For Mormons

[dianaiad]

The “True” church has a problem? How can that be? Perhaps something should be changed?

\Dang, I wish I could raise one eyebrow in that wonderfully pretension depressing way that the above comment demands! Tiki, the “True” church, no matter what church you think it is, has problems, because people belong to it. People are imperfect.

I’ll admit here something I’ve not told anybody before except one person I think - after I was baptized and given the Aaronic priesthood I had a talk with the Bishop and he said my goal should be, in one year visiting the temple. He also stressed tithing ten percent and said it’s important to get the Melchizedek priesthood. I didn’t think much of it at the time because I believe in tithing and assumed he was having problems with ward members not tithing. But looking back, I do think think it was odd he was stress tithing more than anything else in our talk, and tithing was stressed more than anything else in our talk. Actually, it was 99.9 percent of the talk. Looking back I think what he was actually saying was - if I want the Melchizedek priesthood I better be tithing. I think better words from him would have been - if I want the Melchizedek priesthood I should act more like Christ and and exercise faith, hope, and charity.

Yes…but ‘faith, hope and charity’ are subjective things, Tiki. I have seen quite a few people who claim to have hope—but who behave as if they have none. They claim to have faith–but do not display it. They claim to have charity, but hoarde their substance and refuse to dispense it. Paying tithing is a way to display all three of these things. It displays hope, because of the blessings that are said to come along with paying tithing…even when those blessings are not material immediately. Paying tithing displays charity because you are putting your money where your mouth is; giving of your own substance to support the needs of the church—so that you can continue to belong to the ONLY church in the USA that does not need to mortgage their buildings or borrow money to do things; a church which, because it’s members tithe, is able to offer a tier one university education to its members at half or less the tuition charged to Catholics by similarly classed Catholic universities (Loyola Marymount university, for example.) Because we tithe, there is no collection plate passed that causes embarrassment if you must let it go by without putting folding money in it this week. Tithing shows charity because you are willing to do more than pay lip service to the idea. Tithing shows FAITH, because faith is…acting as if those things you believe to be true ARE true. It shows faith because it means you are willing to demonstrate your belief in those things you claim you believe.

You claim your bishop was emphasizing tithing? Well, perhaps, with you, he was correct to do that. It seems to be a challenge for you. A test, if you will. Do you HAVE that faith, hope and charity you think he should have emphasized? Fine. Prove it. Pay your tithing.
Then you contribute as Mormons ALSO do, to the ‘fast offering’ every month. Then you go and volunteer and teach Primary and work with the youth, and while you are at it, go volunteer at the homeless shelter or Habitat for Humanity, or give extra to the church for it’s efforts in Haiti and other places that have been hard hit and need extra help from us.

In other words, Tiki, “be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” When you have accomplished that, THEN perhaps you can wonder why the church isn’t making you happy. Oddly enough, though, when you do that, you will find that you are happy. It just seems to go with being of service to others, and actually displaying the faith, hope and charity that you are worried about.

 

[dianaiad]

On July 2 I visited this forum and posted a well though out response to some glib comment made by the ‘resident mormon’ on this forum who goes by the name “dianaiad”
It took effort and time to write and I don’t believe it was either offensive or off-topic, yet it was not published. I believe the ‘censor’ on this board might have tended to construe my words in a VERY NARROW manner, therefore deleting the post rather than risking -God forbid!- the mormons who show up here to explain to us, lesser Catholic beings, the reasoned and logical ways of their beliefs to be in any way whatsoever offended.

Good heavens. You honestly think that this forum ‘kowtows’ to Mormons?



I think you will find that if your post ‘was not published,’ it was probably because you didn’t hit the ‘send’ button, or because of some other technical glitch.

This smacks of appeasement and obsequiousness, not much different than the behavior the American media shows the muhammadans by kow-towing to them on every occasion so as to not offend them in any possible way which might bring their wrath and destructiveness. In this case any perceived or real offense the mormons might take at the words written on the CAF forums might not bring up destructive behavior -they happen to be a bit more civilized than the muslims- but, horror or horrors, it might drive them away, which would be detrimental to the two-way proselitizing number mormons intend to do on Catholics and vice-versa. Am I wrong?

Yep. You are wrong.

*The initial question was:
Q – VetA: how do Mormons view the controversial political commentator Glenn Beck?
is he like a ‘liberal’ or ‘traditionalist’ are his views held by most other Mormons or is he a ‘black sheep’?

