Posted on 06/06/2010 10:18:56 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
Glenn Beck is one of the most popular political commentators in the United States. Between his TV show, and nationally syndicated talk-radio show, Beck reaches millions of Americans every day with his commentary about politics.
Glenn Beck is also a convert to the Mormon faith, joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1999 along with his wife and children. If you do one thing on this site, be sure to watch the video where he talks about his conversion story in more detail!
Beck cites the influence of many Mormon friends throughout his life as one of the primary reasons he joined the Mormon Church. His wife, Tania, also told Glenn that she wanted them to share a faith before they were married. At the time, neither Tania nor Glenn were active in any faith, despite Glenn’s upbringing in the Catholic Church. At that point, Glenn and Tania went on a “church tour” to find the faith that they could share as a family.
An old friend, Pat Gray, invited Beck to visit the Mormon Church. Despite hesitations, Glenn visited soon after, resulting in he and the family immediately becoming interested. However, Beck struggled with the decision to join the Church—telling God he didn’t want to be a “Mormon”, as he describes it. After earnest study and prayer, Glenn knew that he wanted to be baptized and requested that his best friend Pat Gray baptize him.
CINO's count brain cells? Who would believe them?
Now, when I hear Beck speak of "God", I cringe. Which God? The "god" that mormons believe was once a man on planet Kolob?...or one of the "gods" that mormons believe mortal men can become if they follow the mormon cult? What is it Beck?
Very true. Instead of staying with the Church that Jesus founded, Beck goes and joins a cult that Joe Smith dreamed-up. Intensely sad.
Q: How do you know the Catholic church is the true church?
A: You ask the Catholic church.
RESPONSE: LOL
You wrote:
“Q: How do you know the Catholic church is the true church?”
I would respond this way:
1) How many groups even make a claim to being the true Church?
Only some.
2) How many of those groups are even more than 500 years old?
Really only a few. None of them are contiguous bodies in Protestantism. All Protestant sects are recent, man made sects.
3) Since all Protestant sects are immediately out of the running, no one should be a Protestant. That right there leaves you with only a few bodies of believers. One of them is the Catholic Church. Using the same sort of deductive reasoning you can easily narrow it down to the Catholic Church. In any case, all Protestant sects are left far behind.
You assume longevity = authenticity.
You wrote:
“You assume longevity = authenticity.”
Nope. Not unexpectedly you actually took what I said backwards. It is not longevity, but origins. If a group is only 500 years old, I am not lauding it’s longevity. I am criticizing its origins. Christianity was founded 2,000 years ago. The true Church, therefore, must have the same origin in time. Anything less is simply not good enough.
You can’t date the papacy to the time of the early church. Scripture doesn’t validate it. And if you rely on church authority to do so, you’re no better than the Mormon relying on Joseph Smith. Circular reasoning.
I do appreciate the dialog. At least you hang in there.
But Beck says it doesn’t matter what you or I believe anyway as long as we hold to “eternal principles” (whatever those are) and we don’t blow each other up.
Don’t feel slighted if I don’t respond anytime soon. I haven’t slept in two days and I have to study Greek vocabulary for class in the morning.
You wrote:
“You can’t date the papacy to the time of the early church.”
Yes, you can.
” Scripture doesn’t validate it.”
Yes, it does.
“And if you rely on church authority to do so, you’re no better than the Mormon relying on Joseph Smith. Circular reasoning.”
No. I used no “church authority” whatsoever. Can you show me in my posts where I did?
“I do appreciate the dialog. At least you hang in there.”
I don’t hang in there - I stated a simple logical truth: a sect founded less than 500 years ago cannot be from God.
“But Beck says it doesn’t matter what you or I believe anyway as long as we hold to “eternal principles” (whatever those are) and we don’t blow each other up.”
What Beck says is irrelevant on this issue.
“Don’t feel slighted if I don’t respond anytime soon. I haven’t slept in two days and I have to study Greek vocabulary for class in the morning.”
Have fun. Greek is good to know.
Yes, you can.
I'm sure you'll get right on that.
” Scripture doesn’t validate it.”
Yes, it does.
