Talk:Albert Mohler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV[edit]

This page seems to me to be written by someone very critical of Mohler and his views. The content, while not written in a POV way, nonetheless highlights the "negative" (from a secular or liberal Christian perspective) portions of his life and beliefs, e.g., that "some but perhaps not all" women were stripped of their posts, that he views the Roman Catholic Church as a false church, or that he views Christianity as the only way. --Flex July 1, 2005 21:13 (UTC)

When I created the article I was actually hoping someone with a point of view different from mine would come along and enrich the article. Thanks for doing so. Specifically, can you talk a little more specifically about what you'd like to see in the article to balance it from a neutrality standpoint? I want to make the article better, too. Alan Canon 1 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)

I'll do what I can, but I'll have to do a little digging. Perhaps some others with more knowledge of Mohler can help. --Flex July 2, 2005 21:34 (UTC)

3rd opinion, as requested[edit]

In my opinion, the article seems as close as you can get to NPOV without being condescending towards Mohler. Even Mohler himself admits that his views are controversial and not necessarily polite. I think the only way you could improve this page is to provide countervailing opinions on the following points:

  • One departing faculty member, G. Wade Rowatt, referred to the new regime as "a Baptist version of the Taliban." Were there any countervailing opinions of faculty that supported him and/or rejected this assertion? If so, what are they?
    • Agree. To be researched. Alan Canon 16:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC) Added positive statement on Mohler's ascendency from another seminary professor, Paige Patterson, with citation. Done.[reply]
  • Sometime in the latter half of 2000, as a result of a secret mediation process, $928,541 in assets under control of the seminary were reclaimed by the Woman's Missionary Union. The mediation arose over a dispute over the assets of the Carver School of Church Social Work. Although a gag order requested by the Seminary as part of the agreement prevented either party from disclosing the nature of the dispute, the two organizations had historically operated under an agreement which stated, in part, "Whenever the Southern Baptist Convention ... shall cease to conduct a school ... for uses and purposes as set forth in said Article 2 of the Articles of Incorporation of the Carver School of Missions and Social Work as quoted above, the trust shall terminate and the corpus shall be returned to the Woman's Missionary Union, auxiliary to the Southern Baptist Convention, or its legal successor in interest." What relevance does this have to Mohler? His involvement in this mediation process is not specified, and it could just as easily been handed by a team of lawyers without his personal involvement at all. Was he directly involved in this decision? If so, are there any comments supporting his actions?
    • Agree little direct reference to Mohler. Moved to article on Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Alan Canon 16:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC) Found additional reference on personal conflict between Mohler and dean of Carver School, so added some text back, with additional citations.[reply]
  • Although adherance to and respect for the creed had been a matter of course historically, this marked the first time that a signed written statement of fealty was mandated in the form of an ultimatum. What are the opinions of the laity pro/con regarding this change?
  • One source states that Mohler experienced a conservative epiphany growing from conversations with Carl F. H. Henry, whose essays Mohler later edited. This needs a citation.
    • Done, but need to find another reference for the beginning of the paragraph, as the reference cited does not directly evidence an early pro-women's ordination view for Mohler. Alan Canon 16:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC) removed said reference. Done. Alan Canon 21:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • He opposes the role of women in preaching roles, opposes abortion rights, and believes that homosexuality is a sin. This sentence is technically true as written, but could probably be made more NPOV by changing the phrase "abortion rights" to "abortion", like so: He opposes the role of women in preaching roles, opposes abortion, and believes that homosexuality is a sin. Reasoning: The use of the phrase "abortion rights" of necessity implies a right to abortion, and demonizes Mohler by casting him in the role of opposing a fundamental human right. While it can most certainly be argued this is true, Mohler's own argument (and that of the entire pro-life movement) is that abortion is not a fundamental human right, it is murder. Removing the word "right" from the phrase preserves the essence of his beliefs without demonizing him, and restores this sentence to NPOV.

