Glenn Beck Invites Readers To Submit Questions For Tonight'S Blazetv Episode On The Mormon Faith

[Matthew J. Tandy]

IMPORTANT: Any attempts to derail this thread by discussing Beck's politics, your personal distaste for him, etc is not acceptable for this thread. Take it elsewhere or be removed from it. This is purely about:

I just saw this and thought it might be of interest on several levels. I know it's more news than discussion right now, but I ask that it remain in this forum for now. I expect the results will become discussion worthy.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/beck-invites-you-to-submit-questions-for-tonights-blazetv-episode-on-the-mormon-faith/

This will be interesting for several reasons:

1) Glenn Beck is a convert of roughly a decade. It will be good to hear his testimony.

2) Beck used to, and may still, have a rudimentary understanding of issues such as Book of Mormon geography, translation, polygamy, and more. In the past he helped promote the Heartland symposiums. Since then though he has been to Jerusalem, read more, studied more, etc. It will be interesting to see his answers.

3) No matter his answers, he is a bit of a missionary to conservatives. Many conservative Baptists, evangelics, Catholics, etc have GREATLY softened their views of Mormons in general and become more involved in cross-faith efforts because of Beck and his example of service and inclusion of other Christians and Jews. How he handles tonight can have a lasting effect on how others perceive us in those communities.

4) Beck rarely discusses specifics of the Church in historical terms, just in terms of living the gospel of Christ. This will be a first for his viewing audience.

5) I doubt he knows about the Spaulding theories, scriptural disputes, polyandry, etc. I could be wrong. I like him and think he is at heart a great guy. But considering how busy he is, I just don't see this. On the plus side, his friend and co-host Pat is I believe a life-long member and is who brought Glenn into the church, so Pat may have more experience handling those issues. Nonetheless, this may be an event where Glenn is confronted with issues he is not currently aware of, thus leading to the possibility of shaken faith syndrome. I doubt it, but it's something to follow.

[GingerRed]

Some of those 'cult' comments are too funny!!

[Scott Lloyd]

Whatever some may think about Beck, he is a good communicator and his faith seems to be solid. I'm hoping and expecting he will acquit himself well and perhaps foster a better understanding of Mormonism among the public.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

Oh dear! Where will Glenn start? Our own planets. Following Joseph instead of Jesus. Being a CULT!!!

[oMtonic]

I thought he did very well (and much better than I could have)!

[The Nehor]

Post preemptively removed to avoid violating rules in OP about the lovely and cuddly Beck.

[Judd]

I would assume Glenn Beck probably has more familiarity with some of those issues than he's getting credit for (though perhaps not intimately familiar -- though who is?). He tends to put a lot of time into investigating things he's interested in and, while he may have wildly different conclusions and theories than most would have, I believe he likely would have acquainted himself at least in some regard with those issues. Just my opinion. In any case, I don't think these issues are in any way 'deep' issues that take some kind of digging to get to and I think it plays into the pridefuly derogatory theories of "chapel Mormons" and "Internet Mormons".

[Avatar4321]

I thought his info on plural marriage was a bit off. But other than that it was a relatively good show.

[BCSpace]

No matter his answers, he is a bit of a missionary to conservatives. Many conservative Baptists, evangelics, Catholics, etc have GREATLY softened their views of Mormons in general and become more involved in cross-faith efforts because of Beck and his example of service and inclusion of other Christians and Jews. How he handles tonight can have a lasting effect on how others perceive us in those communities.

After having heard him speak in one of our Stake firesides, I'd have to agree. He is pretty bold about us being the true Church though of course he was preaching to the choir. Otherwise, I don't have much experience listening to him as I already have my favorite pundits.

[David T]

I thought his info on plural marriage was a bit off. But other than that it was a relatively good show.

There's video of his presentations here: http://www.theblaze....ple-activities/

His Polygamy explanation is embarrassingly off and inaccurate. His discussion of the Temple is also a bit disengenious. How unfortunate.

While some good things were said and presented over all, I think it was quite the missed opportunity.

Edited September 7, 2012 by David T

[USU78]

His discussion of the Temple is also a bit disengenious. How unfortunate.

Why the value judgment? Somebody can be honestly mistaken without being a liar or playing games.

[David T]

Why the value judgment? Somebody can be honestly mistaken without being a liar or playing games.

When it comes to polygamy, I think it's possible he hasn't felt the need to dig into it, but has found the common explanation sufficient enough. I don't think he's being intentionally decietful in this.

In his discussion of the Temple, however, having experienced it himself, his answers are not accurate, and are definitely misleading.

[Tacenda]

Why the value judgment? Somebody can be honestly mistaken without being a liar or playing games.

