I read this book almost solely for the purpose of more thoroughly refuting an anti-Mormon video which took this as occasion to go after the church. I'm fairly disinterested as far as Beck's show goes; like football, whether I see anything wrong with it or not, I can never watch it with any sustained interest. Incidentally, this review is not my rebuttal. ;-) (As an aside in summary to those who might be worried about the video: it plays a game of deliberate limited context. Some passages can be refuted successfully by others internally, or by showing who was speaking, and/or what it was actually about. That regarding original sin and Beck's study of dubious sources--conducted BEFORE he joined the church--is the most patently flimsy. Still more require a fair leap in logic, easy to those bringing their own malice into it, to draw a doctrinal conclusion, but even those can't bear comparison against official LDS doctrine.)
What the critics have wrong first and foremost is insisting that he speaks for Mormons. Of those prominent in the world, I wouldn't trust him or Reid or Romney to accurately "teach" our beliefs, and I cringe at the thought of their every action being taken as representative of the doctrine. Perhaps the closest to a truly trustworthy source in the world's public sector--to my mind--is Jon Huntsman, Sr., and he actually was called as a general authority. His book, which I do recommend to others, walked a wiser line than Beck's.
The fundamentalists are upset that Beck didn't outright name Jesus Christ as THE wonder that will change your life. I'm not sure who ever does in the political world, by that token. This book is half Keith Ablow's, and he comes across as much less overtly Christian than Beck, by the way (in my opinion, being the true author of confusion here, but blame will attach to one's collaborator); critics appear to overlook Beck's central testimony of the Atonement as "the most powerful thing," on 155.
This wasn't intended to delve deeply into religiosity, though it remains an assumption to the theme. Perhaps Beck's anxiety to not come across as peddling Mormonism backfired, as so many were going to assume that's where he's coming from, anyway. Now we're all suffering from the repercussions. His downfall was in seeking a one size fits all flavor. To do so, one must unabashedly state truly correct LDS principle and break down how it applies to the audience, or at least refrain from borrowing constant snippets from the philosophies of men to buttress confusing ideas. He gave them decidedly too much leverage as appearing in full concord with New Age notions. On that, I agree.
It's not all valueless, but there are some oddly phrased ideas herein. Beck's real crime was burying his genuine and powerful conversion story under Ablow's psychobabble. Thus, it allows slightly stirred but mostly complacent individuals to accept that they can feel good and all roads will lead to heaven. His emphasis on agency was actually bold, and should have been pressed more consistently and correctly. I think the LDS and Beck himself would agree with some Christians' outcry that it's more important that we accept Christ than that we simply accept ourselves, but he failed to convey that very well at all.