Glenn Beck Blows It on a Personal Level

(NOTE: Since I don't know how to do superscripts with this blog system, I put my footnotes in parenthesis at the appropriate spots: (#). Okay?)

Normally speaking, I trust Glenn Beck to be an accurate and reliable person when it comes to relating history, putting the pieces together (George Soros, Open Society, et al), and the dollars and dates. He’s very good at that and he’s almost always – 99% of the time – correct. He’s nearly infallible when it comes to that.

In personal matters, he is not necessarily so.

While reading Glenn Beck & Dr. Keith Ablow’s new book, “The 7 Wonders That Will Change Your Life(1)”, on my Kindle, I came across Locations 1572-1585. This Section relates the story of Glenn going to a Mormon church for the first time. He wound up in a class with other students (some new, some not so new), and he wanted out of there. He found out that questions could be asked and he decided to ask one he thought would get him out of there; one that wouldn’t fit his personal beliefs and give him a reason to leave. So, he asked, “Where’s Gandhi?” (as in is he in heaven, hell or somewhere else?).

To paraphrase the response a student gave (and the teacher did not refute), the answer went something like this:

A dad loves his son and wants him to be a good man. The son graduated high school and his dad told him to go to college. With no colleges in the area, the son applied at colleges outside of the area and no colleges would accept him – “he wasn’t the right ‘sort’”. The explanation went that a loving father would not condemn nor disown the son for not going to college.

When Glenn asked about Jesus being the only way to the Father (to GOD), the answer was, “Yes, that is true,” replied the student, “but…” The answerer expounds upon the subject by asking if it would be fair to condemn someone who never got the chance or opportunity to accept Christ? Would it be fair to send that person to hell?

That’s the first place in the book where Glenn – and the question answerer – blows it.

There are several problems with that answer. First, how can the answer be both “Yes” and “No”? It can’t be both: Jesus is the only way and Jesus isn’t the only way. One has to choose because Jesus can’t be both.

Second, GOD sets the rules, not man. GOD said Jesus is the only way. Man cannot change the standard GOD set.

Third, If GOD is a Holy GOD then He must have certain rules that are intractable. Remember how unfair you thought it was when your parent would set a rule for you and have another rule – or just break the rule – for one of your siblings? Remember how you automatically knew that it wasn’t right? Should GOD treat people who get into heaven in such a manner: one rule for some people and another rule for others? No. He is Holy and He must keep the same rules for everyone. Otherwise, why have rules in the first place?

Fourth, is the source of the answer. This answer is based on – as far as I can figure – a purely Mormon belief and practice: the Baptism for the Dead. In this practice, baptismal services are held for those who are already dead using a stand-in for the dead person. For instance, your great-grandma died in 1942. Mormon doctrine would have her genealogy done, her kin listed and they would baptize your great-grandma and her spouse(s) into their Church and into their heaven without your consent, without the consent of great-grandma and – according to their beliefs – great-grandma would then be in their heaven worshiping their god. This is done even for people who wanted nothing to do with the Mormon Church, who do not believe in their religion, who do not wish to have their own chosen religion “negated” by strangers. This doctrine, a construct of Joseph Smith, was first publicly pronounced at the funeral of Seymour Brunson in Naouvoo in August 1840(2).

This doctrine is supposedly based on I Corinthians 15:29 where it asks “Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?(3)” Commentary suggests that a word translation is at fault. Taken in context, the word “for” should instead be “concerning”; since baptism does not save us, and if we do not rise again then any baptism is unnecessary(4).

