Hugh Hewitt Redefines Mormonism for Mitt Romney

Apologetics Index ^ | May 22, 2007 (updated Nov. 11, 2008) | Kurt Van Gorden

[Colofornian]

Hugh Hewitt, a political pundit radio personality, wants the Mormon presidential election runner Mitt Romney in the Whitehouse—very badly. He casts his pre-election vote in writing A Mormon in the Whitehouse? (Regnery, 2007). In defense of Romney, Hewitt also defends Mormonism better than some Latter-day Saints (LDS). This is strange for a Presbyterian, as what Hewitt claims for himself. It is possible and logically consistent that Hewitt could defend Romney as a republican without defending Mormonism, but he chooses otherwise. The reason that I find this strange is that Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, claimed that God appeared to him and told him that Hugh’s church, Presbyterianism, is not true. God’s official statement on Presbyterians is found in Mormon scripture. To remain faithful to the prophet Joseph Smith, Romney cannot believe other that what Joseph Smith wrote in his scripture, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true” (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith—History 1:20).

Is Hewitt slipping in his faith? Or is he just plain ignorant that real Mormonism condemns his faith by name? This anti-Presbyterian sentiment (hence, anti-Hewitt’s chosen faith) is recorded where Joseph Smith had a vision of God the Father (as a male being) and Jesus Christ in the spring of 1820. Smith asked God which Protestant denomination was true—the Methodists, Presbyterians, or Baptists. Smith’s vision, as found in LDS scripture, states that these three denominations alone were in Palmyra, New York (1:9). Smith then queried, “Who of all these parties is right; or, are they all wrong together?” (1:10). Clearly Joseph Smith wanted to know if Presbyterianism (Hugh Hewitt’s faith) was “right” or “wrong.” He was answered by a personal appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ in New York, where Jesus directly told him, “join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof’” (1:19).

Hugh is in big trouble with Jesus! To be most like his friend Mitt Romney, he needs to repent of his “wrong” Presbyterianism (since Jesus said so!) and repent of his creeds (beliefs) that are so abominable to Jesus, and repent of his corrupt faith. Of the three denominations, Smith singled out the Presbyterians as specifically “not true.” Hewitt needs to get right with the Jesus found in Mormon scripture. Mormon scripture is clearly “anti-Presbyterian.” Yet in the strangest twist of Hugh’s logic, he labels anyone an “anti-Mormon” in his book who has the same opinion of Mormonism as what Joseph Smith did of Presbyterians, but nowhere in his book did he call Smith (or Romney) an anti-Presbyterian.

Here is an example of how Hewitt defended Mormonism from his May 4, 2007 radio program:

Caller Greg: “The question I have is, I know very little about Mormonism, and my question falls into the cult or denomination thing. I think, was it Pastore, a columnist with Townhall, wrote an article a couple of weeks ago? It’s about the sum total of what I know about it.”

Hewitt: “I would encourage you to read my book, which of course is not a surprise to you, it’s available at Amazon dot com. I reject the cult title. I believe cult has about it an element of coercion, which is simply not applicable to the Mormons and it is a sect.”

Caller Greg: “Do you think”…[Greg was obviously drowned out and cut off the air by Hewitt.]

Hewitt: “I just don’t believe that you should call…. Cult carries with it this wheezing of an organ in the background and the idea of chains in the basement and the Branch Davidian and James Jones and I think it is inappropriate for conversation. And when I see Frank next, I’m going to argue that point with him. Cause, I just don’t think…if…if…and I do know where it comes from…Walter Martin wrote the Kingdom of the Cults, but Walter Martin blames that Hinduism is a cult, that Islam is a cult, I don’t think that he calls the Catholic Church a cult, but his definition is expansive. In the modern vernacular it means sinister and the Mormons aren’t just simply not sinister. Hey, Greg, thanks.”

There are problems with Hewitt’s definition of cult. Hewitt does not distinguish between the scholarly definitions of cult from different fields of study, namely psychological, sociological, and theological. He first defined cult psychologically, which under certain circumstances is correct. Some cults use coercion on their members. He failed to tell his audience that this is the psychological definition and that there are other equally legitimate definitions in other fields of study.

To separate Mormonism from his “coercion cult” definition, he then tries to separate Mormonism from coercion. Had Hugh watched the PBS special, The Mormons, that aired just three days earlier (April 30 and May 1), he would have seen how Mormonism uses coercion and psychological pressure on its members. I would suggest that he view The Mormons online The Mormons (http://www.pbs.org/mormons/view) and pay special attention to the section on the excommunication of the Mormon intellectuals, many of whom were Brigham Young University educated, but when they intellectually differed with their church, then they were humiliated through excommunication. Also pay attention to the section about the pressure within Mormonism for perfection that gives LDS women a higher than national average of suicide and anti-depressant drug usage.

