Hugh Hewitt Redefines Mormonism for Mitt Romney

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.

An interesting article that I found about mormonism:

Neo-Fundamentalism Part 3: LDS Premillennialism

Peter Brown

Mormons in 1830 were in league with a slew of millennialist faiths (Shakers, Campellites, and Adventists) on the brink of actualized utopia after the resurgence of premillennialism. The Second Great Awakening was typically seen as symbolic of the “refreshing of times” as spoke by Peter and a rejection of the philosophical polemics of the religious aspects of the Age of Reason. The only thing to do was to wait for Jesus to put His capstone on the Romantic Age.

According to Bushman, early Mormon converts were imminent millennialists. Even Joseph himself was sure of its coming. The establishment of the Church of Christ and the gathering to Kirtland was seen as an event that would insulate them from the calamities that would come in a very short. In fact, many other charismatic millennial sects were doomed in this time period. Mormons were a bit different. The imminent feeling abated with the construction of the temple and Joseph’s and the Church’s feeling that a sort of second coming occurred with that seminal event and the visions that took place thereafter. This didn’t satisfy some converts such as Ezra Booth as many apostatized after the promised Second Coming didn’t take place after the construction of the temple and the failure of Jackson County.

Now the focus became work, missionary efforts, Priesthood organization, and sanctification of the Saints etc. that was essential to take place to prepare for the political inevitability of the Church of Christ. The Church entered into an era of a more protracted imminence. Some of the doctrine issued through D&C balance protracted imminence and historical futurist necessity. Some of these doctrines are:

The necessity of mass Jewish return to the Holy Land prior to the Second Coming
A New Jerusalem must be built—attempted but never accomplished
Great calamities – earth tremble, moon blood, stars fall, etc. macro level
Poor and meek shall have the gospel preached to them, gospel in every nation (completed or not, experts argue)
Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, Lamanites blossom as the rose
Economic consecration enacted – yes, that means the Church will not be practicing the holy and sacred American capitalist system.
The concept of 1,000 year seals, the 7,000^th seal to start at the end of the 6,000 year, roughly around 2000 AD.
Joseph has a strange revelation where 1890 is the magic year, his 85^th birthday, which he interprets as it won’t come before that time. Others following him weren’t so ambiguous.

Space is limited to the Doctrine and Covenants, yet ideas such as the Church filling North and South America prior to the Second Coming and it filling up the Rocky Mountains were other ideas espoused by Joseph Smith. It is clear that for most, imminent premillennialist fervor took a back seat for decades while a more utopian growth and survive phase was implemented. The saints looked to God to protect the work from a wicked Missouri/Illinois, and then American government than they looked to God for his imminent arrival.

In the 1870’s and 1880’s you see a shift. First, the key date of 1890 was fast approaching. Second, with the passage of the anti-polygamy laws and no where else to run, Mormons saw themselves as making their last stand—with the necessity of God intervening. Orson Pratt, Charles C. Rich, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and others of the Priesthood began making dire predictions, having dreams, giving “morning of the first resurrection” blessings, and forecasting doom and gloom. That all ended with the Manifesto. The Church was now back in balance with a protracted imminence, albeit with a Faustian bargain of sorts—missionary work being more important than standing by the nature of the fundamental doctrine of plural marriage. That didn’t settle so well with many of the fundamentalists that were IN the church at the time. Soon, they went OUT of the Church over these very issues.

So mainstream LDS culture transitioned to a missionary church—with little controversy—into a banal Utah/western monoculture—into an adjusting international Church. Premillenialism has sat where it is sitting now, with protracted imminence. The Church has been hedge-betting for more than 100 years—straddling a Mormon version of amillennialism with premillenialism from a cultural standpoint. In essence, they believe premillennialism but they practice amillennialism.

Historical premillennialism has checked off most of what needs to be done, both from a Christian and Mormon perspective. The only thing left are the calamities and war (at the macro level), establishment of the New Jerusalem, and the Temple in Jerusalem. Some of the other ideas as outlined in my first post on neo-FLDS are based on dreams, visions, and questionable sources that are valid only in individualized spirituality by the reader. Someone with neo-FLDS tendencies would search for historical premillennialist holes to fill the narrative so that context to current events can give a generalized feeling of acceleration towards the Second Coming. While these things may not be official history or doctrine, they may still be useful. Fitting them together such that contradictions don’t ensue is one key to interpreting the truth of any vision or dream claim. And, like Star Wars novels are to George Lucas’s movies, you can’t overrule the Bible, Book of Mormon, or D&C with a found vision or dream from an ancestor’s journal. There must be harmony. This is a key for the true believer who is searching for last days prophecies.

Epilogue

Most of my family are mainstream Mormon. Like them, many mainstream Mormons are premillenialists in a general sense. They think it will happen but they don’t worry about it. They envision a sort of meshing of premillennialism with a general creeping utopian amillennialism from the point of view of Church progression. In other words, one day Mormons will watch all of the calamites happen on CNN, just as if it was the Gulf War—then fly off to Cold Stone for a family night treat. They think there will be some general mayhem, but that will be in Europe and Africa, and possibly New York City, but they see the calamities as being general and spread out and not disrupting of civilization. They are more concerned with their Calvinistic destiny of working hard, being prosperous, raising families, and seeing them on the other side. The latter-day premillennialist element of the Church is paid lip service, but in practice, it is largely symbolic. There really is no working toward Zion from an economic/political sense, even from a personal standpoint, which is what we’ve been commanded to do in the temple. Finally, although there is doctrinal mainstream belief for food storage, debt abatement, and general preparedness, the priority for these concepts culturally falls into the dark netherworld zone of practices such as searching Scottish microfiche for Middle Age ancestry—in essence it is done by hobbyists. One author noted in the Southern Utah area suggested on radio that perhaps less than 10% of active Mormons have their food storage as outlined by prophetic counsel. If that’s true, it would show how protractedly imminent mainstream Mormons think the Second Coming is.

Neo-Fundamentalists do not see a peaceful transition for the Church to the millennium. They see major disruption of our culture and economy that allows for a reinvention of the Church in the ways outlined politically in the Doctrine and Covenants. They see the realization of a Constitutional Theocracy known as Zion. For the traditional Mormon, calamities are viewed through a micro level. Tsunamis in Asia would therefore account for the “seas heaving themselves beyond their bounds.” A fundamentalist perspective would see a far greater catastrophe, one that would ruin the world economy and kill millions, not just thousands. Calamities are on a macro level are very personally felt. This is why they go to such lengths to be prepared for this inevitability.

My personal feeling is if in 10-15-25 years we see no trend towards events that signal the second coming, there will be a crossroads for the Church. The “Latter-day” thing may have to be dropped, and we may enter into a new form of neo-Catholicism in our concept of a millennial reign. Of course, my personal feeling is that the narcissistic nihilistic tendency of the wider culture, the Balkinzation of America, and the demographic Dark Age coming in 50 some odd years will help strengthen the premillennialist tendencies of the LDS culture. We actually may see the change visualized by NFLDS believers even without the utopian flavor

Link

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.