"Something has got to be done!"  Those were the conclusive words of my brother, Troy, as he spoke on the subject of the national debt this morning on his radio program, and the amount of fraud being perpetrated in the United States.  Yet, apart from the exclamation, any type of plan to get the job done to eradicate the national debt, fraud, deceit, immorality, and all the other character flaws that have come to be accepted as normal in America, was not forthcoming.  Why?  One would have to ask him.  

I will posit, though, that one reason is due to the fragmented nature of the information be offered which hinted at the problems.  In other words, we're not getting "the rest of the story" when it comes to what appears to be a dire situation.  Hence we, as a country, are unable to provide a coherent solution to correct the problems.  "What can we do?" was a frequent question asked, which is normal given the lack of a complete picture of just what the problem is.  Ever try to fix a computer or leaky faucet with just a screwdriver?

You might be saying, "Wait a minute.  What do you mean we're getting fragmented information?  Didn't you just say that you heard your brother talking about all the fraud?"  Absolutely.  But, just stop and think about it.  Where did he get his information from?  Another news source; and in this case it was from the TV show 60 Minutes.  

In fact, where he gets his information is typical of where all those doing talk radio or television get their information, whether it is Limbaugh, Hannity, or Beck, and that is from some news source, most of which is heavily edited or slanted, as well as packaged to make it interesting or entertaining to the listener or viewer.  Therefore, it is fragmented with the express goal of not providing a meaningful solution, but merely to provide higher ratings to draw in revenue.  That is not to say that the information is necessarily untrue or inaccurate, but simply that the bigger picture is missing.

It is because of the fragmented, entertainment driven society in which we live that nothing is going to get done to correct any kind of pervasive fiscal fraud and political deceit, until we realize that we are doing as Neil Postman aptly titled his book years ago, Amusing Ourselves to Death.  We're going to keep right on spending ourselves into oblivion, deceiving ourselves until we're numb, cheating ourselves of the best things in life, and sacrificing our liberties to those who know that an overdose of amusement eventuates in mindless servitude and death.  And in this case, death of a country.

Yes, something needs to be done, but merely talking about the symptoms in a fragmented fashion without addressing the cause of the problems is not going to fix anything.  All that is going to do is perpetuate more frustration, hopelessness, and despair, as well as mislead people into believing that talking about the symptoms in an incoherent setting is going to resolve the issues.  

What needs to be done, at least on the radio and TV level, is for people to start treating radio and television for the amusement media that they are.  Radio and television are not designed for serious intellectual thought, they never have been, nor can they ever be.  They are for amusement, and amusement by its very nature is intended to prevent logical, coherent, meaningful thought.  Moreover, if something is not amusing on television or radio, then you may rest assure that it will not be long until the mundane program is pulled or canceled.

Then when it is concluded that radio and television are for entertainment, particularly when it comes to addressing societal ills, then they need to be shut off.  There are much better sources available to address whatever it is that is prompting a citizen to act than sitting around listening to 45 second sound bites which give only partial contexts that are often unrelated, whether it is between stories or the commercials which fund the incoherency.

Aside from his name being thrown around in casual conversation, very little is discussed about the person of Muhammad, and even less still about how he came to "submission" (aka Islam). Muhammad's life in Arabia was by-and-large uneventful until one night while meditating in a cave on Mt. Hira near Mecca. It was something that he had done more frequently leading up to his "conversion," since the idolatrous practices by the Meccans had increasingly caused him consternation, and he was seeking a solution to what he perceived was a problem. Then Jibril (i.e. Gabriel) showed up, and it was something that would not only change his life, but would leave an indelible impression on his psyche that would eventually the lives of others by the billions.

According to Karen Armstrong, a former Catholic nun, and British writer covering several topics dealing with comparative religion, the angels that visited Muhammad, "was no pretty, naturalistic being such as sometimes appears in Christian art. In Islam, Gabriel is the Spirit of Truth, the means by which God reveals Himself to man" (Muhammad, 83). She then goes on to not only equivocate this being with the person of God, the latter of which was viewed by the biblical Isaiah and Jeremiah. Unfortunately such equivocation is without merit since (1) there is no legitimate comparison between God and angels, especially since there is no mention of Gabriel ever meeting either Isaiah or Jeremiah, and (2) of the references made to Gabriel in the Bible (Dan. 8:16; 9:21; Lk. 1:19, 26), he did not going around doing what Jibril did to Muhammad.