I don’t know how Hewitt missed these things, but a scant Internet research would have shown him a much different story:

Ken Ponder, Ph.D, “MORMON WOMEN, PROZAC® and THERAPY, Mormon Women, Prozac and Therapy Julie Cart, "Study Finds Utah Leads Nation in Antidepressant Use," Los Angeles Times, 20 February 2002, A6.
Degn, L. Yeates, E. Greenwell, B. Fiddler, L. “Mormon women and depression,” Sunstone magazine
Hilton, Sterling C, et al. 2002. Suicide Rates and Religious Commitment in Young Adult Males in Utah. American Journal of Epidemiology. Vol. 155, No. 5: 413-19. Suicide Rates and Religious Commitment in Young Adult Males in Utah
Even a pro-Mormon BYU study admits that Mormon women use more anti-depressants and commit suidide more than the national average — http://www.usatoday. com/news/health/2004-04-02-mormon-depression_x.htm [Link no longer active]

Contrary to what Hewitt said, coersion, in fact, applies to Mormonism at several levels, therefore it indeed fits within his first description of a cult.

Hewitt’s next foible was to create a self-styled definition that is not found anywhere, “Cult carries with it this wheezing of an organ in the background and the idea of chains in the basement and the Branch Davidian and James Jones and I think it is inappropriate for conversation.” From where did he get this? This is not what most people think when they hear the word cult. Hugh most likely means “Jim Jones,” with apologies to all of the “James Jones” existing elsewhere. There is no question that the Branch Davidians and Jim Jones (the People’s Temple) were cults, but what made them so? Did they have organs or chains in basements? Neither one did, but perhaps Hugh was thinking of the famous organ at the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City.

It appears that what Hugh was attempting was, again, a psychological or sociological definition of cult. I would suggest more sound and scholarly definitions of a cult from qualified writers who list Mormonism as a cult like sociologist Ronald Enroth, Ph.D. (Evangelizing the Cults, 1990), theologians Alan Gomes, Ph.D. (Unmasking the Cults, 1998); Drs. Nichols, Mather, and Schmidt (Encyclopedic Dictionary of Cults, Sects, and World Religions, 2007); and a host of others, including some from Hewitt’s reformed Protestant background, like Dr. Jan K. Van Baalan (Chaos of the Cults, 1938; Gist of the Cults, 1944), Dr. Anthony Hoekema (Four Major Cults, 1963; Mormonism, 1973), Dr. Ravi Zacharias (Kingdom of the Cults, general editor, 2006), and Josh McDowell and Don Stewart (The Deceivers, 1992).

Hewitt stated, “I do know where it comes from.” This I doubt, after hearing his answer. The term cult was first used of Mormonism in 1898. Hewitt continued, “Walter Martin wrote the Kingdom of the Cults, but Walter Martin blames that Hinduism is a cult, that Islam is a cult, I don’t think that he calls the Catholic Church a cult, but his definition is expansive.” Since I began working with Walter Martin in 1976 and I have continuously been on the staff of researchers and editors for his works since then, I think that I am better positioned than Hewitt to say what Walter Martin taught.

Hewitt is absolutely wrong. Martin did not state that Hinduism and Islam are cults. Hugh owes Christians an apology for his careless denigration of Martin and his works. Beginning in 1985, Martin included several chapters on world religions in his best-selling Kingdom of the Cults, but he always made clear distinctions between cults and world religions. What Hewitt claims to “know” is a fabrication.

Hewitt’s final statement, “In the modern vernacular it means sinister and the Mormons aren’t just simply not sinister.” This has a twofold problem. It does not define the word cults, but perhaps it describes what some cults do. I challenge Hewitt to find any scholarly work that uses sinister and cult interchangeably as mutually definitional terms. A good theological definition of a cult is “a group of people basing their beliefs upon the worldview of an isolated leadership, which always denies the central doctrines of the Christianity as found in the Bible” (Josh McDowell, The Deceivers, 1992, 15). Mormonism, as what McDowell includes in his book, fits that description with Smith isolating himself from “apostate” Christianity and creating a worldview in opposition to biblical Christianity that contains gods, goddesses, populated worlds, spirit children, and the progression of mankind toward godhood.