A – dianaiad: Well, that depends upon whether the Mormon is a liberal or a conservative. You may as easily ask how Mormons view Harry Reid. *

That was the 'glib comment?" Believe me, that wasn’t ‘glib.’ It was a very serious answer.

…so I’m the 'resident Mormon," hmmn? Well, I’m going to have to think about that one for awhile.

The subject at hand happens to be something to the effect of ‘what do mormons think of Glenn Beck’ and I did answer to that saying that I know the mormon culture from up-close and in a quarter of a century living among them it is obvious that whatever serves the purposes of the ‘first presidency’ and the religion which is forever trying to find justification and legitimacy for their beliefs, is as welcome as the sight of water to someone lost in the Sahara.

a) Beck is not only verbally gifted, he is rich (imagine his tithing as revenue), and can command an enormous following but he is also a poster-boy for the aims of mormonism: a Catholic convert, though technically only a CINO, an erzats latter day prophet completely in tune with the present mood of the country, and most important, he happens to be the embodiment of a long-running ‘prophecy’ among mormons to the effect that at some point the American Constitution would be in trouble and a mormon would rise up to ‘save the country.’ I would have thought this honor was reserved for someone like Mitt Romney who is viewed as the ‘prince charming’ of mormondom set to capture the presidency after obama’s inglorious exit, BUT, in whichever way the prophecy is realized it would be nothing less than pure gravy to their church.
Further, Beck is a repentant sinner who’s given up demon alcohol, and as of late has taken to promoting on his show several strictly mormon concepts such as ‘the apostasy,’ ‘restoration’ and the lessons he hears on his ward (alas, he has yet to expel curse words from his vocabulary, but when you’re as successful as he is…!)

Well, you have an obviously odd view of Mormonism and Mormon culture…on one hand you are equating the whole of Mormondom with the one small area where you live, and on the other, you don’t even have the cultural knowledge (if you are anywhere near “Happy Valley”) of our culture to understand about ‘curse words,’ characters, and us. (shrug) That’s what happens, though, when someone outside a culture tries to judge it without knowing the important stuff.

cont. on next post

 

[dianaiad]

cont. from previous post…

**

…or, his political opinions mean nothing in terms of LDS doctrine. Has that occurred to anybody? It was, in fact, my point. The thing is, m’friend, Utah used to be pretty solidly Democrat, and remained so for quite a long time until the Democrats screwed Utah and the entire west over. The rather solid conserviative tendency of Mormons in the west has a lot more to do with the culture of the west than it does the doctrine of the church—as can be seen by the number of liberal Mormons in the east.

[Mormons are fond of exalting their famous members. They think the more they have the more attractive it makes it for others to convert. On the whole, they prefer Beck’s philosophy and help, but Reid is a bonus.

…I despise Harry Ried’s politics. He is useful to me, though, because of this very thing: people like you who insist that political conservatism is a doctrinal issue for Mormons. It isn’t. Ried was especially useful when people argue that nobody should vote for a Mormon because the church will dictate what Mormons can, and cannot, vote for in Congress. In reality, the church stays OUT of the political decision making process of any LDS office holder. This cannot be said for the Catholic church, by the way. After all, any Catholic congress person who votes for abortion in any way (no matter what his or her constituents might want) is automatically excommunicated according to quite a few Catholic authorities. Now THAT is interference!

[These forums are conceivably a vehicle to discuss issues from every perspective. So long as they are not overtly offensive or ignore the rules of the game, why does an individual using his/her own biases have the unilateral authority to decide whether they are ACTUALLY injurious and offensive, or just in his/her personal view inadequate? This is nothing more than personally biased censorship!

**

Well, I’d say that if you weren’t contacted by a moderator, and your post simply didn’t show up, then you are out of line here–assuming that something happened when it was probably your fault that the post didn’t appear. If you WERE contacted by a moderator, it’s specifically against the rules to discuss moderation actions in the thread. Either way I’d say you have an apology to make.

…and not to me.
[/quote]

 

[Javl]

\Dang, I wish I could raise one eyebrow in that wonderfully pretension depressing way that the above comment demands! Tiki, the “True” church, no matter what church you think it is, has problems, because people belong to it. People are imperfect.