“The Encyclopedia of Mormonism”, a five volume set of books that contains “The History, Scripture, Doctrine, and Procedure of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, quotes I Peter 4:6 as another source for the belief: “For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."(5) However that was Jesus Christ in “paradise” during the three days he was “dead” after his crucifixion and prior to his rising again. Jesus is the only person in the Bible mentioned as “preaching to” the dead. I must mention this because nowhere in the Mormon doctrine does it state that the dead shall be offered the gospel message prior to being baptized. In fact, in the Doctrines and Covenants (D&C), 128 inclusive(6), nowhere does it say that the dead should be given the choice of being baptized into the Mormon Church, but instead, they are baptized into the Church under the guise of, Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, “whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”(7). In other words, the dead have no say in the matter, which negates Glenn’s whole point of having a free will, a “gut feeling”, the opportunity to choose for ourselves which way to go: even with God. Even though that’s what his whole book is based upon, going with your gut feeling, yet he negates it in the ninth chapter of his book, “Isn’t There Anyone to Hate?” by believing in something that takes away the dead’s right to have chosen what their "gut feeling" told them.

Another problem with the teaching is that the Bible negates this teaching via Ecclesiastes 9:5-6: “For the living know that they will die: But the dead know nothing. And they have no more reward. For the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished: Nevermore will they have a share In anything done under the sun.”(8)

The doctrine of “Baptism for the Dead” is negated by Mormonism’s own teachings as well. For instance:

1) In “The Encyclopedia of Mormonism” book two, on page 741 included in the definition of the names of Christ, is the definition of one of His names, the name “Savior”: “Through agony and death suffered for others, Jesus is able to erase imperfections and bestow worthiness, on condition of repentance. Since imperfect beings cannot reside in God’s presence (D&C 1:31), Jesus saves believers from their imperfection, their sins, and their worst selves. [my italics](9)”

2) In the section on “Salvation” in book three of the set, beginning on page 1256, it states, “It is redemption from the bondage of sin and death, through the ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST. [caps in the original](10)”

3) Page 1257 of the third book delineates the steps taken to gain “Salvation” as found in the “gospel of Jesus Christ” these ordinances “must be followed to obtain a fullness of salvation. The first steps are FAITH in the Lord Jesus Christ, REPENTANCE, BAPTISM by immersion for the remission of sins, and the LAYONG ON OF HANDS by one who is in authority for the gift of the HOLY GHOST. Additional ordinances are administered in the TEMPLE. And finally, ‘he only is saved who endureth to the end’ (D&C 53:7) [caps in the original](11)”.

In the book, “Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young”, the section on Salvation starts in this book on page 49. On page 50, Brigham Young talks about free will (“agency” in Mormonism): “ ‘But,’ says the Father, ‘that will not answer at all. I give each and every individual his agency; all must use that in order to gain exaltation in my kingdom; inasmuch as they have the attributes which you see in me are in my children and they must use their agency. If you undertake to save all, you must save them in unrighteousness and corruption’ [see Abraham 3:23-28; Moses 4:1-4] (BDY, 54-54). [my italics]”(12) They must choose for themselves is what Brigham Young is saying, not those who are doing the baptizing for them choosing.

The “gut feeling” that “inner truth” that Glenn talks about throughout the book is negated by his personal religious beliefs, even though those beliefs are at the same time supported by his religious beliefs. Mormonism has people coming and going, but they don’t have their ducks in a row. They negate their own teachings, and see no conflict in it.

Another place Glenn blew it was in location 2273-2296 in which he gives an example of following your “inner truth” by illustrating it with the story of an imaginary investment banker who decides that instead of wanting to be an investment banker, he wants to follow his boyhood dream of being an architect. His wife did not like the idea and would not support him. She wants the investment banker to continue being an investment banker and to give up this dream. Glenn’s advice: “Then, my friend, you may have to leave. If you were to do so, you would have to do it responsibly with as much love for all concerned – including your wife – as humanly possible. But your love for self would have to be served.(13)”

