The Real Reason Why Glen Beck Interview Was Pulled

[Palerider]

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?

you would find these type of articles you are asking about in the Church News....this is a weekly church published newspaper...

[Elgama]

you would find these type of articles you are asking about in the Church News....this is a weekly church published newspaper...

also didn't the institute course many moons ago Religions of the World have a section on Lutheranism? We also have a Martin Luther Hymn in our Hymnbook

-Charley

[Moksha]

also didn't the institute course many moons ago Religions of the World have a section on Lutheranism? We also have a Martin Luther Hymn in our Hymnbook

-Charley

We have the first verse from A Mighty Fortress in the hymnbook. The other verses are missing. Most likely these verses contained religious ideas that the compilers of the LDS hymnbook disagreed with.

[prisonchaplain]

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.

You may be right. The evidence could easily lead to that conclusion. It doesn't have to, but it could. So, do you leap to the offensive conclusion, take offense, and perhaps discontinue any relationship? Or, do you harbor the slight, but wait to see if this was a one-time "cave?" Or, do you brush it aside, whatever "it" is, and figure that FoF still does a good work, and overall, has not engaged in aggressive Anti tactics...so is still worthy of support for social and family causes?

None of these responses would be unreasonable, imho.

[prisonchaplain]

On the matter of priestcraft: By LDS standards, there is no question that we clergy are in contradiction to your Scriptures. However, parachurch groups, who rely on donations distinct from tithing would be akin to those church employees that work in your administrative offices, etc. They do a good work, one beneficial to the church's broad mission, and then are paid for their labors. For evangelicals, and some others, Focus on the Family is like that. James Dobson, for example, is not a clergyperson--his training is in counseling and psychology. Often apologetics groups (like CRI) are staffed by those who do not even have degrees in theology, much less ministerial credentials. They are laborers that Christians, usually on an individual level, choose to support or now.

As an example, while my church sometimes offers newsletters from Focus on the Family, never have I heard any encouragement to financial support the group. I'm sure many members do, possibly including the pastor. I'm "sure," but I don't really know--I've never been told.

[KristofferUmfrey]

On the matter of priestcraft: By LDS standards, there is no question that we clergy are in contradiction to your Scriptures. However, parachurch groups, who rely on donations distinct from tithing would be akin to those church employees that work in your administrative offices, etc. They do a good work, one beneficial to the church's broad mission, and then are paid for their labors. For evangelicals, and some others, Focus on the Family is like that. James Dobson, for example, is not a clergyperson--his training is in counseling and psychology. Often apologetics groups (like CRI) are staffed by those who do not even have degrees in theology, much less ministerial credentials. They are laborers that Christians, usually on an individual level, choose to support or now.

As an example, while my church sometimes offers newsletters from Focus on the Family, never have I heard any encouragement to financial support the group. I'm sure many members do, possibly including the pastor. I'm "sure," but I don't really know--I've never been told.

So it's like I said earlier their real concern was losing money from snobby Christian bigots. ( I'm not saying *all* Christians are like that. I know someone will try to infer that I am saying that.)

[prisonchaplain]

So it's like I said earlier their real concern was losing money from snobby Christian bigots. ( I'm not saying *all* Christians are like that. I know someone will try to infer that I am saying that.)

Possibly...perhaps even probably. And so, yes, power corrupts...and money is a form of power. This is why I understand the doctrine of priestcraft, even if I don't completely agree with the conclusions.

[PolarBeccaBear]

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.

I understand their point based on a concern for differing theological perspectives... But saying that the literal doctrine of the church [of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints] is incompatible with Christianity makes absolutely NO sense to me. I realize that our church does not possess a Trinitarian point of view, but in the beginnings of Christianity [before everyone decided that they wanted to play with words] that was the way that it was!

Why would they sacrifice the form of the old Christian truths, based on perspective just as THEIR truth is based, in order to fit their beliefs into some solid box that's marked 'Christian' when no such box exists?

