I think Glen Beck is unspooling live on TV right now...

TMMT

[svcw]

As one potential fool to another keep on keeping on, there are many here who do not seem to realize the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.

[whattajoke]

I have another question (I am not Mormon).

Beck came to Mormonism late in life after a long struggle with substance abuse. Many of the more fundamentalist (for lack of a better term) and witnessing Christians (protestants) found their religion after similar struggles.

Does this sort of change your view of his Mormonism? That is, he didn’t grow up in an LDS family and I would guess he didn’t even know any Mormons until his adult life. (Heck, Beck’s got quite a drive from his house if he ever wants to go to the temple.)

To me, it doesn’t seem to define him. Perhaps I’m wrong (as your posts have tried to demonstrate.) And since Beck is so fond of “connecting dots” and “historical implications,” I would think that a heart to heart from Graham discussing the historical record of John Smith would sort of sway him, no?

[Elsie]

And since Beck is so fond of “connecting dots” and “historical implications,” I would think that a heart to heart from Graham discussing the historical record of John Smith would sort of sway him, no?

No.

Pay attention when he says:

"The CHURCH has kept me from being the bigger jerk I used to be."

---

The history of MORMONism means NOTHING, as it is the church TODAY that has 'saved' him.

NO one is going to jump out of the lifeboat to swim to the Rock; pounded by the waves.

Only when his boats sinks, would a person try to get to another place of safety.

[Colofornian]

Beck came to Mormonism late in life after a long struggle with substance abuse. Many of the more fundamentalist (for lack of a better term) and witnessing Christians (protestants) found their religion after similar struggles. Does this sort of change your view of his Mormonism? That is, he didn’t grow up in an LDS family and I would guess he didn’t even know any Mormons until his adult life. (Heck, Beck’s got quite a drive from his house if he ever wants to go to the temple.)

Well, it doesn't change my view -- but you make a good point. We can't 100% assume that all Mormons are "true-believing" Mormons through & through about every Mormon teaching out there. [But the shoe goes on the other foot as well -- in that people can't assume he's not, either]

I think you & I could guess that perhaps the dynamics of his conversion mean that Beck may qualify more as a "cafeteria" Mormon -- a more selective Mormon @ the Mormon buffet table. But IF he holds a temple recommend -- and I've seen one Web post indicating he does -- that would tend to put him more into the "true believing" Mormon camp.

I would think that a heart to heart from Graham discussing the historical record of John Smith would sort of sway him, no?

I think Billy Graham's approach would have been to not reference Smith or Mormonism in much detail; perhaps he highlighted a few distinctives. Who knows? Beck & Billy do.

Billy's approach would have been pure Gospel. And the one good way to approach a discussion of this nature is this thread I just posted: what qualifies people to live with heavenly father for all eternity? (MormonISM - open)

The approach this Lutheran pastor took was to talk about our eternal relationship with Heavenly Father. Because really -- this is perhaps where Mormonism and Christianity differs the most: Mormons believe you have to be a temple Mormon -- and married -- for that happen. Nobody else qualifies. No always-singles. No non-temple Mormons. Nobody else.

If Mormons are 2% of America; and if 20% of Mormons are temple Mormons, then only .4% of America are temple Mormons. Worldwide, then, way less than .1% of the world -- per Mormonism -- will live with God eternally.

Mormons are fairly exclusive in claiming who will get to live with Father eternally; so I would hope that Billy Graham would have approached a discussion mentioning that -- and how we can't earn our way into that eternal relationship with Heavenly Father.

[DoughtyOne]

For length reasons, I’m going to break down my response into two posts. Allow me to address two of your comments in this post:

By all means, out yourself fully.  Don't leave any doubts.

You said/asked: There are good Hindu people. There are good Muslims. There are good Christians. And there are good people in every other religion, although Santaria and a few others might cause me to modify that statement….Can good people exist in any other religion than your own?

