The Real Reason Why Glen Beck Interview Was Pulled

[Justice]

PC, you're a better man than most if you can receive a salary for teaching people the Gospel and not set yourself up above them, even in small ways or fleeting moments. If you can view yourself a servant among people who pay you to do something (typically what we call a professional) then my hat is off to you... and also to all the many other paid teachers out there who can do it. It is most difficult.

Part of me believes it is condemned in the Book of Mormon because all men who are paid will set them selves up, even in some small way, even if they don't realize they are doing it. But, I have no doubt but to take you at your word if you say you can do it. Most impressive. You have proven to be honest and understanding in every other topic you discuss. Maybe its time to change my thinking about this topic.

[Hemidakota]

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

So did Joseph Smith^_^

[Hemidakota]

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,

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

I would follow the example of the Savior when He went about His ministry....now, how many religions follow that?

[Hemidakota]

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

Who posted this? I do see my name but it wasn't me. That is interesting.

Last thing I would tell anyone, is to remove there name from the church roles.

[Hemidakota]

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.

Correct and thanks for excellent post.

It is profitable these days to be part of another religious clergy than to be a Bishop, Stake President, or non-paid Area Seventy in our church; as I told my friend who earns four time the salary and building another home.

[Just_A_Guy]

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."

Yes, the GAs are not Jim Bakker.

But, no, they are not part of the Church's "unpaid ministry". And, with all due respect, you're going above and beyond anything the Church has explained when you try to narrowly define "living expenses".

In the 1985 Conference, President Hinckely explained,

I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people

To my knowledge, no additional clarification has been given. Indeed, your strict definition would seem to exclude providing an additional residence to a General Authority who was already a Salt Lake resident prior to his call (as President Hinckley was). Yet, we know that this was the case. (A strict definition of "living allowance" also contradicts the anecdotal data that we have, which admittedly is of dubious origin as it tends to show up primarily on anti-Mormon sites.)

Moreover, as I implied earlier, there's no doctrinal need to impose such a narrow definition because the D&C explicitly permits church leaders to support their families out of Church funds. I would venture to say that at its root, our aversion to a paid ministry is not primarily doctrinal; it is merely a byproduct of our innate cultural antipathy to the mainstream Christian ministry (present company excepted, Prisonchaplain! ).

[Maya]

IF a mormonbased organisation had intervied a.. catholic or a protestant (a southern babtist) that is known by his/her positive influence in what ever he/she was intervied for, and then had decided NOT to publish the interview after all... I think that had made a BIG public HALOO about how mormons dont allow .... probably had hit the international news bigtime too! Those mormons are so... balassed... their leaders tell them what to do... it is so unchristian and that is why they are not christians.....

And we are asked; why there is never anything good about mormons in current popular sites, magazines that are not mormon run! Why dont the mormons take a part in important and positive things in the society?

Who shuts out who here?

[prisonchaplain]

I would venture to say that at its root, our aversion to a paid ministry is not primarily doctrinal; it is merely a byproduct of our innate cultural antipathy to the mainstream Christian ministry (present company excepted, Prisonchaplain! ).

In fairness, while I'm not a frequenter of ANTI sites, I get the impression that some of them traffic in "moral equivalency," implying that the GA's pay is indeed similar to the "prosperity gospel" TV ministers, and that the church practices hypocrisy in condemning paid ministry. In my always humble opinion, the issue of paid ministry, in the context of interfaith dialogue, while interesting, is extremely peripherial.

[Elphaba]

Who posted this? I do see my name but it wasn't me. That is interesting.

Hi Hemi,

The paragraph in question is from the e-mai you posted in your OP. Here is the paragraph, which is highlighted in red. I've placed it where it is in the bottom of the e-mail so you can see it better.

FOTF: 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

The request is to be removed from an e-mail list, not a request to have his/her name removed from a church.

It is absurd to make a person actually have to do anything whatsoever to have his/her name removed from the e-mail list. Making them call the company to have their name removed from an e-mail list tells me it is a ploy to try to convince the people to stay on their e-mail list.

Last thing I would tell anyone, is to remove there name from the church roles.

Nor would I, ever.

Just keep in mind, the person wants to be removed from an e-mail list, not from membership in a Church.

I hope this clarifies my earlier post.

Elphaba

[Maya]

Dont tell me they enroll in their church everyone who has asked to be enrolled in the mailing list??

