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 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.
Say all you want if it is not in the LDS Sandard works it is just hearsay!:)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Actually it is not hearsay, it is DOCUMENTED. And some LDS say it is not doctrine. That is what the LDS say NOW. Although they do place “conference talks” on par with scripture. But that is not what the leaders taught in the past.
More evidence of the apostasy of the modern LDS church.
Some quotes for you:
BY: “I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . “ (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264; see also p. 95).
BY: “I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 161).
BY: “I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom...I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95).
“If you want to know what the Lord has for this people at the present time, I would admonish you to get and read the discourses that are delivered at general conference; for what the Brethren speak by the power of the Holy Ghost is the mind of the Lord, the will of the Lord, the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation” (Harold B. Lee, Conference Reports, April 1973, p. 176. See also Stand Ye In Holy Places, p. 183).
“Elder Spencer W. Kimball gave the following challenge to a group of BYU students, but it applies to all members of the Church: ‘I hope you young people all heard the messages of the ages delivered last month. There will be other conferences every six months. I hope you will get your copy of the Improvement Era [containing the conference talks] and underline the pertinent thoughts and keep it with you for continual reference. No text or volume out¬side the standard works of the Church should have such a prominent place on your personal library shelves.’ (In the World But Not of It, Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year [Provo, 14 May 1968], p. 3.)” (Teachings of the Living Prophets, 1982, p. 66).
“Now as we conclude this general conference, let us all give heed to what was said to us. Let us assume the counsel given applies to us, to me. Let us hearken to those we sustain as prophets and seers, as well as the other brethren, as if our eternal life depended upon it, because it does!” (Spencer W. Kimball, Conference Reports, Apr. 1978, p. 117. See also Ensign (Conference Edition), May 1978, p. 77.)
“For the next six months, your conference edition of the Ensign should stand next to your standard works and be referred to frequently” (Ezra Taft Benson, “Come Unto Christ and Be Perfected in Him,” Ensign (Conference Edition), May 1988, p. 84. See also Church News, October 23, 2004, p. 4).
“Our modern-day prophets have encouraged us to make the reading of the conference editions of our church magazines an important and regular part of our personal study. Thus, general conference becomes, in a sense, a supplement to or an extension of the Doctrine and Covenants” (Howard W. Hunter, Church News, October 23, 2004, p. 4).
“We have been present and have participated in the proceedings of the 170th general conference of the Church… I hope that each of us will long remember what we have heard, but more importantly, what we have felt. May it become an anchor in our lives, a guide by which to live, a training time where we learned to shape our actions toward others and our attitudes toward ourselves.” (Gordon B. Hinckley , “A Time for New Beginnings,” Ensign (Conference Edition), May 2000, p. 87. Ellipses in original. See also Church News, October 23, 2004, p. 4).
“CONFERENCE ADDRESSES ARE WORD OF LORD — This Church has been continually led by the spirit of revelation. The spirit of revelation has been here in our conference. The address¬es that have been delivered have been made under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and they are the word of God unto this people, binding upon them, and they will be judged by these words that we have heard. If we do not listen to these instructions and counsels and abide by the word of God as it is given to us from time to time, we shall be held to a strict accountability” (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon 1:329).
“The teachings of this conference are the compass of the Lord. In the coming days you may, as Lehi did, walk out your front door and find a Liahona, Ensign, or other Church publication in your mailbox, and it will contain the proceedings to this conference. As with the Liahona of old, this new writing will be plain and easy to read and will give you and your family understanding concerning the ways and paths of the Lord.” (Lowell M. Snow, “Compass of the Lord,” Ensign (Conference Edition), November 2005, p. 97).
“You may at times be tempted to set aside the conference talks and prepare the lesson using other materials. But the conference talks are the approved curriculum. Your assignment is to help others learn and live the gospel as taught in the most recent general conference of the Church” (“Teachings for Our Time,” Ensign (Conference Edition), November 2005, p. 120).
OR DO YOU NOT BELIEVE THE WORDS OF YOUR PROPHETS?
What is going on here is straw man and disimforation and far removed from the spirit of the Lord just a free for all which I am sure will never change until one humbles themselves unto Lord Jesus Chris.
What has been on display for many months is the lowest kind of human behavior and far from growing in the Lord!
BYE!
