Otterson on Beck

[Sleeping in EQ]

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/michael_otterson/2010/09/glenn_beck.html

[Moliere]

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/o...lenn_beck.html

I honestly like that the church doesn't try and muzzle Beck for two reasons.

First, I think the church should let someone think and say what they want as long as they aren't passing it off either directly or indirectly as an official church statement or as a revelation for the world (meaning someone is putting themselves in place of the Prophet).

Second, Beck has some pretty funny (both intentional and unintentional) diatribes and without him I'm afraid that the Olbermann and Maddow shows would be forced to condense to a 30 minute show.

[Non Sequitur]

I went to visit my parents last Sunday. Nothing good was on TV so I poked around in their Tivo'd programs. Among the recorded episodes of The Waltons and Perry Mason, I found 8 recorded Glenn Beck offerings. It broke my heart a little.

[LA Ute]

A little more on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/02/AR2010090205524.html

I aware that members of the Q12 have expressed worry that the Church will be seen as sympathetic to or supportive of Beck - or that Beck will be seen as representative of Mormon political views.

[Gaddeus]

A little more on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/02/AR2010090205524.html

I aware that members of the Q12 have expressed worry that the Church will be seen as sympathetic to or supportive of Beck - or that Beck will be seen as representative of Mormon political views.

I am encouraged that these national publications are doing their homework and showing both sides of the debate. In my personal experience, almost ALL my non LDS friends point to Beck as the example of Mormon political views and are shocked to hear Harry Reid is LDS as well..

I agree almost 100% with the closing paragraph though. If I'm Romney or one of his key advisers, I'd be terrified of being lumped overly with Beck..

[Sleeping in EQ]

This article suggests to me that the Church wants to have its cake and eat it too.

Otterson's line that the Church embraces Harry Reid is interesting. I think it's his way of saying that those at the highest levels of leadership do not have a problem with Brother Reid. I've noticed this sentiment coming through official channels of late. It may be an attempt to get over-zealous conservatives in the American Church to ease up.

Certainly it is not truthful to say that the membership of the American Church "embraces" Brother Reid. He's liked by many of the democrats in the Church (which are a small minority) but there are more than a few American Church members Mormons who think he's evil. He gets defecated on rather frequently by Mormons, sometimes even during the block.

Another angle is that saying that the Church "embraces" Harry Reid helps run interference for a Church that priveliges conservatives in leadership and champions conservative social causes more often than not. The implication here is that Harry, you and those like you are welcome to sit in the back of the bus, but don't even think we want your types in the driver's seat. In fact, it's better if you do sit in the back of the bus because it's good PR.

Over-zealous conservatives won't really rein it in until moderates and liberals are in positions of real influence. Over-zealous conservatives see the two-step.

And so it's on the leadership to put actual responsibility where its mouth is. Otterson's view could be helpful if there was any substance to back it up. Until there is, over-zealous conservatives will continue in their self-righteous vanity and liberals will be reactionary and play the victim (and they won't always be wrong--I've had a few loudmouth conservatives in every ward I've been in in recent years, and they don't treat those with different political views very well).

Church leaders need to put some muscle into what Otterson is saying here or the Becks of the world will continue to intensify the political issues in the Church.

That's my 2 cents.

[Jacob]

Another angle is that saying that the Church "embraces" Harry Reid helps run interference for a Church that priveliges conservatives in leadership and champions conservative social causes more often than not. The implication here is that Harry, you and those like you are welcome to sit in the back of the bus, but don't even think we want your types in the driver's seat. In fact, it's better if you do sit in the back of the bus because you give us PR credit.

Back of the bus? I thought he got front row tickets to General Conference and the Hinckley funeral, right next to Mitt Romney.

Well, perhaps the front row just makes it easier for the church to defecate on him.

[Indy Coug]

Back of the bus? I thought he got front row tickets to General Conference and the Hinckley funeral, right next to Mitt Romney.

Well, perhaps the front row just makes it easier for the church to defecate on him.

Or throw spitwads without him figuring out who threw them.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Back of the bus? I thought he got front row tickets to General Conference and the Hinckley funeral, right next to Mitt Romney.

Well, perhaps the front row just makes it easier for the church to defecate on him.

Surely you know what I mean. In fact, your post suggests my thoughts aren't without merit.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Or throw spitwads without him figuring out who threw them.

And another confirming response.

[Indy Coug]

And another confirming response.

For a communications guy that can write a 20 page essay on the myriad definitions of "it" in his sleep, there is little doubt that anything that is said or written can be confirmed to mean whatever it needs to mean to substantiate your point.

[Jacob]

Surely you know what I mean. In fact, your post suggests my thoughts aren't without merit.

You must have a unique and interesting manner of interpreting ironic posts.

For the record, I don't think your thoughts are completely without merit, but I don't find much merit in them with respect to that post.

[wuapinmon]

You must have a unique and interesting manner of interpreting ironic posts.

For the record, I don't think your thoughts are completely without merit, but I don't find much merit in them with respect to that post.

For a communications guy that can write a 20 page essay on the myriad definitions of "it" in his sleep, there is little doubt that anything that is said or written can be confirmed to mean whatever it needs to mean to substantiate your point.

[Sleeping in EQ]

For a communications guy that can write a 20 page essay on the myriad definitions of "it" in his sleep, there is little doubt that anything that is said or written can be confirmed to mean whatever it needs to mean to substantiate your point.

That just isn't so!

[Sleeping in EQ]

You must have a unique and interesting manner of interpreting ironic posts.

For the record, I don't think your thoughts are completely without merit, but I don't find much merit in them with respect to that post.

You self-identified as exactly the sort of over-zealous conservative I'm talking about. Dismissing what I've said is in-character!