[Elgama]

As they are not LDS I don't see the problem with this - personally agree with them about our Christ and doctrine having fundamental differences.

-Charley

[FlaviusHambonius]

Lyle, just to clarify: I am active LDS, and I daresay I'm as familiar with the church's financial procedures as most members; generally speaking I am very comfortable with them. I was responding to a claim about the evils of a paid ministry by pointing out that "The LDS Church also pays its senior leadership". Which is true.

I was not suggesting that funds are mismanaged. I was not suggesting that church leaders are growing rich off the labors of the membership. I was just trying to counteract the implication (all-too-common within Mormonism) that the bulk of Protestant ministers are only in it for the money.

I would also note that the following extract from your post just isn't true:

Listen closely at the next Conference. What they're really saying is that the Church has audited itself (or that it has been audited by an independent firm--I don't remember the specifics) and that everything is in order. They do not provide specifics as to how church funds have been spent. Haven't done it for fifty years now.

This is what I have alway's been led to believe ie. that the church never discloses their financial assets-- to either the members of the church or to the public.

The General Authoritives live in multi-million $ dwellings in SLC--paid for by the church long ago.

Some GA's I have read long ago, have been members of boards of companies and received a certain income.

I'm guessing that they receive money from books they write--or do they?

Someone mentioned that they receive money for cost of living and travel expenses that comes from church owned companies....but didn't the church owned companies come from tithing once upon a time...of course it did...unless it magically appeared out on the old apricot tree, at least I would think so.

The church has made some great financial decisions and great investments, worth billions, so I'm sure they take care of their leaders--as they should, since they have given up their occupation's to lead the church--but they will never lack for food or shelter.

[KristofferUmfrey]

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'm interested in knowing what theological aberrations Glenn mentioned in the book. Glenn is smart enough to keep his book from offending the senses of "good Christians folk". I think their excuse is BS. They were afraid of losing money from snobby Christians bigots, plain and simple.

[KristofferUmfrey]

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

Ravi Zachariah?!? Since when is he ecumenical towards Mormons? Something smells foul here.

[Lyle]

This is what I have alway's been led to believe ie. that the church never discloses their financial assets-- to either the members of the church or to the public.

The General Authoritives live in multi-million $ dwellings in SLC--paid for by the church long ago.

Some GA's I have read long ago, have been members of boards of companies and received a certain income.

I'm guessing that they receive money from books they write--or do they?

Someone mentioned that they receive money for cost of living and travel expenses that comes from church owned companies....but didn't the church owned companies come from tithing once upon a time...of course it did...unless it magically appeared out on the old apricot tree, at least I would think so.

The church has made some great financial decisions and great investments, worth billions, so I'm sure they take care of their leaders--as they should, since they have given up their occupation's to lead the church--but they will never lack for food or shelter.

Look at the general authorities they are all very very successful men in life. these men are very well to do because of their own business ventures. their educational back grounds have gotten them. there have been very few if any poor and/ or uneducated general authorities in the last thirty probably 60 years. they have never been bought houses or cars or anything of the like. the church does not pay them for publishing books there are separate entities that do that such as deseret book.

the church owned companies were started by members who dedicated their businesses to the church and/ or donated them. tithing does not and has not been used for starting any business and will be blasphemous if they do. Joseph smith and several others in his time tried to start a bank and did start one but all of the funds came from third party members(ie loans were taken out by people with the state)and none came from the tithing funds.

[Palerider]

The cars the Church gave them to drive use to be Crown Vics....I don't know what they drive now...those cars were purchased the way they buy missionary cars.

[FlaviusHambonius]

Look at the general authorities they are all very very successful men in life. these men are very well to do because of their own business ventures. their educational back grounds have gotten them. there have been very few if any poor and/ or uneducated general authorities in the last thirty probably 60 years. they have never been bought houses or cars or anything of the like. the church does not pay them for publishing books there are separate entities that do that such as deseret book.

the church owned companies were started by members who dedicated their businesses to the church and/ or donated them. tithing does not and has not been used for starting any business and will be blasphemous if they do. Joseph smith and several others in his time tried to start a bank and did start one but all of the funds came from third party members(ie loans were taken out by people with the state)and none came from the tithing funds.

