Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Mohler joins hands with Mormons


We have Albert Mohler, president of Southern Seminary, the guiding citadel in the SBC for graduate work, being asked to come and speak at Brigham Young University, the guiding citadel for educating Mormon young people. And what brought about this meeting? Why, the heated debate concerning marriage, of course. Because of the ungodly push to pervert the institution of marriage, Mohler was invited to BYU to speak on behalf of traditional marriage.  Now some who call themselves fundamentalists have chimed in to say that there’s nothing really wrong with this picture, that Mohler at BYU to speak on marriage is just perfectly fine (see here and here) or not wise (see here and here). Now this same professor also stated once that he too could speak at a Mormon gathering without any qualms, given certain caveats which it seems Mohler was given or at least took since he distanced his theology from Mormon theology.[1] Mohler sound so similar to another evangelical, actually the father evangelist of evangelicalism, Billy Graham. Graham had this to say in his autobiography concerning the controversy over the 1957 New York crusade, “My own position was that we should be willing to work with all who were willing to work with us. Our message was clear, and if someone with a radically different theological view somehow decided to join with us in a Crusade that proclaimed Christ as the way of salvation, he or she was the one who was compromising personal convictions, not we.” (Just As I Am, pp. 303, 304)

Mohler is to be applauded for his unwillingness to share any theological commonality with his audience. And far too many are quick to laud him and let this incident stand as something quite acceptable. We must however, look at what brought Al Mohler to BYU. The issue at stake that brought Mohler to BYU is the onslaught of damage being done to the institution of marriage by our modern culture. True enough, a worthy topic to be spoken on by Christians. But do we have common ground with Mormons concerning Biblical marriage? The answer is a clear, unequivocal, NO!

What is Biblical marriage? Well, let’s let the Bible do its own speaking. Genesis. 2:18-24 records the first marriage, instituted and instigated by God Himself with Adam and Eve. We see that it was one man, one woman, for life. They were to leave their parents and embark on a new life together as one. In the Gospels we find Christ reiterating this understanding of marriage (Matt. 19:3-6) and we find that marriage is for this present life only, there are no continuing effects of marriage in heaven (Matt. 22:23-30).

Now, is this also the Mormon view of marriage? And the answer is…NO. What was the audience thinking when Mohler spoke of marriage? Well, Mormon doctrine taught them that we were initially spirit babies begotten by our Heavenly Father and Mother. Eventually, these spirit babies make it into the temporal world as humans living on this earth. The Mormon understanding of marriage is that they are to make their marriage a celestial marriage by having a wedding ceremony in a Mormon Temple which will seal their marriage for time and eternity.

 Celestial Marriage essential to exaltation Another thing that we must not forget in this great plan of redemption and exaltation, is that a man must have a wife, and a woman a husband, to receive the fullness of exaltation. They must be sealed for time and all eternity in a temple; then their union will last forever…

“Parents will have eternal claim upon their posterity and will have the gift of eternal increase, if they obtain the exaltation. This is the crowning glory in the kingdom of God, and they will have no end…No man shall receive the fullness of eternity, of exaltation, alone; no woman shall receive that blessing alone;…No man can obtain that exaltation without receiving the covenants that belong to the priesthood.” (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 40, 43 &44 {as quoted in The Bible and Mormon Doctrine, Sandra Tanner, p. 8})

So, were Al Mohler and the Mormons actually talking about the same thing when talking about “marriage”? Like so many other common words used by Christians and Mormons, they don’t mean the same thing to both groups. Believers, or more specifically the Bible has one meaning for words and Mormons, using those same words, have a completely different meaning. Mohler and the Mormons were not even on the same page in the conversation that they had. Which ultimately begs the question, Why DID Al Mohler accept the invitation to speak at BYU?

Now, for some marriage is a social, cultural issue, or at least they are trying to paint it as such so as to avoid any theological entanglements with some. But is it just a social, cultural phenomena? Well, here are the passages of Scriptures cited earlier which speak on the subject of marriage.
 

Genesis 2:18-24

18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
 

Matthew 19:3-6

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
 

Matthew 22: 23-30

23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27 And last of all the woman died also.