The second part of Hewitt’s statement, that Mormons are not sinister, is debatable. Mormons are quite often sinister, in spite of what Hewitt claims. We could talk about such sinister things as the Mountain Meadows massacre, or the numerous scandals through the ages, which is why the Wall Street Journal once stated that Utah is the securities fraud capital of the United States (WSJ, 2/25/1974 and Utah Holiday Magazine, October, 1990), but that aside, I think that Hugh contradicts himself here since he admits that the Mormon Olympic scandal, which was an international embarrassment to the Mormon Church, was straightened out by none other than his wonderful friend, Mitt Romney. How can he say on one hand that Mormons are not sinister and on the other hand state that Mormons were caught in a bribery scandal with the International Olympic Committee that Mitt Romney had to straighten out? Queer, isn’t it? The Mormons even fit Hugh’s last definition of a cult with their sinister actions, which is why Romney had to rescue their reputation.

[Colofornian]

Not a fresh article -- but since many LDS threads repeatedly raise the question whereby Presbyterians, Mainstream Protestants & Evangelicals ask Mormons, "what is untrue about Presbyterianism?" -- and routinely don't get answers -- I thought it'd be a relevant post.

As the author points out, LDS' "scripture" specifically says "Presbyterian is untrue" -- something you don't find in reverse among revelations claimed by Christianity.

[a fool in paradise]

Harry Reid holds more power than Mitt Romney and yet his Mormonism has never been reported as a matter of public concern.

[GeronL]

Its a lot easier to defend his Mormonism than his whacked out politics.

[dangus]

>> Smith asked God which Protestant denomination was true—the Methodists, Presbyterians, or Baptists. <<

See, the problem was he asked which Protestant denomination was true. ;^D

[Colofornian]

Harry Reid holds more power than Mitt Romney and yet his Mormonism has never been reported as a matter of public concern.

(You haven't read any of FastCoyote's posts on some of these threads, then...he's from Nevada & could fill you in)

[Leisler]

I just think it is a man crush thing with Hugh. Lawyers in love. Republican Metro’s. Policy wonks who can do socialism better. I imagine when together they giggle a lot.

[exist]

Hugh Hewitt’s show sucks. But he’s a good guy.

[Leisler]

Harry is a way better politician. That’s what happens when you relize politics is hardball and no place for faint-hearts, lollygaggers, hair combers and RINO nancy boys. Bwarny Fwank had more political stones than Mitt.

[Hodar]

This may come as a shock, but Catholics think Baptists, Mormons, Lutherns and everyone else has it wrong. Lutherns think Baptists, Catholics, Mormons and everyone else has it wrong too. Why would the LDS faith be any different?

Why would ANY denomination say, “Well, we think we have everything right, and those (insert opposing denomination here) also have it right .... but gosh, please give us your tithing”. Episcapalians think key concepts in Christianity are ignored or wrongly interpreted by Protestants, and visa versa. The LDS believe that the bible is missing key components that were taught by Christ and practiced in the early church - but have been dropped or removed over time.

Mitt is running as a Conservative Republican. You can either vote for him, or you can chose not to. What does his faith have to do with anything? If anything, his faith is HARDER to follow than most others (no drinking, smoking, cheating, attend your meetings, pay 10% tithing, ect). Of all the ‘conservative’ candidates last election, he was the only one with one wife.

[ejonesie22]

LOL...

Sounds about right.

Man crush...

[Leisler]

"What does his faith have to do with anything?

A lot. This isn't a Mormon country. Mitt has said his Mormanism is integral, inseparable for him. So, he either compartimalizes his faith and is a total secular administrative manager, or he pulls from his minority faith and leads with a steady Mormon view. This fundamental conflict could, as I feel it does, explain Mitts inability to take and execute strong positions. It would of been better, and more honest of him if he went full out as Mormon President. He would of been honest, unconflicted. He's 60 now, too old to still have flip flopping struggle of who he is publicly.

[Zakeet]

What does [Mitt's] faith have to do with anything [re. his qualifications for president]

It is not right to say doctrine doesn't matter at all. Take Islam, for instance. It would be dangerously naive to assume, as American civil religion does, that all religions are pretty much the same. It's true that most religions share core ethical teachings, but orthodox Islam also teaches unambiguously that there is to be no separation of religion and state, that non-Muslims are to live subservient under law to Muslims, and in some sects that Allah commands a jihad or "holy war" be waged against non-Muslim "infidels". To the extent that a Muslim wishes to preside over our pluralist liberal democracy, he will have had to break radically from his faith's fundamentals.

Liberals who insist that religion has no place at all in American politics have to account for the Christian roots of many social reforms. Consider for example the abolitionism and the civil rights movement. When faced with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and other black clergymen explicitly appealing to Christian scripture against Jim Crow, Southern segregationists groused that religion had no business in politics. You can't praise religion's role in political discourse only when it advances causes of which you approve or is practiced by constituencies blacks, say, that vote Democratic.