Yes…but ‘faith, hope and charity’ are subjective things, Tiki. I have seen quite a few people who claim to have hope—but who behave as if they have none. They claim to have faith–but do not display it. They claim to have charity, but hoarde their substance and refuse to dispense it. Paying tithing is a way to display all three of these things. It displays hope, because of the blessings that are said to come along with paying tithing…even when those blessings are not material immediately. Paying tithing displays charity because you are putting your money where your mouth is; giving of your own substance to support the needs of the church—so that you can continue to belong to the ONLY church in the USA that does not need to mortgage their buildings or borrow money to do things; a church which, because it’s members tithe, is able to offer a tier one university education to its members at half or less the tuition charged to Catholics by similarly classed Catholic universities (Loyola Marymount university, for example.) Because we tithe, there is no collection plate passed that causes embarrassment if you must let it go by without putting folding money in it this week. Tithing shows charity because you are willing to do more than pay lip service to the idea. Tithing shows FAITH, because faith is…acting as if those things you believe to be true ARE true. It shows faith because it means you are willing to demonstrate your belief in those things you claim you believe.

You claim your bishop was emphasizing tithing? Well, perhaps, with you, he was correct to do that. It seems to be a challenge for you. A test, if you will. Do you HAVE that faith, hope and charity you think he should have emphasized? Fine. Prove it. Pay your tithing.
Then you contribute as Mormons ALSO do, to the ‘fast offering’ every month. Then you go and volunteer and teach Primary and work with the youth, and while you are at it, go volunteer at the homeless shelter or Habitat for Humanity, or give extra to the church for it’s efforts in Haiti and other places that have been hard hit and need extra help from us.

In other words, Tiki, “be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” When you have accomplished that, THEN perhaps you can wonder why the church isn’t making you happy. Oddly enough, though, when you do that, you will find that you are happy. It just seems to go with being of service to others, and actually displaying the faith, hope and charity that you are worried about.

Diana: The Catholic Church and Orthodox and Protestant denominations also have tithing, but it is on a strictly voluntary basis. We do not tithe, or pay, to go to mass, Liturgy, or services. Although tithing is a given in the scriptures, many cannot afford to give the tithe ( 10% ) of their income ( especially the poor ), especially in today’s economy. We all have donation envelopes in which we can place our pleged donation(s) to the Church instead of the collection plate. We don’t pay, or buy, monetarily, our way into heaven.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[dianaiad]

Diana: The Catholic Church and Orthodox and Protestant denominations also have tithing, but it is on a strictly voluntary basis. We do not tithe, or pay, to go to mass, Liturgy, or services. Although tithing is a given in the scriptures, many cannot afford to give the tithe ( 10% ) of their income ( especially the poor ), especially in today’s economy. We all have donation envelopes in which we can place our pleged donation(s) to the Church instead of the collection plate. We don’t pay, or buy, monetarily, our way into heaven.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Javi, I am aware that Catholics also tithe, and that it is not mandatory. It’s not mandatory for Mormons, either. For instance, there was a period of close to five years where I was not only NOT paying tithing, but was recieving help FROM the church in terms of food, rent payments and help with medical bills. I went to the Temple often then, too.

…and everybody can afford to tithe. It is ten percent of your net income. If you don’t have an income, you don’t tithe. If your income is very low, so too is the tithing–and nobody checks your math.

…and you know quite well that it’s not ‘buying your way to heaven.’ I really get peeved at people who claim that this is what tithing is all about. Haven’t they read what Christ had to say about it to the Pharisees who bragged about paying their tithing? He chastised them for not observing the spirit AS WELL AS the letter of the law–and He did say that they should not leave it ‘undone.’

The thing is, tithing is a really good way to deal with church expenses. Tithing is equal opportunity financing. Because Mormons all tithe (or rather, we are supposed to) then you aren’t going to see a specific ward be held hostage to the richest family in the congregation the way some Protestant congregations are. It doesn’t matter how wealthy you are; tithing is one tenth, and if that means $10 or $10,000, it’s the same to God–and to the church.

That is by no means 'buying one’s way to heaven."

It IS, however, rather important.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Javi, I am aware that Catholics also tithe, and that it is not mandatory. It’s not mandatory for Mormons, either.

lol…it is if you want to go to the highest level of heaven

 

[TikiTokiguy]

\Dang, I wish I could raise one eyebrow in that wonderfully pretension depressing way that the above comment demands! Tiki, the “True” church, no matter what church you think it is, has problems, because people belong to it. People are imperfect.

You claim your bishop was emphasizing tithing? Well, perhaps, with you, he was correct to do that. It seems to be a challenge for you. A test, if you will. Do you HAVE that faith, hope and charity you think he should have emphasized? Fine. Prove it. Pay your tithing.

