Does Mormonism teach that Adam was God (or a God)? Yes, and here is some of the evidence. Don’t let them tell you otherwise.
—
What really caused Michael Jackson to die? (Ray Comfort) — Good video at Christocentric
—
North Korea executes (more) Christians
Human rights groups in South Korea say North Korea has stepped up executions of Christians, some of them in public.
The communist country, the world’s most closed society, views religion as a major threat….
…[J]ust owning a Bible in North Korea may be a cause for torture and disappearance.
—
From Stand to Resaon:
A new scanning technique allows life-size models to be made of unborn babies allowing the mothers to see their child in a realistic way.
Very cool. These make a huge difference to abortion vulnerable women. I’m on the board of a CareNet Pregnancy Center and just this week was reminded of the importance of ultrasounds as well.
One of the volunteers described a woman who just visited the center with her newborn son. She originally had an abortion scheduled but came to CareNet the day before that and got an ultrasound. The technician couldn’t find the baby at first but gave it one last try and showed him to the mother. Her reply was a common one: “I realized I couldn’t kill my baby.”
Ultrasounds save lives.
—
Read Stephen C. Meyer’s new book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne). He lays out a massive evidentiary case. As a philosopher of science, he also explains what science is. If you really want to tell me there’s no positive scientific evidence that biological information coded in DNA reflects purposeful design, then go ahead and read Meyer’s book and report back to me your reasoned response.
Feel free to leave your comments there, not here.
—
Someone had to say it: OK, Enough! Cronkite Was NOT That Great . Side note: I thought he was already dead, so it would have been more newsworthy to me if they had announced the previous day that he was still alive.
Eternity Matters 
Mormonism is an interesting thing.
I really had to question if I could morally support a Mormon (like Mitt Romney) for President, and other offices. I reached some interesting conclusions:
1) I could probably support a Mormon for lesser offices, even if they took they believed 100% of their faith.
2) I could support someone like Mitt Romney for President precisely because he is a ‘bad’ Mormon.
3) The more serious a Mormon was about their faith, the less I could support them, because I felt that some of their beliefs presented a default in their reasoning ability.
As a Catholic I find Mormonism especially un-compelling because it’s so similar in its overall structure to Catholicism.
At least when we Catholics make the argument “One True Church founded by Christ Jesus” we can point to a lot of historical support for the claim. Obviously there is dispute, but even those who disagree will say “the argument isn’t absurd or very unreasonable, it’s just incorrect and drawing the wrong conclusions from the evidence.”
They make many Catholic-esque claims, but without the history or the evidence to back them up. Just not compelling.
LikeLike
With you on the Cronkite bit.
He was the most trusted, but that is not the same as the most truthful or most trustworthy.
And in the grand scheme of things, I’d much rather be trustworthy and truthful than trusted.
Better to be worthy and unrecognized, than recognized and unworthy.
LikeLike
I just can’t take Ray Comfort seriously after his banana video
The North Korea thing is serious, and shocking. However, just as in China, Christianity will most likely experience phenomenal growth under oppression, partly because it necessitates a non-hierarchical church structure meeting in small groups. Isn’t this how Christianity began?
LikeLike
Hey, give Ray another shot. To his credit he publicly apologized for his mistakes on the banana thing. We all say stupid things we regret. If Richard Dawkins, for example, apologized for any of the hundreds of equally ridiculous things he’s said I’d reconsider the rest of what he had to say.
LikeLike
Well, credit where credit is due.
Do you mean this “apology”?
There are apologies and apologies. To my mind, saying “I’m sorry, I was trying to make a point but didn’t do my research properly” would be an apology that only the most ungracious would accept (and doubtless there will always be a few of those).
But that apology makes me think of another recent creationist “apology” from Eric Hovind over his welfare poem
Again, you’d think a simple “I screwed up” would do the trick.
And no I don’t think either Ray or Eric are evil, or even stupid. Mis-informed, yes.
But Neil, all this pales into insignificance when you watch that abortion video that you can see from the link you provided on the latest Roundup. That really upset me, and I can’t believe Youtube bans videos like that. Forget about gay marriage and evolution. What can we do to stop this? Seriously.
LikeLike
I should have said Hovind’s posting of the welfare poem (since removed). The poem isn’t his.
LikeLike
And, it has to be said, both Ray Comfort and Eric Hovind have to deal with a “following” on their respective blogs that is hugely antagonistic, and they do so in a fair manner, allowing most comments to be posted. Fair play to them for that.
I’ll shut up now…………….:-)
LikeLike
No problem — I appreciated your comments!
LikeLike
It’s been a bit since I last visited, and I just saw this. As a Mormon (and a “good” one, I hope), “Don’t let them tell you otherwise” seems a bit of a challenge.
This link contains a good roundup of Mormons telling you otherwise. I know the last time I tried to rebut a bit of Mormon error in a roundup the comment wasn’t allowed, but hopefully a single direct link will be ok.