What is going on here is straw man and disimforation and far removed from the spirit of the Lord just a free for all which I am sure will never change until one humbles themselves unto Lord Jesus Chris.
- — - - - - - - - - - -
I agree, the LDS use a lot of “disinformation” and is far removed from the spirit of the Lord.
I have humbled myself before the Lord Jesus Christ. That is why I am no longer LDS. I have repented of thinking I could IN ANY WAY “help” with my salvation (exaltation) and seeking glory for myself by my works (progressing unto godhood).
I suggest the LDS do the same. Repent, Resty, and humble yourself before the Lord.
So Resty, what is incorrect about the quotes from your prophets and apostles??? Or are you saying that your prophets and apostles exibited the lowest kind of human behavior?
ME: OR DO YOU NOT BELIEVE THE WORDS OF YOUR PROPHETS?
RESTY: BYE!
- - - - - - - - - - - -
So, is that a “no”?
Or are you saying that your prophets and apostles exibited the lowest kind of human behavior?
- - - - - - - - - - -
Well, some of JS’s behavior would certainly fall into that category. Marrying other men’s wives...money digging...boasting...the fall of the Kirtland bank (with the bad notes)...
You know what this is doing the stupid twist and put words in another mouth, smearing etc.
This is a waste of time and so I must let this go and do what I did before when one acts this way in converations because there is another spirit present using this person as a conduit to yank my change!...
Just stating the facts, from your own Church’s history.
Still just interpretation!
_______________________________________
Well, you have to agree with that
What Joey smith said or wrote is just a novel...
Anyone can interpret what he wrote any old way they want...
His writings were not sacred or anything like that ...
He wrote on a par with Lady Chatterly’s Lover...
and who would care how that is interpreted ???
Now the Bible was written by god...
That’s not open to interpreting any old how...
You know, when I was investigating the LDS I did not read the BoM very closely. After I joined, I started to read it more and more. The more I read it, the less it made sense.
Now I read something in it and think “HOW could I EVER thought this was comparable or greater than the BIBLE?!?”
if it is not in the LDS Sandard works it is just hearsay!:)
______________________________________________
See ???
What did I tell you...
What Joey Smith wrote is just hearsay and can be interpreted any old way...
Who cares ???
WShat Joey Smith wrote is not as important as the novels of Dan Brown...
compared to Joey Smith, Dan Brown is closer to believable...
and Dan Brown just made it all up...
Now the principle thing that joey Smith wrote was about needing to have lots of sex partners to go to the mormon god’s heaven...
and that is not in the standard mormon works...
another thing Joey Smith liked to talk about was the time or seven that he claims saw a pixie, or was it 2 pixies ?
Better make that an even dozen...a whole family ...
again ...NOT IN THE STANDARD MORMON WORKS...
See how this goes ?????
Some gay couples are nice to their dogs.
Which would be more pleasing to God ???
Jesus wants us to have the family values He set for us...
as stated in the Bible..
Not the family values of the mormons...
Set by Joey Smith sand Brigham Young who rejected Biblical decency...
Aye but there is the rub. The LDS have REJECTED the family values of JS and BY and REFORMED the LDS church, which means they really need to stop claiming to be the “Restored” church or go back to JS and BY’s “family values”.
So all 13 Million of the mormons have apostated ???
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Shocking !!!!!
The lord Joey’s church all worldly, flesh creatures...
All of them SONs OF PERDTION..
Well, at least we know who they are now...
The fact it was deleted was a blessing for your and yours, you should be thankful for that, not smug.
To say it's contents of quoted posts painted an unflattering portrait of the “godly” LDS on this site is a gross understatement...
However keep swinging, perhaps a ball or two will come your way once in awhile...
the “Restored” church
________________________________________
The church needed “restoring”, eh ???
Didnt last for long after Jesus left ???
Well that will be news for the Catholics...
The mormons wish that the Christians WOULD put a spin on the mormon doctrines...
The mormons are busy night and day in the Morg spinning the old documents to knoock off the stuff they dont like any more...
Spin them embarrassing documents of Joey’s faster, guys...
Oh...
Like all the foolish TEmple Rituals® the LDS 'perform'; eh?
In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.
1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.
I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain—how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed—the living Prophet—President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.
Ezra Taft Benson
(Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University)
Yup...
In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.
1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.
I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain—how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed—the living Prophet—President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.
Ezra Taft Benson
(Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University)
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.