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.
... placemarker
This is not the first time this topic was raised I remember drstevej loved to flash that stupid OT verse which has nothing to do with the NT that was an OT conditions.
Is this the "stupid" OT verse you are referring to?
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. (Isaiah 64:6).
Really, calling the WORD OF GOD STUPID is not a good thing, Resty.
The sacrifice of Christ did away with the sacrifices of the OT law, it did not do away with our sinful nature, which is what this verse talks about. There are 3 main points in this verse:
1. We are all unclean (we have a sinful nature brought about by the Fall of Adam).
2. Our 'good works' are not acceptable to God, they too are unclean things that require a sacrifice (explained further down).
3. Our iniquities (sins) take us away from God.
When one is Baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as well as when receiving sacarment this is to wash off the dirt of the world that is one of the reasons it is taken!
Another is to always remember Him in the course of ones life that week until they meet agian.
Baptism does cleanse us of sin, but you are missing the true point of Baptism. Baptism is an OUTWARD sign of an INWARD change. It is symbolic
"Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (Romans 6:3-4).
It is a symbolic dying of the old self and a resurrection to our new life in Christ. Christ changes us from the inside out. We live for HIS glory, not to earn our own "exaltation". Baptism is a public statement of our faith in Christ, not in a church.
Forgiveness of sins is not the purpose of Communion (sacrament). It is symbolic of the sacrifice of Christ. That is why the elements ARE important. Bread and Wine/Grape Juice is symbolic of the Body and BLOOD of Christ. Notice that he specifically speaks of the "fruit of the vine". Water is NOT the fruit of the vine.
We are to repent of our sins (called an examination of conscience or by confession in certain traditions) PRIOR to taking communion, We are absolved fully when we repent and ask God for forgiveness. Only then may we take communion worthily.
Matthew 26:26-30 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Luke 22:19-20 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
1 Cor. 10:16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
1 Cor. 11: 23 - 29 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
So many are under the impression by calling themselves flithy rags it is like self-flatulation which is a form of phony humility!
I think you mean "self-flagellation", although I will never type "self-flagellation" (which happens more often than you would think) again without thinking "self-flatulation". ROFL. Thank you for that.
"self-flagellation" means to punish oneself by whipping (or beating). It was common in early Monastic circles and hit a "fever pitch" with the "Flagellants" in the 13th Century. While the group was banned by the Catholic Church in the 14th Century, many of the stricter Monastic groups still practice it, although not as severely.
It is not "phony humility". I am sincerely humble before my Lord. We are wretches without Christ. Our good works are filthy rags to God. That is not phony, that is biblical.
No unclean thing can enter Heaven so if one thinks they are filthy rags they surly can not enter Heaven! One is either are filty rags or born again one can’t be both!
BINGO! We are all unclean by nature. We are cleansed by the Blood of Jesus Christ. He makes us perfect, not our works. Our works, without Christ, are all "filthy rags". Our works, done for our glory (exaltation or our own salvation) are "filthy rags".
Here is a great explanation of how this OT verse is connected to Christ and our works:
Because God compares the good works of men to be like those soiled cloths, it is obvious that those good works of men are also repulsive to Him. They are unclean and must stay outside of His presence. They could never be pleasing to God because of His revulsion to them.
God is repulsed when men and women attempt to please Him with their good works. Again, our works are an unclean thing. When a woman, unclean because of her monthly cycle, finished the cycle, she had to offer a sacrifice before she was again clean and allowed back into society. By the same toke, since our works are unclean and compared to soiled menstrual clothes, a sacrifice must be made to cleanse them. Since all of our works are like soiled menstrual cloths, then our own works cannot cleanse them (if it seems circular, it is, because it is impossible for our works to cleanse our works). The sacrifice of our own works is insufficient.
Since our works are unclean, they have the exact opposite effect than the effect we desire. Instead of pleasing God, which would allow us into His presence, (in our way of thinking) they actually deeply offend God. Those works disgust Him. There is no way He will accept them.
So, if you are trying to compile enough good works to make up for your sins, forget it. If you wish to make sure your list of good works is longer than your list of bad works, you are in trouble. It will not happen. You are trying to put your good works in the Good Works Column in order to make that list longer that the one in the Bad Works Column. Since your works, good or bad, are as soiled menstrual cloths, and therefore bad in God's eyes, they are actually all going in the Bad Works Column, making it longer and longer. The point here is, you can never do enough good works to get into Heaven. Indeed without Christ you can do no good works. If all your works are as soiled menstrual cloths, the more you accumulate, the worse the stench gets in God's nostrils. If you are going to church occasionally and doing a good deed or two once in a while and hoping those things will get you into Heaven, you are out of luck. It will never happen.
However, God has provided a perfect sacrifice for us. His Son, Jesus Christ, was a perfect and sinless man who died in our place, which can take our sins away. When we believe on Him that He died and rose from the grave three days later and is alive today we are saved. His work was perfect while our works are filthy. Now, after He saves us, the works we do are no longer as filthy rags.
