I was listening to the Glenn Beck radio program in my car on March 2, and Glenn spent an entire segment talking about Mormon history. He recounted how Mormons were persecuted in Missouri and forced to move to Utah and then said, “but yet these people still LOVE America.” Then he gave a very dramatic reading of the hymn “All is Well” and said America may have problems but all will be well in the end. It was unbelievable to hear Mormon history, and a Mormon hymn, to be presented in such a personal way on a national radio program heard by millions of people. I have to admit I was touched.
The Millennial Star
Did you buy gold through his broker too?
Nah, I think gold has hit its peak for now.
It’s good to know that Mr. Beck occasionally says some good things and even things I can agree with, compared to his normal vindictiveness and hate-filled screed.
Although I feign to elevate Beck to the status of a model Mormon, he certainly does a superb job of intermixing Mormonology into his shows on a frequent basis.
On both radio and TV he has spoken of his personal conversion to Mormonism at great lengths, he has detailed the plan of salvation (especially including the war in Heaven), he has explained temples and what they mean to Mormons and how he feels while he is in one, and he has spoken of personal revelation and its importance in each of our lives.
Outside of unique Mormon teachings, he constantly encourages his listeners/viewers to have a personal relationship with God and be ever-learning.
I’ve often wondered how many individuals have contacted the missionaries or at least given them the time of day as a result of Glenn Beck’s influence.
Queue the naysayers…
I think Glenn Beck has his followers, just like anyone else on the left or right. He is loved by the Tea Partyers, which is a fairly sizeable group of people.
While I do not agree with many of the things he says, or the intensity with which he says them, he does have a message that resonates with many people.
And he DID get Van Jones, a communist, out of the WH.
So, as I do with political entertainers on both the left and right, I use them for entertainment purposes, and to give me a little bit of common sense on rare occasion.
Oh, and Rush Limbaugh IS a big fat idiot. But then, so is Al Franken….
Glenn Beck is the first to admit he is not the model Mormon and far from perfect. I like his show and I watch and listen to both. When he starts to bug me, because sometime he is a pill, I turn him off…
As the TWO posts indicate, I am of mixed feelings about Glenn Beck.
On the one hand, he is a blowhard who uses code words(“progressive,” “Marxist,” “Communist”) to incite hatred. I don’t like on the left (ie, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, NY Times edit pages, etc), and I don’t like it in his show.
In addition, I don’t like his style and find his TV show boring. He seems to make the same point over and over again in different ways. Yes, we get it, progressives are bad.
His books are unreadable.
I really don’t like the extreme scare-mongering.
On the other hand, I like what he has said about the Church. I like his radio show more than his TV show. I agree with perhaps 60-70 percent of his politics (although I don’t like the way he makes his points).
And, mysteriously, he seems to get through to and motivate a lot of people. His ratings at 5 p.m. are unbelievable for that time slot.
I really like the fact that every time I put Glenn Beck in a title at M* OUR ratings go up.
He’s full of hate and fear, I haven’t been able to make it through a single book he’s written, and his politics are way out there.
Luckily I can easily avoid his crap just like I avoid his fellow talking heads that are in business to say whatever will bring in the ratings. I probably wouldn’t pay any attention to him at all if there wasn’t the Mormon connection.
7 — This is pretty close to where I’m at. I love Bro. Beck for his conversion story and his sincerity. I also love Bro. Reid for his. I agree with Bro. Beck more often than I do with Bro. Reid, but I find him annoying to listen to, so I only do so rarely. But not as annoying as I find the haters of both of these brethren, especially the Mormon haters. I wish more people would grow up and learn how to listen to people they disagree with, and then to listen to the people they agree with differently.
Joyce, sometimes I think I’M a pill. How do I turn myself off???
@Rameupmtom I find that when one is a pill keeping one’s mouth busy is best. I suggest ice cream and cake.
It’s nice to see Glenn Beck treating something with respect. While I personally see his political views as indistinguishable from certain bins at the hardware store, I do give him credit for his sincerity about the church, and his skills as an entertainer. He is fun to watch.
I worry, though, that just as often as he may prompt somebody to investigate the church, he may also be turning others off. That’s why of late I have tried not to mix my religion with my politics. Nice call, though, on this one GeoffB.