While Muhammad was meditating in the cave on Mt. Hira Jibril suddenly appears and begins to physically coerce Muhammad to "Recite!" (cf. Sura 96:1-4). Of course coercion is putting it mildly for according to contemporary Muslim historian Husein Haykal, Muhammad "felt as if the angel had strangled" him (The Life of Muhammad, 73). Another noted Muslim authority records that "He [Gabriel] pressed me [Muhammad] with it [the brocade of writing] so tightly that [he] thought it was death" (Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, 106). After asking the angel three times what is was that he wanted Muhammad to read, and after three times of being nearly strangled to death, Muhammad finally discovers what it was that Jibril wanted him to read. After "reciting," the angel leaves him. But, the terror was not fully gone.

Wondering what it was that had just occurred to him, Muhammad sat in the cave, horrified at the account, to try and gather his thoughts. According to Haykal, Muhammad even ventured to imagine that the cave itself might be haunted. Worse yet, however, Muhammad thought himself to have been possessed by jinn. A jinn, according of Muslim beliefs, was either a good or bad spirit, the latter of which were demonic in nature. So frighteningly convinced of the thought that he might have been or still was possessed, Muhammad decided that the best course of action was to commit suicide by jumping off of a high point on the mountain. Upon proceeding to carry out his decision to kill himself, and after traveling half-way up the mountain, in a strange turn of events, Gabriel confronted him again, and convinced him that he, Muhammad, was God's prophet. Aborting his decision, and after a short time of confession and counseling with his wife Khadijah, Muhammad was at last persuaded that he was a prophet and apostle of God and the whole incident is basically not discussed when the topic of Islam comes up in most circles.

Nevertheless, the account of Muhammad's conversion cannot be so easily dismissed, for it helps one to understand that from its inception that Islam has a violent past. In other words, one cannot even get past the event of how Muhammad submitted to his "god" before there is discussion of a violent encounter with what amounts to a demon who strangles him into submission. Of course, as is typical in most non-Christian religions, there are the mitigating explanations which are offered when dealing with spirit entities. They are explained away as being something benevolent, or equated with someone like God, to make them sound better than they actually are. 

But, the fact remains: Islam started with an act of violence, and as will be seen, that violence has continued down through centuries. Those ignoring that fact, and buying into all the whitewashed propaganda telling people that Islam is a "religion of peace," are foolishly subjecting themselves to become violently injured or killed as the Muslim influence in a society becomes that much more prevalent. History bears out that fact; a history which started with Muhammad's violent encounter with the angel Jibril. And if that kind of history is not convincing enough, then all one needs to do is turn on the television or radio, or pick up a newspaper or magazine, to see what is happening in our world where Islam is the dominant religious influence in a particular society. It is anything but peaceful.

Recently someone asked me to do some digging around on Barak Obama, and then provide a possible solution to "stop" not only him, but also those who are under his leadership. The more I thought about the request, the more I came to the conclusion that Barak Obama is not the problem, nor are his sycophant drones. The problem is the U.S. mentality toward the truth, and Barak Obama and company are merely the symptoms of what is truly wrong with us. In other words, the United States has spent so many years thumbing its nose at God, that now God is giving her the fruit of her ingratitude in the form of guys like Barak Obama, George Bush, and Bill Clinton. And until that hard-heartedness changes, we will continue to see a continuous self-destruction of the country. "The wicked will be turned into Hell, even all the nations who forget God" (Ps. 9:17), and we're seeing the reality of that with each passing day.

You see, we have become a nation of liars and cheats, as is evidenced by the mortgage debacle and paying $4.00+ a gallon for gasoline. We have lost our moral conscience when it comes to doing what is right, and instead we do what is expedient, as is evidenced by the number of abortions and out-of-wedlock pregnancies produced every year. We've become convinced that ours colleges and universities are the panaceas of our intellectual and skill-related problems, when the reality is they are infested with self-refuting atheist-type thinkers that are training our children to be as godless, self-centered, and irrational as they are. Many of us do not have a clue who our neighbor is, let alone do we love them, so we shirk our responsibility to care for one another by passing them off to "the government" should they ever have a need. Our families are in shambles because moms and dads would rather be their children's best "friends," rather than responsible guardians and parents of their welfare that can offer sound judgment, even if that means saying "No,"  in times of decision. The list is virtually endless as to just how morally backward our country has become.