Christians are still human and can still do bad works. But their salvation is not dependent upon a list of good and bad works. Their salvation is based on the One Good Work that Christ did at Calvary. When Christians do bad works, which are really sin, then the blood that Christ shed at Calvary covers their sins and they are forgiven their sins. Conversely, when Christians do works that are good, those works are acceptable to God.
If you are not a Christian, that is, if you are not saved, then any and all attempts you make to please God actually displease Him. If God is displeased with you, you will never get into Heaven. Stop bagging up soiled menstrual cloths to present to God in hopes that He will let you into heaven based on those bags. It is not going to happen. You are wasting your time doing good works without Christ. They will do you no good.
http://www.bibleword.org/rags2.shtml#a
Salvation is not just Resurrection as the LDS teach. Salvation in Christian terms is equivalent to the LDS concept of Exaltation, to be in the presence of God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit for ETERNITY. This is salvation from death and hell. How exactly are we saved from death and hell? By faith alone, not works. Faith in the Jesus Christ of the Bible, not the LDS Christ.
Ephesians 2:8-9: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Resty, you need to give up the "filthy rags" of the secret handshakes and oaths of the Temple, of the idea that you can IN ANY WAY earn glory of any type, and of the laundry list of "good works" the LDS demand. All Christ demands is that you believe in Him ALONE for your salvation, not in any denomination. Then and ONLY then, will your good works be acceptable to God.
It is simple. Humble yourself before the Lord and sincerely pray this prayer and believe it (and prayer is a conversation NOT a work) and you can be Born Again, saved completely by the Blood of Jesus. You can have your "calling and election made sure".
A SINNERS PRAYER
Heavenly Father:..........................................................................
I come to you in prayer asking for the forgiveness of
my Sins. I confess with my mouth and believe with my
heart that Jesus is your Son, And that he died on the
Cross at Calvary that I might be forgiven and have
Eternal Life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Father, I believe
that Jesus rose from the dead and I ask you right now
to come in to my life and be my personal Lord and
Savior. I repent of my Sins and will Worship you ALONE all the
day's of my Life!. Because your word (The Bible) is truth, I confess
with my mouth that I am Born Again and Cleansed
by the Blood of Jesus not by anything i do! In Jesus Name, Amen.
ping to #882
There is no such thing as an infallible prophet unless you want to include Jesus Christ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sorry, Resty but your leaders would disagree with you...
‘I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught. Must I, then, be thrown away as a thing of naught?’”- The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 368
“I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything of the kind in this place, but in the councils of the nations that Brigham Young has said “when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture.” I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God, without any special command to one man to go here, and to another to go yonder, or to do this or that, or to go and settle here or there.”
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 261, October 6, 1870
“I have never preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.”
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 95
“Christ and his prophets go together... it is not possible to believe in one without believing in the other... by rejecting the prophets we reject Christ himself.”
- Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, cited in 1978 Devotional Speeches of the Year: BYU Devotional and Addresses, 1978, p. 118
“Second, in the midst of all these things, Joseph like his colleague prophets was so busy being a special witness for the Savior that he had little time to heed all of the false witness being borne about him. Joseph was usually more inclined to endure than explain himself, even though the drumbeat of dissent was at certain points almost unrelieved. In Nauvoo, in March 1842, for instance, while intensively engaged “day and evening” in translating the Book of Abraham, he said that he simply did not have time to attend to all his public duties. His duties as a seer were more important than his ceremonial chores.
Joseph did not respond at times, of course, such as by issuing a summational disclaimer as from the temple stand in Nauvoo, saying, “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.”
- Apostle Neal A. Maxwell, Meek and Lowly, pp. 105-106
“My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he tells you to do something wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.”
- Prophet Heber J. Grant, as quoted by Apostle Marion G. Romney in “The Covenant of the Priesthood,” Ensign, July 1972, p. 98
Thank you for a wonderful post...
Lots of great nuggets
:)
:) Thank you, sister.
Hbr 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,
Hbr 1:2 Has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds; Hebrews 1:1, 2
You’re most welcome
:)
Amen. With the coming of Christ and the Holy Spirit, there is no longer a need for prophets. Excellent verse.
Hey I got 888
what does that mean ????
:)
infinity x3, sideways?
Eh ???
:)
you have freepmail
so do you
:)
There is nothing you can post that I have not read somewhere along the line and you do not understand the word perfect according our doctrine.
It is like a orchard when the fruit is ripe than it is if complete and that is what perfect means not flawless just ready and will continue on the journey of endless learning the ways of the Lord.
You can read into things what you want but what is in the LDS Standard Works is doctrine and nothing else!
what is in the LDS Standard Works is doctrine and nothing else!
_____________________________________________
Exactly where in the book of mormon are the following doctrines taught?
1. God has a body of flesh and bones.
2. God is an exalted man.
3. God is a product of eternal progression.
4. The plurality of gods.
5. God “organized” the world rather than “creating” it.
6. There is no eternal hell and punishment.
7. Men can become gods.
8. “Intelligences” are eternal.
