"Beck sermonized as if he were a Christian just like the Liberty students—just from a different denomination."

When Mohler spoke at BYU, he left no doubt to anyone who heard him that the Gospel he believes is different than the Mormon gospel; a difference that was obvious to a BYU student I met who heard him. There was no such difference apparent in Beck’s speech. I expect LU will issue an official statement of clarification soon as they have in the past when they’ve made similar blunders.

BTW, the internet, which was instrumental in providing information to young fundamentalists who were looking for answers to their questions, is also exposing the weirder doctrines of Mormonism to its younger generation who are becoming increasingly curious about the historic Christianity that they have heard maligned.

What we object to is those professing believers who continually muddy the water and give the impression that they are on good terms with the Mormon hierarchy who are dangerous false teachers.

[Don Johnson]

No one objects to evangelizing Mormons. What we object to is those professing believers who continually muddy the water and give the impression that they are on good terms with the Mormon hierarchy who are dangerous false teachers.

No one said or implied that anyone here objected to evangelizing Mormons. I would venture the assertion that everyone here would seize any opportunity to present he Gospel to Mormons.

The waters were muddy at LU but not with Mohler at BYU. It was clear to me and to the BYU student to whom I spoke that Mohler’s theology and that of Mormonism were very different.

As an aside, I am on “good terms” with some Moslems, some charismatics, some Roman Catholics, some religious liberals, a few homosexuals, a Mormon, and a Goth with whom I work. They all know where I stand on the Gospel. Am I in trouble?

You aren’t speaking in the local mosque (as if!) and implying that you can legitimately be co-belligerents in spite of your differences, are you?

[Don Johnson]

You aren’t speaking in the local mosque (as if!) and implying that you can legitimately be co-belligerents in spite of your differences, are you?

Do we know anyone who has ever taken the opportunity to present the Gospel in a synagogue?

BTW, your admonition of me not to be foolish made me smile. I think I’ll just read this discussion from now on. I think you’re wrong in your initial evaluation as there are plenty of differences in the two events.

If the gospel were being preached in Mormon venues such that the Mormon leaders were demanding an apology, refusing to invite the speaker back (or even stoning him), then I think the gospel might actually have been preached.

[Don Johnson]

If the gospel were being preached in Mormon venues such that the Mormon leaders were demanding an apology, refusing to invite the speaker back (or even stoning him), then I think the gospel might actually have been preached.

Because we all know if you haven’t been rude, ticked people off and insulted them, well….you just haven’t preached.

Paul preached the Gospel in many different venues. Sometimes it was received and he continued at length in that city; sometimes they stoned him.
I think you’ve lost your way in this conversation.

I don’t get this discussion at all. When you bring someone in, you endorse them. Liberty was making an endorsement by bringing in Beck and I agree that it was a poor choice both because it was Glenn Beck and also because Glenn Beck is a Mormon. Mohler was not endorsing Mormonism when he preached at BYU any more than Paul was endorsing paganism when he preached at Mars Hill.

There is simply no comparison between the two.

I don’t think that LU should have invited Beck for a variety of reasons, but perhaps the biggest is because I think he’s nuts. I agree that the Beck/Mohler comparisons in this thread don’t fit well at all.

I don’t understand why anyone would keep using the old “bringing someone in is an endorsement” arguments into conversations still. It’s a totally specious ruse that should be reserved for audiences too witless to discern Truth from error and smacks of wanting control instead of teaching conversion. Academic institutions should be a place where students can learn all angles of an argument, position, philosophy or theory. It is the responsibility of the leadership to teach the truth so that those conversations with errant position holders can be filtered with discernment.
LU has a LONG history of bringing in controversial speakers — Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, Ben Stein, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, etc… Nothing has changed here and yet, like the swallows returning to Capistrano, the annual debate must be held about the LU commencement or convocation speakers. FYI….by its very definition, a convocation and a chapel are different as are a baccalaureate and commencement address.
A student who has not learned to see all angles of an argument is not well-educated and not prepared to be a leader. If our church pews and Christian college classrooms are filled with believers so pathetically shallow that a 30-minute diatribe of nonsense can undermine their confidence in Scripture and God, then there are much BIGGER problems going on there than what a handful of people would consider an “endorsement.” The solution is not to erect a “cone of protected speech”, but to build a strong foundation of Truth from which a strong apologetic may be developed.