Excuse me?! Leave your wife, your children, your life as you know it so that “your love for self” would “be served”? I think that’s called selfishness by most people, and most people don’t consider it a good thing. The only Biblical reason to leave your spouse is infidelity (adultery; extra-marital sexual relations). I see nothing in the Bible that says anything about leaving your spouse so that you can be selfish. How about the same excuse being used for a twenty-year-old blonde bombshell who makes you feel twenty-three again? Your attraction to her is an “inner truth”. Mustn’t you love your “inner truth”, honor your “gut feeling” that is your attraction to this Little Miss Muffit, also? Glenn says (location 2291-2296), “Are you surprised to hear me say that? Does that sound like violating a covenant? It isn’t."(14) Excuse me?! Did that man and woman not vow – covenant – before GOD and man to be together “until death do us part”? If that is not a covenant – the second covenant ever given (the first between GOD and Adam and Eve) – then what is a covenant? And who gives Glenn Beck the right to advise people that leaving a spouse is an acceptable thing to do if their career goals are changing? How selfish is that?

In Mark 10:2-9 Jesus is questioned by the Pharisees about divorce. When Christ asked them, “What did Moses command you?” they said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.” But Christ replied that it was from the “hardness of your heart” that it was permitted, but that GOD instituted marriage, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, ‘and the two shall become one flesh’: so they can no longer be two but one flesh. Therefore what GOD has joined together let not man separate."(15) Jesus – GOD’s Son – said “No” to divorce.

Glenn’s religion supposedly obeys and follows Jesus (they’ve even got His name in their name), and yet Glenn is spouting new age, temporarily feel good, claptrapisms about “inner truths” and “gut feelings” and a covenant with yourself? After all, according to Glenn, “Covenants are, by their nature, sacred agreements between two or more parties. If you promised to stay married to someone who would love you forever, then realize you are not loved at all by that person, and that there is no reasonable hope that you ever will be, and that the example of your broken relationship is a burden to your children, then you must accept this reality: There is no covenant. There is only your truth. And in the end, the truth always wins.” Beck is totally ignoring the truth that “The way, the truth and the life(16)” (John 14: 6), Jesus Christ, spoke about divorce while spouting claptrap about TRUTH!

Glenn’s assertion that marriage has to be between two people who have promised to love each other “forever”, then no marriage is based on truth. All marriages have difficult times. All marriages have things they go through. It’s those who honor their covenants, their vows made before GOD and man who stay with their spouses and who spend the rest of their lives together because they wish to honor GOD by doing so. That is what the Bible teaches about marriage, not this new age, claptrap about “inner truths”.

Maybe because Beck was once divorced he feels comfortable espousing divorce to others in order to prevent “your spiritual destruction”(17). Maybe it’s something else. But any “religious person” supporting divorce is not a good thing. Your spiritual life does not depend on your spouse supporting or denying your change of career. Your spiritual life depends on what you do with your relationship with Christ. Going through a tough time in your marriage? Spend more time with your Bible and with GOD. Your spouse isn’t the one who decides what your spiritual position with GOD is. It’s your effort, your dedication, your time with GOD that determines whether “your spiritual destruction” is eminent; not your spouse’s approval or disapproval of your career change. If your spouse says, “No. Let’s not do this,” it’s up to you to make the best of things and to honor your commitment to your spouse because that is what GOD says for you to do. He never says that divorce is okay if your spouse disagrees with you. Has your spouse committed adultery? If so, divorce is okay. If not, then stick with it and work it out and your spiritual life will be blessed if you put the effort into your spiritual life and into your marriage that needs to be put toward both.

In location 2652-57, Beck says that, “When your instincts run counter to common wisdom, then doing God’s work requires patience and compassion and courage and one other essential quality that really deserves a book of its own: endurance.(18)” If ignoring the truth of the Bible that Jesus Christ, by whom “No man cometh unto the Father except through [Him]”, or getting a divorce in order to follow your “inner truth” even though Jesus Christ spoke against it, is “doing God’s work”, then Beck must be following a different GOD than the Bible speaks of, and than I follow.

As I said earlier, when it comes to putting the puzzle pieces together regarding politics and the influences of others on political issues, of political ties, of history and learning from it or repeating it, of watching the events around the world and watching the ties that are made prior to things falling apart, Beck has it all over others. Beck is right most of the time there. Would I follow his teachings there? You bet. Would I follow Beck’s teachings on GOD or my personal life? No way.

