Posted on 04/22/2009 12:10:00 PM PDT by Colofornian
Hugh Hewitt, a political pundit radio personality, wants the Mormon presidential election runner Mitt Romney in the Whitehousevery 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 Hughs church, Presbyterianism, is not true. Gods 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 SmithHistory 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-Hewitts 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 truethe Methodists, Presbyterians, or Baptists. Smiths 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 Hewitts 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 Hughs 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? Its 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, its 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 dont 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, Im going to argue that point with him. Cause, I just dont 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 dont think that he calls the Catholic Church a cult, but his definition is expansive. In the modern vernacular it means sinister and the Mormons arent just simply not sinister. Hey, Greg, thanks.
There are problems with Hewitts 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 dont 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.
Hewitts 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 Peoples 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 Hewitts 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 dont 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.
Hewitts final statement, In the modern vernacular it means sinister and the Mormons arent 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 Hewitts 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, isnt it? The Mormons even fit Hughs last definition of a cult with their sinister actions, which is why Romney had to rescue their reputation.
Why wait?
Eat dessert first!
I feel so neglected, I’ve never had a mormon knock on my door, a couple of J.W.s but no mormons.
____________________________________________
Ah, ya didnt miss much...
Its over rated...
can be fun though...
I lived in an area where for several years I got them once and often twice a month...
When the JWs werent gloating that I would be their personal slave in the JW afterlife...
The mormons were doing so...
I tell both groups that the other group had already claimed me...
LOL
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Slave to a JW in the JW afterlife...
Or slave to a mormon in the mormon afterlife...
Gosh, I dunno...
We've figgered this part out.
>>If the answer is yes, I support, affiliate with, or agree with Catholics then no temple recommend...
Right at that question, mormons will say No..<<
You don’t get it. It doesn’t matter to me that they don’t agree with Catholic teachings. Neither do any non-Catholics. Or they would be Catholic.
BUT their actions speak louder than their words, unlike tons of non-Catholic demominations.
And Groupspeak doesn’t make friends.
Then CONTEND for it!!!
Jude 1:3
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Brilliant work.
vaporware!
Yes, I'm talking about Catholicism.
Well; it just depends on what they are saying.
If they disagree with ME; then they MUST be wrong.
I can tolerate just about everything except intolerant folks!!
And Groupspeak doesnt make friends.
____________________________________________
Mormonmism is “Groupspeak”
Like so.....
Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the prophets, seers, revelators of the church, is cultivating the spirit of apostacy. One cannot speak evil of the lords annointed... and retain the holy spirit in his heart. This sort of game is Satans favorite pastime, and he has practiced it to believing souls since Adam. He {Satan} wins a great victory when he can get members of the church to speak against their leaders and to do their own thinking.
When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a planit is Gods Plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.
Ward Teachers Message, Deseret News, Church Section p. 5, May 26, 1945
Also included in the Improvement Era, June 1945 (which was the official church magazine before the Ensign)
Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you dont need to worry. The lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.
LDS President Marion G. Romney (of the first presidency), quoting LDS President (and prophet) Heber J. Grant Conference Report Oct. 1960 p. 78
The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mothers arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth.
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 289, 1862.
When the Prophet speaks the debate is over.
N. Eldon Tanner, August Ensign 1979, pages 2-3
I sat in this tabernacle some years ago as President Joseph Fielding Smith stood at this pulpit. It was the general priesthood meeting of April 1972, the last general conference before President Smith passed away. He said: There is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, or the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the lord.
L. Aldin Porter of the Presidency of the First Quorum of Seventies (Ensign, Nov. 1994, p. 63)
Follow your leaders who have been duly ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not be led astray.
Boyd K. Packer (General Conference, Oct. 1992; Ensign, Nov. 1992)
The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.
President Wilford Woodruff (OFFICIAL DECLARATION1 D&C)
Do you agree with the mormons that it's perfectly OK for them to start as many closed threads as they like, but when we post OPEN threads on which discussion is allowed, they feel that is not OK?
I have no problem with them starting as many threads as they like...many times those threads lead me to articles on the LDS.org web site that I can post for all to enter into open discussion and bring little-know mormon beliefs and practices out into the open.
Oh well, they believe that.
I believe in the Nicene Creed. Lots don’t.
>>Do you agree with the mormons that it’s perfectly OK for them to start as many closed threads as they like, but when we post OPEN threads on which discussion is allowed, they feel that is not OK?<<
Now who does that sound like?
“We are allowed to slam Catholics because Catholics start so many closed threads and we can’t slam them there.”
Just what I was talking about.
So, WHY do you think that our posting rebuttals to mormon teachings and beliefs takes away their "right to practice their religion"? That sounds very much like a recommendation for censorship of OUR right to free speech.
The fact that they have 60,000 missionaries plus unknown elderly couples in the mission field every year doesn't hinder my right to "practice my religion", nor incidentally does it give them the special right to proselytize while those of us who proselytize for Christian belief should be denied that right.
The right to "click" or "not click" on any of these mormon threads is one enjoyed by everyone who comes to FR, BTW.
I believe in the Nicene Creed also...
I believe in the Trinity...
However, I have had online “fights” with mormons because they dont believe in the Trinity and have called me a “Triniterian” as though they were saying an N word...
I have also stood up for the virginity of Mary when mormons have insisted that she had sex with God the Father in order to get pregnant with Jesus...
Although as a Protestant I dont honor Mary in quite the same fashion as a Catholic might, I still respect her and her place as the virgin mother of Jesus in the plan of God..
And feel appalled on behalf of my Catholic brothers and sisters when she is belittled in such an evil way...
Yeah, someone’s “abuse pushing finger” was ready to go.
There were no abuse reports. I pulled it because it was picking at the scab, i.e. carrying disputes from thread to thread.
If you choose to believe it's OK for only one side to be heard that is your right. However, there are many mormon sites on which this can be done, and I imagine, many catholic sites as well.
Personally, I don’t give anyone a forum to tell me anything anymore. Let them rant and rave.
And context means a lot. When people come onto the Catholic threads stating how wronged they were by some Catholic, normally I find it it is totally out of context.
One is only hurt by oneself. If you do not engage them, they cannot use the words that will hurt you in that way. Old Mountain Man said it and I have seen it with my own eyes. The LDS FReepers normally don’t attack other religions. They put up their beliefs and get jumped on.
If you don’t want to be thrown from the horse, don’t get on his back.
The LDS FReepers normally dont attack other religions.
______________________________________________
You really believe that ???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.