If God doesn't exist, then by what standard do we decide right from wrong? If a society recognizes no independent, transcendent guardian of the moral order, will it not, over time, lose its self-discipline and decline into barbarism? The eminent sociologist Philip Rieff, who was not a believer, said that man would either live in fear of God or would be condemned to live in fear of the evil in himself.

Mitt, himself, has placed his Mormon faith under scrutiny. In his famous speech on Mormonism, Mitt said that a person should not be rejected . . . because of his faith. His supporters say it is akin to rejecting a Barack Obama because he is black. But Obama was born black; Romney is a Mormon because he accepts the beliefs of the Mormon faith. This permits us, therefore, to make inferences about his judgment and character, good or bad.

Mitt has promised to fully obey Mormon teachings without hesitation and without question.

In his February 26, 1980 speech at BYU titled Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, LDS President Ezra Taft Benson maintained the Mormon Church President spoke with inerrant authority on "any matter, temporal or spiritual " and was "not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time."

As a Temple Mormon, Mormon Bishop and Stake President, Mitt has sworn among other things, he recognizes the President of the LDS Church as a "prophet, seer and revelator," and will "obey the rules, laws, and commandments of the gospel" as proclaimed by Mormon Prophets.

Mitt made these solemn vows with the understanding they effect "time and all eternity."

Mitt either intended to honor his promises to follow another man's instructions, or he lied. In the case of the former, we are entitled to know where these directives lead, and in the alternative, we should be concerned about Mitt's honesty.

For these reasons, among others, I assert Mitt’s beliefs are indeed a legitimate issue for determining his qualifications for elected public office.

[Osage Orange]

Of all the ‘conservative’ candidates last election, he was the only one with one wife.

Only because those pesky Feds put an end to polygamy.....

: )

[iowamark]

TO criticize Romney, one should look at his politics and history, not his religion.

This author seems to say that no Christian should ever vote for any Mormon. I reject that.

[SnakeDoctor]

>> This may come as a shock, but Catholics think Baptists, Mormons, Lutherns and everyone else has it wrong. Lutherns think Baptists, Catholics, Mormons and everyone else has it wrong too. Why would the LDS faith be any different?

I think you may be surprised. There is a difference between doctrinal distinctions (which exist in multitude between the various Christian denominations), and saying a religion or denomination is “wrong”.

As a Baptist, we acknowledge that we are not the sole path to Salvation. We believe that there are doctrinal differences between our denomination and that of Methodism, Lutheranism, and even Catholicism ... but that these differences are debatable, and certainly do not make other denominations “wrong” in the larger sense (i.e. “wrong” with regard to the path to Salvation).

It appears that LDS is referring to Christianity as “wrong” in the same respect as we would refer to Muslims or Hindus — not as we would refer to other Christian denominations.

SnakeDoc

[Tennessee Nana]

Of all the ‘conservative’ candidates last election, he was the only one with one wife.
_______________________________________

The rest practiced polygamy ????

Let’s look at your statement realistically...

“Of all the liberal candidates for the Republican ticket last election, (Romney) was the only one with one wife.”

For now...

But in the case of a recinding of the 1890 ordinance from Woodfuff...

Or Romney’s final trip to the mormon “celestial kingdom” (top bunk)..

Whichever comes first...

He will have a multitude of “wives”...

or so Romney believes...

[ejonesie22]

Excellent point, one I have raised several times.

I am in several ecumenical groups/organizations where I work with fellow Methodist, Baptist, Lutherans, Episcopalians and Catholics, where we all share the same exact message of salvation with others.

We quibble and argue over the centuries on liturgical procedures and such, but in the end the Body of Christ is just that.

The LDS doesn't see it that way...

[Colofornian]

Harry Reid holds more power than Mitt Romney and yet his Mormonism has never been reported as a matter of public concern.

And why isn't Reid more of a concern to official Mormondom? I registered concerns on several FREEPER posts about the Reid-BYU connection when BYU invited him as an October 2007 speaker before the entire student body & faculty. Reid took the opportunity to slam Evangelicals. Reid gets warm reception at BYU

Oh, and what was that warm BYU Fall '07 response to Reid by 4,000 of BYU's faculty and students?

According to that FREEP-posted article: At the end of his speech, Reid earned a standing ovation from a small percentage of the crowd and applause from the rest.

My response then -- including my response to Reid's blasting of Evangelical Christians was:

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 professors were all corrupt...

Joseph says this "revelation" took place around 1820...well before any Mormons set foot in Missouri or Nauvoo.

