latter day saints – Warren Throckmorton

Glenn Beck Tells Fellowship Church America is a Covenant Nation Like Israel

I told you Glenn Beck was going to teach theology at Fellowship Church and he wasted little time doing it. Watch (at about 4:00 into the full clip available on You Tube):
[youtube]https://youtu.be/MHXMZPgPxWs[/youtube]
Beck told the Baptists:

I have a lot of stuff and very little time. I wanna just kind of go through because its essential that we ask ourselves: who are we? Who are we? Because most people don’t know. And what keeps us going? Again, most people don’t know. We came here for a reason. We are a covenant nation. We are the only ones besides the original state of Israel that made the covenant with God.

The other day in response to Beck’s defense of Ed Young, I asked who is/was the American Moses. Beck says it was George Washington. Speaking of the first president, Beck said Washington was

Down on his knees after the first inaugural address, George Washington made a four hour covenant with the Lord. We are violating that covenant now. We are the ones that are blowing it.

Washington went to church for a service after the inauguration but I don’t think it lasted four hours.
This is classic Latter Day Saint teaching about both history and theology. We’re not in the Bible but America is in the Book of Mormon which is where that teaching comes from.
A couple of years ago, I noted that David Barton had endorsed a book which included this covenant teaching. Beck featured Tim Ballard on his show and raved about the book. Here is what Mormon Tim Ballard says about America as covenant nation.

One of our preeminent examples of one who possessed such innate conviction was George Washington. He declared the following in his first inaugural address as the first president of the United States. His message not only reflects his own understanding of the American Covenant, but that of those who came before him in discovering, settling, and founding the new nation.

[I]t would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States.

Ballard, Timothy (2012-05-16). The Covenant: America’s Sacred and Immutable Connection to Ancient Israel (Kindle Locations 1074-1080). Legends Library. Kindle Edition.

Ballard doesn’t write about a four hour covenant but he adds:

Can there be any doubt that Washington possessed an understanding of the American Covenant and of his associated obligations to the people and to God? As he accepted the presidency, it seems as though he felt the weight of his responsibility within the context of that relationship.
Moments before this address, Washington was sworn in as the first president of the United States. This “swearing in” ceremony makes the inaugural address even more significant, as it truly portrays our first president in his role as American Covenant-maker. For example, consider the words of the oath of office, which are found in Article II, Section I of the Constitution of the United States: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The profundity of that promise is revealed as we examine the true nature of the Constitution as national scripture. The Constitution (as will be detailed later) does nothing less than prescribe the formula for securing those American Covenant blessings of liberty, protection, and prosperity. It is but the modern political version of the ancient promise to Joseph found in Genesis 49. In swearing to uphold the Constitution, each president is committing himself and the nation to God and the American Covenant.
Ballard, Timothy (2012-05-16). The Covenant: America’s Sacred and Immutable Connection to Ancient Israel (Kindle Locations 1089-1100). Legends Library. Kindle Edition.

Ballard believes that American colonists were Ephraimites and have a connection to Israel. Mormons have an extremely high regard for the Constitution and consider it divine.
Blogger P.J. Miller calls this heresy and explains it is also popular at the American Family Association. My good friends over at Christ and Pop Culture discuss the broader manifestation of Americanism and address the false teaching that it is.

Glenn Beck Defends His Appearance at Ed Young's Fellowship Church; Are America's Founders Mormon?

Last night, Glenn Beck came to Ed Young’s defense. In a Facebook posting, Beck said Young is brave because he is “someone who’s willingness to come under attack should be commended.” Beck added:

Ed Young is the pastor of fellowship church here in Texas. It is a family of churches that he shepherds from here in Texas to Florida and all the way to London.

He is currently taking a beating for inviting me to speak at his church all three sessions this weekend.

I first blogged about the appearance on Monday. Yesterday, Christian Post’s Nicola Menzie examined some reaction to the appearance and Beck’s membership in the Mormon church. Young is apparently taking some heat over the arrangement.

