Hugh Hewitt Redefines Mormonism for Mitt Romney

Hugh Hewitt, a political pundit radio personality, wants the Mormon presidential election runner Mitt Romney in the Whitehouse—very badly. He casts his pre-election vote in writing A Mormon in the Whitehouse? (Regnery, 2007). In defense of Romney, Hewitt also defends Mormonism better than some Latter-day Saints (LDS). This is strange for a Presbyterian, as what Hewitt claims for himself. It is possible and logically consistent that Hewitt could defend Romney as a republican without defending Mormonism, but he chooses otherwise. The reason that I find this strange is that Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, claimed that God appeared to him and told him that Hugh’s church, Presbyterianism, is not true. God’s official statement on Presbyterians is found in Mormon scripture. To remain faithful to the prophet Joseph Smith, Romney cannot believe other that what Joseph Smith wrote in his scripture, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true” (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith—History 1:20).

Is Hewitt slipping in his faith? Or is he just plain ignorant that real Mormonism condemns his faith by name? This anti-Presbyterian sentiment (hence, anti-Hewitt’s chosen faith) is recorded where Joseph Smith had a vision of God the Father (as a male being) and Jesus Christ in the spring of 1820. Smith asked God which Protestant denomination was true—the Methodists, Presbyterians, or Baptists. Smith’s vision, as found in LDS scripture, states that these three denominations alone were in Palmyra, New York (1:9). Smith then queried, “Who of all these parties is right; or, are they all wrong together?” (1:10). Clearly Joseph Smith wanted to know if Presbyterianism (Hugh Hewitt’s faith) was “right” or “wrong.” He was answered by a personal appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ in New York, where Jesus directly told him, “join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof’” (1:19).

Hugh is in big trouble with Jesus! To be most like his friend Mitt Romney, he needs to repent of his “wrong” Presbyterianism (since Jesus said so!) and repent of his creeds (beliefs) that are so abominable to Jesus, and repent of his corrupt faith. Of the three denominations, Smith singled out the Presbyterians as specifically “not true.” Hewitt needs to get right with the Jesus found in Mormon scripture. Mormon scripture is clearly “anti-Presbyterian.” Yet in the strangest twist of Hugh’s logic, he labels anyone an “anti-Mormon” in his book who has the same opinion of Mormonism as what Joseph Smith did of Presbyterians, but nowhere in his book did he call Smith (or Romney) an anti-Presbyterian.

Here is an example of how Hewitt defended Mormonism from his May 4, 2007 radio program:

Caller Greg: “The question I have is, I know very little about Mormonism, and my question falls into the cult or denomination thing. I think, was it Pastore, a columnist with Townhall, wrote an article a couple of weeks ago? It’s about the sum total of what I know about it.”

Hewitt: “I would encourage you to read my book, which of course is not a surprise to you, it’s available at Amazon dot com. I reject the cult title. I believe cult has about it an element of coercion, which is simply not applicable to the Mormons and it is a sect.”

Caller Greg: “Do you think”…[Greg was obviously drowned out and cut off the air by Hewitt.]

Hewitt: “I just don’t believe that you should call…. Cult carries with it this wheezing of an organ in the background and the idea of chains in the basement and the Branch Davidian and James Jones and I think it is inappropriate for conversation. And when I see Frank next, I’m going to argue that point with him. Cause, I just don’t think…if…if…and I do know where it comes from…Walter Martin wrote the Kingdom of the Cults, but Walter Martin blames that Hinduism is a cult, that Islam is a cult, I don’t think that he calls the Catholic Church a cult, but his definition is expansive. In the modern vernacular it means sinister and the Mormons aren’t just simply not sinister. Hey, Greg, thanks.”

There are problems with Hewitt’s definition of cult. Hewitt does not distinguish between the scholarly definitions of cult from different fields of study, namely psychological, sociological, and theological. He first defined cult psychologically, which under certain circumstances is correct. Some cults use coercion on their members. He failed to tell his audience that this is the psychological definition and that there are other equally legitimate definitions in other fields of study.