Spiritually speaking the idea of being a Christian has been rendered meaningless, not by the secular world, but by both the Christians and so-called "Christians." Many of the former have lost their courage to stand up and "say so" from a biblical perspective (Ps. 107:2), and instead have become reliant on the "social conservatives" like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mike Gallagher, et cetera, to do their thinking and speaking for them, when those same "conservatives" have probably not darkened the door of a real Christian church in years, if ever. Political idolatry has replaced any resemblance of a Christian apologetic as the representative of "Christian thought," so instead of providing solid, irrefutable solutions that convict the sinner and glorify God, we get tenuous, and often self-refuting, additions to the problem that glorify the talking head, while he plays the petty profiteering pitchman selling his next bottle of elixir to help pay his fare.

The latter (so-called Christians) act like non-Christians, they talk like non-Christians, they think like non-Christians, but they sure like wearing the label of being a "Christian," since it makes them "feel" good. In actuality, though, they're "spiritual" atheists, as they make up their own eclectic blend of paganistic practice and faulty beliefs, and then because they're so "tolerant" and "loving," they believe that must be what Christianity is all about, since Jesus was nothing but tolerant and loving too. Little do they realize that Jesus made the "intolerant" statement that he was the way, the truth, and the life, and that no man could go to the Father except through him (Jn. 14:6). But, with a so-called "Christian," who cares what Jesus said? Remember, feelings trump revelation, and surely God never said what he really did. Did he (cf. Gen. 3:1)?

Therefore, there is really no need to even worry about Obama given our present mindset. In fact, it would be totally contradictory to both biblical principle and our nation's current worldview, which is rooted in relativistic thought, to complain about anything. Romans 13:1-5 tells us that everyone should be subject to the government, since the government is of God. Daniel 2:21 also reminds us that God is the one who sets up and takes down kings.  Besides, we asked for Obama by our lackadaisical thinking and actions, and God gave him to us. And to fight against that is to not only fight against God; it is to want our cake and eat it too.

Now, if in the future we want to see a return to righteous living and thinking, where people accept personal responsibility for their actions, then we're going to have to repent. Christians are going to have to start doing what they're supposed to be doing, and not just piddling around with whatever the latest entertainment fad is at any given moment that titillates their emotions, and they want to call it "worship." They're going to have to quit lying to each other, as well as about each other, which is tantamount to slander. They're going to have to get back to the Bible as the ultimate source of comprehending knowledge, and quit letting the frauds, phonies, and flakes hoodwink them into thinking otherwise. They're going to have to take back the educational systems, and root out the self-centered, irrational idiots who might be able to teach our children that 2+2=4, but have no clue as to why it is ultimately so. Above all, Christians are going to have to give up their political idolatries, and quit letting misguided, hypocritical talk-show nerds pollute their minds with godless analysis and advice that is no better than what they would receive from those that the nerds are attacking in the first place on a daily basis. Then, and only then, will the Obama's be "overcome," and our country return to a greatness that only God Almighty could have created—or the same God we've chosen to shamefully forget, as we selfishly gripe and complain about how terrible things have become amid our ignorance of the truth.