It’s not a matter of being rude, crude, or insulting. The Gospel its self is offensive enough. When I was at MBU back in the late 70s, Dr. Cedarholm would have evangelists who were in the area for meetings speak in Morning Chapel. On one occasion, we had an older man who in the 50s had been a fairly well known professional wrestler. After his conversion, his pastor discipled him and eventually the man went into evangelism. Being something of a celebrity (at the time) he got invitations from all sorts of churches. Not knowing for sure what to do, he went to his pastor for advice. His pastor told him, “Most of these folks don’t know who you are now and where you stand on matters. Accept the invitations, preach a Gospel message, preach on sin and let them know you’re agin’ it. If you’re clear enough, they won’t invite you back.”

[DLCreed]

Don Johnson wrote:

If the gospel were being preached in Mormon venues such that the Mormon leaders were demanding an apology, refusing to invite the speaker back (or even stoning him), then I think the gospel might actually have been preached.

Because we all know if you haven’t been rude, ticked people off and insulted them, well….you just haven’t preached.

I stand by my assertion or insinuation, however you make want to look at it. The idea that the Gospel cannot be presented clearly and unapologetically without resulting in a near stoning or never-to-be-invited back is absurd. For years, I watched MacArthur and BJIII go onto Larry King (compromisers that they are) and present the gospel most clearly and not once did they get treated with anything with courtesy and an invitation to return by King. Even Depok Whathisname listened and disagreed and was courteous. I watched Falwell do this with people ranging from leftists to Larry Flynt to homosexual activists.

Let the Gospel offend — not the mouthpiece — and let’s not confuse the two. In some cases it will be received, but rejected, in others it will be rejected and not received and in some cases it will be received and some will believe. I cannot imagine God chastising Mohler for entering into the den of Mormons and outlining the Truth because of endorsement and association concerns. It’s this kind of thinking that has relegated fundamentalism to the last row of the end bleachers and it’s a shame.

[DLCreed]

Let the Gospel offend — not the mouthpiece — and let’s not confuse the two. In some cases it will be received, but rejected, in others it will be rejected and not received and in some cases it will be received and some will believe. I cannot imagine God chastising Mohler for entering into the den of Mormons and outlining the Truth because of endorsement and association concerns. It’s this kind of thinking that has relegated fundamentalism to the last row of the end bleachers and it’s a shame.

First, I think we can agree that Mohler did not offend (nor am I advocating that he should have been personally rude or offensive)

But, he outlined the truth? In such a way that the difference was clear, that conviction would set in, that any Mormon would question their own false faith? In a way that pointed to the lies these folks depend on?

Opportunity lost, I think.

[Don Johnson]

First, I think we can agree that Mohler did not offend (nor am I advocating that he should have been personally rude or offensive)

But, he outlined the truth? In such a way that the difference was clear, that conviction would set in, that any Mormon would question their own false faith? In a way that pointed to the lies these folks depend on?

Opportunity lost, I think.

http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/10/21/a-clear-and-present-danger-religious-liberty-marriage-and-the-family-in-the-late-modern-age-an-address-at-brigham-young-university/

“This is what brings me to Brigham Young University today. I am not here because I believe we are going to heaven together. I do not believe that. I believe that salvation comes only to those who believe and trust only in Christ and in his substitutionary atonement for salvation. I believe in justification by faith alone, in Christ alone. I love and respect you as friends, and as friends we would speak only what we believe to be true, especially on matters of eternal significance. We inhabit separate and irreconcilable theological worlds, made clear with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity. And yet here I am, and gladly so. We will speak to one another of what we most sincerely believe to be true, precisely because we love and respect one another.”

––—

Read the rest of his speech too. Along the way he stated (in essence) I’m a Christian. You are not. I believe I’m going to Heaven. I don’t believe you are. Here’s why…

Might that not cause some Mormons to question their religion?

The fact that he said what he did without arrogance, name-calling, screaming, or any other belligerence seems like a plus to me.

Perhaps the most extensive record of Paul’s sermons in a synagogue is found in Acts 13. Paul closes with these words:

38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;
41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.

The Gentiles wanted to hear more, so the next Sabbath a great crowd gathered, raising the antagonism and jealousy of the Jews:

42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

Paul was forthright, calling for conversion, and willing to turn away from those who hated Christ.

It seems to me that preaching the gospel is quite different from talking about the gospel.

And it is quite different from joining hands with false teachers as “co-belligerents” for morality - is that the gospel or moralism?

And finally, BTW, I have read Mohler’s talk several times. I don’t see a gospel appeal, I see a call to cooperation, in spite of differences. Hardly preaching the gospel.