Beck said his topic is “Gods role in American history and how we always rise to the occasion as we turn back toward God.” Beck criticized those who question his appearance as taking a page from Saul Alinsky. Where have I heard that before?

Beck says Young is being criticized because Beck is Mormon. I am sure that is part of it. However, another reason to question the wisdom of the appearance is that his talks on history are often full of errors. When I analysed his talk to Liberty University last year, I found that he made numerous historical errors, even about Mormon history.

Beck also claimed in his Facebook note that he isn’t going to speak about theology. He wrote:

Darkness knows if we, the Children of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob present a united front we can and will defeat any force on earth. If we are on Gods side who can stand against us?
I am NOT speaking about theology this weekend and I do not wish to do anything but strengthen people’s faith in one God. The God of their understanding.
The God who established this nation and the God that is telling us if we turn our face to Him, He will heal our land.

I disagree when Beck says he won’t speak about theology. He contradicted himself in these sentences. Surely, claims about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, how one may strengthen one’s relationship with that God, and how He established and “will heal” America are theological claims. More to the point, Mormons have very specific theological claims about the founders, the founding era and the founding documents. Beck is animated by those beliefs and will present them in some form to Young’s congregation. Make no mistake, Beck will teach theology this weekend.
I have referred to David Barton’s teachings as Christian nationalism; Beck’s and the LDS church’s very similar teachings could be called Mormon nationalism.
LDS church dogma is that the founders of America were baptized in the spirit and became Mormons. On the LDS website, a 1986 address by then-president of the church Ezra Taft Benson spelled out the teaching that the founders were “redeemed” by baptism into the church (more detail and audio are here).

Shortly after President Spencer W. Kimball became President of the Church, he assigned me to go into the vault of the St. George Temple and check the early records. As I did so, I realized the fulfillment of a dream I had had ever since learning of the visit of the Founding Fathers to the St. George Temple. I saw with my own eyes the record of the work which was done for the Founding Fathers of this great nation, beginning with George Washington.

Think of it: the Founding Fathers of this nation, those great men, appeared within those sacred walls and had their vicarious work done for them.

President Wilford Woodruff spoke of it in these words: “Before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, ‘You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God’” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, sel. G. Homer Durham, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946, p. 160).

After he became President of the Church, President Wilford Woodruff declared that “those men who laid the foundation of this American government were the best spirits the God of heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice spirits … [and] were inspired of the Lord” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1898, p. 89).

The Benson speech fails to include these words of Woodruff to make it more clear who appeared. However, another speech by Benson added this detail:

I straightway went into the baptismal font and called upon Brother McCallister to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men. [Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, sel. G. Homer Durham (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946), pp. 160-61]

These noble spirits came there with divine permission-evidence that this work of salvation goes forward on both sides of the veil.

Woodruff recorded those who were redeemed. They include George Washington’s family, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, along with numerous others.
Regarding the founding of the nation, Mormons believe it was directed by God. In a narrative that sounds much like David Barton’s Christian nation teaching, Benson quoted the LDC Doctrine and Covenants document:

“I established the Constitution of this land,” said the Lord, “by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose” (D&C 101:80).

For centuries the Lord kept America hidden in the hollow of His hand until the time was right to unveil her for her destiny in the last days. “It is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations,” said Lehi, “for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance” (2 Ne. 1:8).

In the Lord’s due time His Spirit “wrought upon” Columbus, the pilgrims, the Puritans, and others to come to America. They testified of God’s intervention in their behalf (see 1 Ne. 13:12–13). The Book of Mormon records that they humbled “themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them” (1 Ne. 13:16).

Our Father in Heaven planned the coming forth of the Founding Fathers and their form of government as the necessary great prologue leading to the restoration of the gospel. Recall what our Savior Jesus Christ said nearly two thousand years ago when He visited this promised land: “For it is wisdom in the Father that they should be established in this land, and be set up as a free people by the power of the Father, that these things might come forth” (3 Ne. 21:4). America, the land of liberty, was to be the Lord’s latter-day base of operations for His restored church.