So we have Harry Reid, 2007, at a BYU-sanctioned event: "They [Evangelical Christians] are the most anti-Christian people I can imagine, the people from the Christian far right." vs. Joseph Smith, 1820ish: "...all their creeds [of Christian sects] were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt."

Smith and Brigham Young weren't exactly spinning in their graves upon Reid continuing the Mormon acrimonious tradition of open bigotry, hostility, villification, and misjudgment.

If Mormons want to continue to this day of calling Evangelicals anti-christs, much to the standing ovation and applause of its student body and faculty, so be it. We can't stop Mormons from maligning Christians; but I would appeal to Mormons to stop maligning God's Word by saying that all Christian creeds are an "abomination" (a modern-day word for that would be "putrid").

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

His DemonicRat Faith takes preference over his upbringing faith!

[Colofornian]

I just think it is a man crush thing with Hugh. Lawyers in love.

I think Hugh's highly intelligent -- just lacking discernment on this issue. And one show by Hugh highly praising Romney's intelligence was in my opinion accurate. I think Romney is quite intelligent; just discernment-challenged. So it's one intelligent man finding commonality with another.

By I think our coalition-building needs to go beyond common intelligence -- and at times beyond shared values. I think we can build bridges with LDS on most issues -- but not all.

[Colofornian]

TO criticize Romney, one should look at his politics and history, not his religion. This author seems to say that no Christian should ever vote for any Mormon. I reject that.

To be consistent, then, you'd have no qualms voting for a Muslim...or a Wicca...or a Scientologist...or a Satanist?

Even most Democrats take religion into consideration when voting for a candidate according to Rasmussen polling (55%)...and it goes up from there amongst both Republicans and Evangelicals. (92% of Evangelicals do).

I'd say if a Scientologist candidate took some of L. Ron Hubbard's science fiction as truth, then that candidate's other-dimensionly worldviews would be of concern to me. And if a temple Mormon (who is distinct from other Mormons) believes that the White House chair is but a "career stop" on his way to a Great White Throne as a future god, then that's pause for concern no matter what the party -- R or D. Obama's not a savior; and Romney & Reid are not gods-in-embryo and/or future gods -- no matter what they believe.

[Elsie]

I believe cult has about it an element of coercion, which is simply not applicable to the Mormons and it is a sect.”

Huh?

[Elsie]

 This may come as a shock, but Catholics think Baptists, Mormons, Lutherns and everyone else has it wrong.

Lutherns think Baptists, Catholics, Mormons and everyone else has it wrong too.

 

Why would the LDS faith be any different?

 

Because the others are merely INTERPRETING certain areas of the bible differently; while MORMONism rejects the bible: specifically the following:

 

 

---

KJV

 Galatians 1:6-9

 6.  I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
 7.  Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
 8.  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
 9.  As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
 

 

 

 

ANYBODY???

 

Like this fine looking fellow???

 

 

 

 

 

2 Corinthians 11:12-15

 12.  But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
 13.  For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
 14.  And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
 15.  Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

 

 

Like THESE guys??

 

 

 

 

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19

 

 

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

 

 

---

---

 

Ephesians 2:1-2 

1.  And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

---

---

 

1 Corinthians 4:17
  For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

 

1 Corinthians 11:2
   Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

 

2 Thessalonians 2:15
   Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

 

2 Timothy 1:13
   Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

 

2 Timothy 3:14-15
 14.  But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
 15.  And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

[Elsie]

The rest practiced polygamy ????

Now you KNOW he meant "at a time"!!

[Colofornian]

This may come as a shock, but Catholics think Baptists, Mormons, Lutherns and everyone else has it wrong. Lutherns think Baptists, Catholics, Mormons and everyone else has it wrong too. Why would the LDS faith be any different? ...Episcapalians think key concepts in Christianity are ignored or wrongly interpreted by Protestants, and visa versa.

LDS enshrine these beliefs of Christian sects and Presbyterianism as canonized "scripture."
Show me any Bible passage that says "ALL Mormon creeds are an abomination." (Yet that's what LDS "scripture" says about Christian creeds)
Show me any Bible passage that says "ALL Mormon professing believers are corrupt." (Yet that's what LDS "scripture" says about Christian believers)

Likewise, Christian denominations haven't put these kinds of specific putdowns about other denominations into extended "revelations." When you read Christian leaders' comments about other denominations or faiths, you usually have informed commentaries, wise insights, discerning opinions -- and sometimes much worse than that, etc. -- but few would try to pass off what they say as "Thus saith the Lord Almighty -- God's opinion of Presbyterianism is that it's untrue."

