# Did Albert Mohler just speak at Brigham Young?



## chuckd (Oct 21, 2013)

"To many people, shaped in their worldview by the modern age and its constant mandate to accommodate, it will seem very odd that a Baptist theologian and seminary president would be invited to speak at the central institution of intellectual life among the Latter-Day Saints."

very odd indeed


----------



## Philip (Oct 21, 2013)

And encouraging that he made no bones about his theological stances


----------



## adamjthompson (Oct 21, 2013)

Full text: A Clear and Present Danger: Religious Liberty, Marriage, and the Family in the Late Modern Age — An Address at Brigham Young University &ndash; AlbertMohler.com

It sounds to me like this is of the same ilk as the Manhattan Declaration - the idea that protestants, catholics, mormons, and maybe even jews and muslims need to band together to stand for the causes of life and religious freedom. I think the idea is correct, as long as we don't forget that those causes are not the gospel.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 21, 2013)

I applaud him for having the courage to to tell them that he doesn't believe they will be in heaven, however I disagree with his premise that we should none the less work together for common goals. I believe the Bible says something about not even letting such people into your house, and even the relatively tame BFM 2000 says this;

"Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament."

Would not cooperating with those who deny Christ and are damned to hell be a violation of conscience?


----------



## ZackF (Oct 21, 2013)

Brigham Young..how about speaking at Hogwarts? Not to derail the thread but when I saw that anniversary documentary of his 20 years at Southern Seminary, I thought he looked like Harry Potter at his inauguration.


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 21, 2013)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Would not cooperating with those who deny Christ and are damned to hell be a violation of conscience?



Cooperating in what is the question. 

I’d have no pangs of conscience helping a flaming homosexual liberal atheist change a flat tire. I would not help him in the least to push a political agenda contrary to God’s Word.

Somewhere between those extremes is the cooperation we see here.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 21, 2013)

Mormonism spreads lies about God and it therefore harms people.

That said, Mormonism teaches an ethic that is opposed to the rank immorality of much of what we see going on in the world around us. As such, their worldview promotes a value system that makes room for us to exist and do our thing in an environment where goodness and decency are encouraged. That is a good thing. I would happily cooperate with Mormons on civil matters.


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 22, 2013)

adamjthompson said:


> Full text: A Clear and Present Danger: Religious Liberty, Marriage, and the Family in the Late Modern Age — An Address at Brigham Young University – AlbertMohler.com
> 
> It sounds to me like this is of the same ilk as the Manhattan Declaration - the idea that protestants, catholics, mormons, and maybe even jews and muslims need to band together to stand for the causes of life and religious freedom. I think the idea is correct, as long as we don't forget that those causes are not the gospel.



I don't think it is analogous to 'Manhatten'.

In that case, there was a stated, written theological pretext that was both vague and contradictory of some biblical doctrine. There is no such pretext here.

(It's also curious that some high profile people who signed on to 'Manhatten,' despite its erroneous Scriptural pretext, have not stood out for its stated ends, now that the time of testing it forewarned of, has come.
I.e. promoting abortion, sexual immorality, euthanasia, etc. A force like that could have a real impact, but where are they?)

Christians can, and ought, work with non-Christians on civil matters of mutual interest.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 22, 2013)

This reminds me of what Gerstner used to label that there is "Good good, and good bad". I think Mohler sort of did this when he said he did not believe they were going to heaven by their "good" works. Now maybe he should have said they are on the way to hell instead of "not going to heaven" because the good works mormons do are in the end not good because they flow from a selfish motivation.

Well I guess I will not get invited to speak at BYU.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 22, 2013)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Would not cooperating with those who deny Christ and are damned to hell be a violation of conscience?


That's certainly the conclusion that the Amish have come to.

I think we need to be precise about the kind of cooperation that Al Mohler is talking about. He clearly draws the line and identifies their Gospel as false and that he believes in Christianity as they do not.

In that regard, then, a Mormon is like any other unbeliever and the question is whether we can work together with a Mormon at all. If the answer is "No" then the answer is really No for anybody who is not a Christian and the principle of completely separating oneself from the world (as the Amish do) is the only logical recourse.

Insofar as any of my coworkers are Mormons, I cannot avoid cooperating with them to advance the goals of our employer. Insofar as there were Marines that were Mormon, I had to serve alongside and cooperate in the accomplishment of the mission. Insofar as they vote against the murder of the unboorn, I cooperate with some limited political aims.

Regarding the Manhattan declaration, the problem that many had with that document wasn't the notion that it is appropriate to cooperate with groups outside our Church body but that the document specifically called this a "Gospel work" of sorts. Had the definition of the Gospel not been watered down for the sake of ecumenical and not political unity, many more persons might have signed the document.