28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

 
Hebrews 13:4

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

 
Is it not possible to view from the Scriptures a “doctrine” of marriage? Do we not gather other portion of Scriptures and label them, “the doctrine of _________”?  Is not the very concept of one man+one woman=one flesh (marriage) a Biblical truth and not just a social construct? We get our understanding, our beliefs concerning marriage, what it is, what constitutes it, etc., from the Bible and as such, it is then a teaching, a doctrine, if you will. Al Mohler went to BYU to arguably unite together with Mormons to push back at the societal devolution of the definition of marriage. He yoked himself together with Mormons on the topic of marriage. This is not just an “unwise” decision. With the differences of beliefs as to what “marriage” is that exists between the Bible and Mormon doctrine, one then really wonders just what was Mohler doing there in the first place. He spoke of the differences that exist in other beliefs yet he ostensibly seeks to equate the Biblical definition of marriage with the Mormon definition since he does not address the vast differences between said beliefs as he speaks of marriage. Should we really be esteeming this man Mohler?


[1]Yes, anywhere means anywhere. If the Mormons seriously invited me to their Tabernacle to defend biblical Christianity (including Fundamentalism), I would go—subject to certain considerations. First, I would have to be free to say whatever I thought was the truth, including that Mormonism is a cult. Second, they should never expect me to recognize them in any way as Christians, or to imply that we were seeking some common ground. Third, they should never expect any return invitation from me, especially not if it would give them an opportunity to present their views” (taken from comments at SI, can be found here).

21 comments:

Lou Martuneac said...

Brian:

Thanks for this article. When I first read Kevin Bauder defending Al Mohler my initial reaction was, “There He Goes Again: More lavish praise for Al Mohler.” This is a continuation of a long time pattern just as he (Kevin) and Dave Doran gave Mohler a pass (and still do) for Al Mohler signing the Manhattan Declaration (MD). Bauder’s pattern is to allow for, tolerate and defend the ecumenical compromises, aberrant doctrine and worldliness of Mohler and his fellow so-called “conservative” evangelicals.

There is, however, more to this pattern from Kevin. What Kevin also continues to do is ignore, excuse or dismiss the on-going ecumenical compromises of Mohler. He (and Doran) has never said one word about Mohler sitting as chairman for the Billy Graham crusade in 2001. This year Al Mohler joined with Rick Warren in cooperative ministry. What did we read or hear from Kevin Bauder about that? Nothing!

Signing the MD was not Mohler’s first time foray into ecumenical compromise. I also said it would not be his last. Predictably Kevin Bauder, as well as Dave Doran, would continue their pattern of tolerating, allowing for, ignoring or excusing new events as they would surely unfold.


LM

Brian said...

Thanks for stopping by Lou and adding to the conversation. It is indeed troubling that so-called fundamentalists will either encourage us to follow evangelicals and/or remain silent when these evangelicals stray from sound doctrine and practice.
Mike Harding brings up some further disturbing information concerning the growing ties between the SBC and the LDS.
Wake up folks! Regardless of the adjectives added to the name evangelical, they are evangelicals and as such are willing to partner with just about anyone for any reason at any time. We have some 60 years of history to confirm this attribute of evangelicalism.

Lou Martuneac said...

Brian:

You wrote, "Al Mohler went to BYU to arguably unite together with Mormons to push back at the societal devolution of the definition of marriage. He yoked himself together with Mormons on the topic of marriage."

Isn't this much the same rationale that Mohler gave for signing the Manhattan Declaration with Roman Catholic priests and apostates? Of course, it is. A decision he has never biblically repented of in spite of Kevin Bauder's attempt to give the impression that Mohler has.

These mounting ecumenical issues with Al Moher and Dr. Bauder's incessant defense of and lavish praise for Al Mohler are not going to stop.

We pray that born again believers will see the errors of both Mohler and Bauder. That believers will and resist the errors these men, warn others and refuse to follow their direction.


Lou

Brian said...