(Well, what's untrue about it? Generic crits get you NOWHERE in life, be it family, politics, the church, theology, relationships, anything!)

The LDS believe that the bible is missing key components that were taught by Christ and practiced in the early church - but have been dropped or removed over time.

They say much stronger things than that. They accuse Christian leaders and professors of total apostasy. The current LDS PR line is to claim our incompleteness -- like you do. But all you do by repeating their PR is to show it's working.

BTW, the key LDS "scriptural" verse for what you said is from 1 Nephi 13 -- where Smith was able to subtly accuse the Christian church of losing "many plain & precious things" -- supposedly 600 years before Christ ever came. Somehow, still 600 years before Christ, Smith was inserting into the 1 Nephi character's mouth that there were only 2 churches -- the church of the Lamb (LDS see that church as themselves); and the church of Satan.

[FastCoyote]

“Harry Reid holds more power than Mitt Romney and yet his Mormonism has never been reported as a matter of public concern.”

Look up Harry’s Mormon protege Dario Herrera and the GSting scandal. You will get an idea why Mormon ties can hide a multitude of sins in a Mormon state.

Dario is doing jail time for taking bribes from titty bar owner Michael Galardi as a County Commissioner. Harry tried to move Dario to the congressional seat, along with Erin Kenny (also doing time in the slammer) to Lt. Governor. The reason he moved Dario to the congressional run was so Harry could install son Rory in that seat. I know a lot more sordid details, but some of this is getting a little hot for the FastCoyote kitchen.

[Antoninus]

I’m fine with Mormon Mitt. It’s Liberal Mitt I can’t stand.

[reaganaut]

Mitt is running as a Conservative Republican. You can either vote for him, or you can chose not to. What does his faith have to do with anything?

- - - - - - - - - -
Mitt is NOT conservative. I do not LIKE Mitt because he is not a conservative. I do not TRUST Mitt because he is Mormon. I know too much about them.

[Colofornian]

From the article I believe cult has about it an element of coercion, which is simply not applicable to the Mormons and it is a sect.”

Huh? [Elsie]

Els, what? What's coercive 'bout sayin'...
"Hey, if you don't marry, no celestial (highest) after-life kingdom for you...and no godhood, either..."
"Hey, if you don't pass my checklist recommend than I'm giving you as your Mormon bishop -- which includes a mandated tithe, no temple access for you -- and you won't be able to attend your daughter's wedding/sealing in the temple."

[reaganaut]

As a temple Mormon, another oath Romney took was the “Law of Consecration” which places the Church above ALL (including the constitution):

TEMPLE NARRATOR: (All patrons stand.) “Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in this, (The Officiator holds up a copy of the Doctrine and Covenants again.), the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.”

Each of you bow your head and say “yes.”

TEMPLE PATRONS: “Yes.”

[reaganaut]

I would NEVER vote for any Mormon. I don’t trust them. I know what they covenant to in their temples, I know how many are willing to lie to outsiders if it benefits the LDS church, and I know exactly what they think of us “Gentiles”.

IOW, I know too much about them to ever put them in office.

[reaganaut]

And if a temple Mormon (who is distinct from other Mormons) believes that the White House chair is but a “career stop” on his way to a Great White Throne as a future god,

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Or more likely that he is fulfilling a prophecy made by his “prophet, priest and king”:

from a discourse delivered by Joseph Smith July 19, 1840....

“We shall build the Zion of the Lord in peace untill the servants of that Lord shall begin to lay the foundation of a great and high watch Tower and then shall they begin to say within themselves, what need hath my Lord of this tower seeing this is a time of peace &c. Then the Enemy shall come as a thief in the night and scatter the servants abroad. When the seed of these 12 Olive trees are scattered abroad they will wake up the Nations of the whole Earth. 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 up[on] which the Nation shall lean and they shall bear the constitution away from the very verge of destruction.” (The Historians Corner, BYU Studies, Vol. 19, No. 3, p. 391-392)

[Colofornian]

What does his faith have to do with anything? [Hodar]

TO criticize Romney, one should look at his politics and history, not his religion. This author seems to say that no Christian should ever vote for any Mormon. I reject that. [Iowamark]

I'm fine with Mormon Mitt. It’s Liberal Mitt I can’t stand. [Antoninus]

'Problemo Point 1: Wide open door for massive LDS PR prop campaign. Just as Bill Clinton was a presidential role-model disaster for our young generation via his scandals, any POTUS that the voting block elevates to the highest role model position in our land accords the highest vote of respectability to the public aspects of what that person stands for. If that person, for example, is a neatly tucked-away communist who's adopted a mask of "family values," & we elect him president, we are telling our kids that communism is OK to emulate. Furthermore, we are handing proselytizing fuel to communists everywhere. It would fuel their door-to-door boldness & other aggressive campaigns to be able to say, "See. Our respectable Communist leader holds the highest office in the land. Come study what helped make the man he is today!"