Xaa 11:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4th opinion[edit]

I believe as the article currently stands, it deserves the POV warning. While most of the statements may be true, the tenor of the article is clearly negative and not encyclopedic per wiki-policy. For one example, in "Professed Theology", his belief that faith in Christ is the only way of salvation is cast as a narrow inflammatory point of view when in reality it is the view of the vast majority of conservative Christianity. Selected comments criticizing his views and policies are included to the exclusion of positive comments thereby resulting an unbalanced article. Jim Ellis 16:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • ...the tenor of the article is clearly negative and not encyclopedic per wiki-policy. Well, I disagree, there, and I'm a Christian. I'm just not a fundamentalist Baptist - I'm a Lutheran. I think his views are presented about as neutrally as they can be (see the above discussion regarding "abortion rights" versus "abortion"). But, let's go over the Professed Theology section together, here:
  1. Some references state that Mohler was initially liberal in his theology, particularly during his years as a seminarian, prior to the rise of the conservative movement within the Southern Baptist denomination. One source states that Mohler experienced a conservative epiphany growing from conversations with Carl F. H. Henry, whose essays Mohler later edited. (Realms of Faith: Christian Authors Database at propadeutic.com) -- Okay, this isn't a slam, it's pretty straightforward. When he was younger, he was more liberal, then he had a conservative epiphany. "Conservative" is not a bad word (if anyone thinks it is, then they aren't one), so we're pretty NPOV. Moreover, from a Conservative Fundamentalist POV, having an epiphany and turning away from a more liberal outlook would be a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.
  2. Shortly after his term as President began, Mohler drafted a policy (which was ratified by the trustees) that the Seminary would only hire professors who believed that the Bible prohibits the ordination of women as preachers. Some women already in teaching positions at the Seminary, or who served outside the Seminary in a missionary capacity, were stripped of their posts. -- And, again, this isn't a slam, this is simply a flat statement of what he did. It supports the following summary paragraph, below:
  3. Theologically, Mohler respresents conservative fundamentalist Christianity. He opposes the role of women in preaching roles, opposes abortion, and believes that homosexuality is a sin. -- I don't think there's many who would disagree with this, his views are, in the Conservative Fundamentalist outlook, pretty normal. Most fundamentalists believe that the bible does not support women in the role of pastors, most fundamentalists believe abortion is murder, and most fundamentalists believe homosexuality is a sin. Again, this pretty much NPOV, and stated very plainly.
  4. He is aligned with other evangelicals such as James Dobson. -- And again, this is simply a statement of fact. Also, since "evangelicals" isn't a bad word, particularly to a fundamentalist, this again should be viewed as a good thing.
  • I'm afraid I am going to have to disagree with your opinion. There really is nothing wrong with this section - it neither praises nor condemns him for his beliefs, it simply states what his beliefs are. Moreover, much of the terms used are not bad terms to those who truly are fundamentalists - for example, being called a "conservative" or "evangelical" is not a bad thing to a fundamentalist, it's a good thing. -- Xaa 17:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poisoning the well?[edit]

What is the role and the relevance of this statement: Another host of the program was Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, a figure with ties to the Council of Conservative Citizens and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. ? "ties" of what kind? Does he somehow represent the positions of the Council of Consevative Citizens, through the Family Research Council? Is he a spokesman for David Duke? Does the CCC represent David Duke? Does Kevin Bacon figure into this conspiracy somehow? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment, I annotated the word "ties" to link to the relevant section of the Tony Perkins Article (1996 Jenkins Campaign Finance Scandal), which reads in part Perkins was the 1996 campaign manager for Republican U. S. Senate hopeful Louis E. "Woody" Jenkins of Louisiana, then a Democratic colleague of Perkins' delegation to the Louisiana House of Representatives, who was running against Mary Landrieu. The campaign was fined $3,000 by the Federal Election Commission for hiding $82,500 in payments to former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke in return for Duke's mailing list. See if you think that helps. Alan Canon 14:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably being dense, but I still don't understand why this is relevant. The sentence still suggests that Mohler is connected with David Duke, suggesting that he in some sense is allied; but the article says that he is "tied" to David Duke's mailing list by sharing the stage with Tony Perkins. This material, including the insinuated guilt by association with Chuck Colson, is irrelevant and dishonest. Do you want to remove it or should I? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the offending part of the paragraph, and the innuendo about connections to other kinds of badness through "Watergate-figure-turned-evangelical". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Any other NPOV you'd like to address? Alan Canon 22:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the continuing need for the disputed banner. Can it be removed? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

improvements for article[edit]

This article still seems rather hostile to its subject. I'll try to be specific.

