you: "Christians should not build relationships with non-Christians"
her: "The hypocrisy here is this: by worshiping with Mormons and endorsing a book containing Mormon blasphemy"
God: "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers."

Is prayer and book endorsement a form of relationship building or worship and blasphemy?
Is prayer and book endorsement something we are more likely to do in order to build a relationship or in order to worship with and endorse a friend?

The prayer and the endorsement seem to be emblematic of a yoked relationship rather than a relationship that is being built. Not only is this confusing to new believers but it does not help any of the Mormons understand their eternal destiny in hell if they continue in their unbelief.

The burden is on those making the accusations to show how the 2 Cor. verse actually applies to this situation. Please read the comments by John Willis and Frank Becwkith on this post (I don't see a need to repeat what they've already said): https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=30605682&postID=196284060158456331

The prayer isn't confusing if you actually read carefully what Dr. Hazen said. He was very precise in his wording only to suggest that Joseph Smith is reported to have sought truth and that we should do likewise (for other reasons as well). If calling people to seek truth amounts to blasphemy, then Christ Himself is in big trouble. I do think the endorsement is confusing, which is one of the reasons why I wish Dr. Hazen hadn't offered it. It can easily be misconstrued as supportive of the promotion of Mormonism. However, when seen in the larger context of Dr. Hazen's words and actions (since it's bad hermeneutics to take things out of context), it's obvious that the purpose of the endorsement is to encourage better communication between Mormons and Christians. Better communication isn't quite blasphemy, and it actually tends to help in the process of evangelism.

The burden comes from 2 Corinthians 6:14, "For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?" Prayer? Book endorsements? Does God rejoice in idolaters making progress in their dialog though they are not fully converted?

"Joseph Smith is reported to have sought truth" which we know he didn't. Romans 3:11, "no one understands; no one seeks for God".

I cannot recall Jesus, the disciples or any prophets doing evangelism in such a way. No false prophets were included in prayers. No congratulatory remarks were made to Pharisees on their superficial obedience though their theology was sending them to hell.

I am glad we agree on the confusion of the book endorsement. More should have been done in the prayer. Although blasphemy seems a strong word for the prayer, it is sad that the Mormon could have prayed the same prayer, put different meaning in the words and become no closer to the One True God.

So if a situation arose where you had an opportunity to pray with a non-Christian, you would refuse? For example, when Mormon elders come to the door, they usually want to lead you in prayer. I don't think that's appropriate, but what would be wrong with leading them in prayer?

I think there's a big stretch between the 2 Cor. 6:14 passage and what Dr. Hazen said and did. He neither affirmed the truth of Mormonism nor encouraged its promotion. How far do you think we should take the passage? No meals together? No handshakes? Don't live next door to a Mormon? Don't stay at a Marriott because it was founded by a Mormon? God does not rejoice in the progress of idolaters, but I believe He does rejoice in opportunities for the Gospel to be proclaimed. And I believe the Gospel is better presented between two people who clearly understand one another than between two people who keep talking over each other's heads. Ultimately the Gospel must and will go forth, but it should be aided by gentle and respectful clarity which is what Dr. Hazen has been trying to achieve. (Whether or not he's succeeded at that is a completely different question.)

You said you don't recall anyone in the Bible doing evangelism this way. What about Paul at the Areopagus in Acts 17? It could be interpreted as saying the Paul affirmed the Athenian's worship of the "unknown god." But we would agree that they weren't worshiping the true God. Paul also quoted from Greek poets in a manner that can sound like he affirmed what they said. I think Dr. Hazen simply used the same tactic Paul did. He used information believed by his audience to make a point about the Truth.

Yes, if I had the opportunity to pray with many Mormons in the context of a service and had to pray the prayer that Dr. Hazen prayed, I would refuse. I can, however, see the need to pray a prayer that would (re)introduce them to their hateful acts against the true God and beg God on their behalf that He have mercy to change their heart so they might not burn in hell for all eternity.

"He neither affirmed the truth of Mormonism nor encouraged its promotion."