[Elphaba]

Dont tell me they enroll in their church everyone who has asked to be enrolled in the mailing list??

I think I'm making this more confusing rather than less.

There is a significant difference between an e-mail list and church membership rolls. In this case, the person asked to be taken off an e-mail list only, but nothing else.

I did not mean to imply FOTF required the person call them for anything else other than removing his name from the e-mail list. I believe FOTF wanted him to call so they could convince him to stay on the e-mail list, but not for anything else. I suspect FOTF does a good bit of proselytizing on e-mail lists, which would be a good reason it would not want to lose the person's participation.

Regardless, I do not think FTOF is enrolling people from the e-mail list to its church membership. (I'm not even sure there is a church.)

So, have I made this even more confusing?

Elphaba

Edited January 15, 2009 by Elphaba
Because I am pathetic.

[Elphaba]

And we are asked; why there is never anything good about mormons in current popular sites, magazines that are not mormon run!

Who asks this?

For at least the last eighty years, there have been more positive news stories written about the Mormons than negative. Yet, this belief that no one writes anything positive things about the Mormons goes on.

In my opinion, it’s part of the persecution complex that is engrained in the Mormon collective, and continuing to whine about how no one in the press likes the Church just makes the Church look petty.

Why dont the mormons take a part in important and positive things in the society?

Again, who asks this?

It is true that because of the Church’s support of Proposition 8, there have recently been a significant number of negative stories about the Church.

However, there have been a significant number of positive articles as well, including a full-page of The New York Times supporting and thanking the Church for its involvement in passing the proposition.

It is naive to expect it to have been otherwise.

Who shuts out who here?

No one is shutting anyone out.

Frankly, the Church is just not on most people's radar, and thus, they're not that interested. Newspapers write stories about things their audiences are interested in. Often, that is not the Mormon Church, and that should not be taken to mean these newspapers are shutting the Church out.

Regarding no one writing positive things about the Church, I ran a google search, and in ten minutes found the following articles:

The Mormon Work Ethic

The Economist

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12480476

LDS Temples Boost Property Values

Arizona Today

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/01/08/20090108ldstempleeffects0103.html

A Documentarian looks at The Mormons

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,660215305,00.html

AP Press

New Mormon Leader Stays the Course (President Monson)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-04-new-mormon-leader_N.htm

USA Today

Mormons well-served in reliance during hard times

AP pulled off the wire

http://www.sltrib.com/homeandfamily/ci_11313183

Even though this was printed in the Salt Lake Tribune, the story is from the AP .

QA: Elder M. Russell Ballard on the Mormon Way

US World and News Report

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2007/11/01/qa-elder-m-russell-ballard-on-the-mormon-way.html

What do you get for being a Mormon?

The Peninsula Gateway

http://www.gateline.com/106/story/3261.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No one is being shut out, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Elphaba

[Justice]

This leads to my concern. The members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints were the biggest supporters, financially, of this organizations efforts to lobby against Proposition 8. I heard the president of this organization, on the radio, say that he was surprised at the generosity and giving nature of the LDS people, and verbal support given by the Church itself in asking it's members to participate in this cause.

Does that not demonstrate a Christ-like nature and attitude?

I realize the bridge across this gap will be hard to build, and I understand progress is being made. But, so soon after what they call "Christianity's greatest victory in decades" in this country, it seems a bit out of place to pull something off their web site for the reason they claim. I think it was a bad decision, and I think they only did so because their largest contributors did not like it.

You can argue if they did it for the "opinion" of their members, or the "contributions" of their members, but I still want to restate that it's a dangeorus place to be for any ministry. Since they put the article on their web site, apparently they want to help bridge this gap that exists. But, not doing so because of the voice of their members is a bad example, and leads down paths any ministry should not go. If something is right they should stand by it and teach this acceptance to their members.

How do they now reach out to LDS the next time they are in a crunch and need financial help?

Of course, the answer is that we should forgive and set another example when that time comes. But, I think it is akin to being hypocritical on their part if they do not view us as worthy of having faith promoting articles on their web site, yet acept money from us.

I'm sorry, that's just the way I feel.

They are supposed to be there to help all families, and to support non-denominational Christian values. Again, I'm sorry, but few, if any, other organizations in the world demonstrate Christian values like the members of the LDS Church do. Not to post an article that does not teach about the Godhead, but that promotes those values, it silly IMO.