Tithing was not a test for me. I did tithe. At least when I went every Sunday. If was still going I would still be giving 10% and more on fast Sundays. I’m not ticked at the church because of tithing, that’s why I’ve not harped on the fact that the Bishop, in our big talk, focused on tithing. But looking back now, I do think it was kind of odd. He should have stressed forgiving, love for others, the faith/hope/charity I talked about, and other good things. Not just money.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Mormons have a love/hate relationship with Harry Reid. They hate his politics, but love that a Mormon has so much political power. Mormons are also great name droppers, and have no qualms using a person’s name, even if/when they hate that person, vehemently.

On the other hand, Beck just gets to be loved all around, for his politics, religious views and power. Name dropping Beck is one of the true joys of being a Mormon.

 

[GrapeStomper]

Says RebeccaJ – *"Mormons have a love/hate relationship with Harry Reid. They hate his politics, but love that a Mormon has so much political power. Mormons are also great name droppers, and have no qualms using a person’s name, even if/when they hate that person, vehemently.

On the other hand, Beck just gets to be loved all around, for his politics, religious views and power. Name dropping Beck is one of the true joys of being a Mormon."*

My point EXACTLY!! And lately Beck, either deliberately, OR NOT -which I think is unlikely since any true blue mormon has a duty to promote his faith, and in any way possibly proselytize anyone within his/her reach- has taken to quoting notables in the mormon political and religious (one and the same) pantheon, like Ezra Taft Benson. I’m wondering when he’ll bring out the writings of Leon Skousen; and he may well already have since I don’t watch Beck’s program religiously. My feeling is that the political climate, being what it is right now, is just the medium in which these types of ideas, as far right in the political spectrum as they are, would have a chance to germinate. Being a right of center citizen as I am, I say this with a certain amount of trepidation since I think even Ron Paul and his son are nut-cakes.

The point here is, ultimately, that no matter the amount of whitewash thrown at the political inclinations of ‘the church’s leadership’ by the church itself, their apologists and followers, they are as far to the right of center as can possibly be. Were they capable of putting all their adepts in a straight jacket without antagonizing them, and thereby losing out on the enormous income they receive from their tithing, you can bet they’d do it in a Salt Lake temple moment!

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’ve never heard Beck give anything of substance. He promotes hate and conspiracy theories, more than anything. Which, underlines conservative Mormon thought in a lot of ways. Always an eye on the horizon, which is defined by their white horse prophecy and the hatred that surrounds it.

 

[TikiTokiguy]

I’ve never heard Beck give anything of substance. He promotes hate and conspiracy theories, more than anything.

Hate and conspiracy and other bad things. I say he’s conservative. Conservatives will say - no, he’s libertarian, that’s different! I say nope - it all sounds the same to me, lies and more lies.

I doubt if a porn star could get a temple recommend. I see what Beck does as far worse than what a porn star does.

 

[GrapeStomper]

Rebecca says: *I’ve never heard Beck give anything of substance. He promotes hate and conspiracy theories, more than anything." *

Sorry to part company with you on this one, there’s actually a lot of value to SOME of the issues Beck has brought up. Heck, were it not for his resources, his investigative efforts and the enormous crew of people he employs --including anonymous whistle-blowers within the government itself, of amateur reporters such as the kids that brought down the corrupt, fraud-ridden and entitlement sucking ACORN organization, of people like Andrew Breitbart (Breitbart TV) and Judge Andrew Napolitano who lends credibility to his outfit-- there’d be no one holding Obummer and his cabal of communist sycophants to the fire, since the so called MSM are nothing more than lap-dogs to the liar-in-chief.

You can also thank Beck for ridding us of Van Jones and Anita Dunn a couple of commited Maoists. Further, you might just acknowledge the fact that none of the people he’s kept a klieg light shining upon have run to the nearest lawyer to file a slander or libel suit against him – by the simple fact that they cannot contradict his accusations. They, along with Barrack, are in fact a cadre of radical left wing shock troops bent on transforming this country into a socialist haven, where those particular minorities he favors and thinks have been dealt a raw deal by the American system of government and the racism of its citizens will henceforth be enjoying the fruit of the labors of those of us who actually work and pay taxes.

Beck has also been instrumental in fireing up the Tea Party movement which, if it keeps its focus and lives up to its promise and principles, will bring this country back from the brink.