Thank you for the question. While it’s good one, I guess I’m just a little surprised that you ask so soon after stating what you did to close out post #459: Has he had problems in the past? Sure. Don't tell anyone, but I have too. Haven't we ALL? Isn't that the human condition?

Don’t you see the inconsistency here....  – even from your own worldview?

Whoa, wait just a minute there Sparky!  Where's the answer to my question?

Trying to converse with a person like you is like consigning yourself to the position of enabler.   I ask questions of you, and you duck them and criticize me without addressing the question.  No, the method or the construct is the real thing of importance to you.  To hell with the question itself, even though you labeled it a good question.  Misdirection follows...

You just got done telling me that we’ve all had problems (and usually those problems are sin-based – ours). You’re not now telling me that ”the human condition” is rooted only in some? The "human condition" is not epidemic across the world, after all?

Look, if you wish to reveal yourself as not being able to understand simple concepts, fine.  You're not doing youself any favors by utilizing this tactic.

Most people I know of are capable of understanding that we all sin.  They are also capable of grasping that even good people do sin.

Your tactic of trying to cast me as saying two different things is merely avoidence.  Okay, you tried and failed.

If so, Jesus of the Bible did NOT share that presumption.

He said: "'Why do you call me good?' Jesus answered. 'No one is good--except God alone.'" (Mark 10:18).

Jesus wasn't saying He personally wasn't good; but He was addressing the misguided presumption behind the comment: That man is good…[I believe Jesus addresses man’s basic isness at root here…]

Jesus levels the playing field before the cross by undercutting any spiritual pride that presumes anybody from any religion doesn’t need Him as our great physician ("It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick...For I have NOT COME to call the righteous, but sinners."--Matthew 9:12)

This is nothing more than childish misdirection.  It's simplistic to the point of causing one to feel sympathy for the person making it.

Are you really incapable of grasping the concept that there are people who strive to be good, and people who shun that to do anything they like?  Seriously?  You want to run with that?

It makes you look like a fool.

Jesus is for the person who understands their personal cancerous diagnosis of sin.

As you hinted in your previous post, we're all spiritually unhealthy and depraved -- including your "good"…
…Mormons
…Christians
…Hindus
…Muslims
…other religions.

Wow, who knew that everyone was a sinner?  Why thank you.

Look dufus, when I started discussing this matter, I evidently errored in thinking we had some base commonality in understanding.  You were coming at this from a Christian viewpoint, and I actually accepted that we could discuss these matters with the understanding that you could grasp the underlying basis for my comments.

Yes we have all sinned.  No we ARE NOT all bad people.  We are all sinners.  We have not all decided to shun light and live despicable lives.  No I shouldn't claim to be good with regard to perfection, but I have every right to claim to be striving to live a good life, and that is in full compliance with being good.  If you are not capable of understanding this, then what's the difference between the observant person and the person who does not strive to live an observant life?

Translation: If your nin-compoop's version of reality is true, then none of us are living good lives and any attempt to enforce a code of ethics or a criminal code is misguided.  Is that your true belief?  You know damn well it isn't.

[Clarification on “depraved”: It doesn't mean being as bad as we can be; just that no part of our being is untouched by sin].

Yet that doesn't pre-empt people from all faiths accomplishing some degree of good works. I would quickly add, though, whatever “degree” that is, it’s vastly overstated. Why?

Oh my God, you're all over the map here.  In one breath we can't use the terms good or bad.  And then you procede to use the terms good or bad.

You're so intent on misdirection, that you parse your words to the point of insanity.

* Some folks do good works and give the credit for those works to God the Holy Spirit working through them – yet Christianity & some of the cults are usually the only ones who acknowledge the Holy Spirit to begin with;
* Some folks do outwardly good works and assume the credit for themselves, stealing God's glory. Theft of God's glory thereby defeats any act otherwise qualifying itself as "good"...
...which leads us directly back to a basic Mormon premise: Temple Mormons (not all Mormons, but temple Mormons) are essentially auditioning for godhood with good works. And with that, I say, that’s a self-defeating proposition. When a boomerang motive underlies good works, those works become selfish, disqualifying in God’s eyes the “goodness” of that work. God sees the heart, not just the outward outcome.