(NOTE: There was another thing I saw in the book that I wanted to comment on, but I cannot remember it right now. I’ll post that later, I suppose.)

FOOTNOTES:
1) “The 7 Wonders That Will Change Your Life” Glenn Beck and Dr. Keith Ablow, Threshold Editions – Mercury Radio Arts, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., © 2011 Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., Kindle Version. ISBN 978-1-4516-2564-6 (ebook)
2) “The Encyclopedia of Mormonism” Book 1, Edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, pp. 95-97, Macmillan Publishing Company, © 1992 Macmillan Publishing Company, ISBN 0-02-904040-X
3) “The Holy Bible” English Standard Version, Good News Publishers, ©2003 Crossway Bibles, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles, Crossway Bibles a division of Good News Publishers, ISBN 1-58134-436-8
4) “The Believer’s Study Bible” Edited by W.A. Criswell, Ph.D., pg. 1644, Thomas Nelson Publishers, © 1991 Criswell Center for Biblical Studies, The Holy Bible New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson, Inc. (No ISBN, No Library of Congress Catalog Number), 606BG
5) Ibid, page 1770
6) “Book of Mormon: Doctrine and Covenants: Pearl of Great Price” Translated by Joseph Smith, Jun., Doctrine and Covenants pp. 231-236, Published 1941 by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, © 1920 Heber J. Grant, Trustee-In-Trust, for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, No Library of Congress Catalog Number, No ISBN
7) “The Believer’s Study Bible” Edited by W.A. Criswell, Ph.D., Thomas Nelson Publishers, © 1991 Criswell Center for Biblical Studies, The Holy Bible New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson, Inc. (No ISBN, No Library of Congress Catalog Number), 606BG
8) Ibid, pg. 902
9) “The Encyclopedia of Mormonism” Book 2, Edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, pg. 741, Macmillan Publishing Company, © 1992 Macmillan Publishing Company, ISBN 0-02-904040-X
10) “The Encyclopedia of Mormonism” Book 3, Edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, “Salvation, pg.1256, Macmillan Publishing Company, © 1992 Macmillan Publishing Company, ISBN 0-02-904040-X
11) Ibid, pp. 1257,
12) “The Teachings of the Presidents: Brigham Young” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, © 1997 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (No ISBN No Library of Congress Catalog Number)
13) “The 7 Wonders That Will Change Your Life” Glenn Beck and Dr. Keith Ablow, Threshold Editions – Mercury Radio Arts, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., © 2011 Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., Kindle Version. ISBN 978-1-4516-2564-6 (ebook)
14) Ibid, location 2291-2296
15) “The Believer’s Study Bible” Edited by W.A. Criswell, Ph.D., pg. 1413, Thomas Nelson Publishers, © 1991 Criswell Center for Biblical Studies, The Holy Bible New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson, Inc. (No ISBN, No Library of Congress Catalog Number), 606BG
16) Ibid, pg. 1521
17) “The 7 Wonders That Will Change Your Life” Glenn Beck and Dr. Keith Ablow, location 2296-2302, Threshold Editions – Mercury Radio Arts, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., © 2011 Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., Kindle Version. ISBN 978-1-4516-2564-6 (ebook)
18) Ibid, location 2652-57

You Have "The Dream", Just Pick It Up!

After all of the fussing over the Glenn Beck “Restoring Honor” rally “stealing”, or “hijacking” the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., message, I read Dr. King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. What I saw in the speech surprised me. I have heard it several times, but by no means did I ever memorize it. A sentence or two stuck with me, but nothing close to the whole thing. Thus, reading it was something that would serve me well. A good idea and it was very interesting.

In that speech – whose message and idea were no more “hijacked” by Glenn Beck than the Lincoln Memorial was that day – I see that Glenn Beck was actually fulfilling that speech and Al Sharpton, et al, have no right to complain about it.

