Even artificial celebrity !
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.
SOMEbody needs to reconcile these two opposing veiwpoints!
"I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it."
Even artificial celebrity !
Gordon B. Hinckley: “I don’t know a lot”
Professor Robert Millet: “Gordon !!!! You already know MORE about God and Christ and the plan of salvation than any who would ATTACK you.”
I read somewhere that even Fawn Brodie had trouble getting to see actual documents in the vaults
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Exactly. I remember being told at the BYU library that in order to get certain documents I had to have a temple recommend. I remember wondering “what is in those documents that you need a recommend for?”.
bfl8r read and study
Thanks,
SZ
They would also realize that by discounting the teachings of their own Prophets, they are “reforming” the “Restored” church and thus they can NO LONGER claim it is a “restored” church (not that it ever was in reality anyway).
Gordon B. Hinckley: “I don’t know a lot”
- - - - - - - - -
I wondered why if he did not know, he didn’t ask God? He was supposed to be God’s mouthpiece.
Silly Gentile...
Ah...
Never mind
-Anon-ee-mus (When’s a good time...never mind)
Cheeky :)
Wow. that is really interesting. BY had a distillery AFTER the WoW was given. Good to know. I saved those for future reference.
In 1831 Alexander Campbell wrote concerning the Book of Mormon:
This prophet Smith, through his stone spectacles, wrote on the plates of Nephi, in his book of Mormon, every error and almost every truth discussed in New York for the last ten years. He decides all the great controversies;—infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of free masonary [sic], republican government, and the rights of man (Millennial Harbinger, February 1831, p.93).
I have a very interesting article by Campbell about the mormons called “Delusion”...just haven’t posted it yet. It is quite long.
I can not continue with you if you reference JOD as doctrine
I been over this many times.
It seems you need to justify your reason for leaving for your misunderstanding of the works or it could be an excuse I don’t know...
But it is not honest to misrepresent!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I in NO way “misrepresent”. I do not misunderstand either. I am honest enough to admit that I accepted much of the “fringe” teachings such as Adam-God, Jesus was Married, Mother in Heaven, just as many other LDS do.
I have no need to justify my leaving. It is simple, God opened my eyes to the contradictions and lies the LDS put forth and led me to a saving faith in His Son, Jesus Christ.
And the point that YOU (and many modern LDS) CLAIM to not consider the JoD doctrine even when they use the JoD when it supports their views (current doctrine) is precisely the point.
You see, the LDS are put in a bind. Either the JoD is the word of God or it is not. If so, then the LDS are bound by it. If not, then there is no point in using it to support LDS doctrines.
Regardless, it matters not how the current LDS view the JoD, it WAS CONSIDERED TO BE THE WORD OF GOD BY THE SAINTS OF THE DAY. BY said his words were scripture, they were written down for the LDS in England (the JoD) so they may know the word of God.
The Saints in Deseret accepted ALL the words of the Prophet as scripture. JS taught that he never gave a false teaching.
Today, the LDS pick and choose the early quotes depending upon if the quote is embarrassing or not.
The JoD quotes were clearly teachings by the leaders. By saying they are not scripture (when clearly they were taught as such and believed as such) is saying that the earlier saints were WRONG in accepting these words as scripture.
If they were wrong, and current teaching is correct, then the current LDS church has REFORMED LDS doctrine. If the modern LDS church does not accept these teaching then the LDS church has CHANGED THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESTORED CHURCH. Therefore, the current LDS church is NO LONGER a RESTORED church, it is in apostasy.
What is the point of having Prophets if you do not know when they are speaking for God or not?
One -- Taylor -- was spoken to the inner circle. The "meat-after-milk" approach in which the more obscure & deliberately tucked away teachings are stressed. The other comment -- Hinckley -- was spoken to the world with a deliberate PR spin in mind: ("Oh we don't want to alarm the world with our meaty teachings before they drink their milk. So we're just going to tuck them away.")
What is the point of having Prophets if you do not know when they are speaking for God or not?
_____________________________________________
Well, callings are not always from god...
From the Reed Smoot hearings ...
President Joseph F. Smith makes it quite clear that apostles are not called by revelation (after the first 12 selected by Joseph Smith).
It’s on page 91-92 of vol 1 of the congressional proceedings. Here “Mr. SMITH” is Joseph F. Smith.
“Senator McCoMAS. I should like to ask one question. You say that the councilors are appointed by the president of the church. How are the apostles selected ?
Mr. SMITH. In the first place they were chosen by revelation. The council of the apostles have had a voice ever since in the selection of their successors.
Senator McCoMAS. Had a voice?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Senator McCoMAS. Have they had the election of their successors to perpetuate the body of apostles since the first revelation ?
Mr. SMITH. I do not know that I understand your question.
Senator McCoMAS. You say the first apostles were selected in accordance with revelations.
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Senator McCoMAS. Revelations to whom?
Mr. SMITH. To Joseph Smith.