Problemo Point 2: Let's say the candidate is an open doctrinaire communist. He comes to me (let's say I'm a successful businessman who has benefitted from capitalism) & says: "If you check out my most closely-held tenets of my 'faith,' they state that you are an apostate from Marx. Every capitalistic creed is an 'abomination' before the sovereign state. Your capitalistic leaders are 'corrupt.' There are only two economic systems: the system of the devil (if he exists), capitalism; and the perfect ideal system, communism. I can expect your vote, then?"

Now ya wanna explain how the above is any different than a doctrinaire Mormon who subscribes to the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History, verses 18-19? I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join NONE of them, for they were ALL wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that ALL their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were ALL corrupt..." LDS cannot just take or leave for this is authoritative "Scripture"; this verse originates as the supposed description of the very foundation of the church--the First Vision of Joseph Smith. One of the top 4 teachings explained by every LDS missionary is the doctrine of the universal apostasy of the historic Christian church (they teach this right alongside their key doctrine of "restoration"). Any true-believing LDS candidate (not necessarily a Jack Mormon candidate) who approaches us historic Christians is saying: "You are an apostate; I am a restorationist built upon the complete ashes of your faith. Your creeds--all of them--are an 'abomination' before God. Your professing believers are 'corrupt.' As it says in the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:9-10, there's only two churches...Ours, the Church of the Lamb; and yours, the Church of the devil. Now, that I've properly inspired you, Mr. Joe Voter, I can expect your vote on Tuesday, then?" [Just because this is NOT communicated face-to-face by an LDS candidate or somebody @ LDS grass roots level doesn't mean it's not being communicated millions of times each year as every Pearl of Great Price/Book of Mormon comes off the printing press into dozens of languages--all supported by tithing members...and, by the LDS missionary enterprise which is supported by every local ward & stake whereby all 60,000 LDS missionaries go door-to-door proclaiming their doctrine of alleged Christian apostasy...]

Problemo Point 3: Taking this voter alienation into consideration, & taking the potential MSM onslaught into consideration in '12 with an African-American Democrat running against a 1978-policy changing LDS church, a smart voter MUST consider candidate viability. We would see MSM questions like, “Mr. Romney, why as a 30 year-old adult did you belong to a religion restricting blacks from priesthood?” "Do you believe you will be a god?” “Do you believe conservative voters from other churches are 'apostates?'” “Do you believe that although polygamy is no longer practiced on earth, it's being practiced at now & for eternity in another dimension known as the celestial kingdom?"

Problemo Point 4: (related to Point 1 & applicable only to POTUS):
If I... .
..(a) was a POTUS candidate from a commonly regarded "cultic group"; and
...(b) mislabel 75% of my voting base's primary faith tenets & claims as mere "apostate" status (Note: 75% of people claim to be "Christians" in the more mainline/Protestant/Catholic sense--& frankly, this % is higher in the Republican party)
Then...
Conclusion: I not only show open disdain for my voting base, but betray my ability to inspire confidence in my ability to accurately define a major world religion. If I cannot accurately define a major world religion, what confidence do I inspire re: my ability to handle national security issues, terrorist issues, & negotiation issues pertaining to another world religion like Islam? (Besides, how are LDS who in print openly label all Christians as “apostates” any different than Muslims who in print openly label all Christians as “infidels?”)

[Colofornian]

See, the problem was he asked which Protestant denomination was true. ;^D

LOL

(OK, I detect some likely catholicism in there somewhere, eh? If that's the case, and in light of Harry Reid speaking @ BYU -- see post #18 -- and Obama speaking at a spate of Catholic universities, what's up with that?)

[Dr. Zzyzx]

Does it put a tingle up your leg to post two-year old articles?

[Colofornian]

Other articles indicate Romney's not going away. If Romney's back for '12, Hugh Hewitt's support won't diminish.

(So, let's just say I'm "ahead of the ('12) game." Hindsight is foresight.)

[Zakeet]

As a temple Mormon, another oath Romney took was ...

IRRC, the Mormon Temple Ceremony used to condemn the United States for allowing persecution of Mormons in Missouri in 1838 -- and called for the overthrow of the United States government.

Anybody know if this is correct, and if so, was it in the Rites at the time Mitt was sealed to Ann?