First the birth year on the photo is different from the one in the article. I don't know the correct date, so I defer on that.

The October 19, 1959 DOB was provided by an anonymous contributor. I am betting that more precise means more accurate, so removed 1960 birth date from photo caption. Alan Canon 16:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The basic definition at the top should be what distinguishes the person from everyone else. This statement is sort of a premature negative brand: "an American fundamentalist evangelical Christian." There are many people and many theologians that could be described in this manner.

I looked up some other theologians and people in wikipedia and the articles about them all list their positions and occupations as well as their position as a leading theologian or philosopher in their field.

Here's a section from the NT Wright article:

is the Bishop of Durham of the Anglican Church and a leading British New Testament scholar. Ordinarily he is known as "Tom Wright", although his academic work has always been published under the name "NT Wright" (Nicholas Thomas). He is generally perceived as coming from a moderately evangelical perspective. He is associated with the so-called Third Quest for the Historical Jesus, and the New Perspective on Paul (a complex movement with many unique positions, origining from the probing works of James Dunn and E. P. Sanders). He argues that the current understanding of Jesus must be connected with what is known to be true about him from the historical perspective of first century Judaism and Christianity.

Notice that it says "He is generally percieved as coming from". This is much more fair and NPOV. I think it is unfair to slap a big label on Mohler like that in that section. Certainly, in a section on his beliefs it would be perfectly acceptable to discuss this in a more neutral manner.

Deleted the phrase and tidied. Alan Canon 16:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict at the Seminary and SBC leader's excitement over his new job as president would be more properly placed under the conservative resurgence section. The Southern Seminary heading should have boring verifiable facts like how long he's been there, etc.

Done Alan Canon 16:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason it says "dean of a unit of the seminary"? Why can't it just say Dean of the Seminary's Carver School... etc.?

Done Alan Canon 16:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Mohler was involved in the missionary event. I'm not sure but I think this is something that has to come from the babtist mission board and his position at the seminary does not include any authority over missionaries. The use of passive voice in this section makes it appear that he is using some direct authority to do this when that is not the case. If he supported this in theory or a sermon or something, that needs to be mentioned. In general, a stronger and clearer link needs to be drawn otherwise this section is unfair and incorrect. If his only action was the revision of the document it needs to be stated here rather than trying to pin the whole thing on him.

Will research Alan Canon 16:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to rush out and do anything about this until there is a little bit of discusssion. (except for the birthday thing)

--Victoria h 09:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recent major edit[edit]

First of all, sorry for leaving out the edit summary; I accidentally hit "save" first.

I attempted to remove this article's rather substantial POV problems, with large sections of the article simply giving Mohler's supporters' POV. However, I also removed the following, original research anti-Mohler POV :

...This is in contrast to apparently more consistent proponents of sola scriptura who note the numerous biblical passages which teach: 1) that wine is a gift from God (e.g., Psalm 104:14-15 and Isaiah 25:6); and 2) that Jesus acknowledged drinking alcohol and was called a "drunkard" as a result (e.g., Luke 7:33-34). Thus, like other Christian teetotalers, Mohler is stuck in the uncomfortable position of affirming both the sinlessness of Jesus and the sinfulness of Jesus' drinking.