For instance, in his speech, Dr. King – who stood at the Lincoln Memorial but in a different spot than Beck – said this, “the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.” While there is no guarantee that former slaves and former slave holders were there or that if they were there, that they were together, there were both black and white at the rally and there was peace and brotherhood at the Restoring Honor rally.

Dr. King’s dream included the, “state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.” Mississippi is just that, as is the rest of America. And his dream included his “four little children” being judged “by the content of their character”, not the color of their skin. I think his four little children have been judged thusly. As has his niece, Dr. Alveda King, who spoke of her “Uncle Martin” at the Beck rally. Her character is impeccable and her voice for the Lord is loud and strong. “[I]n Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.” This has come true, as well; not just holding hands, but “mixed” marriages also have become accepted as a normal thing, instead of a shock and scandal, a shame to both families.

Dr. King’s dream, however, did not include government housing being a standard freebie for every person of color who wanted to sit idly at home and do nothing but watch soap operas or talk on their welfare check purchased cell phone. It did not include “free” health care for all because it is never “free” and someone will have to pay for it; that someone being those who do work and pay their taxes. Dr. King’s dream never mentioned food stamps, a “right” to a job, legalized drugs like crack cocaine or marijuana. Dr. King’s dream had none of the “give it to me, I want it” in it that permeates the Al Sharptons of this world.

Dr. King’s dream spoke of one thing: Freedom. Not freedom from want, freedom from envy, freedom from someone else having more, better, bigger, easier than you; freedom to strive and work for what it is that someone else has that you desire. Dr. King’s dream never said you would be given it because you deserve it – after all, you had it bad, your dad had a tough road, your great-grandfather was a slave so now you deserve everything you want and you deserve to have it given to you by the sweat of someone else’s brow. Freedom is none of that. Freedom is the right to work hard and make your own way and to keep the results of your labor, or to decide for yourself what to do with those results. That is freedom.

The right to work is not the same as a right to a job. The right to work means that you have the right – as a citizen of the United States of America – to try to get a job and to be paid equally for that job as someone else with the same qualifications, same experience, same education and same level of expertise. You have that right. If you have those criteria met and you and I are going up for the same position, you do not have the right to get the job because of the color of your skin, but you do have the right to get the job if you have worked harder than I, put in longer hours than I, learned more about the position we both want, than I know. That’s the same criteria used for me getting the position as well, though, so if I get the job, I deserved it; not the color of my skin deserved it. Thus, you have no “right” to a job, but you do have the right to work. No one should interfere with you trying to be hired somewhere at a job you are qualified to do. Just as no one should interfere with me being hired somewhere for a job I am qualified to do. The key word there being “qualified”: whoever is most qualified should get the job and skin color should be ignored.

For someone to say that it is their “right” to government housing, welfare, food stamps, health care, or any other thing besides the right – true right, not made up right – to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” is just a lie. It means nothing legally and it should never have happened morally. Admittedly, America’s past did include racism and slavery; mostly due to the Democratic Party, but it was there. But does that past – and it is the past – give anyone the “right” to anything from those who had no part in that past? Do you pay for your grandfather’s sins, or just your own? Should you be jailed for your brother’s illegal activities, or just your own?

For anyone to claim “right” to what I have now because of someone else’s sins, is not just unfair, it is purely immoral. I had no part in slavery or in the racism of the sixties and earlier. I was not old enough to be part of either of those things, and my ancestors immigrated to America long after slavery was over, so my family had no part in that, either. Should I have to pay for the things that other people did when my family had no part whatsoever in the wrongs done by others? If so, is that not just another form of racism?

