Avatar4321 Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 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.It's good advice.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 Oh dear! Where will Glenn start? Our own planets. Following Joseph instead of Jesus. Being a CULT!!!I worry when a celebrity is they to define any religion.
happy Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 Besides, there's a good cause to be made (and has been made) for there being no polygyny in the hereafter.Sure, if you ignore huge doctrines, including 132 and affirmations by several prophets, I guess you can try to imagine that. It's a hard stretch.
Mark Beesley Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 Does anyone else, besides me, get a little nervous when someone like Glenn Beck describes what he is doing as "his calling?" I've watched his show for a total of about 5 minutes and had to turn it off because of his contentious spirit. How he describes Mormonism holds zero interest for me.
Tacenda Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) How would you have handled that one?If you read my post, I said I didn't have a problem with what he did publicly with the subject of polygamy, it would be like opening a can of worms, but what I do have a problem with is if he actually believes what he said. As a member I would think he'd be better informed than that. And the LDS were persecuted somewhat because of polygamy. Atleast it got the ball rolling. Especially after William Law started the printing press and printed the Nauvoo Expositer and was only able to put in one article about JS's polygamy, before it was destroyed by the Nauvoo City Council. http://en.wikipedia....tter_Day_Saints) Edited September 10, 2012 by Tacenda
happy Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 If you read my post, I said I didn't have a problem with what he did publicly with the subject of polygamy, it would be like opening a can of worms, but what I do have a problem with is if he actually believes what he said. As a member I would think he'd be better informed than that. And the LDS were persecuted somewhat because of polygamy. Atleast it got the ball rolling. Especially after William Law started the printing press and printed the Nauvoo Expositer and was only able to put in one article about JS's polygamy, before it was destroyed by the Nauvoo City Council. http://en.wikipedia....tter_Day_Saints)But he said that Polygamy was against our doctrine and was against what the doctrine stands for. That really could bite the Church on the rear. Critics will claim it another example of hiding the truth of LDS beliefs.
Matthew J. Tandy Posted September 10, 2012 Author Posted September 10, 2012 Cursor: You have violated several rules of this thread, the board, and several other aspects of common decency. Look to the mote in your own eye.Back on Topic:Beck's polygamy answer was unfortunate. The answer he provided has been heard many times, but is not accurate, or at least not the founding cause to our knowledge. Could it have been a factor in God's foresight? Possibly, but D&C 132 provides better context of the purpose. Still, he handled it well, and the show as a whole went well. For those saying why they should care, go back and read my original post that started the thread. Whether you like him or not is irrelevant. A very large and vocal segment of a traditionally anti-Mormon group do like him. And what he says has ripples among their congregants. As for "his calling", I think it is fantastic he is open about it. I don't get nervous at all about it. Put yourself in his shoes: He is by all accounts a faithful and active temple-worthy member who is charitable, loves God, his family, and his country. Who cares that politically he sees things differently? Whatever the way he got to where he is, he has a pretty big microphone now. And he just used that microphone to further the work of God. For that hour he didn't spread politics. He talked God. And the restored Gospel. To more people than the church has members. That is pretty big. Good on him for following the promptings of the spirit as he understands it.
Verum Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 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.Why should we give this guy a pass? He is either completely ignorant to the origins of polygamy and how /why it was practiced or is being deliberately dishonest. It's not like this was a impromptu question and answer session in which one could excuse him for not being able to recall certain facts. But this was entire episode that involved planning, researching, and scripting of to discuss these issues, and he was completely off-base on polygamy on so many levels. While I think it ultimately this could soften the evangelical perspective or Mormonism, I don't think dishonestly or ignorance in reporting justifies the means.
Mark Beesley Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 As for "his calling", I think it is fantastic he is open about it. I don't get nervous at all about it. Put yourself in his shoes: He is by all accounts a faithful and active temple-worthy member who is charitable, loves God, his family, and his country. Who cares that politically he sees things differently? Whatever the way he got to where he is, he has a pretty big microphone now. And he just used that microphone to further the work of God. For that hour he didn't spread politics. He talked God. And the restored Gospel. To more people than the church has members. That is pretty big. Good on him for following the promptings of the spirit as he understands it.We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy and the laying on of hands, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
DavidB Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 Joseph Smith's polygamy and that of those till 1890 was not about "raising seed" unto God.