To separate Mormonism from his “coercion cult” definition, he then tries to separate Mormonism from coercion. Had Hugh watched the PBS special, The Mormons, that aired just three days earlier (April 30 and May 1), he would have seen how Mormonism uses coercion and psychological pressure on its members. I would suggest that he view The Mormons online The Mormons (http://www.pbs.org/mormons/view) and pay special attention to the section on the excommunication of the Mormon intellectuals, many of whom were Brigham Young University educated, but when they intellectually differed with their church, then they were humiliated through excommunication. Also pay attention to the section about the pressure within Mormonism for perfection that gives LDS women a higher than national average of suicide and anti-depressant drug usage.

I don’t know how Hewitt missed these things, but a scant Internet research would have shown him a much different story:

Ken Ponder, Ph.D, “MORMON WOMEN, PROZAC® and THERAPY, Mormon Women, Prozac and Therapy Julie Cart, "Study Finds Utah Leads Nation in Antidepressant Use," Los Angeles Times, 20 February 2002, A6.
Degn, L. Yeates, E. Greenwell, B. Fiddler, L. “Mormon women and depression,” Sunstone magazine
Hilton, Sterling C, et al. 2002. Suicide Rates and Religious Commitment in Young Adult Males in Utah. American Journal of Epidemiology. Vol. 155, No. 5: 413-19. Suicide Rates and Religious Commitment in Young Adult Males in Utah
Even a pro-Mormon BYU study admits that Mormon women use more anti-depressants and commit suidide more than the national average — http://www.usatoday. com/news/health/2004-04-02-mormon-depression_x.htm [Link no longer active]

Contrary to what Hewitt said, coersion, in fact, applies to Mormonism at several levels, therefore it indeed fits within his first description of a cult.

Hewitt’s next foible was to create a self-styled definition that is not found anywhere, “Cult carries with it this wheezing of an organ in the background and the idea of chains in the basement and the Branch Davidian and James Jones and I think it is inappropriate for conversation.” From where did he get this? This is not what most people think when they hear the word cult. Hugh most likely means “Jim Jones,” with apologies to all of the “James Jones” existing elsewhere. There is no question that the Branch Davidians and Jim Jones (the People’s Temple) were cults, but what made them so? Did they have organs or chains in basements? Neither one did, but perhaps Hugh was thinking of the famous organ at the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City.

It appears that what Hugh was attempting was, again, a psychological or sociological definition of cult. I would suggest more sound and scholarly definitions of a cult from qualified writers who list Mormonism as a cult like sociologist Ronald Enroth, Ph.D. (Evangelizing the Cults, 1990), theologians Alan Gomes, Ph.D. (Unmasking the Cults, 1998); Drs. Nichols, Mather, and Schmidt (Encyclopedic Dictionary of Cults, Sects, and World Religions, 2007); and a host of others, including some from Hewitt’s reformed Protestant background, like Dr. Jan K. Van Baalan (Chaos of the Cults, 1938; Gist of the Cults, 1944), Dr. Anthony Hoekema (Four Major Cults, 1963; Mormonism, 1973), Dr. Ravi Zacharias (Kingdom of the Cults, general editor, 2006), and Josh McDowell and Don Stewart (The Deceivers, 1992).

Hewitt stated, “I do know where it comes from.” This I doubt, after hearing his answer. The term cult was first used of Mormonism in 1898. Hewitt continued, “Walter Martin wrote the Kingdom of the Cults, but Walter Martin blames that Hinduism is a cult, that Islam is a cult, I don’t think that he calls the Catholic Church a cult, but his definition is expansive.” Since I began working with Walter Martin in 1976 and I have continuously been on the staff of researchers and editors for his works since then, I think that I am better positioned than Hewitt to say what Walter Martin taught.