He recounted how Mormons were persecuted in Missouri and forced to move to Utah and then said, “but yet these people still LOVE America.”
As with his grasp of history in general, Glenn Beck’s understanding of Mormon history is oversimplified and two-dimensional.
There was little love lost between the Saints and the federal government throughout the last half of the 19th century, up until World War I. Church leaders frequently praised the principles of the Constitution while condemning federal influence in Utah and polygamy. The Civil War was seen by Brigham Young and other leaders as retribution by God upon the United States for failing to protect the Saints in Missouri and Illinois.
In the early 20th century the Church attempted to change its image in America. General authorities encouraged members to enlist to fight in World War I. In 1927 the Church introduced its “Good Neighbor” policy, removing from church literature and the temple ceremony suggestions that the Saints should seek vengeance on the citizens or government of the United States for past persecutions.
LDS patriotism became the norm during and immediately after World War II, and the Saints have been big flag-wavers ever since.
Well, since Beck’s form of patriotism includes a hate for the federal government, Mike, this might fit well.
Mike, I don’t dispute any of your historical details, but for the sake of fairness I should point out that Beck in this particular segment was reinforcing your point. His point was that despite having a long history of being persecuted by the American government Latter-day Saints LOVE America today. His point was that things will work out well even if you have to suffer persecution.
Geoff,
I watched “Unlikely Mormon Glenn Beck” the other night and was really moved. I loved hearing his story! Everyone in my family was really inspired. I know some people’s personalities don’t mesh with Glenn’s, but as a person who has met him face to face I have to say he has an incredible Spirit and desire to do good. I admire this greatly. Anyone who is courageous enough to take a stand like he does is worthy of respect in my book even if I didn’t completely agree with him.
There are many people who I don’t agree politically with but who I still consider to be good courageous people. Every person sees with a different set of experiences, or glasses. This doesn’t make the person bad or wrong. To be bad or wrong you have to be doing what you are doing or standing for what you are standing for only for selfish reasons or evil reasons. Glenn started out really selfish years ago, but he is anything but selfish now. He is reformed and he serves a higher purpose than himself, and that is admirable.
I recommend seeing the movie put out by Deseret Book. It was refreshing and really insightful. He was so honest. Honesty always refreshes me.
I would disagree with the assertion above that Glenn Beck serves a higher purpose. The only thing he serves is himself. Besides, his often creepy references to sex ought to be a turn-off to any self-respecting Mormon.
Nicholeen, thanks for that input. I think there are a lot of people, especially people offended by his celebrity, who don’t see his honesty. I have watched a one-hour show of him giving his testimony. He cried a lot, just as many people cry during testimony meetings. My personal reaction was that it was partly real and partly either what he wanted to feel or entertainment. I did not get the feeling that he was completely affected by the Spirit in the way people are during Sunday testimony meetings. Again, this was my personal impression. I did not feel the Spirit strongly while he spoke (if I watch Pres. Monson I DO feel the Spirit).
I am open to the possibility that I am too cynical about Glenn and see him as an entertainer first. Because I am aware of my own cynicism, I hesitate to comment on this issue, because I don’t think we are capable of judging people’s hearts, and doubting his sincerity while he is bearing his testimony is a pretty rough judgement.
I would agree with you that Glenn tries to promote good values. But I would also say that he sometimes uses tactics, such as referring to his opponents by “code words,” that are harmful. Some of his language does incite his audience to hold entire groups of people in disdain.
There is no doubt that Glenn has changed his life in many positive ways. I try to concentrate on the positive values he promotes and the positive changes he has made in his life. In addition, there is no doubt that in this segment mentioned above he was speaking about Mormon history in an extremely uplifting way.
But I have this nagging feeling that sometimes he is giving a performance, rather than speaking from the heart.
I don’t believe “progressive” and “socialist” are hate words. They accurately describe those who are attempting to move our country to the far left. Consider that Obama’s voting record was to the left of Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT). Some, such as Bill O’Reilly refuse to call Obama a socialist, and you’ve never heard those labels from CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, WaPo, or the NYTimes. The MSM colluded in hiding Obama and his Chicago friends’ political views during the campaign, and now the polls are showing that Middle America is waking up to their true political agenda.
Where would we be if Glenn (and Sean Hannity to a lesser extent) had not exposed Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, and ACORN? Their own words indict them.