Friendship. We all know what friendship is, but how many real friends do we have? We're researching out now in virtual friendships and everything else. We need to expand our circle of friendship. We need to start trusting one another again. We need to start seeing our neighbors again. We need to -- have you considered that if things melted down who your neighbors are? Do you trust them? Do they trust you? Can you count on each other? Our grandparents counted on each other. They counted on the neighbor. They would bring each other pies and they would share what they had. They would help each other. A lot of people would look at that, "Oh, my gosh, he was talking about, oh, it's going to break down so bad that it's going to be..." that's a good thing. As much as I hated that little street that I wrote about in my book The Christmas Sweater that my grandparents lived on, as much as I hated that when I was a kid, I'd give my right arm to live on that street again where everybody knew each other, everybody worked together. It was like a big family on that little street. While I don't have to move there, why aren't all of our streets like that now? In time I believe they're going to become those streets again and many will say that's a bad thing. Many will avoid it and they will stand in the bar there in the Titanic and you will just quietly be there to say, "Come on, into the boat. It's going to be okay." And then we will all go to shore, put our lives back in order and build a better boat.—Glenn Beck

The last of Glenn Beck's values is his rambling comments about friendship. When all is said and done, be a friend. No matter how many lies, distortions, or deceptions have been told, be a friend. Regardless if one has attempted to undermine the values, virtues, and verities of another through subtle equivocation, contradictory logic, and sleight of hand manipulation of words and meanings, be a friend. Even if the end of what one is telling another leads that person straight to hell, be a friend. That is the kind of friend that Glenn Beck wants to be to everyone.

Now, there are going to be those who will say, "But he's such a nice guy. How can you possibly say that he is not being sincere in his offer of friendship? Why cannot you just take him at his word?" First of all let me say that niceness and sincerity have nothing to do with genuineness, particularly if this nice, fun-loving, jovial person on the outside is speaking with a forked tongue. The writer E. C. McKenzie made this very point when he wrote, "A true friend is like a good book—the inside is better than the cover." So, it doesn't matter what Glenn Beck looks like on the outside; what matters is what's on the inside; and throughout this series of critiques he has been anything but friendly. Oh, friendly like a wolf in sheep's clothing, but that is hardly the kind of friend anyone in their right minds should be cherishing. People tend to get hurt, badly, with friends like that.

Another reason why a sensible person cannot take Glenn Beck seriously is because he has not been forthright in discussing the foundation of his beliefs. Instead, he has done all he could to speak Mormonese and then gloss it over with great sounding words of conservatism, patriotism, and the American way. In fact, he is doing what Mitt Romney did a few months ago when he was running for the Presidency of the United States. When asked about his Mormonism, he dodged, evaded, and obfuscated the questions. To me, anytime a person feels the needs to elude the truth, and then turn around and lie behind my back, then that person is not someone who can be trusted, much less can that person be a friend.

This, of course, does not mean that a Christian cannot be a friend to those who are not Christians. Jesus obviously associated with sinners, and we know that the apostle Paul had friends who were "of the Asiarchs" that were not Christians as well (Acts 19:31). But, that is the Christian making the decision based on wisdom and discernment. Neither Jesus nor his disciples compromised their standards to be friendly with those who were adversarial toward them and their message. In fact, James, Jesus' brother, warned against friendship with the world by stating that such friendship amounted to becoming an enemy of God's (James 4:4).

What it does mean is that since Glenn Beck, and those like him, cannot be upfront and truthful about what it is that they're otherwise covertly feeding people, then whatever friendship he and they are offering should be taken with a grain of salt. Moreover, no one should be afraid to question anyone's motives that are not clearly set forth at the outset, particularly when a Glenn Beck-type is trying to convince anyone about moral-ethical issues. Why? Because once again, a person's worldview will dictate the meaning behind the moral-ethical definitions he is intending to convey. There is no separation or division between that worldview and how he conducts his politics, his family life, or how he purchases a new car. It is all interrelated. And since Glenn Beck's worldview is heavily influenced by Mormonism, then as already seen, whatever he has to say about friends, friendliness, or friendship will be colored by that same worldview.

Therefore, in conclusion, while Glenn Beck advocates what appear to be two lists of principles and values that most normal people could agree upon, after going below the surface of general, if not simply incoherent, statements it is quite evident that those principles and values are anything but normal. Each and every point is loaded with ulterior meanings which ultimately go back to a worldview that is intimately connected to fantasies about gods and goddesses procreating humanoid figures, satanic beings filially related to Jesus, superstitious undergarments, Masonic symbolism, and on, and on, and on. 