************

Not one person on earth today, holds the keys to heaven.

Well, I would have to say the Bible disagrees with you – including three statements made by Jesus Himself:

* 6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6): My take on this verse: Jesus is the Living Truth – HE is the WAY to heaven.

Okay, then you believe Jesus is on earth today.  Thank you for that clarity.

“Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2 The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice… 7 Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. 9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture. (John 10:1-3, 7-9)

Strike two.

Now, if your objection might be you were emphasizing only those ”on earth today,” may I remind you of the very last words of the book of Matthew?: And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matt. 28:20)

Strike three.

Jesus is not on this earth today.  The Holy Spirit is on this earth today.  Jesus is with us in Spirit.  He is not physically present here.

And Jesus was already ascended when the author of Hebrews began his book by saying: In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son… (Heb. 1:1-2) My take on this verse: IF Jesus is able to communicate “in these last days,” then He Himself is the key to heaven and He hasn’t left us entirely in the dark.

In what time frame was Hebrews written?  What is your understanding of what time frame the author was actually addressing, when they addressed, "...in these last days..."?

My take on it is that you fully understand that this was in the period just after Christ's death, or at the latest the decades shortly after Christ's death comparitively.

Jesus had left the earth.  He had returned to His Heavenly Father.  No He didn't leave us alone.  At one point in the Bible He stated that we should have a relationship with Him, that He had with His Father.

God did not leave Jesus to twist in the wind.  He sent the Holy Spirit to move Him, to convict Him, to mold Him.  When Jesus prayed to God, He did so through the Holy Spirit.  When we pray to Jesus, we pray through the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is not physically on this earth.  The Third Member of the Holy Trinity is.

Now for the rest of that paragraph:

Not one person on earth today, holds the keys to heaven. If we don’t adopt that concept, it means that each religion could strive to judge others and condemn them for all of eternity.

Well, first of all, with the exception of Muslims, Christians & some of the cults, you really don’t have what liberals call “fundamentalists” – people who believe they have the “keys to heaven.” In fact, what we tend to find in other religions besides these, is a definitive lack of absolutes and assurances about anything. Hindus, for example, emphasize more a relativistic tolerance – and part of that is due to a lack of a definitive baseline of what it even means to be a faithful Hindu! The same could be said with Buddhism and other religions.

Yawn.  Seriously, this is just vacant filler.  I didn't demand so many pages, so many words, or so many English letters.  You don't have the keys to the kingdom, and trying to trash others for not being exactly you, is not just childish, it's dangerous.  I reference it this way, because some of you folks want to silence Glenn because he is a Mormon.  You folks are fruit loops.

Now back to Mormonism, Beck’s religion. Until I hear otherwise, I will assume Beck is a “true-believing Mormon.” IOW, he adheres to Joseph Smith as his prophet, and subscribes to what Smith taught. What did Smith teach about “the keys to heaven?” [And the following are Mormon sources -- books I own]

Oh, you own the books?  Well then...

Why are you delving into this?  It's pointless!  Nobody here is making the case that Mormonism is the way to go.  You're arguing that the sky is blue because, when nobody has said the sky is anything but blue.  Your whole post is misdirection, points made on the verge of silliness, and now trying to win out because a reglion I never endorsed is not worth endorsing.

“Just at the time when some men think that I have no right to the keys of the Priesthood—just at that time I have the greatest right.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 364)

Now what does ”the keys of the Priesthood,” which may I remind you, Beck is a member thereof, entail for the Mormon per Smith?

Frankly, I don't really give a damn.  I haven't pushed Mormonism, Hinduism, Catholicism, Christianity, Islam, or any other religion here.  I have addressed the fact that there are good people in all reglions, and you have chosen to execute an attempt to microscopically prove I was wrong to say that.  There is a difference between murders or rapists or terrorist and people who try to treat others by the golden rule.  If your ten year old's level of intellectuality can't grasp that, why are you trying to conduct a discussion with an adult?