Yes, I am quite aware that the GA's as the norm were very successful men financially before they were called as a GA.

My point was that they are well taken care of by the church whatever their financial status.

I never claimed that the church has bought them houses or cars--what I said was that they (GA's) live in dwellings (apartments) free of charge--that have been bought and paid for by the church and the church has ownership of these dwellings ie. the GA's only live in them during their calling until their demise. (at least that was my meaning).

I never claimed that the church paid them for their books--I said I thought that they might recieve a certain amount of money for their books.

I was unaware that all of the money that the church has accumulated through investments and buisnesses were dedicated or donated as you say.

So, never in the history of the church has tithing been used as investments? There was no starting point--it all came from kind hearted rich buisnessmen who donated their resourses to the church? Interesting....Maybe Mr. Marriot will do the same.

I am also aware of the failed bank that JS tried to pursue and many of his other misadventures in the financial world.

By the way, who were some of the poor/uneducated GA's in the last 30-60 years?

Who were some of the church members that donated their companies to the church?

That would be very interesting information.

[Palerider]

if you read the Bio of Spencer W Kimball...he had a rough time financially

[Islander]

The Church is a 501 © 3 designated tax exempt organization. The tax returns are a matter of public scrutiny and in almost 180 years the tax returns have never been audited or disputed by the IRS. There are tons of people scrutinizing these returns just out of spite and resentment year after year.

The GA's receive travel and living expenses stipends (in the case of those that live abroad on assignment) but no salary. Many of them currently live in the same place they lived for years. Others reside in quiet retirement communities with their spouses. As some mentioned before, the administration costs of conducting church business comes from the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop which is a totally separate for profit entity. The church thru the CPB owns lumber mills, construction materials manufacturing plants, electric generation facilities, food processing plants and a host of other businesses. These business had been donated, consecrated by members in their states. Other businesses had been acquired or created by the CPB in order to address a growing need (construction firms, biomedical labs or fabric manufacturing for example). No tithing moneys pay for administration expenses of the GA's, missionaries or even humanitarian aid.

The brethren are very frugal in their travels. When they do they stay with local church leaders whenever possible. Those GA's young enough to still be employed (the 70's for example) live and work in their particular area and community still and travel on assignment with the Q12.

Edited January 10, 2009 by Islander

[refman]

The General Authoritives live in multi-million $ dwellings in SLC--paid for by the church long ago.

I don't believe this is true. President Hinckley lived in a simple apartment.

[prisonchaplain]

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.

Yeah, but the Focus on the Family organization is a parachurch ministry, not one that operate on tithes either. People give to it because they believe in its mission, not because the first fruits belong to the Lord. So, by the "not from the tithes" standard, neither senior leaders nor Focus on the Family are engaged in priestcraft.

[prisonchaplain]

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.

In reality, most Christian churches consider most Christian churches to be Orthodox. We may disagree about particular teachings, but very few of those discussions rise to the level of heresy so serious that we would declare one another outside the faith. If Catholics, Pentecostals and fundamental Baptists can all agree on the Trinity, for example, the alleged chaos of "orthodox Christianity" is actually quite unified.

[Guest TheLutheran]

. . . If Catholics, Pentecostals and fundamental Baptists [AND LUTHERANS!] can all agree on the Trinity, for example, the alleged chaos of "orthodox Christianity" is actually quite unified.

First, PC, let me say that, as a classic Lutheran, I have never had the pleasure of uttering my title phrase in a worship service. But you can't imagine the satisfaction I got from typing it!!!

Let's face it folks -- we have all drawn lines in the sand with respect to our beliefs. Otherwise, we (all those who define themselves as followers of Christ) would adhere to identical definitions of "God", articles of faith, and salvation requirements. That's not the case and, therefore, an organization like Focus on the Family SHOULD monitor the content of the material (books, interviews, etc.) they showcase to align with their sandbox.