Jay Edwards, appreciate your stopping by. I will not post your comment with the link. Not that I don't want anyone to read Mohler's article because that can easily be done through the links I have in the article already. More to the point, my article is not about his article and what he says in it but I am addressing his actions and their implications. As I've already noted, the speech was good and commendable but that's not the point. Like Mohler signing the Manhattan Declaration, it's the details that are troublesome. Take away the first paragraph of the MD and we would probably all heartily agree with what is written, for as believers we are for those three issues. But that one paragraph and in particular the first sentence is the crux of the matter. The crux of the matter with Mohler and Mormons is not in the speech itself but in the fact that Mohler is there supposedly on a common ground topic (marriage) but in which there is no common ground and validating to some extent Mormonism and its recent efforts of being "Christian."

Anonymous said...

I don't think the title of this post represents Mr. Mohler properly, nor is what he said or his being there an endorsement of Mormonism in any way. I'm not saying we aren't allowed to disagree with Mohler, but I'm having a hard time finding disagreement on THIS issue. He certainly represented marriage as between a man and a woman and said as much. Also, I think his speech embodies the spirit of religious freedom in America as our forefathers intended, which he also addressed. Just as this blog post does the same.
Grace & peace,
Jay Edwards

Brian said...

Jay, obviously nothing I write will change your attitude, since you are not addressing anything I've written, which is a pity. My title was more prescient than I knew,after reading what Mike Harding posted at SI concerning the interaction between the SBC and LDS.
Hopefully, you'll re-read what is written here and interact with this article instead of Mohler's.

Anonymous said...

Brian,
I am willing to be persuaded. I have been trying to address both what Mr. Mohler said and what this post is saying. That is why I said, based upon what Mohler said, the ONLY thing he affirmed with Mormons is that they believe marriage is between men and women. That it is not between two people of the same sex. Yet, you wish to make him affirming much more than that. There is no doubt that the Mormons have some crazy views that have no place in Christianity, but Mr. Mohler did not affirm those things and simply being there is not an acceptance of them or any of their unbiblical beliefs. Are you saying by default he has?
God Bless,
Jay Edwards

Lou Martuneac said...

Brian:

What you did here is give solid Bible reasons for what is wrong with Mohler hooking up with the Mormons, and by extension their church. Mohler is wrong and he once again had to ignore Bible mandates to have his fellowship with them just as he did to sign the Manhattan Declaration and chair the Billy Graham crusade in 2001. He'll keep doing this.


Lou

Brian said...

To Jay, no, you're not willing to be persuaded. You remain stuck on just Mohler's message, which I have already acknowledged I have no problem with the message.
I'll turn the tables for you Jay. Here's something for you. Here are three speeches given,
“For from the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him: lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations. Who can count the dust of Jacob, and the number of the fourth part of Israel? Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his!”
“God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it. He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: the LORD his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them. God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn. Surely there is no enchantment against Jacob, neither is there any divination against Israel: according to this time it shall be said of Jacob and of Israel, What hath God wrought! Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up himself as a young lion: he shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, and drink the blood of the slain.”
“He hath said, which heard the words of God, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open: How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob, and thy tabernacles, O Israel! As the valleys are they spread forth, as gardens by the river’s side, as the trees of lign aloes which the LORD hath planted, and as cedar trees beside the waters. He shall pour the water out of his buckets, and his seed shall be in many waters, and his king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted. God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows. He couched, he lay down as a lion, and as a great lion: who shall stir him up? Blessed is he that blesseth thee, and cursed is he that curseth thee.”
Three good speeches...but we do not hold up the man who spoke made these truthful proclamations. The man who spoke these is repeatedly condemned in the Scriptures. So again, it's not the message that is being addressed, it is the messenger and his linking hands with those who oppose everything I believe to be true in the Bible. Go ahead, read again Mohler and read again what I have here. Sure, Mohler distances himself on other theological issues but he identifies marriage as being something that Christians and Mormons have in common and that is just not the case. If you can't see that, I truly pity you.

Brian said...

