The Real Reason Why Glen Beck Interview Was Pulled

[Palerider]

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.

after looking around...I can see where you missed a spot....

[john doe]

after looking around...I can see where you missed a spot....

Both you and Elphaba are still alive, meaning her head didn't explode and she didn't beat you to a pulp. So anyway, I have a lot of cleaner ready for whatever goes down.....

[Palerider]

Both you and Elphaba are still alive, meaning her head didn't explode and she didn't beat you to a pulp. So anyway, I have a lot of cleaner ready for whatever goes down.....

thanks.....for looking out for me......

[jiminycricket]

I think what some are saying, and I must admit I feel this way too, is that FotF's actions say to us, "We want your money and support, but otherwise we don't want anything to do with you, so we're going to ostracize you from our religious community."

I don't think it surprises anyone here that we should be so ostracized. Because of our humanity, though, it still offends us a little. Let us remember, as Neal A. Maxwell taught, that we must drink the bitter cup without becoming bitter. Let's remember that such adversity is just another stepping stone in the path -- another chisel to chip off the rough edges of our character. Let's take comfort in what the Savior said: "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." (Matthew 5:10-12, KJV) Our God has commanded us to "rejoice, and be exceedingly glad" when we are reviled and persecuted. We don't have the luxury of taking offense when we are hurt.

We do however have a duty to defend the church.

The Problem with letting people say, "They're not Christian because they don't believe in our creeds" is that it's a smokescreen - an excuse to call us unChristian, knowing full well that hearers invariably interpret that as, "they don't believe in Christ or in Christian values," which is the real sentiment they wish to propagate. In the process they accuse us of peddling deception in order to gain followers because we proclaim our Christianity.

A short time ago, I came across the following post on a message board I frequent:

"Searching the web for information on Mormons, I found the following statement:

'The reason Mormonism is not Christian is because it denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Of the essential doctrines (that there is only one God, Jesus is God in flesh, forgiveness of sins is by grace alone, and Jesus rose from the dead physically, the gospel being the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus), Mormonism denies three of them: how many gods there are, the person of Jesus, and His work of salvation.'

"This is all fine and dandy, but Catholics do not believe that one is saved by grace alone. One must be baptised, first communion, and confess their sins to a priest in order to obtain absolution. Does that mean that Catholics deny one of the essential doctrines of Christianity?"

I made the following defense:

"Gimme a break, sirkitkat! (terrible joke intended) I'm afraid the statement you quoted is way off base. I'd be interested to know where you found it. It seems as though some exclusionist group, having ascribed their own definition to Christianity and declared that definition authoritative, is with that statement moving on to declare with this presumed authority whether other groups are Christian or not. I find it abominable that society offers publicity to such rubbish.

"With just a little thought, we can reach a sensible conclusion about all of this.

"The word 'Christian' is a term that was introduced in Jesus' time. It was used, as the very linguistic root of the term suggests, as a way of referring to those who believed in and followed Jesus Christ. When applied to a religion, the term implies that Christ is central in that religion (usually as the Savior of mankind).

"Christianity, then, by sheer common sense, includes all religions which teach people to believe in and follow Jesus Christ and to look to Him as their Savior for a remission of their sins. Any other meaning ascribed to the term is a matter of the internal doctrine of specific Christian religions, and is therefore unfit to be used as a yardstick by which to measure and compare religions.

"Mormons are, by this definition, every bit as Christian as it gets. We do differ with other Christian religions on many doctrinal points. We believe, for instance, that three Gods preside over this Earth (God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost - the three together making up the Godhead), and that Jesus Christ and the Father He prayed to are two separate and distinct beings. But such doctrinal differences are inevitable - if we had no doctrinal differences with other religions we wouldn't be classified as a separate religion. Doctrinal differences with Christian religions does not equal a non-Christian religion.

"[As a side note, I haven't the faintest clue why the statement you quoted indicates that we 'deny His work of salvation.' As far as I know, the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (that's the actual name of 'the Mormon church') are almost exactly identical to most other Christian churches on the topic of the Savior's atonement.]

"Although I have deep disagreements with Catholic doctrine and religion, I nevertheless know that they do believe in and seek to follow Jesus Christ, and that they acknowledge Him as their Savior. They too deserve to be classified as a Christian people, regardless of the finer points of their doctrine."