What is perhaps the worst aspect of all of this is the fact that Beck has failed miserably in divulging all of this to his audience. But, he still wants to be everyone's friend. Well, I have a suggestion. Until Beck comes clean, and then repents of his error, then please don't expect me, or anyone else, to be his friend. My friends don't pull the bait-n-switch on me, and they certainly don't have a problem telling me the truth. Glenn Beck, on the other hand, has not only pulled all kinds of switcheroos, but has a great aversion to telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, mainly because he doesn't know what the absolute truth is; and as the saying goes, "with friends like that, who needs enemies?"

Personal responsibility. Everybody wants to put the responsibility on the Democrats or the Republicans or as I did yesterday, the Fed. But you know what? Personal responsibility, did I take out too much, did I do too much, should I have done that. Own up to your own things because that's the only way you'll change things. It's okay if you make mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. It humbles us, and if we're honest with each other and honest with ourselves, we become stronger.—Glenn Beck

At first glance Beck's admonition that everyone be personally responsible for his or her actions seems laudable. Everyone should take responsibility for what he or she has done, humbly accepting credit when a noble act is performed, and shamefully receiving retribution when a moral or legal offense is committed against God, neighbor, or nation. It just sounds so good that nothing could be critically said. Right? Wrong!

There are several flaws with Beck's promotion of personal responsibility when seen through the lens of the Mormon worldview, starting with the source which is the Mormon doctrine of the "Law of Free Agency." The law of free agency is the neo-Pelagian construct which advocates that all human beings are completely and totally free to make whatever decisions they so choose, good, bad, and otherwise, regardless of what took place in the Garden of Eden after the fall of mankind. Pelagius was an ancient heretic, who promoted a similar idea when arguing his case with Augustine centuries ago. Mankind was not as bad off as was assumed, Pelagius taught, and the taint of sin did not damage humans to the extent where they could not choose to follow God. Humans merely need to be self-determined, for inherently they still possessed the capability to make spiritually correct decisions. It is the Pelagian thread that runs through Mormon thought, all the way to Glenn Beck's idea of personal responsibility.

The problem with Free Agency and Mormon personal responsibility is that it fails to take into account that when Adam sinned against God, the fulfillment of what God said would happen occurred to the max! God said, "but from the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die" (Gen. 2:17). In the Hebrew "you shall surely die" could literally be rendered, "to die, you will die," which emphasizes the complete, total separation of man from God both physically and spiritually. 

Sin, in other words, was a very serious issue with God and would not be tolerated at all, at the risk of mankind suffering death or separation from God. And while immediate physical death did not visit Adam and Eve when they decided to sin against God, immediate spiritual death did take place, which led them both Adam and Eve to run and hide from God. It is that same sinful impulse which has been inbred in all humans ever since, that has caused every human being to want to run and hide from God. There are none who seek for God in their degenerate condition (Rom. 3:11). There is no fear of God while one is in a condition of spiritual degeneracy (Rom. 3:18). All have gone astray, and turned to his own way of doing things (Is. 53:6). Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin" (Jn. 8:34), and there no man or woman who has not sinned (Rom. 6:23; Eccl. 7:20). All are in bondage, which is why Jesus came, to set the sinner free (Gal. 5:1).

The Mormon idea of Free Agency and personal responsibility, both of which defy biblical statements to the contrary, is formulated in Articles of Faith #2: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." Mormons are under the delusion that there is no sin connection between them and their ancestral heritage going all the way back to Adam, and hence through their own effort to absolve them of their own personal transgressions they can merit through those same efforts the right to be saved. It is a right simply because of the legal aspect of personal responsibility. Mormon apostle Bruce R. McConkie made that clear when he wrote,

Personal accountability for all of one's acts underlies the whole gospel plan and is the natural outgrowth of the law of free agency. Without such personal responsibility free agency could not operate, for neither rewards nor punishments would follow the exercise of agency. And if there were no rewards or punishments, there would be no salvation or damnation, and so the whole plan of salvation would vanish away. (2 Ne. 2:11-16.) But contrary to the false doctrine which denies personal responsibility for sin, and says instead that men are predestined to salvation or damnation, the Lord has said that men will be punished for their own sins (Second Article of Faith; Articles of Faith, pp. 52-73), and that they will be judged according to the deeds done in the flesh. (Rev. 20:12.)—Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 15.