[Hemidakota]

Hi Hemi,

The paragraph in question is from the e-mai you posted in your OP. Here is the paragraph, which is highlighted in red. I've placed it where it is in the bottom of the e-mail so you can see it better.

The request is to be removed from an e-mail list, not a request to have his/her name removed from a church.

It is absurd to make a person actually have to do anything whatsoever to have his/her name removed from the e-mail list. Making them call the company to have their name removed from an e-mail list tells me it is a ploy to try to convince the people to stay on their e-mail list.

Nor would I, ever.

Just keep in mind, the person wants to be removed from an e-mail list, not from membership in a Church.

I hope this clarifies my earlier post.

Elphaba

Hall remarks....got it. Yes, you are correct. Even the First Presidency will go to great lengths to ensure you are not removed from the roles of the church.

[applepansy]

Regarding no one writing positive things about the Church, I ran a google search, and in ten minutes found the following articles:

The Mormon Work Ethic

The Economist

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12480476

LDS Temples Boost Property Values

Arizona Today

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/01/08/20090108ldstempleeffects0103.html

A Documentarian looks at The Mormons

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,660215305,00.html

AP Press

New Mormon Leader Stays the Course (President Monson)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-04-new-mormon-leader_N.htm

USA Today

Mormons well-served in reliance during hard times

AP pulled off the wire

http://www.sltrib.com/homeandfamily/ci_11313183

Even though this was printed in the Salt Lake Tribune, the story is from the AP .

QA: Elder M. Russell Ballard on the Mormon Way

US World and News Report

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2007/11/01/qa-elder-m-russell-ballard-on-the-mormon-way.html

What do you get for being a Mormon?

The Peninsula Gateway

http://www.gateline.com/106/story/3261.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you. I appreciate the time you took to search for these articles. I enjoyed reading them.

applepansy

[Maya]

Elpheba... ok looks like there is something out there. I am glad for that.

Here there is a discusition in the TV about religions... we are not invited. Ok LDS are only 1% in my country... but wordlwidely we are getting big, anyway getting bigger than lutherans, who are at least half of the people here. BTW even islamic are getting bigger than us!

Stil we are ignored as well in school books (them listing smaller religions, but not us) and in public discusitions. Why? Because we are not chritians... funny how often islamic get to these conversations, but not us. Here we are still shut out and denied the partaking.

There has been a couple positive articles in magazines like 1 to 5 negatives. On internett there is in google on 3 first pages 3 postitive sites= Church official sites, rest negative. Hmm now probably 4 and if my friends and my block can be found on the 3 first pages... 6 . So we still have a LONG way to go.

It still is a risk to tell in your work that you are an LDS....

Hopefully things are going to better direction.

[Palerider]

Hall remarks....got it. Yes, you are correct. Even the First Presidency will go to great lengths to ensure you are not removed from the roles of the church.

you are in trouble now....you told her she was correct....now we will have to make all doors taller for her big head to get thru....:eek::lol:

[john doe]

You're calling her a fathead? Wow. There's going to be blood on the walls tonight.

[Elphaba]

Elpheba... ok looks like there is something out there. I am glad for that.

Here there is a discusition in the TV about religions... we are not invited. Ok LDS are only 1% in my country... but wordlwidely we are getting big, anyway getting bigger than lutherans, who are at least half of the people here. BTW even islamic are getting bigger than us!

Stil we are ignored as well in school books (them listing smaller religions, but not us) and in public discusitions. Why? Because we are not chritians... funny how often islamic get to these conversations, but not us. Here we are still shut out and denied the partaking.

There has been a couple positive articles in magazines like 1 to 5 negatives. On internett there is in google on 3 first pages 3 postitive sites= Church official sites, rest negative. Hmm now probably 4 and if my friends and my block can be found on the 3 first pages... 6 . So we still have a LONG way to go.

It still is a risk to tell in your work that you are an LDS....

Hopefully things are going to better direction.

Hi Maya,

Thanks for the clarification. I see what you're talking about, and it is very unfortunate the COJCOLDS is excluded, especially if it includes other religions with a small membership.

I am no longer a member of the Church, and thus, I don't share any spiritual beliefs with Church members.

However, the tired, and worn-out: "Mormons aren't Christians" mantra irritates the heck out of me.