Quite frankly, I don't understand the hostile nature of some of the comments expressed on this thread -- from dissing Focus on the Family and orthodox Christinaity to scrutinizing church wealth and clergy compensation, etc.

Now, with all due respect, would the Ensign (a copy of which I have never had the pleasure of reviewing) sincerely featured an article entitled "TheLutheran and Her Farm Family Rocks" explaining how we incorporate our faith, family values, conservativism, work-ethic, willingness to take a risk, and compassion to feed 130+ others despite the fact that TheLutherans do not accept the "First Vision" nor the "Godhead," and differ in our beliefs from the LDS faith in many other areas? Since I am not familiar with this publication, it just might feature such a story, but my gut feeling is that it would not.

What persecution has occurred here?

[Elgama]

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Lutheranism

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Preparing for the Restoration

is this what you are after? there was a series of articles covering many religions in the 1970s

I know we often have interfaith activities in the British Isles excerpt

-Charley

[prisonchaplain]

IMHO it's fine if LDS senior leadership is allowed some expenses, and if the church chooses to include or exclude material espousing doctrines from other churches in its publications or broadcasts. Further, it is certainly acceptable if the church at large chooses to rely on volunteer lay-leaders for most of its functions, and to question the practice of paid, full-time clergy.

What is less appropriate is questioning the motives of those paid clergy, or insisting that particular faith groups offer a platform for opposing doctrines. In some circumstances, it might be healthy and useful to do so. LDS.net is a wonderful example. But to insist?

Also, if Focus on the Family is fighting the good social fight, is it really wise to cut off support for that cause because of theological disagreements? IF FoF is willing to say, "We not only welcome your support, we will publicly recognize it, and honor your friendship with us on this cause," it would be just as intolerant to reject them for not extending that mutualism to the more thoroughly religious realm, as you might think FoF is for rejecting the Christmas Sweater article.

[Islander]

IMHO it's fine if LDS senior leadership is allowed some expenses, and if the church chooses to include or exclude material espousing doctrines from other churches in its publications or broadcasts. Further, it is certainly acceptable if the church at large chooses to rely on volunteer lay-leaders for most of its functions, and to question the practice of paid, full-time clergy.

.

PC:

I think you missed the OP. Imagine you invited me to your home. Upon arriving I realize that your home is rather small and modest. I decide I do not want to stay and resort to an excuse to leave right away. That is what happened here.

They produced the segment, they posted and within days they developed a sudden case of irreconcilable ideological differences that caused them to pull the segment. The book has nothing to do with LDS doctrine. It espouses altruistic human and social values. The author happened to be LDS. Obviously those originally interested in showcasing the book did not think that the theology of the writer was a big deal. Others without the organization but influential, wealthy patrons I bet, driven by their own agenda did care about the theology of Beck and the segment was gone. The motivations are clear by their own admission.

[Maya]

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.

Here something about orthodoxy:

Especially when you get halfway+ through this second one.

[Justice]

The point being here that the Church does not use collected tithes to pay anyone for the time they spend serving in the Church.

I had no idea this would get the attention it did so I was not very specific about what a priestcraft is.

When you accept "money for your service" it is a priestcraft. I listen to CRI (Christian Research Institute) on the radio. In the area I live it is the only radio program close to what I prefer to hear. I don't agree with many of their teachings, but I weed through those. Focus on the Family frequently has guests on this radio program. I would gladly send them money, as a donation, if they needed help with administrative issues because I believe in some of the things they stand for. They sometimes say incorrect or misleading things about what our Church teaches. But, the FotF organization does a lot of good in our communities.

The President of Focus on the Family recently asked for money so their staff could be paid. During this particular program they taught what it means to "tithe." They said ministries, even "our" local churches, needed money to pay building expenses and maintain a staff so they can keep the doors open.

To keep it short, and to be clear, I firmly believe that staff does not need to be paid from tithes. I don't believe Jesus had any kind of paid staff whatsoever. Tithes are for the Lord, not for man. If a church (people) needs to spend tithes to pay for their building to have a place to meet, fine. If they need to pay water, gas, electric, or any other thing related to the building, fine. If someone who ministers in the church is on a church errand and they cannot afford travel expenses, then fine. But, to pay them for the message they deliver or the sermons they give is a very dangerous proposition.