Is that what was called for, a prayer that did not step on anyone's toes but allowed everyone to interpret it in their own way? This is exactly how the Mormons twist the Bible. A more beneficial prayer would be if he prayed, "Dear God, the one and only true God of all existence, have mercy on these wretched sinners, the Mormons. You see how they pervert Your word. You see how they try to corrupt your name and the name of Christians by affirming multiple deities. You see how they defile the name of Jesus, God the Son. Please have compassion on them as you had on us when you saved us from our repulsive sins that were sending us to hell. In the name of the only Savior of the world, Jesus Christ. Amen."

"How far do you think we should take the passage?"

If I don't have an answer for this then does it make the text invalid? God leaves it purposefully non-specific. While I cannot address every reason for not being yoked with unbelievers, I can address the appearance of Dr. Hazen's actions. This is what I have been doing so I do not think I need expand on it.

"I think Dr. Hazen simply used the same tactic Paul did."

Paul did not pray for or endorse the writings of pagans in Acts 17 like Dr. Hazen did. Paul preached a sermon. The only inkling of endorsement may be construed from Paul's quotes. Even if we make this daring stretch, Paul is not encouraging anyone to read these texts but instead willfully takes them out of context for God's purpose.

"He used information believed by his audience to make a point about the Truth."

I think Paul's action and sermon is more than that. Paul uses information that his audience believed as a jumping off point to de-construct those very beliefs. Paul speaks of one God where they believed in many. Paul speaks of God's sovereignty where they believed in partial power shared by their many gods. Paul speaks of an immaterial God who does not need people where they believed that their gods were dependent on their sacrifices, etc. Dr. Hazen failed to do this. The Mormon could have comfortably prayed the prayer or read the book all while thinking they were happy to be a little more accepted as a Christian.

The question is not what you or I would have prayed if we were in that specific situation. I wouldn't have prayed Dr. Hazen's prayer either, but that's irrelevant. The question is whether Dr. Hazen violated any biblical teachings by what he said or did. So far no claim that he did has been successfully argued in my opinion.

It is because the passage cited by Mrs. Rische is vague that we must be even more careful with its application. You can't just randomly apply it to any situation that rubs you the wrong way, but that's what's being done here. A connection must been drawn between the passage and Dr. Hazen that is consistent with the full testimony of scripture. Since he did nothing more than what Jesus or Paul did, I cannot see how the verse applies here.

I did not apply Acts 17 to Dr. Hazen's endorsement, only to his prayer. And his prayer uses the same tactic as Paul did in his sermon. Yes, it would have been much better had Dr. Hazen continued in the same manner Paul did, but at the very least he can't be charged with blasphemy for this.

In response to "We Support Dr. Craig Hazen":

--------
Quote: "However, following her logic, Jesus was wrong for dining with prostitutes and tax collectors, and the Apostle Paul was wrong for addressing the Areopagus as he did in Acts 17:22-34."
--------

Sadly, this is a straw man.

The question is not "should a Christian befriend a non-believer" but rather, should Christians be extending welcoming arms with those who teach a different gospel, that really is no gospel at all.

The Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians "you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat." (1 Corinthians 5:11)

Notice the progression:
1. there is a person who "calls himself a brother"
2. this particular person is "living in sin"
3. do not welcome, do not join, do not even eat with the person

Sorry, I do not recall either the Areopagites or the "prostitutes and tax collectors" Jesus ate with professing a truth to be characterized as Christianity.

One thing to notice is how the Lord Jesus Christ Himself associated with the Jewish leaders. They purported to be faithful to the truth of Judaism, looking "beautiful on the outside" yet were "on the inside (being) full of dead men's bones and everything unclean." Mormonism may share many of the social concerns with true Christianity, looking "pretty on the outside" but that is where the similarity ends. The dogma Mormonism spreads about Christian faith is diabolical. The difference between the Truth of Christianity and the supposed truth of Mormonism is a gulf eternally wide descending to the depths of hell itself.

The issue is not association with those who are merely caught up in sin, but rather welcoming those who not only have compromised the truth, but continue to spread the lie. To this the Apostle Paul could not be any more clear: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:6-9).