A second major flaw in Beck's notion of personal responsibility lies in the fact that, as pointed out before, the Mormon worldview is relative. There are no absolutes in Mormonism, simply because there is no transcendent object upon which to base them. The "god" of Mormonism does not, nor cannot, exist, due to the contingent nature which Mormons subscribe to in formulating their theology. Hence, whatever moral or ethical decision the Mormon might make is purely subjective. He may be correct in judging one moral or ethical act to be right or wrong, but if pressed on the issue as to why he arrived at such a decision, ultimately that decision amounts to nothing more than personal preference. And personal preferences are a dime-a-dozen, and mean absolutely nothing when determining right from wrong, truth from error, black from white. That's why Beck and his Mormonism falls into the same camp as those he regularly criticizes, namely Obama and the Democrats, because their worldview is as relative as his! Therefore, it is hypocritical of him to be criticizing them, or anything else for that matter.

Finally, Beck's comments about making mistakes and becoming stronger by them through humble admittance are asinine. In a relative world, where there are no absolutes, there are no mistakes, because there is nothing objective upon which judge them. What one has is chaos and eventually mob rule, both of which our world is seeing more of everyday. Brute power and tyrannical rule eventually come to fruition, as more and more people clamor for someone to step in and bring order. Why? Because even though human beings are in a state of rebellion against God, they still possess the image of God within them, and God is a God of order. Mankind cannot survive in a relatively prescribed world. It must have order, otherwise it will destroy itself. That's why Glenn Beck's principles and values are antithetical to what he claims them to be, because if implemented they would only hasten the destruction of society. They would not bring healing or direction.

As noted in all of the previous criticisms the whole idea of personal responsibility as advocated by Glenn Beck is nonsense. It is born out of the nonsense of Mormonism, and ultimately contributes to society's problems. If personal responsibility is to be upheld as a virtue, then it must take into account what God has to say on the subject, and that starts with man's fall into sin, the sin nature passed on to all human beings, and God's ultimate  solution to the problem. Glenn Beck and his Mormonism rejects those starting points, and hence he should be rejected as offering anything of value when discussing personal responsibility, because it means nothing more than his personal, nonsensical opinion.

Courage. You don't have courage if you don't stand up, you'll look the hand that feeds you, said Patrick Henry. The opposite is cowering, panic, fear. It eventually leads to slavery. If you don't stand up, you'll lick the hand that feeds you. But where does courage come from? I think it's from living the principles and the values, honesty, hope, humility, belief in God, knowing who you are, knowing what you believe, knowing how it ends, knowing how it began. I know that people will think that I'm crazy and that's fine, but I think we're living in difficult times, and I have pondered, how does this end. I have only truly prayed for guidance and courage to do the things that he would want me to do, to say the things that he would want me to say and in the end to have the courage not to falter, to have the courage to know what the truth is because I can face anything, you can face anything if you know who you are and what's important.—Glenn Beck

This value of Glenn Beck's is filled with so much irony it's almost impossible to know where to begin the critique. Beck speaks of courage, but then lacks courage in relaying just where his allegiances lie to the audience he hopes will buy into what he has to say. In fact, not only does he cower, he completely contradicts everything he's said up to this point about values and principles, simply because he doesn't have the courage to stand by them. 

One cannot be truly honest and lack in courage to tell the truth. One cannot have hope and lack the courage to trust in whatever the object of hope is. One cannot be humble and lack the courage of admitting one is wrong. One cannot believe in God and lack the courage to testify of him amid adversity. One cannot know who one is who also lacks the courage to see oneself as one truly is. One cannot know what one believes who also lacks the courage to express those beliefs unabashedly. One cannot know how things end if one lacks the courage to acknowledge how things truly began. One cannot know how things began and lack the courage to distinguish the creation from the Creator.

Yet, in each instance, and over the course of detailing Beck's values and principles, he has lacked the courage to be open and upfront about what it is that he's referring to. Worse yet, he is seizing upon a society who frequently fails to contemplate not only its place before God in the world, but frequently fails to stand for much of anything, let alone the truth, because it is afraid that it might offend someone's feelings. So, hucksters like Beck come along and regularly spread their propaganda and that with impunity. In other words, he takes advantage of people in the midst of their fears, their worries, and their ignorance, and serves them up a nice cold glass of cyanide-laced Kool-Aid. Sound familiar? Now, doesn't that sound courageous?