This will be a tired argument. You'll quote the standard passages. I'll disagree with your intepretation. We both know how that will play out. Boring...
“And if you rely on church authority to do so, you’re no better than the Mormon relying on Joseph Smith. Circular reasoning.”
No. I used no “church authority” whatsoever. Can you show me in my posts where I did?
I never said you did appeal to "church authority" hence the qualifier "if". I just pre-empted you before you did.
“I do appreciate the dialog. At least you hang in there.”
I don’t hang in there - I stated a simple logical truth: a sect founded less than 500 years ago cannot be from God.
And I reject your presupposition that Protestantism is the point. God has always had a remnant, an elect from the early church forward and the way we recognize the true church is by the Spirit of Truth and adherence to the apostles' doctrine. Rome has neither of those.
“But Beck says it doesn’t matter what you or I believe anyway as long as we hold to “eternal principles” (whatever those are) and we don’t blow each other up.”
What Beck says is irrelevant on this issue.
Actually, no, it's completely relevant as that was the subject of the thread before you tried to turn it into a broadside against Protestants lumping them together with cultists. I would argue that many mystical superstitious wild-eyed Catholics have more in common with the LDS than Reformed Biblical Christians.
At any rate, this is now a Glenn Beck caucus thread and any attempt to hijack it by RCs will be reported.
“Don’t feel slighted if I don’t respond anytime soon. I haven’t slept in two days and I have to study Greek vocabulary for class in the morning.”
Have fun. Greek is good to know.
But only if we give greater authority to it than councils and traditions of men.
BTW, which Roman Catholic church is the true church: Vatican II or pre-Vatican II?
You wrote:
“I’m sure you’ll get right on that.”
Nope. It’s been done already many times.
“This will be a tired argument. You’ll quote the standard passages. I’ll disagree with your intepretation. We both know how that will play out. Boring...”
Then ask yourself this: if your interpretations only originate 500 years ago, why believe them?
“I never said you did appeal to “church authority” hence the qualifier “if”. I just pre-empted you before you did.”
How can you pre-empt someone who wasn’t going to do what you assumed?
“And I reject your presupposition that Protestantism is the point.”
It must be part of the point because that’s what you are using to base your opinions.
“God has always had a remnant, an elect from the early church forward and the way we recognize the true church is by the Spirit of Truth and adherence to the apostles’ doctrine. Rome has neither of those.”
Rome is a city. The Catholic Church only has the full Apostles’ teaching while Protestantism has almost none of it.
“Actually, no, it’s completely relevant as that was the subject of the thread before you tried to turn it into a broadside against Protestants lumping them together with cultists.”
If you believe that only Beck is relevant then should not have replied to me in the first place.
“I would argue that many mystical superstitious wild-eyed Catholics have more in common with the LDS than Reformed Biblical Christians.”
And that would be an irrelevant point to say the least. Also, it just isn’t true.
“At any rate, this is now a Glenn Beck caucus thread and any attempt to hijack it by RCs will be reported.”
Okay, go ahead and report it. If I am just responding to your posts, I don’t see what the problem would be.
“But only if we give greater authority to it than councils and traditions of men.”
You’re bringing up Church authority after trying to pre-empt me from doing it when I had no intention of doing it?
“BTW, which Roman Catholic church is the true church: Vatican II or pre-Vatican II?”
They’re one in the same - and I would know since my parish is a perfect example of that truth.
"How can you pre-empt someone who wasn’t going to do what you assumed?"
It's just a common device to answer possible objections, is it not?
“And I reject your presupposition that Protestantism is the point.”
It must be part of the point because that’s what you are using to base your opinions.
No I'm not. How so? My point was about so-called "origins" and longevity.
Okay, go ahead and report it. If I am just responding to your posts, I don’t see what the problem would be.
The caucus thing was just a joke. I'm sure it won't be lost on any Reformed poster on FR.
“But only if we give greater authority to it than councils and traditions of men.”
You’re bringing up Church authority after trying to pre-empt me from doing it when I had no intention of doing it?