9. Pre-existing spirits of man.
10. Marriage for eternity.
11. Polygamy is not an abomination in the sight of God.
12. Three degrees of glory.
13. A “mother” in heaven.
14. A “Melchizedek priesthood” consisting of the offices of elder, seventy and high priest.
15. An “Aaronic priesthood” consisting of the offices of deacon, teacher and priest.
16. Blacks were ever to be denied the priesthood.
17. The functions and offices of evangelist, bishoprics, stake presidency,
18. Assistants to the twelve, a first presidency and a president of the “church”.
19. The book of mormon is the “Stick of Joseph.”
You can read into things what you want but what is in the LDS Standard Works is doctrine and nothing else!
- - - - - - - - - -
I do understand, I was there once remember?
Conference talks are not in the “standard” works. Of course neither are Temple rituals.
Careful resty, you are again disagreeing with your leaders....
Rather than post ALL of those quotes again, I will refer you to my earlier post that puts conference talks on par with scripture.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2235421/posts?page=761#761
Did you know that the “word of wisdom” came aboput because Emma was tired of cleaning up tobacco juice of her floors after the “meetings” of bro Joe and his homies ???
Yeah. She was also tired of the drunkenness in the temple, IIRC.
Wine and Visions
One anti-Mormon writer claimed that the witnesses to the Book of Mormon were drunk at the time they received their vision concerning the plates. We have been unable to find any evidence to support this accusation. There is, however, evidence to show that wine was used to excess in the Kirtland Temple at the very time the Mormons were claiming to receive important revelations. William Harris made this report in 1841:
479
480
In the evening, they met for the endowment. The fast was then broken by eating light wheat bread, and drinking as much wine as they saw proper. Smith knew well how to infuse the spirit which they expected to receive; so he encouraged the brethren to drink freely, telling them that the wine was consecrated, and would not make them drunk ... they began to prophecy, pronouncing blessings upon their friends, and curses upon their enemies. If I should be so unhappy as to go to the regions of the damned, I never expect to hear language more awful, or more becoming the infernal pit, than was uttered that night (Mormonism Portrayed, pp.31-32).
Charles L. Walker, a faithful Mormon, recorded the following in his diary:
Sun., Nov. 21,1880.... Bro. Milo Andress ... Spoke of blessings and power of God manifested in the Kirtland Temple. Said he once asked the Prophet who [why?] he (Milo) did not feel that power that was spoken of as the power which was felt on the day of Pentecost? ... when we had fasted for 24 hours and partaken of the Lord’s supper, namely a piece of bread as big as your double fist and half a pint of wine in the temple, I was there and saw the Holy Ghost descend upon the heads of those present like cloven tongues of fire (”Diary of Charles L. Walker,” 1855-1902, excerpts typed, 1969, p.35).
The statement by Mormon Apostle George A. Smith would also lead a person to believe that wine was used to excess: “... after the people had fasted all day, they sent out and got wine and bread.... they ate and drank.... some of the High Counsel of Missouri stepped into the stand, and, as righteous Noah did when he awoke from his wine, commenced to curse their enemies (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p.216).
In a statement dated February 27, 1885, Mrs. Alfred Morley charged: “I have heard many Mormons who attended the dedication, or endowment of the Temple, say that very many became drunk.... The Mormon leaders would stand up to prophesy and were so drunk they said they could not get it out, and would call for another drink. Over a barrel of liquor was used at the service” (Naked Truths About Mormonism, Oakland, Calif., April, 1888, p.2). Isaac Aldrich said that his brother “Hazen Aldrich, who was president of the Seventies, told me when the Temple was dedicated a barrel of wine was used and they had a drunken ‘pow-wow’ “ (Ibid., p.3). Stephen H. Hart said that a Mormon by the name of McWhithey told him that “they passed the wine in pails several times to the audience, and each person drank as much as he chose from a cup. He said it was mixed liquor, and he believed the Mormon leaders intended to get the
480
481
audience under the influence of the mixed liquor, so they would believe it was the Lord’s doings.... When the liquor was repassed Mr. McWhithey told them he had endowment enough...” (Ibid. , p.3).
The reader will remember that David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, called the endowment “a trumped up yarn” and said that “there was no visitation” (The Des Moines Daily News, October 16, 1886). William E. McLellin, who had served as an Apostle in the Mormon church, commented: “As to the endowment in Kirtland, I state positively, it was no endowment from God. Not only myself was not endowed, but no other man of the five hundred who was present - except it was with wine” (True Latter-Day Saints’ Herald, XIX, 437, as cited in Hearts Made Glad, p.137).
The fact that the Mormons fasted for some time and then drank an excessive amount of wine probably led many of them to curse their enemies and to believe they had seen visions.
LaMar Petersen has detailed the problems relating to the Kirtland Temple and the Word of Wisdom in his book, Hearts Made Glad—The Charges of Intemperance Against Joseph Smith the Mormon Prophet.
Jerasld and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism The Word of Wisdom, Chapter 18, Pp 479-482)
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.