Just to be clear on my reference to “code words.” Code words are words that are intended to elicit an emotional, irrational response. The Left used code words against Bush all the time (“neocon” was a code word for “Jewish supporter of Israel” and was intended, in many instances, to stir up anti-semitism). Today, you hear the code word “tea-bagger” as an epithet for tea party protesters.
I think it is literally impossible to discuss politics without using some code words sometimes. But I still think we should attempt, as much as possible, to elevate political discourse to discuss rational, common-sense solutions rather than resorting to code words.
I think it is a fair criticism of Glenn Beck to say that he uses code words all the time in ways that are intended to elicit emotional responses. It is part of his success as an entertainer. Van Jones IS a Communist and a Truther — Van Jones himself says it all the time. I’m not in favor of Communists and Truthers having high positions in any administration, and to the extent that Glenn Beck helped us get rid of Van Jones, I think we ought to thank him. However, there are many people in the administration who reject the labels of Socialist or Marxist, and if you look at their actual policies they are NOT socialists and certainly not Marxists, but Glenn Beck proudly gives them that label. He is intending to elicit an emotional, irrational response against these people, and I think that is wrong.
As I say, Glenn Beck is a complex figure, especially for Mormons.
He hardly seems complex. He likes money and is willing to say and do what will get him that money. Seems pretty simple. Him being LDS doesn’t make him any better or worse than the talking heads filling up cable news and talk radio. Left or Right, I’m not convinced any of them actually believe what they say.
And Teabaggers isn’t code, it’s the name the Teabaggers gave themselves. They’ve tried changing it now, but their first choice just happened to stick.
Jjohnsen, as a tea partier, I have to disagree with you. The name “tea party protests” started with the rant on CNBC. A few people, including some journalists, may have referred to them early on as “tea-baggers,” but never the leaders of the movement itself. I would link the history of the term “tea-bagging,” but it is a disgusting term for an disgusting act, and this is a family blog. Suffice to say tea party leaders don’t consider it a positive term, and it IS now code among the left for everyday Americans protesting the increasing size of government.
jjohnsen,
Teabagger is a negative and offensive term. Let the words and action of these “everyday Americans” speak for themselves.
Chris H., by placing the phrase in quotes, you imply that the tea partiers aren’t truly everyday Americans. Do you have evidence to support that implication?
I am quoting Geoff. I am not sure what makes one an everyday American.
I believe you’re wrong Geoff, the Teabaggers used that name first last February or March to refer to the fact that they wanted people to send bags of tea to the White House in protest. Then two or three days later someone did a Google search and figured out what they were saying. I remember this pretty clearly because of how less wholesome blogs erupted in laughter and promises to keep things quiet so the Teabaggers would continue to refer to themselves in such a way.
Geoff,
“However, there are many people in the administration who reject the labels of Socialist or Marxist, and if you look at their actual policies they are NOT socialists and certainly not Marxists, but Glenn Beck proudly gives them that label.”
Which people in the administration, whom Beck has labeled socialists and Marxists, have policies that disprove the label?
And to add some balance to your unfortunate statement of not feeling the spirit when he speaks, I once met Beck after one of his shows a few years ago (back before all the security when he’d do free-for-all meet and greets), and I actually did feel the spirit. Pretty strong, too.
jjohnsen, I saw that Keith Olbermann rant too, and while I don’t care enough to try and disprove it, I think the moniker might have arisen from several places about the same time. Whoever was the first to use it, I think it’s a stretch to claim that the movement itself ever adopted the term.
“I once met Beck after one of his shows a few years ago (back before all the security when he’d do free-for-all meet and greets), and I actually did feel the spirit. Pretty strong, too.”
That is a quote that I will have to use sometime.
For what, pray tell, Chris?
I chronicle examples of people testifying (in the spiritual sense) about political figures.
For the record, the show was religious in tone, not political, and it occurred well before Beck was any kind of political figure.
Fair enough, but I find it interesting that you describe your experience with Beck in terms that I would only use for the temple or the Book of Mormon.
And I find it interesting that, whereas you perked right up when I said I had felt the spirit when Beck once testified, you had nothing to say to Geoff when he claimed to have the opposite experience. I guess you don’t chronicle those.
Geoff and I usually try to avoid directly engaging each other.