The Book of Mormon is VERY clear on this matter, all.

Alma 1:

26 And when the priests left their labor to impart the word of God unto the people, the people also left their labors to hear the word of God. And when the priest had imparted unto them the word of God they all returned again diligently unto their labors; and the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man according to his strength.

27 And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted; and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely.

28 And thus they did establish the affairs of the church; and thus they began to have continual peace again, notwithstanding all their persecutions.

Mosiah 18:

24 And he also commanded them that the priests whom he had ordained should labor with their own hands for their support.

25 And there was one day in every week that was set apart that they should gather themselves together to teach the people, and to worship the Lord their God, and also, as often as it was in their power, to assemble themselves together.

26 And the priests were not to depend upon the people for their support; but for their labor they were to receive the grace of God, that they might wax strong in the Spirit, having the knowledge of God, that they might teach with power and authority from God.

2 Nephi 26:

29 He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.

...

31 But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.

Alma 1:

12 ...and were priestcraft to be enforced among this people it would prove their entire destruction.

The basis for Christ's teachings and ministry is that we love and serve one another. When anyone accepts money for their service, it is no longer service. One of the truths missing in churches today is that all must serve. All must give of their time, talents, and substance to help in the cause of the Church. The Church is the people, not the building. If you belong to the Church then you labor as part of the Church, if you do not then you are an unprofitable member. If some are required to give and some are not, then the Church in not equally yoked. If then, some are paid for their service and some are not, the Church would be setting some up over others.

If all are required to give, and all are paid by the Church and do not labor for their own support, where does the money come from?

It is a dangerous cycle, and again, I am not surprised it is spoken of harshly in the Book of Mormon.

Edited January 10, 2009 by Justice

[Justice]

Sorry, I will attempt to piece together the entire post I made above. As I edited it the page locked up and my scripture references and final comments were lost.

[Misshalfway]

First of all, let me apologize for any sharpness or sarcasm in my remarks with regarding Orthodox Christianity. I understand what you are so eloquently saying PC and Lutheran. I mean no disrespect to anyone and what they choose to believe or affiliate with EVEN if I disagree with some doctrinal points or even the origins of such doctrinal points of view.

My point really isn't about whether or not the Christian groups are or are not Orthodox in the grand scheme of things. I know you all have a very interesting and compelling case as to why you believe what you do and how the world of Christianity has evolving in its organization and function. Each to his own sandbox. May each enjoy the castle building.

My point is that it seems that there are lots of "colors" of sand that are "acceptable" on that orthodox spectrum and certain colors that aren't.....something that personally and logically confuses me as to how the Christian world has arrived where they have considering that all have broken with the mother ship. But, it seems to work for so many and produces much in the way of goodness and true heartfelt worship, so please don't misunderstand what I am saying and how far I am shooting this comment.

But when it goes so far as saying that even though they don't like our color of sand and think it is wrong they won't even visit the sandbox -- won't even sit down and play side by side then it makes some of us scratch our heads. Islander said it so well. This wasn't an invitation of some LDS official. This was an author that happened to be LDS who wrote a simple little Christmas story.

So we doctrinally disagree on SOME points. But we agree on so many others. Why not build bridges? Why not work together rather than nurturing annoying wedges that history has taught us does nothing but breed intolerance and predjudice. When are we going to learn HOW to disagree? I don't know and can't know why they canceled Mr. Beck, but in my opinion, this behavior does not demonstrate the Christian walk or the American one for that matter. And as an LDS person who has felt this kind of behavior my whole life, I thank those who DO have the wherewith all to understand that we can rub shoulders with one another and share air time even with the opposition. And in this case.....I see NO opposition that even could have disrupted the conversation.

[applepansy]

I don't believe this is true. President Hinckley lived in a simple apartment.

Yes. . . I know this to be true becaue my parents are assistant managers of the building. President Monson lives in his own home, which he bought and paid for long before becoming President of the Church.

applepansy