I'll make this one a one-liner: There is a distinction to be made on many levels between churches and their followers. Apply liberally to affected areas :)

Our church history is full of instances when ministers of other faiths were offered our podium. Once, Joseph Smith actually offered the pulpit of the unfinished Nauvoo Temple to a Baptist minister who was traveling through the city (I think he was Baptist, not 100% certain on that). He, Joseph, said, "We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true Mormons," and elsewhere, "One of the grand fundamental principles of 'Mormonism' is to receive truth, let it com from whence it may."

On priestcrafts: First, the D&C has been misinterpreted in this thread - the passage Guy referenced is talking about the law of consecration (an economic system not entirely unlike communism that we believe to be a Celestial, or heavenly, order where all of our individual resources are voluntarily contributed, pooled by the church and redistributed proportional to need). In addition to verses 70-73, see the section heading and passage summaries of Doctrine and Covenants 42, with special attention to references to consecration, or "the law." The excerpt quoted from the CES manual is also talking about consecration. Since under that law we all receive our sustenance from the church, or more accurately, from each other through the church, it should come as no surprise that the bishop and his counselors do too. The members of the Bishopric contribute their income and receive their sustenance just like everyone else. This is not paid clergy or priestcraft, and both of those practices are against church policy. The church does not and has never engaged in either.

The distinction between income (or gain, as the scriptures say) and modest stipends or expense accounts is an important one. If our leaders received income, they would amass temporal wealth (get gain) from their labors. Modest stipends and expense accounts, especially those in the hands of such honest, principled men, don't afford that luxury. If President Bush received only modest expense accounts or stipends and no salary, would you say he was being paid?

Rereading 2 Nephi 26:29, I think priestcraft is more about selfish intentions, describing any man who, to quote Mary Chapin Carpenter, "would show me the way according to him in return for my personal check" (I Take My Chances). Someone whose main purpose is some perosnal or temporal gain rather than building the Kingdom.

So there's my take on all of that... for whatever it's worth...

JiminyC

[Maya]

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

:eek:

Did HE really say THAT

Did you consider platinium?

(Someone is in trouble!)

[Elphaba]

I posted this earlier, but I caused confusion by not explaining it was meant for everyone. Therefore, if any of you have the urge to call me a name, like the one below, please be sure and spell it correctly. Thank you.

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

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.]

That's me!

Elphatbut

__________________

[prisonchaplain]

I read the official text of the response FoF gave to a Mormon Times reporter. Their claim is that this interview, conducted by a free-lance reporter, gave the impression that Beck was a traditional Christian (i.e. evangelical?), and that Beck had not let on that he was LDS. Apparently FoF did not check and did not know, and after receiving complaints from evangelical apologetics groups, it decided that, to avoid confusion, it would pull the article.

While I find this explanation quite sloppy and defensive, if the gist of Beck's book was an allegory for the plan of salvation, then perhaps Fof has at least half a point?

[john doe]

I'm trying to figure out which rock they were under. Anyone who has listened to Glenn Beck over the past couple years could have figured out that he is LDS. While he never come right out and said it most times, if they are as ardent Evangelical Christians as they claim, they should have been able to pick up on it. It's obvious to those who can hear, what his religion is.

On the other hand, if Glenn was 'talking like a Christian' in order to be better understood by the audience he knew the reporter was representing, what's the problem? He was merely presenting his story in a way that would be understood by the people whom he knew would be watching or listening to it. He didn't compromise his LDS beliefs, and as far as I know, he didn't offend Evangelical Christian beliefs either. It was only after someone figured out that he is LDS that anyone had a problem with his words. If it sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it must be religious bigotry.

[Palerider]

During the election.....while the Primaries were still going on and Mitt Romney was in the race...Al Sharpton made some critical remarks about the LDS Faith and Mitt Romney. On the Glen Beck show that night he talked about it for most of his show and stated he was offended by Sharpton's remarks about the Church since he, Glen Beck was a member. He shared a brief conversion to the faith during his show.

[Islander]

I read the official text of the response FoF gave to a Mormon Times reporter. Their claim is that this interview, conducted by a free-lance reporter, gave the impression that Beck was a traditional Christian (i.e. evangelical?), and that Beck had not let on that he was LDS. Apparently FoF did not check and did not know, and after receiving complaints from evangelical apologetics groups, it decided that, to avoid confusion, it would pull the article.

While I find this explanation quite sloppy and defensive, if the gist of Beck's book was an allegory for the plan of salvation, then perhaps Fof has at least half a point?

So PC you get it? They thought the book storyline was great, initially at least, until they found out he was LDS. Oh my land!!! What a night mare!!!

I think it is just hypocritical and evidence of where they bow down out of sight.