Ares Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 Clean up on aisle three...Political and personal comments have been deleted. Please stay on topic.
DavidB Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 This comment "shows about as much understanding of the principle as Rob Bowman and others show about their understanding of the Temple."CFR, That Joseph Smith's polygamy was about raising seed unto God.CFR, That polygamy practiced by the LDS till the membership of the Church agreed to abandon polygamy was about raising seed unto God.CFR, That Section 132 mentions easing seed unto God.All you have is one verse from the Book of Mormon which does not set forth a universal or all encompassing principle. The only correct answer about why Joseph Smith and others practiced polygamy is because We, the LDS believe God commanded it and He gave His reasoning for it in Section 132
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) He talked God. And the restored Gospel. To more people than the church has members. That is pretty big. Good on him for following the promptings of the spirit as he understands it.\I was going to say something a little along these lines. But I tend to get too into so I limited myself. I think this is a really big point that is worth mentioning and realizing. I think what he is doing will impact the church in mostly a positive way. I really applaud his efforts. Esp his "Restoring Love" event he did with all of the food trucks and donations. That thing is huge. I dare say that Glenn is doing more for the church and the message of God than most of us on the board, probably combined. Edited September 10, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
happy Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 All you have is one verse from the Book of Mormon which does not set forth a universal or all encompassing principle.The only correct answer about why Joseph Smith and others practiced polygamy is because We, the LDS believe God commanded it and He gave His reasoning for it in Section 132Most claim that about Baptisms for the Dead.
Mark Beesley Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 CFR, That Joseph Smith's polygamy was about raising seed unto God.Jacob 2:30For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.I would suggest that raising up seed unto God has a far broader meaning that simply sexual procreation.CFR, That polygamy practiced by the LDS till the membership of the Church agreed to abandon polygamy was about raising seed unto God.DittoCFR, That Section 132 mentions raising seed unto God.Take a look at verses 30-34.All you have is one verse from the Book of Mormon which does not set forth a universal or all encompassing principle.Right, all I have is the Word of God saying that unless He command us to practice plural marriage to raise seed up Him, we shall not practice plural marriage. Looks pretty universal and all-compassing to me. Read the verse again:30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.The Lord gives ONE reason why He will command His people to practice plural marriage: to raise up seed to Him. He doesn't seem to leave the door open for other reasons.The only correct answer about why Joseph Smith and others practiced polygamy is because We, the LDS believe God commanded it and He gave His reasoning for it in Section 132CFR that Section 132 gives a reason for plural marriage other than raising up seed unto God.Again, you may want to adopt a more expansive view of what the term raising up seed unto God means.
KevinG Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) I personally think Joseph's polygamy and subsequent polygamy was about organizing a royal priesthood into an eternal family unit and as the church grew and more righteous priesthood holders were available the sealing were encouraged to be done in family lines. In this sense it is raising up seed unto God (but not necessarily on this earth in all cases).That is my opinion based on doctrine, study of contemporary journals and some good old prayer and pondering.While the notion of not enough available priesthood holders around makes for a simple explanation I think that is more of a faith promoting notion than the nitty gritty fact about polygamy. Edited September 10, 2012 by KevinG 2
ERayR Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy and the laying on of hands, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.He has not assumed any official calling, which is what that article of faith refers to. He is referring to his personal life calling. Were you called by the laying on of hands for your life's work?
Mark Beesley Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 He has not assumed any official calling, which is what that article of faith refers to. He is referring to his personal life calling. Were you called by the laying on of hands for your life's work?I was responding to Matthew's comment which I read as equating his calling with using his big microphone for preaching the Gospel. It's all tongue-in-cheek anyway Ray. I can't take Beck seriously.