I'm not talking about you specifically now. And it would be disingenuous for you to argue that you don't believe church tradition and papal pronouncements have the same weight as Scripture. Do you believe you can interpret Scripture for yourself or do you need the Vatican to interpret it for you?
“BTW, which Roman Catholic church is the true church: Vatican II or pre-Vatican II?”
They’re one in the same - and I would know since my parish is a perfect example of that truth.
Okay, so are Catholics who reject Vatican II still Catholic?
You wrote:
“I’m not talking about you specifically now. And it would be disingenuous for you to argue that you don’t believe church tradition and papal pronouncements have the same weight as Scripture. Do you believe you can interpret Scripture for yourself or do you need the Vatican to interpret it for you?”
Of course I can interpret scripture for myself but I’m an orthodox Christian and like any orthodox Christian I interpret scripture within the Church and not outside it.
“Okay, so are Catholics who reject Vatican II still Catholic?”
Those who reject Vatican II have already placed themselves outside communion with the Church for other reasons - usually schism. Also, there are no anathemas attached to Vatican II.
Now back to the issue: Why belong to a Protestant sect when logic would dictate that all Protestant sects are man made and not from God?
“Either the LDS are right or the Catholics are, the Protestants don’t have a leg to stand on”?
Oh, how I hate to interject myself into these threads... but the above quote is from A CATHOLIC SCHOLAR, not a Latter-day Saint, but facts never were the strong suit for these threads.
“One day he said to me: “You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days.”
Carry on.
The "Catholic" who supposedly said this is never sourced. This is nothing more than a Mormon urban legend - some untruth used to strengthen the testimony of Mormons.
“A marvelous work and a Wonder” page 3. Quoted, IIRC by Orson F. Whitney. Go look it up if you please, and have a good day.
P.S. If you want his name, here you are:
The Catholic theologian’s name is John A. Reiner. The source is Orson F. Whitney’s autobiography, Through Memory’s Halls: The Life Story of Orson F. Whitney, as Told by Himself (Independence, MO: Zion’s Printing and Publishing Company, 1930), 222-23.
I’ll forgive your presumptuous posts since obviously ten seconds of searching were beyond your capacity at the moment, or perhaps it simply didn’t suit your ad hominem agenda.
That should be “M.” not “A.” for the middle name. And here’s more information on the man, with your newspaper reference:
Special to the NY Times, NEWPORT, February 27, 1901–PROF GRIGGS CORRECTED. Member of the Audience Speaks Out at a Brooklyn Institute Lecture. The tongues of members of the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences were merrily yesterday over an incident which caused a flurry at the close of a lecture under the auspices of the institute on Tuesday night. The lecture was given by Prof. Edward Howard Griggs, his subject being- ” Martin Luther.” As Prof. Griggs was about to leave the platform a man who sat in the centre of the hall arose and protested against the introduction by the lecturer of a” letter on indulgences, (Archbishop Alvord’s,) which he denounced as a forgery. The man, it was afterward learned, was Dr. John M. Reiner, a professor in a college at Wayne, Penn. It is said that he was formerly a Lutheran minister, but is now a convert to Catholicism. His protest, which caused a stir, was received by a part of the audience with applause. Prof. Griggs did not reply to Dr. Reiner. The latter, when he left the hall, was followed by a number of people who sympathized with his protest, and he held a sort of reception outside. Dr. Reiner was accompanied by a party of friends, among whom, it was said, were two local Catholic clergymen.
The Catholics have never used this statement in publication. In fact neither did John M. Reiner. Orson F. Whitney who did memorialize a supposed "conversation" might be on par with the Mormon apostle Paul H. Dunn as far as you and I know.
It is a Mormon saying. Prove otherwise. Show me from a source other than Mormon that a Catholic said it.
This exclusion of Protestants by creating a Catholic or Mormon dualism is pretty old hat for the Mormons. They were preaching it in church organs from the late 1830s on. It sounds like they were delighted to have a seceding Protestant agree with them. http://bycommonconsent.com/2008/01/16/a-footnote-to-the-strength-of-the-mormon-position/"
Mormonism is so circular - they can't even see how lame it is to fall back on the statement of a Protestant turned Catholic who STAYED Catholic from over 110 years ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.