Having said that, I think that a lot of Beck’s info comes from ONLY those points of view and philosophies he favors. His whole tirade against ‘social justice’ coming out of certain churches (and I read in that his intent to blame the CC mainly) is at best misinformed and at worst totally biased. Properly understood, social justice is nothing more than Christian charity as the Catholic Church has been practicing since the time of the Book of Acts, where ‘all were of one accord and shared their possessions with each other.’ The CC was the first to create orphanages, leprosaries, hospitals and schools where the faithful under the care and guidance of monks and nuns of various religious orders labored without pay for the love of God and neighbor. Even up to the19 C Pope Leon XIII was way ahead of his time with the Encyclical Rerum Novarum which “supported the rights of labor to form unions, rejected communism and unrestricted capitalism, whilst affirming the right to private property.” Had the advice written therein been heeded we would not be undergoing the economic dislocations brought upon us precisely by all the evils of communism, unrestrained power and entitlement seeking unionism and capitalism.

The other though Beck extols is that of Ayn Rand which puts selfishness above anything else, and that along with the fact that he promotes mormon theories and does not use his investigative resources to put the history and theology of mormonism under scrutiny is enough to have his credibility go quite low in my personal estimation.

Rebecca says: *“Which, underlines conservative Mormon thought in a lot of ways. Always an eye on the horizon, which is defined by their white horse prophecy and the hatred that surrounds it.” *

That type of wishful thinking is the hope and bane of so many protestant fundamentalist sects seeking legitimization. Precisely because mormonism is only marginally Christian and highly Masonic it will take whatever it can from whoever can give it what they think will be a major infusion of PR.

 

[TikiTokiguy]

Rebecca says: *I’ve never heard Beck give anything of substance. He promotes hate and conspiracy theories, more than anything." *

Beck has also been instrumental in fireing up the Tea Party movement which, if it keeps its focus and lives up to its promise and principles, will bring this country back from the brink.

Promise and principles? lol. They are wacky hateful people. But this thread is about Beck, the propagandist. I don’t see Beck as “Christian” at all. At least not from the times I’ve seen him on his TV program.

 

[MJE]

Robert George, Catholic intellectual from Princeton, has been a guest on Beck’s tv show and I thought Beck was wow’d by this great mind.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca says: *I’ve never heard Beck give anything of substance. He promotes hate and conspiracy theories, more than anything." *

Sorry to part company with you on this one, there’s actually a lot of value to SOME of the issues Beck has brought up.

Indeed, as it seems you are a ardent follower. Me, I watched him a few times a week when he was on CNN. Wack job, if you ask me. But then, I think that about most politicians (left and right). Maybe it’s living in UT, where people like Beck permeate everything, and frankly, they are nothing but filled with hate and conspiracy theories.

Beck and those like him have no value to me, whatsoever. They make me sick, really, and have since the first Freeman Institute meeting my parents took me to when I was a teenager.

People like Beck are just one step away from stashing guns and cash while waiting for the Federal Govt. to come raiding.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I don’t buy the idea that Beck might be the “White Horse” of the “White Horse Prophecy”. I think he is concerned that the US is going in the wrong direction, that we’re racking up totally unsustainable debt and eroding liberty in the process. It is a fact that if we continue the way we have been we will eventually get to the point where ALL government revenue goes to pay interest on the debt, there will be NOTHING left for anything else. No social security, no medicare, no defense, no NOTHING. Not a pretty picture.

Besides, the “White Horse Prophecy” could turn into an opinion at any given point in the future, from what we’ve seen so far.

Does Beck indulge in hyperbole? Probably. But then so does everyone else because, unfortunately, that’s what it often takes to get people’s attention. Personally, I’ve enjoyed watching Beck’s Friday programs where the subject is our nation’s Founders, and he usually has scholars on the subject doing most of the talking. I’ve learned a lot, from historians who know their subject. I guess I’ve missed the hate and conspiracy bits.

 

[GrapeStomper]

From the deep intellectual well of thought of TikiTokiguy: “Promise and principles? lol. They are wacky hateful people. But this thread is about Beck, the propagandist. I don’t see Beck as “Christian” at all. At least not from the times I’ve seen him on his TV program.”

I’d like to see how SPECIFICALLY you can call ‘Tea Partiers’ wacky hateful people? How many instances of violence perpetrated by them and supported by facts can you cite? What incontrovertible evidence do you have that they are hateful? Do you say that because they carry anti-obama signs? What can you tell us about left-wing protests and the signs they carried about Bush?