What is interesting is that Beck seeks divine intervention in his quest. He prays to the Mormon god, who is fixed somewhere in the universe nigh unto a star called Kolob. What Beck does not elaborate, though, is that his "god" cannot hear him. "Heavenly Father" has to have someone bring him the message. When HF actually receives the message and who delivers it is anyone's best guess. It certainly cannot be the Holy Spirit, since the Spirit is nothing more than a bodiless phantom of a man who is also fixed in time and space as well. And how HF answers the petition, and how one knows that it is indeed him doing the answering, is based on pure subjective conjecture; a "burning in the bosom" if you will. We know that it isn't HF communing with the petitioner, since that would require him to leave star base Kolob and deliver the message personally. And once again, it cannot be the HS, since that would mean he would have to leave the only Christian on the face of the earth (Rom. 8:9), and if that happened, we would have to have a "restoration" all over again, and thereby invalidate Joseph Smith's claims (as if they haven't been invalidated numerous times already). So, just who Beck is talking to and how he knows his reply is from HF are two questions he'll never be able to answer with any amount of clarity. But, he prays nevertheless.

Courage from a biblical perspective is seen as having both a lack of fear, as well as displaying a cheerful disposition. In both instances, though, absolute trust in the Lord is the key. For example, in Deuteronomy 31:6 Joshua is told by Moses to "Be strong and courageous, do not be afraid or tremble at them [those in the Land of Canaan], for the Lord your God is the one who goes with you. He will not fail you or forsake you." The Hebrew word in that instance (amets), and it carries with it the connotations of being "strong," "bold," and  "secure." Is Glenn Beck being absolutely any of those things by hiding behind the facade of patriotism, conservatism, and Americanism, when his Mormon worldview would actually undermine all three if played out to their logical ends?

When one turns to the New Testament one sees a similar understanding of courage. Jesus told the paralytic, "Take courage, My son, your sins have been forgiven" (Mt. 9:2). When Jesus' disciples see him walking on the water amid a turbulent sea he tells them, "Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid" (Mt. 14:27). In those two instances the Greek word is tharseo, which means not only to be courageous, but to be "confident," "unafraid," and "of good cheer." Another word that is frequently used in the NT for courage is tolmao. It, though, implies the concept of being daring, as when those interrogating Jesus did not dare to ask him any more questions in Matthew 22:46 or when his disciples did not dare ask him any questions during a breakfast gathering after the resurrection (Jn. 21:12). A more positive usage see Paul being as daring in his ministry and role as an apostle as those "super apostles" would were intent on demeaning him (2 Cor. 11:21), as well as Paul's commendation to those at Philippi who had become "far more daring to speak the word of God without fear" because of what they knew of Paul's imprisonment (Phil. 1:14). Conversely, once again, is Glenn Beck really confident or daring to share with everyone the impetus behind his principles or values? Would you, if you knew you would lose people's confidence after telling them you believed in a exalted spaceman ruling the universe from some planet nigh unto a star called Kolob, or that you believed in Reformed Egyptian Jewish American Indians?

Glenn Beck is not only not courageous; he's a coward when it comes to not fully divulging his Mormon worldview, which drives everything he believes. He's only like so many used-car salesmen and shyster-like lawyers in that respect, who tell people one thing, and then when he has them hooked, he either changes the offer, or the real deal starts spilling forth. As noted before this is known in Mormon circles as the "milk before meat," and it has no association with the biblical allusion (Heb. 5:12), which is speaking about those who should have matured as Christians, and yet are still sucking on the pabulum of elementary teachings. Beck wants to hook people on his "conservatism," and then if people become really curious, then he'll spring something totally different on them, just like the Mormon missionaries do when they come knocking. And that is hardly descriptive of what it means to be courageous. It is deceptive; it is dishonorable; and it will be the death-knell of anyone who is naïve enough to believe it.