“…the Melchizedek Priesthood…is the grand head, and holds the highest authority which pertains to the Priesthood, and the keys of the Kingdom of God in all ages of the world to the latest posterity on the earth; and is THE channel through which ALL KNOWLEDGE, DOCTRINE, THE PLAN OF SALVATION AND EVERY IMPORTANT MATTER IS REVEALED FROM HEAVEN.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp. 166-167)

Once again, here you are trying to argue a point that has nothing to do with our discussion.  It wasn't Glenn trying to judge Christians, that I addressed here.  It was Christians trying to judge Glenn.  I may not believe in Glenn's religion, but I do believe in his rights.  He has every right to address political issues on FoxNews if they wish to hire him and let him do it.

Well, well, well. Here you speak that ”Not one person on earth today, holds the keys to heaven” -- and we Christians certainly don’t claim to be that person – only that we know that Person and that He is alive and is present on earth today (and his first name isn’t “Joseph”). Yet what do true-believing Mormons claim? They claim their very priesthood -- of which Beck is a member – has that…
…”grand head” position
…that ”highest authority”
…holds ”the keys of the Kingdom of God in all ages of the world to the latest posterity on the earth”

I would venture to say that you are not telling the truth, at least to my understanding of the truth.  There has been plenty of judgment on this thread, and it was leveled at a man that has done nothing wrong.  And that judgment was leveled by Christians.  I would submit that it is consummate evil to try to silence someone who isn't even talking about their religion on their program, simply because they are a member of a religion different than your own.  And that is precisely what is taking place here.

There are good and bad people in every religion.  The last I checked, Christianity is a religion.  And doing evil from behind it's skirt, is very vile in accordance with my understanding of evil.

…& is ”THE channel through which ALL KNOWLEDGE, DOCTRINE, THE PLAN OF SALVATION AND EVERY IMPORTANT MATTER IS REVEALED FROM HEAVEN,”

Once again, the doctrine of the Mormon religion is not on trial here.  The deportment of a few self-professed Christians here is.

Glenn Beck and his public personna on his FoxNews program has been challenged based on his religious beliefs, by people who profess to be Christians and have a belief in the Constitution of the United States.

Are you aware that you are siding with people who would like to see Glenn Beck's first ammendment rights abridged?  Are you aware that you are engaging in trying to deny Glenn's right to join or be a member of the religion of his own choosing?

Are these the actions of a person that continues to be a Christian in good standing?

Wouldn’t you call that rather audacious claims that Melchizedek priesthold-holder Beck & his fellow Melchizedek priesthood-holders make? Yes or No? (And if “no” – would that reveal that you’re predisposed to support Beck no matter what allegiances he holds?)

Unlike you, I don't pretend to tell other people that they shouldn't be allowed their full constitutional rights unless they join the religion of my choosing.  I don't post long childish dishonest posts on the forum claiming other people are vile because they haven't jumped their religious ship and climbed on board my own.

While I would rather see Glenn a mainstream Christian, it's not my place to make such judgments.  Glenn is a person of free-will because the God of my fathers granted him that right.

And, I might add, if you after our convo don't "feel" the need to rebut Joseph Smith & his fellow Melchizedek priesthood holders about their claims above...well, that will convey to me that you raising this issue with Christians was a "non-issue" with you to begin with...'cause whatever concerns you might hold about Christian fundamentalism...you don't seem to carry that over when it's multiplied many times over by Melchizedek priesthood-holders!

Ah yes, your moral high ground argument begins to wind down by telling me I am severely flawed.  Who could have seen that coming?

Your premise is that I care about Christian fundamentalism, but don't care about Mormon fundamentalism.

Put down the tube of airplane glue, and listen up.  Glenn Beck is not on this thread trying to demonize Christians.

Christians are on this thread trying to demonize a Mormon.

Are you capable of grasping the difference?