Tossman, it’s always good to have you comment and add another dimension to the discussion. Glenn Beck regularly gives religious, not political, talks, and I think it’s possible to imagine feeling the Spirit when a member is testifying. It happens all the time in Testimony meeting — why wouldn’t it happen during a one-hour (non political) Glenn Beck religious event? I have felt the Spirit during a taped Hugh Nibley talk, and I’ve been told by many young men and women that they have felt the Spirit during a John Bytheway talk. I could imagine the same thing happening during a Glenn Beck religious event.
Geoff: the vast majority of the people in this country act and vote with their emotions, not with rational thought. (One might say that almost all liberals vote with their feelings triumphing over reason.) Therefore, the use of emotions in promoting political ideas and agendas is not uncalled for.
I believe that the Right actually needs to get more emotional in order to reach and properly motivate those who “feel” more than they think.
I also disagree with your implication and unspoken a-priori assumption that emotions are below or not as worthy as more intellectual rationality. The gospel itself is a feeling, and cannot be objectively explained or proven. Can we intellectually and rational prove that God exists, that Jesus is His son and the Savior, that JS was a prophet, that the Book of Mormon and the church are true? Why then aren’t most intellectuals Mormon? Why then aren’t most high IQ people Mormons?
If reason, rationality and intellect triumph over all, then how in the world can the 85% or so of humanity that acts upon their emotions (more than reason/rationality/intellect) ever be expected to find, understand and commit to the gospel?
I would think that reason itself should convince that reason alone is insufficient.
“The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.” Blaise Pascal.
Book, I think you make some good points, but I am concerned about how political leaders (and commentators) manipulate emotions to get people to make unwise decisions. Hitler was an expert at this. On a less extreme note, Pres. Wilson manipulated us into World War 1 and then manipulated the country into silencing all dissent, violating our Constitutional rights. FDR manipulated us into thinking it was OK to detain thousands of Japanese because they were the wrong race. Joseph McCarthy manipulated the country for several years into pursuing an unnecessary campaign against Communists, ruining careers and livelihoods.
I do agree that there are certain political truths that should inspire passion and emotion. We should love and revere the Constitution and try to protect it. We should try to hold up the values of Judeo-Christian tradition.
But we need to be very careful that our emotions are tempered by reason, especially in politics. The primary argument used by supporters of the current health care proposal monstrosity is an emotional one: we must take care of the uninsured. Well, perhaps. But at what cost, now and in the future? And how do we pay for it, and are we putting our future at risk when the Chinese hold an increasing amount of our debt? In the end, reason must overcome emotional appeals.
The same thing applies to Glenn Beck. To the extent he uses facts, and does not manipulate us, I think he very often has good things to say. When he ventures into the realm of demonizing those who disagree with him and using code words and emotional appeals, I think he goes over the line. That is my personal opinion.
“jjohnsen, I saw that Keith Olbermann rant too, and while I don’t care enough to try and disprove it, I think the moniker might have arisen from several places about the same time.”
I’m pretty sure it was first used at the reteaparty.com website as they organized the send-teabags-to-the-White-House campaign, and was soon adopted by people on both sides (then quickly dropped by the Teabaggers after one of them was smart enough to do a quick Google search). This was in February of last year, which is the first time I remember it being used in a non-sexual way.
And I don’t care to watch Olbermann, Limbaugh, Beck or any of the other people in cable “News”, so I have no idea what Olbermann rant you’re talking about. Feel free to give me a Youtube link though, I’d be happy to watch it.
jjohnsen –
regardless of whether or not some facets of the Tea Party used “Tea Bag” (the movement is largely composed of several diverse, autonomous groups) early in the movement is almost irrelevant. The usage is now almost entirely confined to the left, who are deliberately using a sexual slur, and the leaders of the movement have largely denounced the usage of the term.
Since it is clear you are using the term, I’ll just quote Glenn Reynolds:
“when I hear someone use it [teabag], I know that nothing they say on the subject is worth taking seriously. Either they’re deliberately using it as a sexual slur, or they’re too ignorant to be worth listening to.”
My feelings as well.
I think we have established pretty strongly that “tea-baggers” is a code word used by some people to denigrate and dehumanize an entire group of people, which was my original point. I continue to say we should try to avoid using code words.
