1)God has a physical body and so does his wife.

2) No Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate gods. People can become gods.

3) Jesus was created by sexual union between God and Mary.

4) Jesus was married.

5) Jesus’ death does not atone for all sin.

6) Baptism for the dead.

7) Dark skinned people were not granted Mormon privileges until 1978.
Jesus and Satan were spirit brothers.

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light
2nd Corinthian 11:13-14

If Glenn Beck’s Christian fan-base are allowing him to call himself a Christian when Mormons by definition of the tenets of the Christian bible are not, then they are Judas sell-outs! By questioning Pres. Obama’s faith they also qualify as hypocrites and Beck their modern day False Prophet!
Mormon Founder Joseph Smith was a flaming racist who taught that blacks like animals had no spirits and could not enter into Heaven. An angel named Moroni gave him a different bible and denounced the Christian bible of 2,000 yrs ago. So why are they calling Obama a Muslim and not Beck a fake Christian! Ignoramuses take note: Obama was elected and hired as President. He is Pres. of people of all faiths and colors. Obama was not hired as your Pastor!

I agree with your summation certainly. Jesus, though, was a subversive. He was unlike any other teacher of his time. He did not claim to be a messiah, merely speaking from the Jewish tradition from which he came. He claimed to be God, which he was tried and found guilty for. The Jewish tradition did not expect a messiah figure to be God, so this was against the Jewish religion. What else did Jesus do that was against Jewish religion / tradition? Well, I think you know there are many things, such as healing on the Sabbath and forgiving the sins of men. So your argument that Jesus was all about the fulfillment and continuation of Jewish law/tradition/religion is reasonable, but only to a certain extent. I think in more ways than not, Jesus did not create a new ‘religion’ but a new faith in God. He broadened scope of the people of God to include the gentiles, not just the Jews. Along the same lines of being a subversive, and broadening who is holy and chosen of God, I think you can err on the side of love and inclusion here on the topic of homosexuality in terms of orientation and relationships. I would grant that Paul speaks unkindly of the practice, but research what the practice was back then. Now there are more acceptable paths a homosexual can take to live out their orientation in a more biblical way by being in a committed relationship. This is getting into the nitty-gritty, so I’ll stop here and just leave this as food for thought.

So, my guess is that Beck heard these ideas during his conversion or early training in Mormonism.

You said: “Compassion” and “love” and “mercy”, yes. But “justice” seems to assume that I’m acting to correct a wrong done against them.

Then you said: “Justice prevents people from being cheated, and it rights wrongs. Compassion gives wherever there’s need.”

Well there seems to be confusion in this still. Justice doesn’t prevent. Right judgement might help, but it cannot prevent. Judgement might extend mercy to someone who needs their property defended or restored, but justice judges merit and has nothing to do with mercy. We are to judge righteous judgement. Which simply means that we are to use the wisdom afforded in the law to make right decisions. But law doesn’t exercise wisdom, it judges right or wrong. So, to defend justice is to make sure that boundaries are kept in tact. That the violaters of them are punished protects the rights of the owner. Justice is found not in the love of neighbor, but in the rights of the neighbor. The social justice paradigm rests in the rights of community and does not uphold the rights of the individual. In other words, there can be no blanket poor. Everyone is judged individuall as to their right. Jesus said what grants the right to his benefit is participation in his body and blood. In other words, the rights of the individual is determined by that boundary. We do mercy in the body of Christ precisely because we share all things in common as co-heirs with Christ. The boundary is set between the world and the church. If we do charity in the world, it is with the same requirements that are required of those within the household. Or they are shut out. Justice, then cannot be: “On the contrary, he said the gospel does require us to care for people.” It doesn’t. Not in the sense that care means charity. It affords rights. I can’t think of any parent who thinks that they are giving charity to their children. We care, but it isn’t the care that is detached caring as a generic requirement. Our care is natural, the right by relationship. It is the right of being heirs.

I think that even though you drew a distinction, it ends up being less than you intended. I did miss some of what you said. Not because I didn’t read it. But I understood it in the context of all you said about justice. I just think that is not the right definition.

“He still said a couple foolish things, but he didn’t say anything like “Social action isn’t for Christians.””

But he should have. Not that it is not an individual vocation that one can engage in, but the fact that we are not called to it. Yet you listed it there. We are called to justice, and to love mercy. Right judgement is necessary. But there is no justice in mercy if it does not define why mercy is given. Mercy is given freely, no by the law. It is according to it, by not required by it. You said: “If your Christianity doesn’t move you to action–caring for people and working to fix injustices around you, then you’re not following Christ well.”

We don’t fix injustices. Courts might. But they usually punish the evil doer and in that are the injustices against the rights of others defended against. Contrary to you assertion, justice requires that first we judge the person are rightly derserving. And we must be forthright about our motive in anything beyond that. If ours is to reach out to the unbeliever, it must be for the demonstration of the Gospel in Word as demonstrated by deed. We must not forget in that the good deed of passing by. Or as Jesus did with his disciples, going into the city and preaching and if the message is rejected to take our blessing and leave a curse.

What I am point out is that even Glenn Beck has no clue as to what is proper Christian charity, mercy, and justice. That is why I sound like I disagree with you or don’t understand what you are saying. I don’t agree with your view of the responsibility of the church or even of the individual Christian. It is the wrong understanding that Beck has, that leads to what he is complaining about. But he is an idiolt and doesn’t see that. For all the rest he says he is crazed but right on. The only thing you have done is to change terms. Social justicers all believe that compassion is the heart of their movement. But the compassion that Christ had is a different animal altogether. Care-taking is what the church does for sheep. Proclaiming the Gospel of repentance is what the charity the church is called to offer to the world.

You defined justice as: “Jesus fleshed out the Golden Rule in multiple ways–the Good Samaritan, “whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me“, etc. James pointed out the hypocrisy & vileness of religion that doesn’t care for the poor.”

I figured there must be some misunderstanding like that, whether it’s because I wasn’t clear or because you skimmed. I didn’t call that my definition of justice.

Read the next section of my post, The term “Social Justice”. My point was that charity and compassion are not part of justice. You came away thinking I said the opposite.

You should really reread the post, more carefully. It’s a little ironic, because my post was prompted by people reacting to Glenn Beck’s comments without really hearing what he’d said.