Frankly, Al Mohler's clear statement that salvation is not found in Mormonism while still being able to note what he can cooperate on is refreshing in an increasing climate where any cooperation means that one must cooperate on everything. We need more lines clearly drawn and not less so that people can understand what we do and do not agree upon in order for cooperation to exist precisely at the points where it is possible and also to define that which we must not compromise in the process.


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 22, 2013)

It would, of course, not be right if the esteemed Southern Baptist leader, somehow compromised doctrine or biblical truth in his message. E.g. saying something false (and absurd) like, we serve the same God,
but it does not appear he did that.

Rather, it appears he spoke freely the truth, graciously toward his audience, apparently, but truthfully.

We need more of that.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 22, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> That's certainly the conclusion that the Amish have come to.



And perhaps also the Apostle John. 

" For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward. Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds."- 2 John 1:7-10

It is one thing to evangelize Mormons or to work with them in secular situations, but it is quite another to validate their Godless church by working with them for any sort of societal purpose. They are the kingdom of death and hell, and I know because I live among them, and we should refuse to work with them in any manner because to do so will only bring glory to the kingdom of death and hell, however well intentioned or inadvertent it may be.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 22, 2013)

Bill The Baptist said:


> And perhaps also the Apostle John.
> 
> " For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward. Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds."- 2 John 1:7-10


This is not only an exegetical fallacy of the kind that fails to recognize the distinctions that the Scriptures make but is also an appeal to selective evidence where the Apostle Paul also states:


> I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:9-13, ESV)



Unless it is your intention to pit Paul against John, we need to understand Scripture's entire witness as to what kind of interaction we may have with unbelievers.



Bill The Baptist said:


> It is one thing to evangelize Mormons or to work with them in secular situations, but it is quite another to validate their Godless church by working with them for any sort of societal purpose. They are the kingdom of death and hell, and I know because I live among them, and we should refuse to work with them in any manner because to do so will only bring glory to the kingdom of death and hell, however well intentioned or inadvertent it may be.



Do any of your congregants work for any Mormon-owned businesses? Do any of those in your congregation work for places that sell to Mormons? Do you insist that the Gospel demands that they refrain from any exchange of commerce with them for that is a "societal purpose"? According to what Scripture would you appeal to in order to demonstrate that political activity iss a sphere of secular space that is off-limits for Chrsitian and non-Christian cooperation?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 22, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Do any of your congregants work for any Mormon-owned businesses? Do any of those in your congregation work for places that sell to Mormons? Do you insist that the Gospel demands that they refrain from any exchange of commerce with them for that is a "societal purpose"? According to what Scripture would you appeal to political activity as a sphere of secular space that is off-limits for Chrsitians and non-Christians to cooperate? To assert is not an argument.



I am not referring to commerce, I am referring to the very things that Dr. Mohler was referring to. Working for common societal goals such as the abolition of abortion, the defense of biblical marriage, the promotion and preservation of non-secular worldviews. All of these are good and noble endeavors in and of themselves, but when we associate with apostates for these purposes, it ultimately results in the world no longer seeing a distinction between orthodox, biblical Christians and Christian cults, which is of course one of the main goals of the LDS church. I for one do not believe that we as Christians should assist the Mormon church in achieving this goal.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 22, 2013)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I am not referring to commerce, I am referring to the very things that Dr. Mohler was referring to. Working for common societal goals such as the abolition of abortion, the defense of biblical marriage, the promotion and preservation of non-secular worldviews. All of these are good and noble endeavors in and of themselves, but when we associate with apostates for these purposes, it ultimately results in the world no longer seeing a distinction between orthodox, biblical Christians and Christian cults, which is of course one of the main goals of the LDS church. I for one do not believe that we as Christians should assist the Mormon church in achieving this goal.


I think most people would be surprised that Dr. Mohler's speech could be interpreted in this way, especially the author himself.


----------



## Jack K (Oct 22, 2013)

I've been watching this thread with interest because I live on the edge of "Mormon Country," not far down the road from the heart of it where Bill is. My first reaction was similar to what many here are saying: that there's nothing wrong with cooperating with unbelievers on political and social matters, so long as you make it clear that's all you agree on. Technically, that's sound. And I too generally have no qualms about working with Mormons in the workplace or for community betterment.

But Bill's concerns are valid. The LDS church essentially promotes and worships family values as if those values were a god. It also increasingly employs the tactic of trying to blur the line between itself and biblical Christianity, claiming that since evangelicals support family values there's little difference between them and the LDS. Having a prominent evangelical leader speak at BYU about family values plays into both this false worship and this blurring-of-distinctions strategy.