For Al Sharpton and the rally he led “reclaiming Dr. King’s message” was not just a falsehood, it was probably making Dr. King roll over in his grave. Considering the messages I heard when I watched the two hours or more of the Sharpton rally that I was able to stomach, I saw speakers demand that they be “given” this, they “deserve” that, I truly doubt they had read Dr. King’s famous words in light of how Dr. King meant them, instead of just trying to change the speech to their best advantage. They forgot the line, “Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.” And they left out, “We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence.” They ignore his statement, “Let us not wallow in the valley of despair” and to that “despair” they add anger, resentment, envy, self-righteousness, a feeling of “being owed”, the demand of “give it to me and give it to me now!”

Sharpton’s event was not of the same kind as Dr. King would have had. Sharpton preached all that King decried. Sharpton wants those who follow him to be in that place Dr. King did not want people: kept down by their own desire to have it handed to them instead of paying for it with the money earned from their own labor, kept enslaved by their own desire to make someone else “pay” – both in monetary payments and in societal retribution – for their own lack, ignoring the fact that their lack was their own doing, not someone else’s fault.

Sharpton, et al, don’t want their followers to realize that the dream Dr. King spoke so eloquently of is already theirs. If that were not the case, how could there be have been U.S. Supreme Court Justices who were black, a president who is black, U.S. Senators and Congresspersons of color, millionaires in America who are descendants of slaves? If the dream is not already given, how is there a black television network, black advertising agencies, or black owners of a hair product line for black people; how is Don King rich¹? If the dream is not accomplished, if everyone does not have the equal right and equal chance to work hard, to seek their own legal path (illegal paths to riches are not part of the dream), then how are the accomplishments of so many black people explained away?

“Uncle Tom” will be cried; but it’s a false cry and they know it. It’s a convenient pejorative and nothing more. It helps keep black people “in their place” to have another black call them that. It’s a signal, “You better not step out of line, mister. You know we don’t want you doing that because it makes us look bad!” It’s not about the accomplishments of the achiever; it’s about the laziness and excuses of the non-achiever. It’s a slaver’s cry to trap someone who could achieve if given the support needed into the “Uncle Tom” crier’s own level of “under-achievement”. It is a leveler: none can do better than this because if one does, then we all can and we all don’t want to so you better not.

That false cry is their own jailer, their own limiter as are Sharpton and his words and demands. If the government and the people don’t do “X” for the black people, then it won’t get done because – according to Sharpton’s words – they can’t do it for themselves. Does this sound anything at all like the “I Have A Dream” speech of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., or does it sound like someone seeking to keep others down so he can be considered their spokesperson, helper, saint, rescuer? Sharpton no more wants people of his race to be capable achievers than he wants to be a nobody, ignored, overlooked, forgotten and that is why he must keep the lies going, the false accusations flowing, the hatred, despair and envy spewing from every mouth at every rally he leads, attends or feeds. It is not a “Dream” Sharpton has for the success and freedom of his people it is his worst nightmare for then he becomes nothing and vanishes into the dust from whence he came.

Sharpton and his ilk do not want people to realize that Dr. King’s dream has already been handed to them. Today they have the dream as Dr. King envisioned it. All they have to do is reach out and take it, pick it up. It’s that big, beautifully wrapped present over there. Go over and pick it up and see your name on it. Realize that with that present in hand you can do anything legal in America you dream of – go to school and get the education you desire, work at the job you are qualified to work at, save for your own retirement and pay your own way and live the life you want instead of watching and hating as others live the life you desire – as long as you believe in that dream and accept it for yourself. You see, there’s the rub. You must accept that dream for yourself, and no one else can do it for you.

That’s why those like Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and others will never tell you that the dream is already yours. They know that if you realize it, they will not be able to milk you for support – financial and political– for their own ideas, their own desire for the dream. Look at them, though, aren’t they living the dream while telling you that it isn’t available at all? Sharpton himself wears expensive suits, lives in an expensive house, flies all over the country and attends “the best” parties. If he’s living the dream while preaching that America has not yet delivered it, then who is he lying to? Considering that the answer to that question is “You”, don’t you think you need to sit down and figure out what the truth is?



1) http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/index.php/archives/2004/600/