I'm not sayikng other denominations shoud not teach that Mormons aren't Christian: they can and have every right to do so, because that is what they believe.

It's when the teaching becomes vehement and disparaging that is unecessary. It's mean-spirited, and makes them look petty, except to their adherents.

Islam has been the fastest-growing religion for centuries. I think it still is, but I'm not sure. If it's not, it surely is a close second. I suspect that's why Muslims are included in the media functions you mentioned above.

Where do you live?

Elphaba

[Maya]

Thanks Elpheba. I live in Norway, but am from Finland. And my heart is defenately in Finland... Here the aged opinions of the opponents stad tall... even if theya re proved over 100 years old. At least they could update their knowlidge.

I personally am not hung up to beeing called Christian, but it kind of bugs me if the defination is wrong. IF they say we are not Christian and definy Christians to be those who believe in the greeds... ok we are not, but if they definy it to believing in Christ.. . I correct them, but they dont like it . Opininon about 2 Jesuses is a ballony and we all know that, that is used ONLY to be nasty.

Even when I was Lutheran I was very mission minded (ever since I was a kid). Now it is some 2 years and it may finally be reality, as we get our youngest on a mision! :)

Yes Islam is really spreading around here. There has been a lot of refugies from islamic countries. In a 20 + years Europe will be islamic.

The Christians here are loosing their grip thanks to their own lameness in cural questions. People are resighning from the Lutheran Church massively. Most Lutherans attend Church 4+ times in their life; babtisement when ab. 3 months old, around 14 the school about what Lutherans teach to get confirmation... mostly in order to be able to marry in Church (when I did that, we called it; marriage allowance)... marriage, death + Christmases, possibly easter, but not that often. Most have no interest in teachings or Bible. Those that go are good, humble people who agree not being worthy to search for more knowledge. Many things are answered that " We do not need to know that or we cant understand God."

Youth is searching today. For many islam, with its safe boundaries is giving the safety they are looking for. Also many eastern filosofies winn space with the old finnish/ scandinavian religions. I dont see it copletely impossible that orthodox or Catolic would winn some more space around here too. Anyway Lutheranism is loosing a lot of ground, they have tried too much to ingratiate the people. LDS? a black horse... growing slowly, but also loosing members to other countries (like Norway or USA ) and religions.

My English language is not perfect (not going in to my spelling mistakes). I think I often sound more harsh, than what I mean to be, due to it that I do not know all ingrediances of all words. And sometimes I am in a hurry ..... sorry.

[Elphaba]

My English language is not perfect (not going in to my spelling mistakes). I think I often sound more harsh, than what I mean to be, due to it that I do not know all ingrediances of all words. And sometimes I am in a hurry ..... sorry.

Hi Maya,

I never perceived you as being harsh at all, so all is good.

I really enjoyed your picture of the religious situation in Norway, Finland and Europe. I didn't know about any of it, so thanks for that.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

You're calling her a fathead? Wow. There's going to be blood on the walls tonight.

HEY!

I just saw this!

I am not a fathead.

I am a phathead.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

phat (fāt) Pronunciation Key

adj. phat·ter, phat·test Slang

Excellent; first-rate: phat fashion; a phat rapper.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Earlier, sexy (said of a woman), of unknown origin.]

If you're going to call me names, at least get the spelling right!

Elphatbut

[Elphaba]

you are in trouble now....you told her she was correct....now we will have to make all doors taller for her big head to get thru....:eek::lol:

Don't worry about the doors.

I printed out Hemi's "Yes, you are correct," and framed it. It's sitting on my nightstand as we speak.

That should stroke my ego for at least into the next decade.

Elphie

[john doe]

HEY!

I just saw this!

I am not a fathead.

I am a phathead.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

phat (fāt) Pronunciation Key

adj. phat·ter, phat·test Slang

Excellent; first-rate: phat fashion; a phat rapper.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Earlier, sexy (said of a woman), of unknown origin.]

If you're going to call me names, at least get the spelling right!

Elphatbut

I didn't call You anything. I was appalled that Pale would say something like that, so I went out and bought a case of 409 Cleaner to clean up the mess.

[Palerider]

Don't worry about the doors.

I printed out Hemi's "Yes, you are correct," and framed it. It's sitting on my nightstand as we speak.

That should stroke my ego for at least into the next decade.

Elphie

don't get it plated in gold.....someone might take it.....