Doh, Glenn Reynolds. Now I feel like I’ve been scolded by a grumpy old man.
“tea-baggers” is a code word used by some people to denigrate and dehumanize an entire group of people
Denigrate? Sure. Dehumanize? C’mon, Geoff.
Christopher, I think I’ll stick with dehumanize. Have you watched Olbermann/Maddow/O’Donnell and/or read dailykos, huff post, etc. when discussing tea party supporters? There is a concerted and obvious attempt to turn tea party supporters into sub-humans, stupid, racist, homophobic red necks. This is a classic manipulation technique, perfected of course by Hitler but carried out in various forms by a long, long list of political figures. The key primary tactic is to end all possible empathy with these people — you see them as a group separate from you, evil, misguided, ignorant. This is part of the dehumanization process, and it is exactly what is going on today mostly by the most extreme leftist commentators. The fact that a normally sane latter-day Saint like jjohnsen has adopted such an epithet and decided to defend it even when he DOES have empathy with many people (like myself) who are tea party supporters simply shows that the tactic is working. It is now OK to call people who are simply expressing their first amendment rights by a disgusting sexual term (a term that these people reject) because, again, they are below contempt.
As Latter-day Saints, we should be especially sensitive to such manipulative tactics. This was exactly what went on in New York, Illinois, Ohio and Missouri — Mormons could be killed, driven out and their property taken because they had been successfully dehumanized. The first step was to manipulate people into seeing Mormons as completely separate and to destroy all empathy with them. First you spread vile rumors (“Mormons don’t believe in the Bible” or “tea party protesters all wear guns to their protests”) and then you step up the rhetoric (“the Mormon prophet has a harem” or “all of the tea party protesters are racists”).
I am NOT saying that anybody is going to start killing tea party protesters. I AM saying that the dehumanization process is much the same.
Note that such tactics are also used by the political right. I try to reject such tactics on both sides of the political spectrum, which is why I denounce it when it is used by people like Glenn Beck.
Geoff, I agree with your assertions above. If we could revisit something you brought up earlier, I wonder if you would answer the question I asked you:
Which people in the administration, whom Beck has labeled socialists and Marxists, have policies that disprove the label?
Beck is a lightning rod for criticism, but it’s rare that his critics actually dig deep enough into his arguments to disprove them. If you can tell me who he’s wrongly labeled socialists and Marxists, we can explore and find out if Beck is off-base.
I don’t mind people calling him on dumb behavior or a flawed presentation, but what ultimately matters is the validity of his arguments. Too many people focus on the former to cover insufficient rebuttal of the latter.
Tossman, I’ll begin with the easiest one to prove: just a few days ago, Beck on his radio show called Pres. Obama himself a “Marxist.” Not a progressive, not a socialist, but a “Marxist.” He said it repeatedly and forcefully over several segments — this was not a slip of the tongue. That is patently false. Obama is your standard-issue liberal. He does not reject the capitalist system. He is not trying to take over the government by force. Yes, he may be the most left-wing president since FDR. But he is NOT a Marxist, and them’s code words that I don’t like.
I’d also like to address Beck’s use of the term “progressive.” Beck is attempting to link modern-day progressives to the progressives of 100 years ago. I think it is inarguable that the progressives of 100 years ago had positions that are frightening and wrong. They were in favor of eugenics and creating a master race. They embraced and extolled the fascism of Mussolini and even, in the early days, Hitler.
Progressives of today are a different breed, and Beck’s attempt to link the two is simply wrong and shows he doesn’t understand modern-day liberals in any serious way.
Geoff, how does combating what you perceive to be over-the-top rhetoric with over-the-top rhetoric help in this situation?
You are right to note that Beck’s attempt to link yesteryear’s progressive’s with today’s liberals is strained at best. But you caricature of turn of the century progressives is a bit off. They were by no means the leaders of the eugenics movement, and racialism and racism were spread fairly equally across political lines. But they do a few pretty decent things, too, like help usher in women’s suffrage, direct democratic election of senators, and anti-trust legislation.
Christopher, I recognize many of the gains championed by late 19th century and early 20th century progressives. But there has been a white-washing of many of their beliefs that is ahistorical.
WEB Dubois and Tugwell championed fascism because fascists get stuff done and do what is best for the majority. During the 1920s, the American left LOVED Mussolini (note that the Cole Porter song originally said, “You’re the top, you are Mussolini” until it was changed when he invaded Ethiopia).