LDS theology requires the belief that, as Beck said he planned to teach at Fellowship Church, “God established this nation.”
The Bible teaches that God brings all nations into existence as a matter of common grace and Christian teaching historically has been that the U.S. does not appear specifically in the Bible. LDS theology requires American specialness as the “necessary great prologue leading to the restoration of the gospel.” The LDS church is that restoration.
The LDS church also teaches that the church will play a pivotal role in rescuing America.
According to Benson:

Unfortunately, we as a nation have apostatized in various degrees from different Constitutional principles as proclaimed by the inspired founders. We are fast approaching that moment prophesied by Joseph Smith when he said: “Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction” (19 July 1840, as recorded by Martha Jane Knowlton Coray; ms. in Church Historian’s Office, Salt Lake City).

I think it becomes clear why David Barton’s teaching is so important to Beck, even through all of the historical errors. Barton supports Beck’s theology of relationship between his church and the state.
Personally, I think the facts of history do not support either Mormon nationalism or Christian nationalism. However, those at Fellowship Church should know that the lessons they will receive don’t need to be historically sound because the history is drawn first and foremost from LDS theological teaching. The facts of history, like the nation’s founders who appeared to President Woodruff, are baptized until they fit in with the theological narrative.

Liberty University and Glenn Beck Respond to Controversy Over His Sermon

Liberty University and Glenn Beck have spoken out about critics of Beck’s speech at Liberty U’s Convocation last month and neither party is backing down.
Jonathan Merritt at Religion News Service reports on an email from senior vice-president and Liberty spokesman Johnnie Moore. Moore countered critics by saying the Convocation service was not a chapel. According to Moore:

We have explained over the decades repeatedly that convocation is an opportunity for students to hear from people of all faiths and from all walks of life. Liberty has also made it clear repeatedly that it does not endorse any statements made by any convocation speaker.

As pointed out at Pajama Pages, the situation is not quite an “opportunity,” it is a requirement, w ith a fine for lack of attendance.
For his part, Beck today blasted those who criticized his presence at Liberty. Right Wing Watch has the video. Predictably, Beck is bombastic in his response, saying Liberty University is “one of the greatest Universities in the world.” When Beck decides to attack his opponents, he really goes for it, saying one would have to be stupid to disagree with Liberty’s discernment. He then said, just minutes later, that he looks at his enemies as his brothers. Stupid brothers, I guess.
While I still think Liberty was wrong to give Beck the platform, my objection is not exclusively related to religious matters. As I pointed out in previous posts, Beck’s statements about history are badly flawed and serve no purpose other than to confuse and misinform. How that serves an educational institution, I can’t understand.

Major New Study Finds Sexual Orientation Change Efforts To Be Ineffective

A study in the Journal of Counseling Psychology, released online in March, examined sexual orientation change efforts by over 1,600 current or former Mormons. Some beneficial results were noted but the primary finding was that sexual orientation is highly resistant to change attempts, and the efforts were either ineffective or damaging. The study was conducted by John P. Dehlin, Renee V. Galliher, William S. Bradshaw, Daniel C. Hyde, and Katherine A. Crowell.*
Here is the study abstract:

This study examined sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) by 1,612 individuals who are current or former members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). Data were obtained through a comprehensive online survey from both quantitative items and open-ended written responses. A minimum of 73% of men and 43% of women in this sample attempted sexual orientation change, usually through multiple methods and across many years (on average). Developmental factors associated with attempts at sexual orientation change included higher levels of early religious orthodoxy (for all) and less supportive families and communities (for men only). Among women, those who identified as lesbian and who reported higher Kinsey attraction scores were more likely to have sought change. Of the 9 different methods surveyed, private and religious change methods (compared with therapist-led or group-based efforts) were the most common, started earlier, exercised for longer periods, and reported to be the most damaging and least effective. When sexual orientation change was identified as a goal, reported effectiveness was lower for almost all of the methods. While some beneficial SOCE outcomes (such as acceptance of same-sex attractions and reduction in depression and anxiety) were reported, the overall results support the conclusion that sexual orientation is highly resistant to explicit attempts at change and that SOCE are overwhelmingly reported to be either ineffective or damaging by participants.