Jay, your comment will not be posted. You continue to sidestep the issues at hand. There is no deceit here by not linking to Mohler's article. Anyone who visits my blog can easily get to the article by the links to other places I have provided and this has now been mentioned twice, so I'm rather obviously not trying to hide his article. How many times must I say it Jay? The article is not the issue. It is rather you that are deluded, thinking that what Mohler has done is somehow acceptable practice for a believer. I don't see BYU closing it's doors because Mohler was there and thousands of Mormon students turned to the true Christ, trusting in His finished work to save them and rejecting, repudiating the false teachings of Mormonism. No, instead Mohler is returning to BYU and Mormon leaders have gone to SBC functions, building bridges between the two religious entities.
Enjoy it if you must Jay, I reject it.

Brian said...

I stand corrected, sorry Jay, you are right there are no avenues to read Mohler's speech through any links here in my article. And I again will reiterate, this is not about the message, just like the condemnation of the OT prophet that I quote above is not about his message.
There's no equivalence between Paul on Mars Hill and Mohler at BYU. You guys continue to grasp at straws to justify these evangelicals with their compromise.

Anonymous said...

Brian,
I know you're tired of my comments, so this will be my last on this issue. I have been scouring the internet to find any sources (outside of Fundamentalist sources) that show the SBC as cooperating or joining hands with Mormons. Maybe you can make them available. So far, all I have is this blog and Lou Martuneac's blog (because he re-posted this post). Many may disagree with what Dr. Mohler did, but they have not gone out of their way to discredit what he has done simply because he spoke there. Thanks for your patience in a heated conversation.
Grace & Peace,
Jay Edwards

Brian said...

Jay, I posted your closing remarks and will note these few thoughts and links.
Concerning the discussion of this issue of Mohler speaking at BYU here are two links where Don Johnson addresses Mohler. At Oxgoad you can see the commenting.
http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2013/10/24/on-what-authority/
http://oxgoad.ca/2013/10/23/article-on-mohlers-byu-visit/#comments
Now, neither of these answer your specific request. I put them here to view the extended conversation on this topic.
To answer your specific request, I would say contact Mike Harding. He brings up the entanglements in two comments he posted at SI. I am taking him to be a man of his word when I reference the entanglements. But even without Mike's comments. The fact that Mohler went brings "the holding hands" issue to the fore. While he sought to distance himself from them on many fronts, he used marriage as the link between the two. A link which, as I have said, does not really exist between the Bible's teaching on marriage and the Mormon's teaching.
I would also go so far as to say, it would be doubtful that Mohler and Mormons would be cellmates over the marriage issue. Mormons have a history of cultural/societal accommodations when confronted with issues. Go back to the 1880's and all of sudden the powers that be in SLC declare that monogamy is the way to go not polygamy and voila, Utah wins statehood in 1890. Their views on marriage were hampering Utah's entrance into the union and something had to change. Move forward several decades and again, the powers that be in SLC say that Negroes can get into Mormonism that they are not the hated race that Mormons had been teaching they were all along, and now a civil rights debacle is avoided. Don't be surprised if once again the powers that be in SLC will not come out with yet another pronouncement in order to accommodate society to their teachings.

Brian said...

I wish to expand on something I said in an earlier post. Some have tried to liken Mohler going to BYU with Paul’s discourse on Mars Hill in Athens. The two incidences are like comparing apples to oranges, it doesn’t work. Let’s look at Paul and Mars Hill. In Acts 17 Paul has been speaking in the agora, the marketplace. Philosophers overhear Paul and their philosophic intellect is piqued by what they hear. These men do not invite Paul to Mars Hill. In verse 19 of Acts 17 two words are used which indicate that Paul didn’t have much choice in the matter of going to Mars Hill. Luke uses two words, epilambanomai and ago (“took” and “brought” respectively). Epilambanomai means to take in addition, to lay hold of, take possession of, overtake, attain, attain to; to lay hold of or to seize upon anything with the hands, to take hold of, lay hold of; and ago means to lead by laying hold of, and this way to bring to the point of destination. Both words give the implication that Paul was forcefully removed from the agora by these men and brought to Mars Hill quite without any consideration as to whether Paul wanted to go or not. That is not the case with Mohler, he was invited to come and speak at BYU and went there under his own freewill and power.
Mohler says this in his speech, “We do not enjoy such friendship and constructive conversation in spite of our theological differences, but in light of them. This does not eliminate the possibility of conversation.” Really, what about these Scriptures; II Corinthians 6:14-17 “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,”; Eph. 5:11 “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” What “friendship and constructive conversation?” Jay, you asked for info, well, Mohler gave it to you. The above mentioned verses clearly teach us that there is to be no “friendship and constructive conversation” with Mormons yet there is Mohler doing such.