Just as his reasons for polygamy. It was much more than taking care of the widows or as he put it, the "old schoolmarm". He doesn't realize we are still practicing polygamy in the temple as far as men still keeping their first wife even though she's passed on, we still believe in it in the eternities. I'm surprised at the lack of knowledge he has on this. I think everything in our church stems on that fact. To become Gods and Godesses, it may entail polygamy for the plain fact that there is alot of spirit babies that need to be born. And there will most likely be more women than men that are worthy in every other aspect to go to the highest level of the CK but need that marriage first. Not that I'm excited by any of this, it's a hurdle for me to like it.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Tacenda

[David T]

He doesn't realize we are still practicing polygamy in the temple as far as men still keeping their first wife even though she's passed on, we still believe in it in the eternities. I'm surprised at the lack of knowledge he has on this. I think everything in our church stems on that fact. To become Gods and Godesses, it may entail polygamy for the plain fact that there is alot of spirit babies that need to be born. And there will most likely be more women than men that are worthy in every other aspect to go to the highest level of the CK but need that marriage first. Not that I'm excited by any of this, it's a hurdle for me like it.

Tacenda, your explanation of this matter is just as unhelpful and filled with assumptions as Beck's. But I don't hold that up to disingenuousness, either.

Then again, I don't currently hold to the idea of sexually reproduced 'spirit babies' either.

Edited September 7, 2012 by David T

[USU78]

Just as his reasons for polygamy. It was much more than taking care of the widows or as he put it, the "old schoolmarm". He doesn't realize we are still practicing polygamy in the temple as far as men still keeping their first wife even though she's passed on, we still believe in it in the eternities. I'm surprised at the lack of knowledge he has on this. I think everything in our church stems on that fact. To become Gods and Godesses, it may entail polygamy for the plain fact that there is alot of spirit babies that need to be born. And there will most likely be more women than men that are worthy in every other aspect to go to the highest level of the CK but need that marriage first. Not that I'm excited by any of this, it's a hurdle for me like it.

Polygamy, for purposes of the question asked, means having more than one spouse presently . . . not potentially more than one spouse in the hereafter.

Besides, there's a good cause to be made (and has been made) for there being no polygyny in the hereafter.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda, your explanation of this matter is just as unhelpful and filled with assumptions as Beck's. But I don't hold that up to disingenuousness, either.

Then again, I don't currently hold to the idea of sexually reproduced 'spirit babies' either.

Just throw out the old doctrine and in with the new. Just as Beck has done, if only it were true.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Tacenda

[David T]

Just through out the old doctrine and in with the new. Just as Beck has done, if only it were true.

Joseph Smith never taught Spirit Babies. His view was along the line of adoptionism - God found eternal intelligences, gathered them, adopted them, and guided them.

The "Eternal Intelligences were later born through Spirit Birth" was an attempt by B.H. Roberts to combine Joseph's teachings with Brigham Young and the Pratts' contradicting concepts of the origin of the Spirit.

[swfarnsworth]

To become Gods and Godesses, it may entail polygamy for the plain fact that there is alot of spirit babies that need to be born.

For lack of a better wording, what if there is no gestation period?

[Areabird]

I wish he would have done more digging on polygamy. He was way off in his understanding, and since he was promoting this presentation nationwide and so many people trust him, it will just cause more confusion for people later. I wouldn't be surprised to see him dig into this more as folks set him straight. Who knows, he could be the polarizing figure in Mormonism who gets these 'periphery' questions in front of mainstream Mormons. Then we can really understand where we have come from, where we are, and have a great discussion on where we need to go.

[Scott Barton]

Besides, there's a good cause to be made (and has been made) for there being no polygyny in the hereafter.

First I'm hearing of this. Is there a discussion of this you could point me to? Thanks.

[ERayR]

It's nice that all the "experts" on the board can find fault with Brother Beck. I think if any of us had done what he did the experts would be armchair quarterbacking the performance. I know that there are areas that I disagree with most of you and areas you disagree with me. I thought he took on a huge and thankless task and did well at it.

Did any notice the advice he said he got from what I assume was a GA when he asked for advice in what to do with what he felt was his calling. It was: Don't let any man tell you how to do it. It is your calling. Go to the source in prayer and get your guidance from him.

Edited September 9, 2012 by ERayR

[Tacenda]

It's nice that all the "experts" on the board can find fault with Brother Beck. I think if any of us had done what he did the experts would be armchair quarterbacking the performance. I know that there are areas that I disagree with most of you and areas you disagree with me. I thought he took on a huge and thankless task and did well at it.

Did any notice the advice he said he got from what I assume was a GA when he asked for advice in what to do with what he felt was his calling. It was: Don't let any man tell you how to do it. It is your calling. Go to the source in prayer and get your guidance from him.

I don't have much of a problem with how he handled speaking of things publicly but do if he's not aware of his religions history. And no one say they haven't been told to read our history atleast once in their lives. Polygamy was not done to take care of the widows. You don't need to marry them in order to take care of them.

[ERayR]

I don't have much of a problem with how he handled speaking of things publicly but do if he's not aware of his religions history. And no one say they haven't been told to read our history atleast once in their lives. Polygamy was not done to take care of the widows. You don't need to marry them in order to take care of them.

How would you have handled that one?

[Vance]

Let's not judge a man on the intentions of his heart, but rather on things less meaningful.

Like the way Jesus would do it.

/S

[DavidB]

Ugh, that's all the Church needs public figures making idiotic claims about the Church.

How would I handle a polygamy question, same way the Church handles difficult questionsto wit "It is not known precisely why"

Edited September 10, 2012 by DavidB