One other “key” Joseph Smith quote: “The conference also declared that the revelations are ‘the foundation of the Church in these last days…showing that the KEYS of the mysteries of the kingdom of our Savior are again entrusted to man…” (Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, p. 194)

Once again, irrelevent to the premise that Glenn Beck is either worthy of having his own show or not.

That is after all what this thread has devolved to, whether you realize it or not.

My opinion on all of Smith’s claims? Jesus told the legalists:
Luke 11:52: ... you have taken away the key to knowledge.

Legalists...

My take on it is that you are unable to understand how that label might apply to you.

Glenn Beck is a good man.  And after reading this post, it's clear to me that as it applies to this subject, you are not.

[DoughtyOne]

Look, I know you have thought these posts out. They make sense to you, and I’m sure some other people are going to agree with you.

After that first post, I’m not convinced it’s productive to continue this discussion.

All I asked for were answers to about five questions. It would have taken five short paragraphs at the most to respond clearly. Instead you focused on the questions instead of the answers and blew out one of the strangest attempts at literacy I’ve seen here. And that was only the first installment.

Perhaps it is my fault, but I don’t see any constructive reason to continue this.

I apologize for not responding to the other posts you took the time to write. In the end, I’m probably doing us both a favor.

Lets address other matters we can agree on. I’m not angry with you or wishing any ill will to you.

[DoughtyOne]

Elsie, I explained why I differed with you on the topic of telling others they were mistaken. I asked you to tell me how you went about it, since you explained that you were convinced it was our duty to tell others they were wrong.

Now you’re changing the subject to one of someone telling you you don’t have the privilege to post something here. Did I express that to you? I merely asked how you would approach people and tell them they were wrong, what you had stated was our duty.

Are you now stating that you are not doing your duty?

Are you now stating that your duty has changed?

Can you clarify this for me?

[DoughtyOne]

Elsie, if you were trying to state that it was my job to be open and honest with people of other religious persuasions, then we’re in agreement.

It’s the idea that I should go out and seek out people so I can tell them that I am right and they are wrong, that didn’t sit well with me.

Your follow-on comments seems to acknowledge pretty much the same thing, and focus on providing clarity if the opportunity presented itself. I fully agree with that.

Thank you.

[Colofornian]

Well, nobody's holding any gun for you to continue; therefore I release you from this discussion. I will address both "you" and "ALL" for anybody following it.

I answered one question on the first post. And the second post wasn't all that long considering I answered 4 questions.

If, on the other hand, you need a heart-of-the-issue toned-down version about your comments, here are my two objections with your comments re-stated with the "fluff" removed. (Feel no obligation to respond; I added "ALL" above 'cause it will least highlight your inconsistencies for all to see)

DoughtyOne's first inconsistency on this thread:
* He first tells us in post #459 what the "human condition" is about foibles applying to us "ALL"...with that, I agree. But then on post #507, he shifts gears and starts discussing all of the "good" Muslims, the "good" Hindus, and other "good" religionists. (I merely pointed out to you DoughtyOne that questioned the person who assumed that "goodness" resides in man)

DoughtyOne's second possible/potential inconsistency:

DoughtyOne indicated in post #507 that he's bothered by a seeming presumption that "...one person on earth today, holds the keys to heaven."

Perhaps it was just a mere time factor in responding to my concern -- that he didn't want to wade through a long post. Perfectly understandable.

My Q was: If it really bothers him that somebody or a group of somebodies portend to "hold the keys to heaven," wouldn't he then let others know besides me/us? You know, especially those exact people who portend to hold those keys to heaven?

Don't you all agree?

So if DoughtyOne doesn't "do anything" with the following quote -- like tell us or tell Lds leaders or tell Mormons or tell people like Beck -- that this ensuing quote bothers him equally as well...then I would deem that hypocritical on his part.