I don't understand. Just because we believe in doctrine that is different from most other churches, why can we not be the same 'Christian' as the rest of them? Because the CORE of out doctrine IS about Jesus, just as theirs is.

It's okay to overstep a line of theology... Because their aren't any. ALL people have their own personal doctrines, whether they want to admit it as conforming Christians or not. So why not allow Beck to represent his?

I just don't understand... He wasn't teaching/talking about anything bad.

Ughhh.

[Just_A_Guy]

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

D&C 42:71: And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned;

See also the CES Institute study manual commentary on this verse, quoting Smith and Sjodahl:

The law of remuneration is that those who administer in spiritual affairs must have their stewardships and labor for their living, ‘even as the members.’ This is wisdom. For in that position they are absolutely independent and can preach the truth without fear. Those who administer in temporal affairs and give their entire time to public business are to have a just remuneration. If they were to earn a living for themselves, they could not give all their time and energy to the community.

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

And my point, Justice, is that that just isn't true. The Twelve get paid by the Church, and "lower" members of the LDS ministry have been in the past. It may not be very much, and you can play semantics games denoting it "living expenses" rather than "salary", but they get (or got, in the case of Bishops) paid.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Hemidakota]

Since I see you are not a General Authority but can attest that there is a vast difference from a BILLY GRAHAM and BOYD K. PACKER, as to being paid. Billy collects from donation or another term for tithing while Boyd does not.

Now do you get it?

[Just_A_Guy]

As I've said before, Hemidakota, I'm not denying the difference between the Apostles and the highly-paid leaders of some mega-churches. To quote my post from last Friday,

I just think we need to be careful when we make smug [blanket] assertions about the evils of a "paid clergy".

Because we have one, too. And at some points in our history, it was relatively extensive.

[Just_A_Guy]

As an addendum to my #58 above, see also Quinn's The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Chapter 6, available online here.

[Islander]

Again and just to recap; what does a (book) story about humility, gratefulness, thankfulness, the spirit of giving and Christmas has to do with the "theological foundation" of the LDS Church? It is all hogwash. These are the true colors of those who would welcome our support and commitment but not in the true spirit of fellowship.

Some of my in-laws are RC. We were discussing the movie "The Passion of the The Christ" and they said to be surprised I (being LDS)) went to see it, being Mel Gibson the producer a RC. I simply added that Christ died for ALL mankind and the Atonement is the means of salvation for the WHOLE human race not just for those who look at the Vatican with approving eyes. They seemed satisfied. I found the question ridiculous but I let it be.

[Justice]

And my point, Justice, is that that just isn't true. The Twelve get paid by the Church, and "lower" members of the LDS ministry have been in the past. It may not be very much, and you can play semantics games denoting it "living expenses" rather than "salary", but they get (or got, in the case of Bishops) paid.

The bulk of what I did was quote the Book of Mormon. I formed my view based on what I read. I stated that I see the dangers of being paid to teach the Gospel.

Let us measure to what is written in scripture. I would never ask anyone to take my word for it. If you interpret those words (BoM condemning being paid to teach the Gospel) differently please let me know.

As far as anyone from our Church being paid to teach the Gospel, you will need to show me proof. I have received welfare assistance, but was asked to perform other service than my calling of teaching in Sunday School. This is one way the Church makes sure people don't relate the two together.

If anyone in our Church was paid to preach the Gospel it was a mistake, and was probably not made again. But, it is not the Church program to pay anyone in the Church for teaching the Gospel. It never has been. On the contrary, it is the program of most other Christian Churches to pay people for teaching the Gospel.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Justice

[AnthonyB]

I would just like to mention that the LDS are not the only Christian group that has no paid clergy, group such as the Christian Brethren don't as well.