Hard work. I think we are being led right into a place, you know where the work ethic in America really changed was with the New Deal. Historians will tell you now that that was a pivot point in America. People worked hard. Well, you know what? If you're dependent -- the opposite of hard work is dependence. If you are dependent, you'll eventually be a slave. You lower your self-esteem. You limit your growth. But if you have hard work, you are growing, you're independent, you have self-worth. You know your own capabilities. You're honest about yourself on your limitations. You have long-term thinking. When you're working hard, you're working toward something. That gives you hope.—Glenn Beck

When it comes to hard work, there are probably few people who engage in it with more zeal and success than those in Mormonism.  Not long ago Richard Ostling and his wife Joan wrote a book entitled Mormon America where they reported on not only the vast network of farms and ranches owned by the LDS, but estimated that the Mormon Church brings in between $4.25 and $5.3 billion in tithes every year from its members.  Mormons are clever, intelligent, and industrious, and are not immune to hard work.  Moreover, just look at Glenn Beck.  A drunken sop only a few years ago, he's now the third highest rated talk-radio guy in the land.  It's not that what he says is actually true, but merely that Beck has put a lot of time, effort, and work into getting to where he is currently.  He is a model Mormon when it comes to "hard work."

Yet, there is more to the story than that Mormons just like to work hard.  To them, "work is an Eternal Principle" (Gospel Principles, 179).  There are at least two reasons why they would conclude such. One, because they have seen in Scripture where God worked to create the heavens and earth, as well as Jesus doing God's work when he came (Jn. 9:4).  Two, the Mormon believes that his work, whatever it might be, will garner him favor with God in respect to an eternal reward one day (preferably godhood).  For work in Mormonism is not only "an Eternal Principle," it is a law.  And as stated elsewhere, laws in Mormonism are like the gods in Hinduism.  There is a law for everything in Mormonism just like there is a god for everything in Hinduism.  Work is no exception.  In Gospel Principles it continues, "In addition to being a temporal law, this was a law for the salvation of Adam's soul.  There is no real division between spiritual, mental, and physical work.  Work is essential to each of us for growth, character development, and many satisfactions that the idle never know" (183).

Glenn Beck, therefore, is advocating a "value" that is not only personally rewarding, but the ultimate reward is to earn one's salvation!  Even Adam had to earn his salvation through legalistic means!  In fact, it is a law that he work, since there is no difference between the spiritual, mental, and physical worlds.  What one does in this life, work-wise, will have a direct bearing upon one's salvific welfare.  If one doesn't work, then one cannot be saved.  It is something that those outside the Mormon church cannot know, unless of course, someone comes along and exposes it for the nonsense that it is.

For the one in a right standing with God his work is a product of being regenerate.  In fact, according to Jesus the work of God was first to believe, or trust, in Jesus (Jn. 6:28-29), and that only comes by faith.  The apostle Paul then expanded on the concept of work performed by the believer to include God's providential intervention.  He would write, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10).  Elsewhere he would tell the Philippians when it came to living their salvation, "for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).  In both references it is God who not only directly intervenes in the life of the sinner to redeem them, but then already has planned out the work that He desires to have accomplished through His children.  The point here is not that works or working is a bad thing; it's that what Beck is assuming is completely contrary to what works are all about from a biblical perspective.  Beck thinks that a person's works will merit him salvation, and God informs us that a person works because he is already saved.  Such, though, is the difference between the Mormon worldview and the Christian worldview.

The bottom line is that while Beck's "hard work" value is commendable on the surface, it too, like all his other principles and values, is fraught with ulterior meaning.  One must go below the surface to understand just what it is that he's really wanting to convey.  Inherent in the concept of work is the idea that he's a "god in embryo" and that with enough "hard work" he can eventually progress up the Mormon evolutionary scale and become a fully developed god.  Some might say, "Why do you keep coming back to that theme?"  The answer is quite simply that that is what Mormonism is all about.  Repeating the same lie told to Eve in the Garden, that if she would simply rely on her own self, she could become as a god(dess), and subsequently, Adam a god.  And that ultimately is what Glenn Beck is trying to sell everyone on, if the absolute truth be told.  All of the talk about government, politics, Barak Obama, etc. is nothing but subterfuge to distract people into agreeing with prima facie idea that is really rooted in Glenn Beck's Mormon worldview.