The quote? I'll cite it again (&..as you all read it...keep in mind that Beck says he is a member of this very "Melchizedek Priesthood):

“…the Melchizedek Priesthood…is the grand head, and holds the highest authority which pertains to the Priesthood, and the keys of the Kingdom of God in all ages of the world to the latest posterity on the earth; and is THE channel through which ALL KNOWLEDGE, DOCTRINE, THE PLAN OF SALVATION AND EVERY IMPORTANT MATTER IS REVEALED FROM HEAVEN.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp. 166-167)

So there ya go. DoughtyOne spoke of his objection that ”Not one person on earth today, holds the keys to heaven” -- Yet what do true-believing Mormons claim? They claim their very priesthood -- of which Beck is a member – has that…
…”grand head” position
…that ”highest authority”
…holds ”the keys of the Kingdom of God in all ages of the world to the latest posterity on the earth”
…& is ”THE channel through which ALL KNOWLEDGE, DOCTRINE, THE PLAN OF SALVATION AND EVERY IMPORTANT MATTER IS REVEALED FROM HEAVEN,”

Hmmm...do I detect someone who doesn't know how to spray his objections evenly among whom they should fall?
Is this DoughtyOne's failure to be consistent in his objections?

[DoughtyOne]

I will address both "you" and "ALL" for anybody following it.

That's fine. Have a good time.

[surfer]

http://www.watchglennbeck.com/

And watch exactly did he get wrong?

[svcw]

Do you know if Beck does transcripts of his shows? I looked on the link but didn’t find any. I am more than happy to read the transcript

[surfer]

I don’t know...I will try to find out though. This episode 2/24 is one of the most important he has ever done.

[svcw]

Thanks

[MHGinTN]

Don't know about transcripts, but the tv replays are all available at http://watchglennbeck.com

[Elsie]

Yes we have all sinned. No we ARE NOT all bad people. We are all sinners.

So; what's the Answer to man's problem?

[Elsie]

Are you now stating that you are not doing your duty?

Are you now stating that your duty has changed?

Can you clarify this for me?

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I respond to each person I come in contact with EXACTLY the same; every time.

I had made the assumption that you did not interact with ANYONE about their religious status, and responded by showing Scripture that is is, indeed, our 'job, duty, requirement' to explain, cajole, teach, rebuke others about Christ and His salvation.

[Elsie]

Elsie, if you were trying to state that it was my job to be open and honest with people of other religious persuasions, then we’re in agreement.

Ah!

I see we may be on the same page after all.

[DoughtyOne]

Elsie..., I have posted enough on this thread for you to know what my thoughts on this are. I’m not going to engage in juvenile questions and answers with you.

[DoughtyOne]

Elsie, it's almost pointless to communicate with you and I must say, others here are just about as pointless to try to dialogue with.

Here was my comment that you keyed in on in post 459.

I do not see Mormons as evil.  I believe they are mistaken.  I have differences of opinion with Christian churches other than my own.  It is not my place to set them straight.  If they are trying to live a moral life, treat their families and neighbors by the golden rule, I respect them for it.

If the subject comes up, I will explain what my beliefs are, and listen to theirs.  That's what my duty is as a Christian IMO.

Taking the red part out of context, here is your response in post 488.  Read this long post of yours with all those references and realize I had provided all the information you needed to know precisely where I stood on the issue of witnessing, and that you and I basically had similar views on the subject.  While you're at it, read posts 489 and 490.  Your uncalled-for post 488 wasn't even enough on the subject.  You had to embellish further.  Why did we need to converse back and forth on the subject until you admitted in post 538, that we were on the same page?

Can you see why this process might be annoying to me, and why similar processes with others might annoy them as well?

We are both Christians.  We probably don't see eye to eye on every doctrinal point, but you went unnecessarily adversarial on me from the get-go.  How many people do you expect to convert with this type of tactic?

I'm not angry with you, but it is upsetting to see self-professed Christians act like this.  I'm your ally, and I can only imagine what a non-Christian would make of the type of tactics you have used here.

Please don't do this type of thing.  It does not represent us well, and you should be able to understand that, if you consider yourself capable of reasoning with others on these important matters.