[KristofferUmfrey]

On the matter of priestcraft: By LDS standards, there is no question that we clergy are in contradiction to your Scriptures. However, parachurch groups, who rely on donations distinct from tithing would be akin to those church employees that work in your administrative offices, etc. They do a good work, one beneficial to the church's broad mission, and then are paid for their labors. For evangelicals, and some others, Focus on the Family is like that. James Dobson, for example, is not a clergyperson--his training is in counseling and psychology. Often apologetics groups (like CRI) are staffed by those who do not even have degrees in theology, much less ministerial credentials. They are laborers that Christians, usually on an individual level, choose to support or now.

As an example, while my church sometimes offers newsletters from Focus on the Family, never have I heard any encouragement to financial support the group. I'm sure many members do, possibly including the pastor. I'm "sure," but I don't really know--I've never been told.

The Book of Mormon doesn't teach that just being paid for Pastoral work, like some would argue, is priestcraft. Let's take a look:

II Nephi 11 : 106 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.

I don't believe, you, for example seek money or vain glory for your work. So I don't believe you are guilty of priestcraft. And I believe there are probably more paid Christian Pastors then not that are not guilty of priestcraft. At the same time I believe there are a number of unpaid clergy that may indeed be guilty of priestcraft because they do seek the praise of the world for their supposed knowledge or feigned humility.

[prisonchaplain]

Since I see you are not a General Authority but can attest that there is a vast difference from a BILLY GRAHAM and BOYD K. PACKER, as to being paid. Billy collects from donation or another term for tithing while Boyd does not.

Now do you get it?

Factual errors, here. Billy Graham's salary was determined by trustees of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. He had no control over the amount, other than that he could refuse raises, which he sometimes did. The donations the Association collected were not "another term for tithing." Evangelical churches make a strong distinction between tithes, which are for the local church, and offerings, which can be for special church funds, or for parachurch organizations. Those few media ministries that encourage viewers to give "tithes" have been roundly criticized. I find it particularly ironic that Billy Graham, someone who is almost universally appreciated for gaining international exposure, while remaining truly humble in how he lives and ministers, was the example here.

[Just_A_Guy]

Let us measure to what is written in scripture. I would never ask anyone to take my word for it. If you interpret those words (BoM condemning being paid to teach the Gospel) differently please let me know.

I concur that it's potentially problematic whenever you have people whose material support depends on their ministry.

On the other hand, I think you need to read the BoM in light of the D&C passage I quoted above. At least in certain circumstances, the Lord has permitted ecclesiastical leaders to support their families out of Church funds. The Church has done so in the past, even at the local level (it's a matter of historical record--see the extracts of Quinn that I linked to earlier). The Encyclopedia of Mormonism acknowledges the continuance of this practice with regard to the Apostles; as did President Hinckley (though both sources stress that the funds are drawn from the Church's business investments).

If you want to engage in semantics games about "well, define 'payment'" or "well, what are they being paid to do?", feel free. But the bottom line is that the Apostles receive money from the Church that they would not otherwise receive if they were not Apostles. To the vast majority of speakers of the english language, that constitutes a paid ministry.

[prisonchaplain]

The Book of Mormon doesn't teach that just being paid for Pastoral work, like some would argue, is priestcraft. Let's take a look:

I don't believe, you, for example seek money or vain glory for your work. So I don't believe you are guilty of priestcraft. And I believe there are probably more paid Christian Pastors then not that are not guilty of priestcraft. At the same time I believe there are a number of unpaid clergy that may indeed be guilty of priestcraft because they do seek the praise of the world for their supposed knowledge or feigned humility.

I can very much agree with your definition of priestcraft. Even within the Protestant and Evangelical Christian world, there are many who question the wisdom of much of the TV ministry world, for example. It's so expensive that fundraising becomes necessary, and in the process, does the Good News get distorted?

On the other hand, I've heard stories of an LDS skit (mini-drama) that used to be common, back in the 1980s, that poked pretty seriously at paid Protestant clergy, even portraying the character as being whiny about the student loans he'd incurred (again priestcraft, I suppose, because those evangelical Bible schools pay their professors to teach the ministerial students the gospel). While the skit may be a relic of history, my guess is that there are many who continue to harbor a somewhat automatic suspicion of paid Christian clergy.