ERayR Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) I was responding to Matthew's comment which I read as equating his calling with using his big microphone for preaching the Gospel. It's all tongue-in-cheek anyway Ray. I can't take Beck seriously.No problem. I must say I am not an avid listener. However, every member a missionary. If I am going somewhere in the car and he is on I will listen. Edited September 10, 2012 by ERayR
Mark Beesley Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 I personally think Joseph's polygamy and subsequent polygamy was about organizing a royal priesthood into an eternal family unit and as the church grew and more righteous priesthood holders were available the sealing were encouraged to be done in family lines. In this sense it is raising up seed unto God (but not necessarily on this earth in all cases).That is my opinion based on doctrine, study of contemporary journals and some good old prayer and pondering.While the notion of not enough available priesthood holders around makes for a simple explanation I think that is more of a faith promoting notion than the nitty gritty fact about polygamy.Good post. 1
DavidB Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) While the notion of not enough available priesthood holders around makes for a simple explanation I think that is more of a faith promoting notion than the nitty gritty fact about polygamy.Marriage and with that a potential sexual relationship are not necessary in terms of Priesthood holders and woman without a Priesthood holder in the home. Thus the "lack of available priesthood holders" is not very faith promoting at all, unless one ignores the fact that marriage and a sexual relationship are not necessary. Especially considering that as many or some of the plural marriages involved separate distant houses. Edited September 10, 2012 by DavidB
DavidB Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) Jacob 2:30I would suggest that raising up seed unto God has a far broader meaning that simply sexual procreation.DittoTake a look at verses 30-34.Right, all I have is the Word of God saying that unless He command us to practice plural marriage to raise seed up Him, we shall not practice plural marriage. Looks pretty universal and all-compassing to me. Read the verse again:The Lord gives ONE reason why He will command His people to practice plural marriage: to raise up seed to Him. He doesn't seem to leave the door open for other reasons.CFR that Section 132 gives a reason for plural marriage other than raising up seed unto God.Again, you may want to adopt a more expansive view of what the term raising up seed unto God means.Thanks for taking the time, I disagree with your opinion on the matter. There is no Official Church answer to the "why" of polygamy, and to offer anything is meer speculation.As for the verse from Jacob, it is fine that you think it is the ONLY reason God would ever command polygamy, but the such is not the case.Section 132:30 - 34 do not speak of "raising seed unto God", those verses speak of Abraham having innumerable seed. Edited September 10, 2012 by DavidB
Calm Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) As for "his calling", I think it is fantastic he is open about it.Given the connotation of "calling" in the LDS culture (for example, Mark's quote) of authoritative endorsement, it does bother me that he uses that term to describe his personal passion/commitment.Perhaps if I had a more Protestant view of the term it would be different. I believe I have been inspired at times to pursue certain activities to help others or promote a certain POV because of the impact it might have on others' lives, but I would never used the term "called" even when it comes to 'member missionary' work to describe that personal inspiration because I equate it with holding a position in the Church, no matter how minor or common, because of being called by those in authority.I assume he is comfortable using the term due to being a convert to the Church culture and thus having a broader view of the term, I don't see it as an attempt by him to somehow give his work more of a spiritual authority, just to describe his personal motivation to get involved in such an endeavour.On a side note, if he begins to talk politics, I will get up and walk out of the room if I have a choice (there was only one occasion I didn't have a choice, at a fundraising dinner my husband took me to that we had been invited to join by some friends of ours after they had bought a table...if that is the right term), his manner with that makes me that uncomfortable. I am not saying that it is wrong to act that way anymore than I am saying sitcoms should all be banned because I can't stand them due to their slapstick or angst based humour, just that it is not to my personal taste. Since I leave before I hear much actual content, I can't really comment on what he says politically speaking, OTOH, when I heard him in person relate his personal journey of faith, I found that not only enjoyable but thought provoking and spiritual. Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah
Avatar4321 Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 Clean up on aisle three...Political and personal comments have been deleted. Please stay on topic.Thank you:)
Avatar4321 Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 He has not assumed any official calling, which is what that article of faith refers to. He is referring to his personal life calling. Were you called by the laying on of hands for your life's work?I cant remember, but I think he was actually addressing callings he was holding when he was talking about that. He did discuss that we are a lay ministry and we are called to serve in the Church.
Recommended Posts