There is much to digest in this study but a couple of items stand out. First, self-reported results of change efforts were dismal. On page 6 of the online paper, the authors report:

Reported changes in sexual identity. With regard to self-reported sexual attraction and identity ratings, only one participant out of 1,019 (.1%) who engaged in SOCE reported both a heterosexual identity label and a Kinsey attraction score of zero (exclusively attracted to the opposite sex).

No doubt others reported a straight label but their attraction scores told a different tale.
Many participants reported harm, but the quality of life measures did not show a difference between those who had attempted change via an explicit method and those who did not. However, the subjective distress over sexual orientation did significantly differ between the two groups with more distress experienced by the change effort group.
My understanding is that several other articles based on this study are in the pipeline. I look forward to a fuller description of this study. The number of respondents from one faith group makes this survey stand out and worth considering. One would think that change would show up if it happened frequently in a sample of this size.
*Dehlin, J. P., Galliher, R. V., Bradshaw, W. S., Hyde, D. C., & Crowell, K. A. (2014, March 17). Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Among Current or Former LDS Church Members. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000011

Mormons and the Nazis: More about Glenn Beck's Purple Triangle Story at Liberty University

Last week I wrote about Glenn Beck’s recent sermon at Liberty University. In that post, I pointed out that Beck referred to the colored cloth triangles that the Nazis made concentration camp inmates wear to identify the reason for imprisonment. The last triangle he displayed to his audience was a purple triangle (Watch the entire video here, for the purple triangle segment start at 10 minutes into the video).

Here is what Beck said about the prisoners wearing the purple triangles:

what got you sent to the concentration camps for the purple triangle? You were a Bible scholar. The Bible is the enemy to fascists.

As I pointed out in the post last week, Beck misled his audience. Bible scholars were not imprisoned unless they challenged the Nazi party. While all felt the scrutiny of the government, Bible scholars were not imprisoned simply for studying or believing the Bible. In fact, the overwhelming number of purple triangle wearers were Jehovah’s Witnesses. They refused to salute Hitler and paid a heavy price for it.
A little additional reading makes Beck’s misinformation particularly troubling. Beck’s religious group, the Mormons, was tolerated by the Nazis, mainly suffering local intimidation but little, if any, national persecution. Based on the Twelfth Article of Faith, the Mormons’ policy toward the Nazis was to accommodate them. The LDS church in Germany disbanded their youth group without resistance at the order of the Nazis. The Mormon basketball ministry team helped the German team during the 1936 Olympics. Although later vindicated, the church even excommunicated one Mormon youth who was executed for carrying out anti-Nazi activities.
In early 1933, the activities and literature of the Jehovah’s Witnesses were banned by the Nazis. Some JWs were sent to the early concentration camps that year. On the other hand, in December 1933, The Deseret News, a Mormon paper, published an article (scroll across to pp. 19 & 22; also here) lauding Hitler and the Nazis.

Note the reference to banned sects in the paragraph above:

Since the National Socialist party have come to power a few sects have been prohibited or restricted, but activities in the “Mormon” church have been carried on about the same as before. As a matter of fact, a number of interesting parallels can be seen between the church and some of the ideas and policies of the National Socialists.

At least one of the banned sects was the JWs. While the Witnesses were getting a purple triangle, the Mormons were finding common ground with the Nazis.
The Nazis eventually became suspicious of the Mormons, but along the way, the church and the National Socialists worked together. For instance, members of the Mormon basketball team, formed to proselytize, found favor in the eyes of the Nazis who called upon them to help with the German national team.