I removed the lines saying that he supports "biblical ecclesiology and biblical preaching" -- these ideas need to be defined, since there is more than one view on what "biblical ecclesiology" is, for instance. I also removed a sentence that attempted to draw obvious conclusions from Mohler's support of torture: "From this statement it can be assumed that Mohler supports the use of torture under certain circumstances." This article has a very long way to go -- unsourced claims abound and only Mohler's most controversial views are discussed at any length. Though I knocked away a lot of POV, I didn't get rid of it all. Basically, it's less of a total mess now, rather than a good article. --Zantastik talk 22:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding last paragraph[edit]

"The Convention required missionaries and other representatives to sign the new Baptist Faith and Message, and those who refused to sign were dismissed or resigned. This marked a significant change in the Convention, given traditional Baptist opposition to creeds and the Baptist doctrines of Soul Competancy and Priesthood of the Believer."

This the last sentence doesn't seem accurate. Baptists have had lots of creeds -- the London Baptist Confessions of Faith in 1644 and 1689, The 1742 Philadelphia Confession of Faith, the SBTS Abstract of Principles (which has always been signed by all faculty every year), and three editions of the Baptist Faith and Message. Perhaps this should be changed to "creedalism," or "traditional" needs to be clarified.

The writer also clearly feels that this credalism flies against the Baptist doctrines of Soul Competency and the Priesthood of the Believer, but this is debatable, and thus this is not a neutral statement.

Also, "soul competency" is spelled wrong.

What does "R" stand for?[edit]

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think this article tells us what his first initial stands for. Does anyone happen to know? Bhumiya (said/done) 10:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

I have tried to improve the "neutrality" of this article All fairly minor changes but I think the tone is less negative as a result, I have also referenced the last one or two unreferneced facts and removed a couple of non-refernced items.

I note that there has been little discussion recently on this article. I propose that unless there are any objections the warning about parts of the article being disputed and it being unrefenced be removed.

If there are no objections in a week or so I will do this - they can always be added again later! 8th Nov 2006 Jonathon Smith

"a nationwide radio show devoted to engaging contemporary culture with the biblical truth" --I think this sentence could be a little better worded. Bgiffer05 (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol[edit]

It is important that Mohler's teaching of complete abstinence from alcohol is recorded in the article. He is one of many American evangelical leaders who teach this. This article is not, however, the place to debate this issue. As a person who believes that the Bible teaches that drinking alcohol in moderation is not wrong, I question Mohler's commitment to Sola Scriptura. But the only time any discussion of the tension between Sola Scriptura and Abstinence should appear in the article is if some article is written elsewhere which discusses it (eg in Christianity Today or in a Baptist blog).

Again - please do not remove the section on Mohler's position on alcohol. --One Salient Oversight 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know who, if anybody, Albert supported in the Republican primaries?[edit]

↜Just me, here, now … 04:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

photo[edit]

Could we find a more sinister picture perhaps? lol Preferably one with glowing eyes, devil horns, and in the middle some heinous act? /sarcasm

I really think the man deserves a normal picture like everyone else on here- one from the school or his blog. The current one looks edited as well. This smacks of POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoria h (talk • contribs) 15:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence of photo editing, but if you think the photo is unacceptable, feel free to try to find another one with an acceptable license. I did some searching and couldn't find one. Sfazzio (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Albert Mohler's people have declined a request I sent them, asking that they release an image from http://www.albertmohler.com, unfortunately. I suppose it's too much to hope that someone knows him or is in one of his classes or something and could take a picture for us? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al Mohler and the Philip Gunn scandal.[edit]

Hello everyone. Please try to incorporate this new information into the article: [1] 108.22.249.26 (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more sources on the Philip Gunn scandal: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

In this one Al Mohler lavishly praises Philip Gunn: [8]

Also see: [9] 108.22.249.26 (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rules about biographies of living people are very strict - self-published sources must never be included. The only connection between Mohler and this controversy is from self-published sources. StAnselm (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Seems relevant somehow: Like having witnessed a murder, made a career about the importance of reporting crime, but never mention the murder he witnessed:

Silence on Ergun Caner[edit]