Brian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian said...

Here's a non-fundamentalist site which has written on the hand-holding of evangelicals and Mormons (http://www.religionnews.com/2013/10/30/evangelical-visits-byu-signal-new-evangelical-mormon-detente/). We continue to see the lack of discernment by evangelicals with their desire to call the LDS a "fourth Abrahamic faith." Really?! There's nothing Biblical about the LDS, period. Their "Christ" is not the Biblical Christ. Their "God" is not the Biblical God. How men such as Kevin Bauder can say that this foray of Mohler's into Mormonism is just "unwise" is unwise itself and betrays the Scriptural admonitions to separate from such.

Lou Martuneac said...

Brian:

How men such as Kevin Bauder can say that this foray of Mohler's into Mormonism is just ‘unwise’ is unwise itself and betrays the Scriptural admonitions to separate from such.

The same way Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran said of Mohler signing the MD that it was merely” a wrong decision; a single episode, occasional inconsistency.” Bauder then gave Mohler credit for having repented signing the MD when in fact Mohler did nothing remotely close to biblically repenting. And we, of course, have several new examples of Mohler’s ecumenical ways with joining Rick Warren and now this with the Mormon Church.

Kevin Bauder has always and will continue to tolerate, allow for ignore or excuse the many ecumenical compromises and doctrinal aberrations of his new friends in the New Evangelical camp.


Lou

Brian said...

Jay Edwards, thanks for stopping by. I will not post your comment because I cannot remove the link to the article you reference. I don't care to give free advertising to Dr. Ben Carson and his interview. Nothing earth shattering, just don't care to do that.
As far as Sexton inviting said Dr. Carson, I have not heard of this and it would have bee nice to have shared a link verifying that event. I won't comment until I know the details of the meeting. I would not say, as you do that Dr. Sexton is in the middle of fundamentalism. I put him to the right of center, not in the hyper camp but not center. He seems to have moderated some with time but I have not really looked at his positions on things in recent memory.
Thanks for bringing this up, it certainly could be something worth writing about should the details warrant it. I will do some digging.

Anonymous said...

Hey Brian,
Here's the link to the meeting.

http://faithforthefamily.com/faithfulmens/

God Bless,
Jay

Anonymous said...

Hey Brian,
I hope you know, I have not sent you this information to stir up anything. I simply don't see the issue here. To me, Clarence Sexton having a Seventh Day Adventist speak is none different than Albert Mohler speaking at BYU. My point is that neither of these men are embracing the theology of Mormons or 7th Day Adventists. They are merely showing where we do agree and acknowledging it. That does not represent compromise or ecumenism in any way. We fundamentalists have got to learn to be more like this. That is why Clarence Sexton's "spirit of fundamentalism" is different than many. He's not afraid to have Calvinists (Ian Paisley, Brian Green, William McCrea) or 7th Day Adventists address his people. I applaud that spirit like I applaud Mohler for going to BYU. I am not addressing this so you can write a scathing blog post. If that happens from this discussion, you do not understand my position and the spirit in which I come.
God Bless,
Jay Edwards

Brian said...

Jay, thank you for the link to Sexton. I know that you don't "see" an issue, just like so many others. I have noted a couple times now concerning Mohler, Mormonism, and marriage that there is nothing in common between Mohler and Mormonism when it comes to the topic of marriage but you don't seem to "see" that difference.
As far as Sexton and Dr. Carson is concerned, yes, I don't condone such coming together. While Sexton and Mohler may shout it from the rooftop that they are in total disagreement with their particular audience/guest speaker, yet the fact still remains that they stand side by side with these men/institutions showing to us. I really don't see much difference between these modern settings and Balaam in the book of Numbers. The Old Testament is filled with admonitions to the Israelites concerning their "seeing." It sadly was to their shame, they "saw" but didn't "see." And many in fundamentalism are falling prey to the same blindness. The end results are the same regardless of the century or the people.