Something like one million Tea Party member congregated at the Washington Mall a few months ago --a gathering government officials and the MSM press decided to ignore because of the threat to their interests those numbers represented-- and not one arrest was made. Even the small amount of trash they generated was picked up by them. Whereas, shortly thereafter small meetings by muslims and barrack-supporters left the mall filthy and those were lauded and reported profusely.

Later as well, just before the passage of obama-care another large protest crowd came together in front of the Capitol, there Pelosi carrying a large mallet and surrounded by several liberal congressmen literally was out to provoke the crowd. At that one loud accusations coming from the HuffPo, WaPo and other liberal organs charged that Emanuel Cleaver, John Lewis and Bwaney Fwank were called the ‘n’ and ‘f’ words and spat upon; yet, even though a reward of 100K was offered to produce evidence of the fact NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF PROOF was produced, because the accusation was basically fabricated.

The fact is that the Tea Party crowds are composed of families, mothers, fathers, grandparents… most folks who had never participated in political rally’s, and now care so deeply about the direction this country is being dragged to by communist operatives in the government, they have taken to the streets in an orderly manner to show their opposition. Isn’t that something the Constitution provides for? Have you instead seen Tea Party members being savagely beaten up by SEIU goons, white voters intimidated by ‘black panther’ members, G20 protesters destroying, burning and rioting? The videos are on You Tube.

As for “Beck the propagandist” - what would you call Keith Olbermouth, Chris -a thrill up his leg- Matthews, Rachel Maddow and that shrieking banshee Ed Schultz?

What about your obvious judgement of Beck calling him un-Christian? Perhaps the fact that mormonism is considered only marginally Christian might rightfully put him in that category, yet in many of the programs I’ve seen he does openly advocate a return to moral values and prayer, in whichever way he understands those to be, while on the other hand Obummer calls ours a post-Christian and even non-Christian nation. The O man has even concocted a ‘history’ where muslims form part, from long ago, of the fabric of this society. Really??? So… who then is more Christian?

Bottom line TTG, if we are allowed to engage in judgmentalism I’d say that from where I’m sitting you sound politically and religiously naive. Your description of Tea Partiers and Beck are typical of left-wing canned propaganda those who spend the largest part of the day with eyes glued to MTV and pressing the buttons on a joy-stick are wont to accept without careful examination. Additionally, there is room in your ‘learned’ words (lol, ROTFL etc.) for concluding you suffer from a fair amount of confusion when you seem to want to receive advice on mormon spirituality and guidance on church life, in, of all places, a Catholic website! Most -quite certainly me- would conclude that single fact to be a very curious anomaly.

I’ll be waiting for the evidence of the hatefulness and wacky-ness you attribute to Tea Party people and of what leads you to conclude Beck is, in your view, not ‘Christian.’

 

[dcastlen50]

From the deep intellectual well of thought of TikiTokiguy: “Promise and principles? lol. They are wacky hateful people. But this thread is about Beck, the propagandist. I don’t see Beck as “Christian” at all. At least not from the times I’ve seen him on his TV program.”

I’d like to see how SPECIFICALLY you can call ‘Tea Partiers’ wacky hateful people? How many instances of violence perpetrated by them and supported by facts can you cite? What incontrovertible evidence do you have that they are hateful? Do you say that because they carry anti-obama signs? What can you tell us about left-wing protests and the signs they carried about Bush?

Something like one million Tea Party member congregated at the Washington Mall a few months ago --a gathering government officials and the MSM press decided to ignore because of the threat to their interests those numbers represented-- and not one arrest was made. Even the small amount of trash they generated was picked up by them. Whereas, shortly thereafter small meetings by muslims and barrack-supporters left the mall filthy and those were lauded and reported profusely.

Later as well, just before the passage of obama-care another large protest crowd came together in front of the Capitol, there Pelosi carrying a large mallet and surrounded by several liberal congressmen literally was out to provoke the crowd. At that one loud accusations coming from the HuffPo, WaPo and other liberal organs charged that Emanuel Cleaver, John Lewis and Bwaney Fwank were called the ‘n’ and ‘f’ words and spat upon; yet, even though a reward of 100K was offered to produce evidence of the fact NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF PROOF was produced, because the accusation was basically fabricated.