Hewitt is absolutely wrong. Martin did not state that Hinduism and Islam are cults. Hugh owes Christians an apology for his careless denigration of Martin and his works. Beginning in 1985, Martin included several chapters on world religions in his best-selling Kingdom of the Cults, but he always made clear distinctions between cults and world religions. What Hewitt claims to “know” is a fabrication.

Hewitt’s final statement, “In the modern vernacular it means sinister and the Mormons aren’t just simply not sinister.” This has a twofold problem. It does not define the word cults, but perhaps it describes what some cults do. I challenge Hewitt to find any scholarly work that uses sinister and cult interchangeably as mutually definitional terms. A good theological definition of a cult is “a group of people basing their beliefs upon the worldview of an isolated leadership, which always denies the central doctrines of the Christianity as found in the Bible” (Josh McDowell, The Deceivers, 1992, 15). Mormonism, as what McDowell includes in his book, fits that description with Smith isolating himself from “apostate” Christianity and creating a worldview in opposition to biblical Christianity that contains gods, goddesses, populated worlds, spirit children, and the progression of mankind toward godhood.

The second part of Hewitt’s statement, that Mormons are not sinister, is debatable. Mormons are quite often sinister, in spite of what Hewitt claims. We could talk about such sinister things as the Mountain Meadows massacre, or the numerous scandals through the ages, which is why the Wall Street Journal once stated that Utah is the securities fraud capital of the United States (WSJ, 2/25/1974 and Utah Holiday Magazine, October, 1990), but that aside, I think that Hugh contradicts himself here since he admits that the Mormon Olympic scandal, which was an international embarrassment to the Mormon Church, was straightened out by none other than his wonderful friend, Mitt Romney. How can he say on one hand that Mormons are not sinister and on the other hand state that Mormons were caught in a bribery scandal with the International Olympic Committee that Mitt Romney had to straighten out? Queer, isn’t it? The Mormons even fit Hugh’s last definition of a cult with their sinister actions, which is why Romney had to rescue their reputation.

I can not continue with you if you reference JOD as doctrine

- - - - - - - - -

Try again Resty, only the first 3 quotes were JoD. The rest were from other LDS church leaders (mostly prophets). Many of these come from Conference Reports and the Ensign.

“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).

Now, DO YOU ACCEPT THE WORDS OF YOUR PROPHETS? IF SO, the CONFERENCE TALKS ARE ON PAR WITH SCRIPTURE. So, it isn’t just the LDS Standard Works.

As we have already shown, the Nephites were not supposed to have had the books of the New Testament because they were written hundreds of years after they left Jerusalem. Nevertheless, we find many New Testament verses and parts of verses throughout the Book of Mormon. In the following list of parallels between the Book of Mormon and the New Testament we have tried to eliminate verses that also appear in the Old Testament. All of the verses from the Book of Mormon were supposed to have been written between 600 B.C. and A.D. 33. (In the following BM refers to the Book of Mormon and KJV refers to the King James Version of the Bible.)

KJV: That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you (1 John 1:3)
BM: to declare unto them concerning the things which he had both seen and heard (1 Nephi 1:18)

KJV: that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not (John 11:50)
BM: that one man should perish than that a nation should ... perish in unbelief (1 Nephi 4:13)

KJV: the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts (Rom. 5:5)
BM: the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts (1 Nephi 11:22)

KJV: made them white in the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 7:14)
BM: made white in the blood of the Lamb (1 Nephi 12:11)

KJV: shall be saved; yet so as by fire (1 Cor. 3:15)
BM: shall be saved, even if it so be as by fire (1 Nephi 22:17)

KJV: O wretched man that I am (Rom. 7:24)
BM: O wretched man that I am (2 Nephi 4:17)

KJV: death and hell delivered up the dead (Rev. 20:13)
BM: death and hell must deliver up their dead (2 Nephi 9:12)

KJV: he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still (Rev. 22:11)
BM: they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still (2 Nephi 9:16)

KJV: endured the cross, despising the shame (Heb. 12:2)
BM: endured the crosses of the world, and despised the shame (2 Nephi 9:18)