[john doe]

Amazing how this thread went from being about discrimination towards Glen Beck to questions about a paid clergy. Let's remember to be respectful of each other if you want to continue down this road.

[KristofferUmfrey]

I can very much agree with your definition of priestcraft. Even within the Protestant and Evangelical Christian world, there are many who question the wisdom of much of the TV ministry world, for example. It's so expensive that fundraising becomes necessary, and in the process, does the Good News get distorted?

On the other hand, I've heard stories of an LDS skit (mini-drama) that used to be common, back in the 1980s, that poked pretty seriously at paid Protestant clergy, even portraying the character as being whiny about the student loans he'd incurred (again priestcraft, I suppose, because those evangelical Bible schools pay their professors to teach the ministerial students the gospel). While the skit may be a relic of history, my guess is that there are many who continue to harbor a somewhat automatic suspicion of paid Christian clergy.

Not to offend any LDS here, but that skit pales in comparison to what was taught prior to 1990 about paid Christians ministers, but I will leave it at that. Maybe that is what you are talking about? I never saw it I was too young.

The TV thing bothers me in many instances, but at the same time they reach people at least with the basic message of Jesus Christ in some very remote regions because satellite TV is everywhere practically.

[Islander]

As an addendum to my #58 above, see also Quinn's The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Chapter 6, available online here.

There is no semantics here and want to make it explicitly clear. Living expenses relate to travel and food allowance, utilities and incidentals (cab fare, parking, tips,, etc). That is NOT salary. The GA are called to labor far away from their homes on Church business, and like any other administrative expense they are reimbursed or provided a stipend to cover these expenses. As detailed before, these expenditure funds come from Church related businesses and NOT tithing or donations. Whatever point you are trying to make you are sorely mistaken if you are trying to equate the above with "compensation."

Compare that to Hagee, Hinn, Meyer, Parsley, and other "evangelists" that report $1,000,000 or more in direct compensation in their non-profit organizations tax statement declaration. Direct compensation is an IRS euphemism for salary.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Islander

[prisonchaplain]

Amazing how this thread went from being about discrimination towards Glen Beck to questions about a paid clergy. Let's remember to be respectful of each other if you want to continue down this road.

IMHO we solved the Glenn Beck issue (FoF should not have pulled the interview, it's decision to do so is at least diappointing, and LDS supporters are rightly left wonder what to do). Also, this particular rabbit trail proved interesting. And yes, the spiritual fruits of kindness, gentleness...against such there is no law...would be most welcome on such issues.

[prisonchaplain]

Islander, imho, you are trying too hard. As an outsider, I'd never dream of condemning your leaders for having expense accounts--even generous ones. You are so adamant to defend this though, and to say there is not even a hint of compensation. And then...to drift right to the most extreme example of paid clergy, there handful of large TV ministry leaders who make Hollywood entertainment type wages.

Your church officially dislikes having paid clergy, regardless of amount. And, I would guess you know that most clergy-folk are relatively highly educated and humbly paid. For most, salaries are similar to that of teachers, but without the semester breaks.

Is it not enough. Just say that. We oppose having paid clergy because we believe it corrupts the gospel.

My thought is that people only bring up the expense accounts of the top LDS leaders when the rhetoric against paid clergy in other churches seems unnecessarily harsh and judgmental.

[Elphaba]

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.

Unbelievable.

If I tell you I want my name taken off your mailing list, you do not make me jump through hoops to effect it. You take me off.

Obviously, they want to have a discussion to change the person's mind so s/he will stay on the list. However, this would make me so angry, I probably would call, just so I can scream at them for making me do their work.

Nah, I wouldn't do it, because I'd only be yelling at the peons. But if they were to get their highest authority on the line, you'd all be looking up and asking . . . is that a plane or is that Elphaba?

The plane