The fact is that the Tea Party crowds are composed of families, mothers, fathers, grandparents… most folks who had never participated in political rally’s, and now care so deeply about the direction this country is being dragged to by communist operatives in the government, they have taken to the streets in an orderly manner to show their opposition. Isn’t that something the Constitution provides for? Have you instead seen Tea Party members being savagely beaten up by SEIU goons, white voters intimidated by ‘black panther’ members, G20 protesters destroying, burning and rioting? The videos are on You Tube.

As for “Beck the propagandist” - what would you call Keith Olbermouth, Chris -a thrill up his leg- Matthews, Rachel Maddow and that shrieking banshee Ed Schultz?

What about your obvious judgement of Beck calling him un-Christian? Perhaps the fact that mormonism is considered only marginally Christian might rightfully put him in that category, yet in many of the programs I’ve seen he does openly advocate a return to moral values and prayer, in whichever way he understands those to be, while on the other hand Obummer calls ours a post-Christian and even non-Christian nation. The O man has even concocted a ‘history’ where muslims form part, from long ago, of the fabric of this society. Really??? So… who then is more Christian?

Bottom line TTG, if we are allowed to engage in judgmentalism I’d say that from where I’m sitting you sound politically and religiously naive. Your description of Tea Partiers and Beck are typical of left-wing canned propaganda those who spend the largest part of the day with eyes glued to MTV and pressing the buttons on a joy-stick are wont to accept without careful examination. Additionally, there is room in your ‘learned’ words (lol, ROTFL etc.) for concluding you suffer from a fair amount of confusion when you seem to want to receive advice on mormon spirituality and guidance on church life, in, of all places, a Catholic website! Most -quite certainly me- would conclude that single fact to be a very curious anomaly.

I’ll be waiting for the evidence of the hatefulness and wacky-ness you attribute to Tea Party people and of what leads you to conclude Beck is, in your view, not ‘Christian.’

Thank you for the FACTS first than the premise; we need people like you:thumbsup:

 

[MelanieAnne]

From the deep intellectual well of thought of TikiTokiguy: “Promise and principles? lol. They are wacky hateful people. But this thread is about Beck, the propagandist. I don’t see Beck as “Christian” at all. At least not from the times I’ve seen him on his TV program.”

I’d like to see how SPECIFICALLY you can call ‘Tea Partiers’ wacky hateful people? How many instances of violence perpetrated by them and supported by facts can you cite? What incontrovertible evidence do you have that they are hateful? Do you say that because they carry anti-obama signs? What can you tell us about left-wing protests and the signs they carried about Bush?

Something like one million Tea Party member congregated at the Washington Mall a few months ago --a gathering government officials and the MSM press decided to ignore because of the threat to their interests those numbers represented-- and not one arrest was made. Even the small amount of trash they generated was picked up by them. Whereas, shortly thereafter small meetings by muslims and barrack-supporters left the mall filthy and those were lauded and reported profusely.

Later as well, just before the passage of obama-care another large protest crowd came together in front of the Capitol, there Pelosi carrying a large mallet and surrounded by several liberal congressmen literally was out to provoke the crowd. At that one loud accusations coming from the HuffPo, WaPo and other liberal organs charged that Emanuel Cleaver, John Lewis and Bwaney Fwank were called the ‘n’ and ‘f’ words and spat upon; yet, even though a reward of 100K was offered to produce evidence of the fact NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF PROOF was produced, because the accusation was basically fabricated.

The fact is that the Tea Party crowds are composed of families, mothers, fathers, grandparents… most folks who had never participated in political rally’s, and now care so deeply about the direction this country is being dragged to by communist operatives in the government, they have taken to the streets in an orderly manner to show their opposition. Isn’t that something the Constitution provides for? Have you instead seen Tea Party members being savagely beaten up by SEIU goons, white voters intimidated by ‘black panther’ members, G20 protesters destroying, burning and rioting? The videos are on You Tube.

As for “Beck the propagandist” - what would you call Keith Olbermouth, Chris -a thrill up his leg- Matthews, Rachel Maddow and that shrieking banshee Ed Schultz?

What about your obvious judgement of Beck calling him un-Christian? Perhaps the fact that mormonism is considered only marginally Christian might rightfully put him in that category, yet in many of the programs I’ve seen he does openly advocate a return to moral values and prayer, in whichever way he understands those to be, while on the other hand Obummer calls ours a post-Christian and even non-Christian nation. The O man has even concocted a ‘history’ where muslims form part, from long ago, of the fabric of this society. Really??? So… who then is more Christian?