Mormon basketball team giving the Nazi Sieg Heil salute.
LDS Scholars Alan Keele and Douglas Tobler documented the Mormon tolerance of the Nazis in a 1980 article titled The Fuhrer’s New Clothes. In it, the scholars note that the Mormon leadership as well as individual Mormons tolerated and in some cases embraced the Nazis. In 1939, a LDS official penned another article in praise of the Nazis. According to Keele and Tobler:

In their eagerness to coexist with the [Nazi] government, American officials of the German Church resorted to public relation efforts . . . Probably the clearest example of this tendency is an article by West German Mission President Alfred C. Rees entitled ‘In the Land of the Mormons.’ The article appeared in a special issue of the Nazi Party organ Der Volkische Beobachter dated April 14 1937. In the Editor’s Preface to the article, President Rees is called ‘the representative of the Church in Germany,’ who ‘paints for our readers a portrait of Mormonism today, a church which views the New Germany with sympathy and friendship.’ (p. 27, Fuhrer’s New Clothes).

Keele and Tobler also describe the fate of a young Mormon boy, Helmuth Hubener, who was executed by the Nazis for anti-government activities. The Branch President of the local Mormon church excommunicated him after his ~~martyrdom~~ arrest. Even though the excommunication was not ratified by Mormon leaders in the United States, no one in Germany addressed the matter until after the war was over (Additional note: My original post said Hubener was excommunicated after his death. Instead the German LDS church action was taken after his arrest. After the war, in actions taken between 1946 and 1948, the local and then U.S. church reversed the excommunication. I am sorry for the original error.)
Glenn Beck told Liberty University that the Bible was the enemy of fascists. However, his own church put up little resistance to Nazi fascists. They did not wear the purple triangle. Without the whole story, it is unseemly for Beck to hold it up as a badge now.
UPDATE: In response to reader comments, let me add that Baptists (Liberty University is a Baptist school) were about the same as the Mormons. Baptists lauded Hitler in the 1930s because Hitler didn’t drink or smoke and because the Nazis campaigned for family values. Beck’s grandstanding about resistance to fascism is pathetic when one considers the historical record of his religion and the religion of his audience.
Let me add that I am not saying I would have done any better than the Mormons or the Baptists. I would have wanted to protect my family and so I would have wanted to leave the country or do what I had to do to keep my family safe. In the face of evil, humans often wither with or without the Bible.
Additional sources:
The Rise of the Nazi Dictatorship and its Relationship with the Mormon Church in Germany, 1933–1939 – Steve Carter
Ernst C. Helmreich. The German Churches under Hitler: Background, Struggle and Epilogue. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979. (see especially pp. 404-406)
(H/t to commenter DukeCanuck)
More on the historical errors in Beck sermon.

Religion News Services Weighs In on Glenn Beck at Liberty University

Liberty University graduate Jonathan Merritt posted an article yesterday titled: “Glenn Beck Preaches Mormon Theology at Liberty University.” In the article Merritt provides analysis of Beck’s sermon and the Latter Day Saint references in it.
While there has been some outrage expressed by Liberty grads on Twitter, the school hasn’t responded to these expressions with the vigor it did to concerns the school was partnering with Benny Hinn. Merritt seems largely correct when he wrote:

There seems to be no outcry from students, parents, or faculty over Liberty’s invitation of Beck or of his sermon so far. Perhaps the silence is because this is business as usual for the evangelical mega-school.

After clearly identifying the Mormon theology in Beck’s sermon, Merritt concludes:

So what does all this mean?Given the school’s history, Beck’s sermon may be nothing more than Liberty doing what it has always done best: thriving amidst controversy and leading with conservative politics rather than theology. But it may also be one more sign that Mormons are becoming more mainstream in American life–even increasingly welcomed by evangelicals who would have rejected them only a few years ago.