Senator McCoMAS. And the twelve apostles were then first named ?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Senator McCoMAS. When vacancies occurred thereafter, by what body were the vacancies in the twelve apostles filled?
Mr. SMITH. Perhaps I may say in this way: Chosen by the body, the twelve themselves, by and with the consent and approval of the first presidency.
Senator HOAB. Was there a revelation in regard to each of them?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not in regard to each of them. Do you mean in the beginning?
Senator HOAR. I understand you to say that the original twelve apostles were selected by revelation ?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Senator HOAR. Through Joseph Smith ?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is right.
Senator HOAR. Is there any revelation in regard to the subsequent ones?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it has been the choice of the body.
Senator McCoMAS. Then the apostles are perpetuated in succession by their own act and the approval of the first presidency ?
Mr. SMITH. That is right.”
“No, sir; it has been the choice of the body.” I don’t think they teach this doctrine anymore...
The document can be found here:
http://www.archive.org/details/procee...
Well you enjoy your version of self-flagellation from the tradition of men “filty rags and depravity...
I am glad to know I am a child of God and have the comfort of knowing I will have the Spirit of the Lord with me when I keep Lord’s commandments.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Did you even bother to read all of my post? Doesn’t seem like it. It is not “the tradition of man”, it is the word of God. However, the denial of human depravity IS ‘the tradition of man’.
There is no “self-flagellation” (or even “self-flatulation”) in admitting we as humans have a sinful nature and are depraved without Christ.
As UNREGENERATED human beings we are depraved. We fight God and want to sin. But we can be REGENERATED by Christ ONLY by accepting His free gift of grace where our sins we PAID IN FULL by his death on the CROSS. All is needed is a sincere faith in His work, no works like the LDS require. True faith in the FINISHED work of Christ (not ‘after all we can do’) is what REGENERATES us. We are made new creatures, we are no longer depraved, but adopted by God.
Only after we are REGENERATED are our works acceptable to God, and even then it is not OUR works but the works of God THROUGH us. We do not change ourselves, Christ CHANGES US. We are on the receiving end, not the giving one.
After we are made new creatures by Christ, we live the commandments because it is something we WANT to do, not something we HAVE to do to earn God’s love. There is no earning God’s love by our works.
You are ONLY a child of God (and one by adoption at that) once you accept that you are depraved, can do NOTHING to save yourself (or even help) and accept that the only way back into the Presence of God, the Only way we can be cleansed and made perfect, is by accepting the free gift of Grace through faith ALONE in Jesus Christ.
It is interesting to note that you claim to have the “spirit” of the Lord because you keep the commandments. That is putting the cart before the horse.
Christians keep the commandments BECAUSE WE HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT, which indwells in us the MOMENT we are “born again” in Christ Jesus.
We do good works because we are saved,because we have the HOLY SPIRIT, not in order to get Holy Spirit (feel it) or in order TO BE saved.
When you have been “born again” by faith in the saving grace of Jesus Christ and accept HIM as Lord of your life (not a church), then, and ONLY then are we children of God. Only then does God see our works as anything but “filthy rags”. Only then do we have the Spirit of the Lord. Only then can we truly keep the Lord’s commandments.
Salvation does not exist inside the LDS church. It cannot. It exists ONLY by the precious blood of Christ spilled on the Cross of Calvary for our sins.
It is ironic that you accuse us of “phony humility”. The LDS are the most prideful group I know. The LDS pride themselves on “knowing” all the right things, the doctrine, the words, the rituals, the prayers, the oaths and handshakes, the costumes. The LDS church is a poor regurgitation of the Gnostic heresies in the early Church.
I was prideful too, when I was LDS.
I was proud to be LDS.
I was proud to be a member of the “one true church”.
I was proud to have the “fullness of the gospel”.
I was proud to have access to the “priesthood”.
I felt sorry for those who were not LDS because “I knew better”.
I was proud to have the “book of Mormon”.
I was proud to think I was a “child of God”.
I was proud to have the saving ordinances of the LDS temple.
Like many LDS, it was all about me. What I knew, what I did, what church I was a member of, what oaths I took.
Well, God took away all that pride. He humbled me. He took away my arrogance at thinking that a Church could save me. He opened my eyes to see that Him, and HIM alone could save me from my sins. His death on the Cross, the shedding of HIS blood, HIS righteousness, HIS resurrection. It is (and should be) all about HIM. There is nothing phony about humbling myself before my Lord and My God.
And the people say amen...
This prophet Smith, through his stone spectacles, wrote on the plates of Nephi, in his book of Mormon, every error and almost every truth discussed in New York for the last ten years. He decides all the great controversies;—infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of free masonary [sic], republican government, and the rights of man (Millennial Harbinger, February 1831, p.93).
- - — - - - - - - - -
That is an interesting quote. Before joining the LDS, Sidney Rigdon was a follower of Alexander Campbell and Campbellite minister, IIRC.
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.