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.
Are you saying that the US Constitution is going to fall and only an ldser will be able to restore it?
Or am I missing the point here.
= = == = = = = = = = = =
Yep, sc, that is exactly what many (if not most) LDS believe and what their leaders have taught in the past.
According to past teachings (and current ‘lay theology’) only a Mormon will be able to save this country. That is exactly why Romney carried so many LDS votes in spite of his RINO record.
The SECRET Temple Rituals® are NOT Scriptural - are NOT in the Standard Works - and therefore, by DEFINITION - are Teachings of Men!!
- - - - - - - - - - -
Excellent point, Elsie.
I am fully expecting the LDS to “flood” the runs for the WH soon. Romney, Huntsman, and Ried (dem) along with perhaps a few othes, hoping one will “stick”.
*Utah’s senior senator . . . complained that Democrats’ political correctness will be the ruin of the country.*
I wonder how he feels about Harry Reid?
Well, all of mormonism is the teachings of men...
None of it other than the plagurized chapters of Isaiah and other verses (tweeked a bit) out of the Judeo-Christian Bible...
has anything to do with Christianity...
it’s all Smithian or Smithity or Smithism
What’s the odds the mormons will run a black man next time ???
slim to none. Of course, they could try running Gladys Knight, that would get some votes.
Is she a “priesthood holder” ????
Cheeky :)
It's not just a "small way" svcw...the whole mega-time waster of genealogical research turned into a necro-salvation enterprise posits Mormons and the Mormon church as a replacement for Jesus as Savior -- and yields a tremendous outburst of elitism.
As proof, note this statement by lds "prophet" John Taylor, who was with Joseph Smith when he died and was wounded in that process:
"...that we are the only people that understand anything about the present position or the cause of the organization of the world and man, and that understand anything correctly about a preparation for a future state; that we are the only people that know how to save our progenitors, how to save ourselves, and how to save our posterity in the celestial kingdom of God; that we are the people God has chosen by whom to establish his kingdom and introduce correct principles into the world; and that we are in fact the saviours of the world, if they are ever saved." (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, pp. 162-163)
In fact, see this in print for yourself! JournalofDiscourses
I mean, how do you even talk to someone who embodies this spiritual heritage? The Tayloresque attitude is:
"Don't bother me with what the Bible says. After all, we're the only people who even know anything about the world...
...about man...
...about the afterlife & preparing for it;
...in fact, we're the only ones who are saviors...
...who know how to save everybody who lived in generations before us...
...who know how to save ourselves now...
...who know how to save folks in the future...
...we're it!"
Such elitist self-pride not only relegates Jesus to at best a yesteryear status, but could only have one source of origin -- and he ain't a true god.
Writing in 1838, Apostle Parley P. Pratt said the following: “Now, Mr. Sunderland.... I will state as a prophesy, that there will not be an unbelieving Gentile upon this continent 50 years hence; and if they are not greatly scourged, and in a great measure overthrown, within five or ten years from this date, then the Book of Mormon will have proved itself false” (Mormonism Unveiled—Truth Vindicated, by Parley P. Pratt, p.15; copied from a microfilm of the original at the Mormon church historian’s library).
This tract was reprinted in the book Writings of Parley P. Pratt, but this entire prophecy was deleted without any indication.
(Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism False Prophecy Chapter 14, P 420)
Joseph Smith for President
In 1844 the Council of Fifty decided to run Joseph Smith for the presidency of the United States. Klaus J. Hansen said that “the Council of Fifty, while seriously contemplating the possibility of emigration, also considered a rather spectacular alternative, namely, to run its leader for the presidency of the United States in the campaign of 1844.... Smith and the Council of Fifty seems to have taken the election quite seriously, much more so, indeed, than both Mormons and anti-Mormons have heretofore suspected” (Quest for Empire, p.74).
The elders of the church were actually called to electioneer for Joseph Smith. At a special meeting of the elders on April 9, 1844, Brigham Young declared: “It is now time to have a President of the United States. Elders will be sent to preach the Gospel and electioneer” (History of the Church, vol. 6, p.322). At the same meeting Heber C. Kimball affirmed: “... we design to send Elders to all the different States to get up meetings and protracted meetings, and electioneer for Joseph to be the next President” (Ibid., p.325). Mormon writer John J. Stewart refers to those who were sent to campaign as a “vast force of political missionaries” (Joseph Smith the Mormon Prophet, p.209).
Under the date of January 29, 1844, this statement is attributed to Joseph Smith in the History of the Church, “If you attempt to accomplish this, you must send every man in the city who is able to speak in public throughout the land to electioneer.... There is oratory enough in the Church to carry me into the presidential chair the first slide” (vol. 6, p.188).
On March 7, 1844, Joseph Smith was reported to have said: “When I get hold of the Eastern papers, and see how popular I am, I am afraid myself that I shall be elected...” (History of the Church, vol. 6, p.243).