KJV: to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life (Rom. 8:6)
BM: to be carnally-minded is death, and to be spiritually-minded is life (2 Nephi 9:39)

KJV: Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female (Gal. 3:28)
BM: Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female (2 Nephi 10:16)

KJV: there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12)
BM: there is none other name given under heaven save it be this Jesus Christ, ... whereby man can be saved (2 Nephi 25:20)

KJV: the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29)
BM: the Lamb of God, who should take away the sins of the world (1 Nephi 10:10); the Lamb of God, which should take away the sins of the world (2 Nephi 31:4)

KJV: stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work (1 Cor. 15:58)
BM: steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works (Mosiah 5:15)

KJV: O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory (1 Cor. 15:55)
BM: the grave should have no victory, and that death should have no sting (Mosiah 16:7)

KJV: they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation (John 5:29)
BM: If they be good, to the resurrection of endless life and happiness; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of endless damnation (Mosiah 16:11)

KJV: Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free (Gal. 5:1)
BM: stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free (Mosiah 23:13); stand fast in that liberty wherewith God has made them free (Alma 58:40)

KJV: Marvel not that ... Ye must be born again (John 3:7)
BM: Marvel not that all mankind ... must be born again (Mosiah 27:25)

KJV: come out from among them, and be ye separate, ... and touch not the unclean thing (2 Cor. 6:17)
BM: come ye out from the wicked, and be ye separate, and touch not their unclean things (Alma 5:57)

KJV: lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us (Heb. 12:1)
BM: lay aside every sin, which easily doth beset you (Alma 7:15)

KJV: I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel (Luke 7:9)
BM: I say unto thee, woman, there has not been such great faith among all the people of the Nephites (Alma 19:10)

KJV: And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up (John 3:14)
BM: And as he lifted up the brazen serpent in the wilderness, even so shall he be lifted up who should come (Helaman 8:14)

(Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, The Book of Mormon, Chapter 5, Part 2, Pp 118-121)

“It still is pig talk and certain brand of so called Chistians love to bring that topic up and wallow in it!”

I’m going to ignore what are clearly typos here. Essentially you are saying that while some among us are “so-called” christians, in fact, (because you do not like certain verses of the Bible, you reserve the right to be selective about what is applicable and appropriate) our willingness to address ourselves to every part of the Bible makes us pigs and our talk “pig talk”?!

Am I missing something there, or drawing a wrong conclusion from your tersely worded criticisms?

Because if I am not, then you ARE admitting to having indulged yourself in a personal attack against Tennessee Nana, and whomever else you might have been similarly identifying, and I do not recall any of us “so-called” Christians EVER calling you a pig, nor your talk “pig talk”!

For the record, I believe that the descriptive passage in question is utilized in BOTH testaments, and that the contextual meaning is, as well, remarkably similar. If there is ANYONE here who has the knowledge and information (with specific independent scholarly references to cite, please...) to correct and/or refute me on that...

Then I will stand corrected. Otherwise...

“So many are under the impression by calling themselves flithy rags it is like self-flatulation which is a form of phony humility!”

Ummm...okaaaay. We have a most unfortunate confusion/misuse of terms here.

I believe the term you REALLY wanted to implement is “flagellation”, restornu.

If you will consult a dictionary on your own, you will probably agree with me that it might be a form of aromatic self-humiliation, but nothing more.

As to the term you probably intended - it is not that, but rather honest acknowledgment of what ANY person’s best efforts are actually worth in obtaining entry into heaven, when taken apart from G_d and His abundant grace.

Context means everything, restornu - and I think all in this forum who are not ignorant would agree that “the term” being discussed is applicable NOT to a person’s righteousness obtained by G_d’s mercy through Christ’s sacrifice and cleansing blood, but to any works done outside of G_d that pretend to provide sufficient
righteousness.

Christ died on the Cross; His blood flowed.