Bottom line TTG, if we are allowed to engage in judgmentalism I’d say that from where I’m sitting you sound politically and religiously naive. Your description of Tea Partiers and Beck are typical of left-wing canned propaganda those who spend the largest part of the day with eyes glued to MTV and pressing the buttons on a joy-stick are wont to accept without careful examination. Additionally, there is room in your ‘learned’ words (lol, ROTFL etc.) for concluding you suffer from a fair amount of confusion when you seem to want to receive advice on mormon spirituality and guidance on church life, in, of all places, a Catholic website! Most -quite certainly me- would conclude that single fact to be a very curious anomaly.

I’ll be waiting for the evidence of the hatefulness and wacky-ness you attribute to Tea Party people and of what leads you to conclude Beck is, in your view, not ‘Christian.’

GrapeStomper,

I think that some of the things that Glenn Beck brings up on his TV show are interesting and informative. And because of that I watch some programs.

I submit it would be a mistake to conflate that information with Glenn Beck’s religion, no matter how much, or how little, he brings his religion into the show (which, I submit, is never apparent to anyone not well-schooled in Mormonism.) I reject the idea that Beck is promoting Mormonism, no matter how veiled. To me, from what I have seen, he is promoting the US Constitution and I cannot understand why anyone would be against that. The day that we reject the Constitution is the day that we start to die as a nation.

Most Christians, including Catholics, do not consider Mormons “Christian” in any traditional sense. Do Mormons have some information about Christianity? some parts of the Truth? Yes, they do. But Mormon theology is so different from other Christians as to set it apart and make Mormon baptisms invalid, something that happens with few other sects of Christianity. In that sense, Mormons are not Christian.

I don’t see this sort of issue in the exposure I have had to what Beck says in any TV program about American history. I think he’s doing a great job letting people know that there is more to our American history than some of us have found out in school.

Just as an example, how many Black US patriots did you learn about in school? Not recently, but the ones around at the time of the Revolution? If you asked me before I saw the “Founders Friday” programs, I would say it would be zero. But now I have learned differently. Not from Beck, but from the scholars (obviously not Mormon) that he has on his show.

The people that blow Beck off entirely are missing out on a lot of information from other people. Bad idea.

 

[GrapeStomper]

Sez MJE: “Robert George, Catholic intellectual from Princeton, has been a guest on Beck’s tv show and I thought Beck was wow’d by this great mind.”

I saw that program and I too was wowed by George; however, and I may be wrong, I seem to sense either an ignorance, a reluctance or a deliberate block on the part of Beck to delve deeply into the vast well of Catholic social and moral thought which is well documented. He could also invite more Catholic guests of the caliber of George (and there are thousands of them) that would further enlighten him as to his wrong-headed opinion that ‘social justice,’ at least as it pertains to the teachings of the CC, is a means for taking the wealth of the productive members of society to give to those who simply ‘want.’

Most of his guests seem to be evangelical writers, libertarian and Ayn Rand Institute people whose view is one where egotism and objection to big government predominate, rather than pure ‘love of God and neighbor’. I find in that to be a big disconnect with Beck’s often proclaimed “Christianity,” but that may be due to the fact that:

a) he loudly trumpets his mormonism, and mormonism is basically 98% wrapped up in the promotion and projection of values as they pertain to the church’s’ ethos and aims. In other words, first ‘the church’ it’s trappings, it’s survival and advancement; Christian thought may be a big part of the window dressing, but window dressing none-the-less. The bible happens to be just one of four books to them.

b) evangelicals, because of their ‘sectarianism’ lack the concerted and organized ability to effectively remedy or even attenuate poverty. Their projects and efforts though many, are small in scale, scattered and demand ‘conversion’ from those they minister to.

c) Ayn Rand people, forget about them. They have a deep seated ‘me first’ philosophy.

d) It’s only the CC that -despite losing some of its moral authority through the persecution effected by the media that insists on re-visiting scandals that happened eons ago, while they only scantily report on current scandals perpetrated by other organizations and churches- has the means, the dedication and ability to address injustice in political, economic and spiritual affairs. Further, Catholic philosophy is the only one uniquely capable of explaining the purpose of ‘suffering’ to whoever seeks answers, and to many of the poor, who completely lack the ability to get out from under their poverty, this offers great consolation. Think for instance of the people in Somalia, or the Christians in Iraq! We know that Jesus warned: “The poor you will ALWAYS have among you…” and no political, philosophical or economic system will ever be able to change that, or supersede Christ’s wisdom.