The fact that Joseph Smith would allow himself to be crowned king shows that he was driven by the idea of gaining power. It is very possible that Smith seriously believed that he would become president and that he would rule as king over the people of the United States. The attempt by Joseph Smith to become president seems to have been a treasonous plot to bring the United States Government under the rule of the priesthood. Klaus J. Hansen observed: “But what if, through a bold stroke, he could capture the United States for the Kingdom? The Council of Fifty thought there might be a chance and nominated the Mormon prophet for the Presidency of the United States” (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, p.67).
George Miller, who had been a member of the Council of Fifty, recorded in a letter dated June 28, 1855:
It was further determined in Council that all the elders should set out on missions to all the States to get up an electorial [sic] ticket, and do everything in our power to have Joseph elected president. If we succeeded in making a majority of the voters converts to our faith, and elected Joseph president, in such an event the dominion of the Kingdom would be forever established in the United States; and if not successful, we could fall back on Texas, and be a kingdom notwithstanding (Letter by George Miller, as quoted in Joseph Smith and World Government, by Hyrum Andrus, 1963, p.54).
Instead of going to Texas the Mormons settled in the Great Salt Lake valley. Hyrum Andrus admits that Smith had even “considered the alternative of establishing the Saints in the capacity of an independent nation, should all other alternatives fail” (Ibid., p.60).
Before the election Joseph Smith was assassinated. Thus he was unable to establish the kingdom he had planned.
Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, Joseph Smith Chapter 17, P 457)
Interesting.
Yeah, I mean we all hear about "ghost writers." The cults (lds, Bible Watchtower & Tract Society, etc.) has "ghost editors" who've been good at hitting the "delete" button for years!
Well that is a count against her, but I am serious. I am sure there are a lot of Baby Boomers who would vote for her. Celebrity overrides faith for the libs.
They might try running Marie or Donny Osmond too...
Apostle Orson Pratt once stated: “This generation have [sic] more than one thousand times the amount of evidence to demonstrate and forever establish the divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon than they have in favor of the Bible!” (Orson Pratt’s Works, “Evidences of the Book of Mormon and Bible Compared,” p.64).
Yeah, I mean we all hear about “ghost writers.” The cults (lds, Bible Watchtower & Tract Society, etc.) has “ghost editors” who’ve been good at hitting the “delete” button for years!
- - - - - - - - - - -
That is very true. As a professional Historian, I really admire the Tanners work. I never read them when I was LDS. After I left, I vetted several of their works (checked sources and the like for context and accuracy).
I was amazed at the amount of work they had to go through to get some of those sources. Most historians (me included) do not have an entire organization fighting them on getting access to sources. You locate the source, get the proper paperwork for authorization (if needed) and have access to the source either in person or by copy (depending on source location).
Jerald Tanner is one of the best historians I ever met. Whether a person agrees with his conclusions or not does not affect the quality of his work. Most historians disagree with each other on a regular basis.
FWIW, I have found his arguments to be VERY convincing on a professional level as well as a personal one.
I read somewhere that even Fawn Brodie had trouble getting to see actual documents in the vaults back when she was reseaching No man knows my History...
And she was TBM !!!!
No; it is not.
If it were; MORMONs would realize how convoluted and weak the foundation of their faith is.
"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.
The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings.
This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the 'servant of servants', and they will be, until that curse is removed."
Brigham Young-President and second 'Prophet' of the Mormon Church, 1844-1877- Extract from Journal of Discourses.
Here are two examples from their 'other testament', the Book of Mormon.
2 Nephi 5: 21 'And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.'
Alma 3: 6 'And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.'
August 27, 1954 in an address at Brigham Young University (BYU), Mormon Elder, Mark E Peterson, in speaking to a convention of teachers of religion at the college level, said: "He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage." "That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace'...." (Rosa Parks would have probably told Petersen under which wheel of the bus he should go sit.)
1967, (then) Mormon President Ezra Taft Benson "The Communist program for revolution in America has been in progress for many years and is far advanced. First of all, we must not place the blame upon Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder."
We are told that on June 8, 1978, it was 'revealed' to the then president, Spencer Kimball, that people of color could now gain entry into the priesthood. According to the church, Kimball spent many long hours petitioning God, begging him to give worthy black people the priesthood. God finally relented.
Sometime before the 'revelation' came to chief 'Prophet' Spencer Kimball in June 1978, General Authority, Bruce R McConkie had said: "The Blacks are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 526-527).
"The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent.I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after."
said,
The Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from, but this inequality is not of man's origin, it is the Lord's doings."
When Mormon 'Apostle' Mark E Petersen spoke on 'Race Problems- As they affect the Church' at the BYU campus in 1954, the following was also said:
"...if the negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."
When Mormon 'Prophet' and second President of the Church, Brigham Young, spoke in 1863 the following was also said:
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so."
(Journal of Discourses, Vo. 10, p. 110)
Does ANYONE think that if there is another MORMON running in 2012; these HISTORY FACTS will stay HIDDEN???
Or, if revealed, the LDS Organization® will be able to spin them away?
Is that a no ????
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.