That blood replaces the blood of all the ceremonial sacrifices of ox and lamb and dove which were under the old covenant, and considered temporary, because they were imperfect (even when unblemished) and temporary (because they lacked the soul of humanity and the eternity of G_d).

Here then is the paradox which our Lord presents us with:

Our unrighteousness - our “filthy (bloody) rags” can only be cleansed - by being washed in the blood shed by Christ upon Golgotha.

Without that Blessed Blood as a cleansing, covering “agent” - we are like Adam and Eve, naked and ashamed.

G_d cannot see us as other than covered in the bloody guilt of our sins under the law, and the law demands justice - demands that a penalty be paid. After all, we are told if a man breaks one commandment, he has broken them all - so we might as well be guilty of murder in that sense - so stained are we.

Our Salvation - once and for always - is that we are told where there is a cleansing flood we may crawl through. Once we are cleansed, that blood becomes a lens through which G_d sees not our sins, but the righteousness of His Son who lovingly paid our debt in full.

Recognizing that we cannot obtain such a result on our own is ther furthest thing from phony humility, restornu.

It is a love that is humbled by the awesomeness of such a sacrifice, that “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us...” “that none might perish, but that all may have eternal life”.

The passage is there in the Bible, and it does not say that we “Are” filthy..., but that our best efforts are “As” filthy. In practical terms it is a simile, not a metaphor, but even if it was a metaphor, it would still present an accurate image, and we would still be allowed entry into heaven, and fellowship with Christ for eternity on the basis of our choosing salvation in his blood, and a relationship with him.

That is not ignorance, it is Scriptural truth, vouchsafed by the Holy Spirit.

A.A.C.

Amen and Amen, AAC.

Our unrighteousness - our “filthy (bloody) rags” can only be cleansed - by being washed in the blood shed by Christ upon Golgotha.

Nothing But the Blood (One of my favorite hymns)

What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
What can make me whole again?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

For my pardon, this I see,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
For my cleansing this my plea,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Nothing can for sin atone,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
Naught of good that I have done,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

This is all my hope and peace,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
This is all my righteousness,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Now by this I’ll overcome—
Nothing but the blood of Jesus,
Now by this I’ll reach my home—
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Glory! Glory! This I sing—
Nothing but the blood of Jesus,
All my praise for this I bring—
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

I left this vomit years of ago, wallow in the filthy rags...

I have no interest!

- - - - - - - - - - — -

Wow, resty...so first the word of God was “stupid”, now it is “vomit”? I am appalled. The doctrine of our depravity is not “vomit”. It may be uncomfortable for our pride to see our works apart from Christ to be “filthy”, but it certainly is not “vomit” or “stupid”.

I do not wallow in “filthy rags”. There is no need to. I have been covered by the Blood of Christ. ALL my sins are forgiven ONCE AND FOR ALL. My good works were “filthy rags” before (when I was LDS) because I was not in Christ. NOW God sees the Righteousness of Christ when He looks at me. It is a glorious thing. Christ has cleansed me and made those “filthy rags” (literally used menstrual cloths) into a new person.

It is not what *I* do, it is what CHRIST has ALREADY DONE, what He did 2000 years ago on a Cross on Calvary. He died to save you, resty, from yourself and from your sins.

And you may have no interest, but you do have a NEED. You NEED to stop trying to “be a better person” to get into Heaven. Instead you need to TRUST A BETTER PERSON (Christ) to get you into the presence of Heavenly Father.

You NEED the Jesus Christ of the Bible. A Christ who is SINLESS, fully God and fully man (not one who had to “earn” his godhood), who has the power to cover ALL sins (contrary to past LDS leaders view that some sins are not covered - like murder), and who doesn’t need our “help” by our works to ensure our place in the presence of God.

You may not want this Christ, but you need Him, you need him badly, for eternity without Him is a VERY, VERY long time.

I post to tell you the truth, and to tell the truth to others. It is not just about you.

I do not expect you to respond. Nevertheless I will NOT stop preaching Christ and Him Crucified.

1 Cor. 2:1-2: And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

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.