In 2003 Mohler participated in a conference at Southern Seminary entitled "Ecumenical Jihad? Islam, Christianity and the Culture War" alongside Ergun Caner and others. Ergun Caner had rocketed to prominence in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks by claiming he had been a devout Muslim trained as a terrorist to do what the 9-11 terrorist had done until he converted to Christianity.At the conference, with Mohler sitting on the platform, Caner claimed to have moved to the US as a teenager after having been raised in majority Muslim countries and he even spoke some phrases of what he claimed was Arabic.[1]. By 2010 investigators had found that Caner's claims were false.[2] Even the so-called Arabic turned out to be gibberish.[3] Despite being an eye-witness and host to some of the deceptions and his record of speaking out on a wide variety of issues, as yet Mohler has issued no official statements about Caner, even after Caner was appointed president of another Southern Baptist educational institution, Brewton-Parker College.


No, you would need to find a real source which discusses this "silence"; the absence of sources where he says something isn't the same thing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with Albert Mohler, there are lots of people who have interacted with Caner and haven't made official statements. If you wish to include this information then you need to add it to the Ergun Caner page, not here. ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Panel: Efforts to unite Christians, Muslims undermine Gospel", By David Roach, Dec 4, 2003, Baptist Press, http://www.bpnews.net/printerfriendly.asp?id=17207; "Ecumenical Jihad? Islam, Christianity and the Culture War, Part 1 – General Introduction, http://www.russellmoore.com/tag/ergun-mehmet-caner/
  2. ^ http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/mayweb-only/28-11.0.html
  3. ^ http://www.fakeexmuslims.com/glossary-of-arabic-terms; http://www.faithfulnews.com/main/view/345630/ergun-caner-fake-arabic-gibberish-exposed-by-liberty-university-student

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Albert Mohler/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I made this a 'Start' rather than a 'B' as the article could be organized a lot better -- it doesn't seem to have anything close to a standard biography structure. Also, not enough references. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 04:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 07:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Albert Mohler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohler already expressed his admiration for influential Roman Catholics[edit]

This is important to the article, despite his critical views of Roman Catholicism, and it shouldn`t be deleted without any reason. The sources are his own articles. He said of Mother Teresa: "As we reflect upon the death of Mother Teresa, may we glorify God for her good works and take courage from her example as a defender of the unborn and the despised. May we preach the gospel of grace, and may the evidence of that grace be so abundant that God is glorified. As this murderous and immoral century comes to a close, may evangelical Christians bear witness to both the grace and the goodness of God, and may God do something beautiful through us." Mistico (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source noting these remarks, especially in the context of his other anti-Catholic statements? It seems like you're trying to synthesize an argument here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t think that Albert Mohler qualifies as anti-Catholic, despite his theological disagreements with the Catholic Church. I can quote him directly: "How should evangelicals view Roman Catholicism? This is hardly a new question, though the recent events related to the death of Pope John Paul II and the election of Pope Benedict XVI. Given the controversy, this is a good time to revisit a major address I presented at a conference on this very question. My paper, “Standing Together, Standing Apart: Cultural Co-belligerence Without Theological Compromise” was published in Touchstone Magazine. A thoughtful response from a keen Roman Catholic thinker came from editor David Mills in “Standing with Christ. These addresses, taken together, present a fairly comprehensive picture. As I have often stated, a true evangelical, committed to the Gospel as recovered in the Reformation, and a true Roman Catholic, committed to the teachings of the magisterium are the last two people on earth who can have an honest disagreement." [10] In this video, he also says that he believes that there are "millions of Catholics in heaven": [11] I will try to find better sources to add to the entry. I find curious how someone can take part of what he said in a Larry King interview and believe its the definitive way to present his view of Roman Catholicism.Mistico (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Mohler explains better his views on ecumenism and Roman Catholicism in particular in this paper: [12] I will try to summarize the most important parts and add them to the entry.Mistico (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless you turn up some usable sources you won't. We report what reliable sources have reported, we are not a mirror site for Mohler's own website. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albert Mohler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Albert Mohler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albert_Mohler&oldid=1209123076"