Now, I feel sure Dr. Mohler was aware of this, and it's probably why he took pains to draw some clear lines between himself and Mormons in his speech and to mention faith in Christ. Certainly, Dr. Mohler has earned the right to make the decision he made without taking too much flak from us. And looking at it technically, I can't see anything wrong (and I see much that's right) in what he said. His decision to give the speech may well have been a good one.

But still, I suspect most of the Reformed and evangelical world is unaware of the enomity of the battle we face in many parts of the West. We are struggling mightily to take a stand against those who would turn family values into a false god. We are working daily to redraw the line between us and false religion where the LDS church has tried to erase it. From the perspective of the front lines, it might indeed seem as if the worship of family values just got a little boost and the line of distinction became a bit blurrier.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 22, 2013)

What I hear is that the Modernists are right:


> But here I am, and I am thankful for the invitation. The wonderfully prophetic Catholic novelist Flannery O’Connor rightly warned that we must “push back against the age as hard as it is pressing you.” I have come to Brigham Young University because I intend with you to push back against the modernist notion that only the accommodated can converse. There are those who sincerely believe that meaningful and respectful conversation can take place only among those who believe the least—that only those who believe the least and thus may disagree the least can engage one another in the kind of conversation that matters. I reject that notion, and I reject it forcefully. To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, that is the kind of idea that must not be cast aside lightly, but thrown with full force.


Only the accommodated can indeed converse because, in the end, even when you're trying to maintain your convictions, the moment you enter into dialog you're an accommodationist.

OK, maybe you're not an accomodationist but you're naive because, after all, people who can't make distinctions won't be able to follow your distinctions and any argument you make that forces people to actually pay attention for a second will get lost. 

"What was that he said?"
"I dunno, but he's on the stage with Mormons so he must just be about family values."

We face problems in the East too. We're not as naive as the cosmopolitan Westerners might imagine. I've lived on the West Coast for a few years myself.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 22, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > I am not referring to commerce, I am referring to the very things that Dr. Mohler was referring to. Working for common societal goals such as the abolition of abortion, the defense of biblical marriage, the promotion and preservation of non-secular worldviews. All of these are good and noble endeavors in and of themselves, but when we associate with apostates for these purposes, it ultimately results in the world no longer seeing a distinction between orthodox, biblical Christians and Christian cults, which is of course one of the main goals of the LDS church. I for one do not believe that we as Christians should assist the Mormon church in achieving this goal.
> ...



Rich,

I appreciate your input and no doubt you are my superior when it comes to matters of theology, however I do not understand your objection to my interpretation of Dr. Mohler's speech. Are you seriously suggesting that Dr. Mohler came all the way to Provo, Utah to tell Mormons that it is okay for Mormons and other Christians to work side by side in our secular, financial endeavors? Of course he was talking about societal issues such as the ones I mentioned. Here is a quote from his speech;

"I do not believe that we are going to heaven together, but I do believe we may go to jail together. I do not mean to exaggerate, but we are living in the shadow of a great moral revolution that we commonly believe will have grave and devastating human consequences. Your faith has held high the importance of marriage and family. Your theology requires such an affirmation, and it is lovingly lived out by millions of Mormon families. That is why I and my evangelical brothers and sisters are so glad to have Mormon neighbors. We stand together for the natural family, for natural marriage, for the integrity of sexuality within marriage alone, and for the hope of human flourishing."

Again, I appreciate your perspective, and I certainly appreciate Dr. Mohler. But let's not pretend that he didn't say what he clearly did say. Your conscience may allow for such cooperation with Mormons, but mine will not.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 22, 2013)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Bill The Baptist said:
> ...



That's the obvious stuff Bill. It's what you said all of that _implies_ that is not so obvious.


----------



## Jack K (Oct 22, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> What I hear is that the Modernists are right:
> 
> 
> > But here I am, and I am thankful for the invitation. The wonderfully prophetic Catholic novelist Flannery O’Connor rightly warned that we must “push back against the age as hard as it is pressing you.” I have come to Brigham Young University because I intend with you to push back against the modernist notion that only the accommodated can converse. There are those who sincerely believe that meaningful and respectful conversation can take place only among those who believe the least—that only those who believe the least and thus may disagree the least can engage one another in the kind of conversation that matters. I reject that notion, and I reject it forcefully. To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, that is the kind of idea that must not be cast aside lightly, but thrown with full force.
> ...



I think that section from Dr. Mohler's speech is a strong argument supporting his decision. I don't disagree with that argument in the least. And I certainly like the idea of intelligent dialogue that acknowledges differences. Like I say, my initial thought was that, of course, he was right to give the speech.

