Just because it is in there does not mean one should highlight it!
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.
Maybe - but the Book seems to indicate he is SLEEPING right now: awaiting a certain TRUMPET sound!
He might know that HE conned lots of people with his stories of two PERSONAGES.
Are THESE 'translated correctly'??
He IS??
I had forgotten!!
Well...
we ALL are 'potential' Mormon's; but I think you meant...
"...in light of having a Mormon potentially in the White House?"
Such ignorance the LDS Organization takes advantage of.
I'm SURE that FAIRLDS and FARMS have a perfectly reasonable explaination of this event.
(At least to TBM's)
Can you IMAGINE a Mormon President, given the information that Weapons of Mass Destruction were in IRAN; needing a REVELATION to re-inforce this 'data' before acting...
I know some people are floating the trial balloon of John Huntsman, Governor Utah, for POTUS.
They (the powers that be) really, really want a Mormon in there badly - I wouldn’t be surprised if Harry Reid is next for consideration.
PING to # 819
Whew, hoh......ROTFLMHO....
Resty - I know you didn't mean to, but thanks for brightening my day!
Can you IMAGINE a Mormon President, given the information that Weapons of Mass Destruction were in IRAN; needing a REVELATION to re-inforce this ‘data’ before acting...
__________________________________________
Actually Romney did confess during one of the debates that first he would consult his “attoneys” before he did anything else...
Meanwhile NY is burning...
They (the powers that be) really, really want a Mormon in there badly - I wouldn’t be surprised if Harry Reid is next for consideration.
_________________________________________
LOL
Or Jay Bybee
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2239640/posts
Blue Flame Ceremony Coming Up
* He who observed it served it.
* He who first ejected it detected it.
* He who said the rhyme did the crime.
* Whoever spoke last set off the blast.
* Whoever smelt it dealt it.
* Whoever denied it supplied it.
* The next person who speaks is the person who reeks.
What do you mean the church does not do that? From your own context, "that" = giving "council"
We've already established, based upon what LDS prophet Ezra T. Benson said, that: 10. The prophet may advise on civic matters. [Well, what is "advise" other than "council"? -- and you were responding to Reaganaut saying If Romney were to be elected, just how much advice would be coming from SLC?]
You never pipe up when Billy Graham or even where Obama is getting his religious council from!
Does Billy Graham think he's a "god" or a "god-in-embryo" (what temple-worthy LDS call themselves)?
LDS make much of a supposed "council of gods" who instructed the Mormon god on what to do. So, if a Mormon POTUS takes advice, council, and instruction on what to do from his own "council of gods" based in SLC, would he ignore what they say?
Come on, Resty, if a "god" gives YOU advice, what are you supposed to do? Ignore it? If a POTUS believes such council comes from the mouth of God himself, he'll implement it!
And what do beings who believe they are gods as part of a grand council of gods do, Resty? (Why, this council counsels!)
Lurkers, perhaps you've never been told the true LDS beliefs thru a Mormon commercial, thru a Mormon missionary, or thru a Mormon friend -- that they believe they can become gods, and that a whole slew of gods-as-council/counselors exist!
First, Mormon "scripture":
“Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them (D&C 132:20) [BTW, this was Smith's SAME "revelation" where polygamy was openly embraced -- so what does that tell you about the source of all of this?]
…the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was…” (D&C 121:32)
The Gods plan the creation of the earth and all life thereon… (Pearl of Great Price: Abraham 4 heading)
"…And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth. (Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 4:1)
What does this "council of gods" have to do with men who run things on earth?
Listen to the words of the Twelth "prophet" of the LDS church, Spencer W. Kimball: “Brethren, 225,000 of you are here...I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000.” The Ensign (official magazine of the LDS church), p. 80, Nov. 1975)
That all seems to ring a bell -- even down to the last line: Isaiah 14:12-15:
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Kimball: ...you may become gods. Isaiah to Lucifer: "...art thou fallen from heaven" Why? "I will be like the most High." Kimball: "I think he could ... have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000." Isaiah to Lucifer: "For thou hast said in thine heart...I will exalt my throne above the stars of God...I will ascend above the heights of the clouds...
So when Mormons speak of "exaltation" what are they referencing? “That exaltation which the saints of all ages have so devoutly sought is godhood itself.” -- LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1991 version, p. 321
So appropo -- on a thread talking about Romney -- to quote Mitt Romney's father's cousin, Marion G. Romney -- who was one of the highest three LDS leaders in the 1960s:
“The truth is … man is a child of God— a God in embryo. Marion G. Romney, in Conference Report, April 1973, p. 136; or Ensign, July 1973, p. 14).
This isn't some vague obscure concept for the LDS elite of elite. This is mainstream LDS teaching widely available on its Web site: LDSTeachManIsAGod-in-Embryo
So my question is to ALL: Beyond the IMMORTAL man-God of Jesus Christ, why would you EVER want to vote for a mere mortal who thinks He is God?
Well, Reaganaut, Restornu thought that your comment was fear-mongering: The Church does not do that but who can stop some from creating fear!
But what have LDS leaders & authors themselves said? Here's just a small sample:
Here's what a journalist/spokesperson for the University of Utah said back in 1981:
“Mormons believe they have a divine commission to prepare the world for Christ's millennial reign in which they will serve as officers and administrators. The faithful Saint believes he is building the kingdom of God. This is what motivates the 30,000 full-time missionaries [note, this has doubled since 1981] to preach the gospel, and this is what keeps men in their eighties working at a pace that would pitch younger, less motivated men into their graves.” --University of Utah spokesperson Fred Esplin, “The Saints Go Marching On,” Utah Holiday, June 1981, p. 34.
LDS prophet Benson himself also said in 1988: “Joseph Smith predicted that the time would come when the Constitution would hang, as it were, by a thread, and at that time 'this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction' ... [Then] the elders of Israel [I.e. LDS leaders], widely spread over the nation, will at that crucial time successfully rally the righteous of our country and provide the necessary balance of strength to save the institutions of constitutional government. Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 1988, p. 619
LDS author Duane S. Crowther: “[T]here will be a complete change of government Washington, D.C. will cease to be the capital. The present national bureaucracy will have its end. The internal conflict will sweep away the current system of governments and will pave the way for the political kingdom of God and the millennial kingdom through which Jesus Christ will rule and reign...A new government will be established among the saints and that political kingdom of God will espouse and uphold the principles of constitutional government. Duane S. Crowther, Prophetic Warnings to Modern America, 1979, pp. 315-316
What is "self-flatuation" resty?
From your post...." So many are under the impression by calling themselves flithy rags it is like self-flatulation which is a form of phony humility!"
I don't recall that term being biblical and it sounds like it's against RF rules to me!
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.