Have you ever read any of Wilson’s writings? He argued continually for centralized power for the “good of the people,” exactly what Mussolini instituted. During World War 1, he took that to the logical conclusion, throwing thousands in jail for daring to oppose the war.
I’m not sure if you’ve read Croly’s “The Promise of American Life,” but if you do you will see it calls for a fascist transformation of American life. Croly was a progressive hero.
Among the progressive supporters of eugenics (in one form or another): Sidney and Beatrice Webb, George Bernard Shaw, Harold Laski, HG Wells, Keynes, Pearson, Havelock Ellis, both Huxleys.
Again, my point is not that nothing good came out of the progressive movement. Instead, my point is that Beck confuses the early 20th century progressive movement with today’s progressive movement. There are crucial and important differences.
Christopher, having re-read my #46, you are correct to point out that it was a bit over the top. It should have read, “I think it is inarguable that the progressives of 100 years ago had some positions that are frightening and wrong, in addition to many positions that brought true progress.”
Wow,did someone actualy speak about Glen Beck and Hugh Nebley in the same post?! Please Wikki Hugh Nebley and read about his ideas concerning private property and “communealism”. He and Beck are nothing alike.
Nebley was a Democratic Socialist.He had strong aversions to the sort of anti-worker ideals of people like Brother Beck. He wrote a whole book on the subject of how personal property does not mean abuseing the poor by denying those basic things all people need to live to anyone! To deny your workers bathroom breaks or to make a person pay huge deductables just to see a doctor is way diffrent then denying a person some luxury idem. It’s life and death.
Brother Beck should mabe read his BoM a bit closer. Then he should pray about it. When he is done he should go on his show and sing the song we did as young kids called ” As I have loved you”.
Then he should tour Desret Ind. and see the sort of work hundreds of people do provideing food, clothing and other help in thease hard times. Regan did that same tour when he was in office. Social justice is what the Mormon Church use to be about. Brother Nebley knew that.
Brother Beck has a huge soapbox. He can use it for good or for evil. Right now, what is he useing it for most? What part of what he says will get him into Heavenly Fathers Kingdom, calling Sanders a Marxist or liveing in the spirit of his true testamony of the Church? “As I have loved you, love one another…”
Jerri, it’s Hugh Nibley (with an “i”). Other than that you are correct. 🙂
This is Nibley’s short article titled “Work we must, but the lunch is free.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16216119/Hugh-Nibley-Work-We-Must-But-the-Lunch-is-Free
If you don’t have the time to read the whole thing (you should, it’s very good), here is the last paragraph.
“We are being asked even at this moment to choose between the peculiar economy which God has prescribed for us and what we have always considered the more realistic, convenient, and expedient economy by which the world lives and in which at the moment it is convulsively gasping and struggling to survive. The difference between the two orders is never more apparent than at lunchtime, in the homely perennial ordinance that was meant to unite us all for a happy hour but which instead divides God’s children with the awful authority and finality of the last judgment—in which, by the way, the Lord assures us that the seating order is going to be completely reversed.”
Meaning, basically, that the manner of how we use and abuse money in our society (eg: social standing, power, privilege, etc.) is completely opposite of what is prescribed by God.
One definition of socialism is an attempt to balance out power away from the rich and elite. By this definition, and if you agree with Nibley’s article, it would seem to fit much closer to God’s will as we understand it from the scriptures. (Matthew 19:24, for example.) And would thus be in complete opposition to Beck’s world view.
However, keep in mind that God’s commandments on this issue is far, far greater than any of mankind’s feeble attempts at a social construct. Socialism itself is not, and never will be an answer or a panacea for mankind. It is a transitory and imperfect thing created by man; and it will fail. What is the answer is to follow the commandments of God. http://tinyurl.com/y8fesbq, Mosiah 18:21, Doctrine and Covenants 88:123, John 13:35
As Jerri quoted above, “As I have loved you, love one another.” And until Glenn Beck begins to teach those principals of love to his listeners, instead of provoking them to hate people like myself, I will always oppose him as a horrible “representative” of our Lord’s church.
Hmm, Glenn mentioned the move to Utah, but not the part where “Utah has played a really nasty role in the history of our country.”