[restornu]

IRRC, the Mormon Temple Ceremony used to condemn the United States for allowing persecution of Mormons in Missouri in 1838 — and called for the overthrow of the United States government.

Never happen

Such silliness the House of the Lord (temple) has to do with things of the Lord not of the world government!

Article of Faith
12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

[Godzilla]

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Except when it came to polygamy.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Greetings Mr. Single Issue poster. :-)

[Colofornian]

(Hey I posted on Satan as “God” of this World thread today...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2235157/posts..
...you’re going to at least have to call me Mr. Double Issue now :)

[restornu]

Apples and Oranges this is why I find having a discussion with you anti just an endless mission to jumping from one issue to another.

I really don’t care if the anti’s have issues with Polygamy there was religion freedom and than the law was enacted not the other way around!

It was a revelation and which could not be with drawn until the Lord give the manifesto.

These are hard things to understand for all but that is what is it is nothing more.

The LDS does not use the Lord religion as a weapon as I have witness here how many use the Bible as weapon which the Lord never intend his word to be used.

There are times the Lord hid things from the world but never to
use Ceremony to condemn the United States it is not the way the Lord works.

Those ceremony are all about returning back to the Father in Heaven and has nothing to do with corporal government.

When man keeps the Lord commandments than those who rule the country will be a blessing.

But this has nothing to do with what goes on in the House of the Lord.

Even in the Bible the Lord has council his children how to walk upon the earth so man isn’t living under tyrants.

There is more work to be done so this topsy-turvy of government we have today can be made right side up!

All of us should strive to live closer to the Lord and to do His will by keeping the Lord’s commandments.

[Godzilla]

Apples and Oranges this is why I find having a discussion with you anti just an endless mission to jumping from one issue to another.

Nope, you claimed that mormons follow the laws of the land. Polygamy was illegal from day 1 and even forbidden by the laws of mormonism - yet smith felt he could flaunt the law.

The LDS does not use the Lord religion as a weapon as I have witness here how many use the Bible as weapon which the Lord never intend his word to be used.

Do I need to cite your prophets who show your statement to be blatantly wrong Resty?

[restornu]

No it was not illigal it was enacted in 1862!

An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies - Google Books Resultby Orlando O. Espín, James B. Nickoloff - 2007 - Religion - 1521 pages
... polygyny, the practice of multiple wives rather than multiple husbands). ... The first federal legislation against polygamy was enacted in 1862, ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=k85JKr1OXcQC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=polygyny+enacted+in+1862!&source=bl&ots=31HYOKObh6&sig=gNWDx-i55boCSm5igaFFD-kF_fM&hl=en&ei=tbfvSduKDZ-stge9n6jDDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

[Godzilla]

No it was not illigal it was enacted in 1862!

Smith started practicing it in Illinois

"Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred." Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99

Doctrine and Covenants Section 101, Verse 4 (1835 edition)
"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband; except that in the event of death when either is at liberty to marry again." (History of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 247)

The 1862 federal Morrill Act was not the first law which made bigamy illegal; it was merely the first law which specifically reinforced existing state anti-bigamy laws. It was enacted specifically to close the "loophole" that the Mormons mistakenly believed they were operating under.

Even after the passage of the 1862 Morrill Act, the Mormon Church continued to practice polygamy in violation of the law for another half-century, and repeately challenged those laws. So anyone who argues that "The Mormons stopped practicing polygamy when it was made illegal" are either misinformed or misrepresenting the truth.

[ejonesie22]

That explains the big 5000 plus man standing army Smith was “General” of...

[restornu]

“The Mormons stopped practicing polygamy when it was made illegal” ...

Wrong it ended when the Lord’s Prophet received a revelation too not until, if it was that simple to end, it would have been done years ago and not endure all that heat!

[Colofornian]

I'll have to say you're just continuing to spew your hatred.

My, my. Any other "loving" thoughts from you?

And you work wonders as far as taking things out of context. The Jews' comment was only about Pharisees. And I didn't say anything different than what Jesus said to them in the latter part of John 8. Be careful of the ground you walk on when by implication you start accusing Jesus Christ of "spewing hatred."

NIV sub-heading: The Children of the Devil (Jesus said) 41You are doing the things your own father does." "We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself." 42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." (John 8:41-47)

II, your ignorance isn't invincible, it's frankly overwhelmingly pathetic.

...until you can post something that doesn't charge some other group of people as being under the influence of the devil...

I don't apologize for mentioning what an apostle of the Lord uttered: We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one. (1 John 5:19)

But if you want to explain all this world's darkness in other ways, I've got a listening ear.

[restornu]

Did answer that question too bad you missed it!