The apostle John provides clarity to those who would welcome Mormonism:

"Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work. " (2 John 7-11)

Mormonism says of the Lord Jesus (one example of many):

"Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son." (Ether 3:14)

The Book of Mormon has it wrong. The pre-existent Lord Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, He is the Alpha and Omega, the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14, and Son of the Father. His name is above EVERY name. He is the ONE of whom the Father says "Let all God's angels worship Him." (Hebrews 1:6) And so must we, and may do with joy.

To link Mormonism's teaching of Jesus to Philippians 1:15-18 is absurd. Mormonism is a lie (a heresy) already seen and rejected by the 3rd Century Christian Church, only wearing a new dress.

If Mormons wish to have fellowship with Christians, they must repent. Until that time, they are trapped in darkness.

As for Christians, wise up! Mormons are trapped in a lie and do not need to be coddled with a friendship that only gets you in trouble. For you, Christian, there will be a firm rebuke, all because for the sake of ego you hide the lifeline that is able to rescue their souls!

It is in this that Dr. Craig Hazen shares in a wicked work.

Blessings in the Name of the true Lord Jesus Christ

Peter

1) You haven't shown how I've made a straw man of what Mrs. Rische has said.

2) Everyone is in agreement here that Mormonism is "an achievement of the devil" (Craig Hazen's words). I don't know any Christians who consider Mormons in Christ. So while I agree with many of your points, they have no relevance to this discussion. What is relevant is whether the specific words used by Dr. Hazen are blasphemy as Mrs. Rische claimed. You many want to re-read her posts and my letter so you aren't making straw men. For example: No one linked Mormonism's teaching of Jesus to Philippians 1:15-18 as you claimed. I said that Dr. Hazen's attitude toward people like Mrs. Rische is similar to that of the Apostle Paul's in that passage. That has nothing to do with Mormon teachings of Jesus.

Roger,

You are right, its not strong man, you're missing her point completely. She never said Hazen shouldn't befriend mormons. She said his actions were blasphemous. You haven't addressed that charge.

It is quite clear that Hazen was very generous in his prayer with his mormon audience. His continual reference to "Our Father" certainly implies that he is including everyone who is participating as one "of" God. It doesn't seem to me that this is debatable.

So the point is well taken, in my view. Not that I think this should disqualify necessarily, but its not fair or right to criticize Hazen's opponents for disagreeing with his "friendship" with mormons. That's clearly not the issue.

... I mean, a straw man. oops.

Did you read anything I said here? My part in this entire post w/ comments is a defense against Mrs. Rische ridiculous charge of blasphemy.

Mrs. Rische has not been clear about her use of the passage. She just throws it around as if mentioning it proves her point, though she hasn't done any work to show how it does (especially in light of the ministries of Jesus and Paul in Acts). From another of her posts on this verse:

"There is a great deal of danger in communicating with unbelievers and idolators, danger of being defiled and of being rejected; therefore the exhortation is (v. 17) to come out from among them, and keep at a due distance, to be separate, as one would avoid the society of those who have the leprosy or the plague, for fear of taking infection, and not to touch the unclean thing, lest we be defiled."

If we're to be so separated from non-believers then we can in no way be their friends in any meaningful sense. Instead of "in, but not of" she's arguing for "not in and not of." She is arguing that we should not have any meaningful relationships with non-Christians, and I find that far more unbiblical than anything Dr. Hazen said or did.

This has been my last comment on this post. Y'all are free to have the last words.

I just came across a couple of insightful comments over at the STR Blog by Andy from Heart for the Lost. He was at the tabernacle event and he gives what I think are some fair thoughts about some good on one hand (the talk on the Trinity) and where it went wrong on the other (used by the Mormons for their purposes).

His first comment is here, and the second is here. These are good contributions to the discussion by an eyewitness. Well worth a read.

A couple of quick excerpts:

I was not affirming Jill's statement of Blasphemy. In fact I believe Craig was persuaded to be there, and what Craig said on the radio show was probably what he really believes. If you live in Utah, there is an issue we face here and that is the continually contending for Orthodox Christianity. I merely mentioned it because we should be very "aware" of the perceptions and the way Mormons spin things to achieve their goal of becoming "just another denomination"....

I admit [Ravi's] presentation on the Trinity was superb....

Finally I see your point on the issue of what Craig was trying to accomplish, and agree with you. The spin on the event and the aftermath are what I am most concerned about.