While Merritt says this gently, I do agree that Liberty often puts conservative politics before religion. To varying degrees, one might have a hard time finding a religious institution that has not done this at one time or another. However, there has to be a line somewhere, and for my taste, Liberty crossed that line by giving Glenn Beck a platform to sermonize and in essence to proselytize their students. If Beck provided value to the educational mission of the school then I can see him speaking in classes, or at politically oriented events, etc. However, Liberty showcased him preaching what was in essence a sermon.
More broadly, there are many reasons I think Beck should not be invited to speak at an institution of higher learning. Mostly, the reasons have to do with his endorsement of the historical problems of David Barton. So much misinformation has been spread by Barton through Beck’s media empire that he is culpable for it. Beck has been approached about the matter by those close to him and he has persisted to give Barton a platform. Barton in turn has softened and minimized the real differences between historic Christianity and the LDS doctrines. All of this disqualifies both of them in my opinion.

Is the Latter Day Saint Church a Denomination of Christianity?

Last Friday, Latter Day Saint Glenn Beck told Liberty University students that Mormonism is a Christian denomination. While I focused briefly on the Grand Council reference in the speech, blogger James Duncan referenced Beck’s statement about Latter Day Saints and Christianity in his post on Beck’s speech in Liberty’s chapel. Beck said:

I share your faith. I am from a different denomination, and a denomination, quite honestly, that I’m sure can make many people at Liberty uncomfortable. I’m a Mormon, but I share your faith in the atonement of the savior, Jesus Christ. In my faith, we have a guy who gave his life for what he believed in. You don’t have to believe it; I’m not asking you to. I’m asking you, “What is it that you believe? Are you willing to give your life?”

Unlike some other speakers who deviate from Liberty’s evangelical affiliations, Beck made a religious claim. It is incredible that Liberty allowed this to be said without any response or disclaimer. Given the enthusiastic response of LU leaders and the student body, I wonder if Beck’s claim is accepted and taught at LU.
Al Mohler addressed the claim that Mormons are members of a Christian denomination. As he points out, the LDS movement began as a rejection of Christianity and a claim that the LDS church had recovered the true Gospel.

Once that is made clear, the answer is inevitable. Furthermore, the answer is made easy, not only by the structure of Christian orthodoxy (a structure Mormonism denies) but by the central argument of Mormonism itself – that the true faith was restored through Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century in America and that the entire structure of Christian orthodoxy as affirmed by the post-apostolic church is corrupt and false.
In other words, Mormonism rejects traditional Christian orthodoxy at the onset – this rejection is the very logic of Mormonism’s existence. A contemporary observer of Mormon public relations is not going to hear this logic presented directly, but it is the very logic and message of the Book of Mormon and the structure of Mormon thought. Mormonism rejects Christian orthodoxy as the very argument for its own existence, and it clearly identifies historic Christianity as a false faith.

As I noted yesterday (and blogger Duncan also demonstrates), Beck spoke from the foundation of his Latter Day Saint theology. About that theology, Mohler wrote:

The major divisions within Christian history (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism) disagree over important issues of doctrine, but all affirm the early church’s consensus concerning the nature of Christ and the Trinitarian faith. These are precisely what Mormonism rejects.
Without doubt, Mormonism borrows Christian themes, personalities, and narratives. Nevertheless, it rejects what orthodox Christianity affirms and it affirms what orthodox Christianity rejects. It is not Christianity in a new form or another branch of the Christian tradition. By its own teachings and claims, it rejects that very tradition.

LDS founder Joseph Smith clearly taught that his angelic visitors told him that none of the denominations of Christianity were correct. From Smith’s writings 1:19-20:

18 My object in going to ^ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all ^awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those ^bprofessors were all ^ccorrupt; that: “they ^ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ^ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the ^fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the ^gpower thereof.”
20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time.

Some of the silence in response to Beck’s claims may be due to the endorsement of David Barton. Barton has claimed that Beck is a Christian who identifies as a Mormon out of loyalty. Also, some of the silence may be due to the fact that Beck donated money to Liberty and promised to do more.
In any case, from both an orthodox Christian and the historic LDS perspective, the case for the LDS church being a denomination of orthodox Christianity isn’t credible.

The Covenant: A Mormon Mission Tool?