I merely wish to point out the complexity of the situation given the particular strategies the LDS church employs and the particular false worship it espouses, especially from the perspective of those of us who've spent much of our lives refuting Mormon teaching and fighting Mormon strategies. I'm not sure what Dr. Mohler should have chosen to do (and I think he's earned the right to decide for himself), but I don't think it's an easy call to make _given the particulars of the LDS church_. I also wish everybody who heard about his speech took the time to read it as carefully and thoughtfully as you do, but, sadly, many will not.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 22, 2013)

This is a likely an apples and oranges comparison so do with it what you may. 

But I see a bit of the point Martin Lloyd-Jones made in the brouhaha over Billy Graham standing on stage with the Archbishop of Canterbury and other liberals ML-J was fighting tooth and nail with over the gospel itself. In the minds of the "low information voter" this gives some legitimacy to the argument being made (even by LDS folks in my neighborhood) that they to are just "Bible-believing evangelicals" and it makes the job of folks like Bill who are on the front lines against the LDS cult that much harder.


----------



## augustacarguy (Oct 22, 2013)

In my opinion, accepting an invitation to speak somewhere is very different than extending an invitation to a heretic to speak to your church or institution. If go preach the Gospel anywhere, but would react very differently if Rob Bell was invited to preach at my church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 23, 2013)

Jack K said:


> I think that section from Dr. Mohler's speech is a strong argument supporting his decision. I don't disagree with that argument in the least. And I certainly like the idea of intelligent dialogue that acknowledges differences. Like I say, my initial thought was that, of course, he was right to give the speech.
> 
> I merely wish to point out the complexity of the situation given the particular strategies the LDS church employs and the particular false worship it espouses, especially from the perspective of those of us who've spent much of our lives refuting Mormon teaching and fighting Mormon strategies. I'm not sure what Dr. Mohler should have chosen to do (and I think he's earned the right to decide for himself), but I don't think it's an easy call to make given the particulars of the LDS church. I also wish everybody who heard about his speech took the time to read it as carefully and thoughtfully as you do, but, sadly, many will not.



I think the same could be said about any false religion. The Roman Catholic Church has gone from being seen as bearing a false Gospel to a general suspicion about Roman Catholics to many Evangelicals embracing the current Pope as "one of them".

The ability to make distinctions has already been lost for most. They consider those of who care about distinctions to be either not worth listening to or they really don't give it much thought because there is absolutely no platform any more where they'll ever hear the distinctions.

I seriously doubt, in fact, that many in the broadly Evangelical folk even know who Al Mohler is or that he was there. In fact, I just mentioned Al Mohler to a friend at work (who's he?) and to a friend at my Church who was a PCA RE (again, who is he?). The notion that many people that have lost all of these distinctions but are still following what Al Mohler says on any topic strikes me as wishful thinking.

On the other hand, how many Mormons are never told that there's is not historical Chrisitianity or that their Gospel is not true within the very stronghold of Mormonism?

It's the gates of Hell that have to worry about the advance of the Gospel. I don't fear general trends from those who are not paying attention to anything but media reports. Such a Christian that cannot discern the difference needs the Gospel anyway. I rejoice whenever the Gospel is presented and would be overjoyed if someone like Mohler was ever given a platform to speak like that to the 60-70K at the Vatican, which is where my mother was today, ironically enough.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 23, 2013)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> But I see a bit of the point Martin Lloyd-Jones made in the brouhaha over Billy Graham standing on stage with the Archbishop of Canterbury and other liberals ML-J was fighting tooth and nail with over the gospel itself. In the minds of the "low information voter" this gives some legitimacy to the argument being made (even by LDS folks in my neighborhood) that they to are just "Bible-believing evangelicals" and it makes the job of folks like Bill who are on the front lines against the LDS cult that much harder.



There is that danger. But the line "I do not believe that we are going to heaven together, but I do believe we may go to jail together" has been repeated over and over and was the headline of the story I saw. That's the takeaway most people will have, I think. What Graham did was to acknowledge the modernists as fellow brethren and (most importantly) direct enquirers to liberal churches. (It also was basically the last straw in the breach between fundamentalism and neo-evangelicalism.) If I recall correctly, by contrast Ravi Zacharias went out to SLC a few years ago and came under heavy criticism for not highlighting differences between evangelical Christianity and Mormonism. 

It's possible I might change my mind later, but when reading the speech the other day I thought it was a tour de force. It is not analogous to the Manhattan Declaration as the latter explicitly states that RC's, EO's and Protestants are coming together as fellow Christians, etc. If I'm not mistaken, a few years later, Dr. Mohler (a signatory of the MD) said it was a mistake to have signed it as written.


----------