Yesterday, I posted a reaction to The Covenant by Timothy Ballard. It was of interest to me initially because David Barton endorsed it in a manner that indicates he believes America entered a covenant with God when the first settlers came here. Ballard believes that God signaled that covenant in Genesis 49 via a prophecy about Joseph. According to Ballard, American are descended from Joseph through Ephraim and therefore have a right to consider America a nation in covenant with God.
In reading through the book, I had the impression that Ballard’s book was an effort to communicate Latter Day Saint (Mormon) teachings without directly appealing to Mormon sources of authority (e.g., Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants). The use of Herbert Armstrong as an authority with the label Christian also made me think that Ballard is not an evangelical. Apparently, there is more of a deliberate effort to conceal the Mormon influence than I first thought.
According to two Mormon sources, Ballard is distancing himself from his first book, a two-volume set called The American Covenant. This first work was designed for a Mormon audience and is still being distributed by Deseret Book Company, a Mormon publishing house.
According to one of the sources, who claims to be a friend of Ballard, the new book which I wrote about yesterday was designed to be a missionary tool with the references to Mormon sources cut out.

I have read both books. I am great friends with the author Timothy Ballard, and he is a phenomenal researcher. I must let you know that “The American Covenant” was written for the LDS audience, and his newest book “The Covenant” promoted on the Glenn Beck programs was written for those outside of the Church. Also, Tim is encouraging many to read “The Harbinger” by Rabbi Jonathan Cahn, because that book and it’s message also talks and teaches about this same great “Covenant” the God has made with America, and the condemnation that we are under for not keeping our part of that “Covenant.”
Tim’s first book that was released last October of 2011 was read by Elder Ballard. After reading the book Elder Ballard asked for Tim to meet with him. He did so, for a three hour visit. Elder Ballard said “that every American needs to read this great book, and counseled Tim to write another copy without the LDS doctrine in it for the main stream, and that through that endeavor it will become a missionary tool.” Tim complied, and the doors have been opening up for him. I promise you and everyone else you will not be disappointed, and these works will help wake up those that are in slumber. Tim also teaches what we must do as a Nation to renew that Covenant before it’s too late, and the full judgements come upon us!

I assume that “Elder Ballard” (who apparently is no kin to Timothy Ballard) is Apostle M. Russell Ballard, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As I understand it, this is the highest level of authority in the LDS church. If this quote is accurate, then it appears that the LDS church hierarchy is behind the effort to use the book and the arguments in it to convert others to LDS faith.
The stealth aspect of avoiding LDS labels is supported by this post by a LDS blogger and talk show host, Candace Salima. In 2011, Salima interviewed Ballard about the Mormon version of his book and posted the videos on You Tube. However, when Ballard went on the Glenn Beck Show in May, 2012, he asked that the interviewed by removed from You Tube. Salima reluctantly agreed but her reaction suggests she was not happy about it.
On May 17, 2012, Glenn Beck interviewed Ballard about the new version without reference to Mormon scriptures. On May 22, a commenter on Salima’s blog asked her why the You Tube videos had been removed. Salima answered:

Mr. Ballard insisted I remove it. He doesn’t want any LDS references tied to his new book. I wasn’t happy with it, but went ahead and honored his request. Needless to say, I will not be interviewing him again.

In answer to another commenter who questioned the removal, Salima added,

It does, and saddens me. I feel Mr. Ballard’s first book was amazing and I’m glad I have a copy of it. I believe it’s being removed from everywhere, which is a shame.

Despite the efforts to obscure the missionary effort, there is at least one source left on the web where the Mormon basis for the theories in the book is clearly demonstrated. Ballard published an article dated October 30, 2012 in the LDS Meridian magazine which cites the Book of Mormon extensively.
To summarize, The Covenant may indeed be a kind of ruse; an effort to expose people to Mormon doctrines in a manner which isn’t apparent. Taking advantage of socially conservatives’ fear and concern about the direction of the nation, the book offers a nationalistic solution based on a tendentious reading of the Old Testament. If the quote on the LDS discussion board is accurate, then the effort goes to the highest levels of the church.
David Barton may not have known about this effort but he has become involved in this ruse via his endorsement.