On another note, to address a bit of what LCB wrote above. The Mitt Romney comments reminded me of something I read and wrote about two years ago. Here’s the link. The editor of Slate magazine thought the same way, but took it a bit further, in my opinion. Many of the commenters to my post didn’t seem to get all that I meant to convey, but hopefully Neil’s readers will.
LikeLike
Hi Cameron,
I deeply appreciate the pro-life and pro-family views of Mormons but the fact is that they worship a different Jesus. I was generous in allowing your links, but I encourage people to read the following to see the truth.
7 Habits of Highly Effective Mormons – I promise to only use this phrase once a week or so:
That sums it up rather well. Different God, different Jesus, different salvation, different Heaven, etc.
—
Answer 20 out of 50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions – A fantastic analysis of the faith/works topics, highlighting several key issues and the deceptive use of out of context quotes and logical fallacies.
What an outrageous abuse of a quote! “Works” is a verb for something God is doing in the original context, but the Mormon apologist cuts it off mid-sentence to treat it as an adjective for deliverance done by humans.
What is interesting is how the Mormon apologists don’t deny the role of works in salvation as many of their followers do here. They embrace it and insist that the early church did as well.
The rest of the post and the whole series are very thorough and accurate. I highly recommend them.
—
Top 10 False Beliefs of Mormonism – thorough and loving comment thread helps explain the problems with this belief system.
LikeLike
Cameron,
I’m a bit confused about the 2nd link you gave. Is that the piece you were referencing, or about the slate piece you were referencing?
To be clear on my position, I’m not opposing candidates in general because they have beliefs, I am rather having problems with specific beliefs of a specific hypothetical candidate because their beliefs can be shown to be factually incorrect, and that indicates a defect in reasoning ability.
All Christian beliefs are at least reasonable possibilities. It seems to me that some of the beliefs in question are not reasonable possibilities because they can be shown to contradict facts.
I will, however, be glad to read any links you wish to provide and discuss these and other issues. I am even open to changing my mind about Mormonism, but that would require showing me my information related to the historical facts is incorrect.
LikeLike
Sorry about that. That link is something I wrote in response to the Slate article.
The article’s author basically makes the same argument you have here, except his argument is based on the fact that most other religions have had time to “splinter, moderate, and turn your myths into metaphor”. Basically, he’s arguing that Mormons still believe in their miraculous history and therefore should be excluded from holding office, whereas other religious folks have “turned their myths into metaphor” – in other words, they don’t really believe in those things, they’re really more a religious heritage than a belief in the divine and miraculous. I found it a very dangerous argument to make. For whatever reason, that post is what sprung to mind when I read your comment.
Regardless, I’d love to discuss any questions related to historical facts you have.
LikeLike
Just for the record, I have no objection to Mormons holding public office.
LikeLike
Well you’ve certainly brought up a lot of information there. If you’d like I can address them as well, but for now I’ll stick to the Adam – God issue brought up in the post.
There seems to be a couple of questions here. The first is whether the LDS worship Adam as God. That is what I assumed was the question, as it is the most common. That is more than adequately addressed by the link I posted earlier. If you have any additional questions in that vein, let me know.
However, after rereading the initial statement, “Does Mormonism teach that Adam was God (or a God)?”, perhaps there’s more to address. As my first link shows, we don’t believe Adam is God. But the question in parentheses asks if he is “a God.” The question as it is usually asked, is designed to make Mormons sound weird, out of the mainstream. But it is not so foreign a concept in Christendom. In Mere Christianity, CS Lewis writes,
“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him-for we can prevent Him, if we choose-He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.”
Lewis is referring to John 10:30-39 where the Jews went to stone Jesus because he, “makest thyself God”, a blasphemous offense. Jesus responded by saying, “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? ” The law He was referring to is Psalms 82:6, “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.”
Jesus taught that children of God are gods. Adam was a child of God, therefore Adam was a god.
LikeLike
Cameron, you misunderstand Jesus and C.S. Lewis there and/or you misunderstand what your religion teaches. Please go back to the Psalm He was referring to and consider the context.
LikeLike
Lewis was pretty clear there.
He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him-for we can prevent Him, if we choose-He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature
He’s written the same type of thing in other places as well; The Screwtape Letters springs to mind in fact.
The fact that Jesus meant the same thing is shown by how the Jews who he was speaking to reacted – they tried to stone him for blasphemy.
LikeLike
They did not attempt to stone Jesus in John 10, they attempted to arrest him.
Not trying to engage the argument, just point that little tidbit out 😉 Makes a big difference because of the theology in John’s gospel.
LikeLike
Actually, verse 30 reads: “Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.” Jesus then asked them for which of his works did they want to stone him.
LikeLike
I should have been more clear, I meant in the section you were referring to.
In the section you referenced they tried to arrest him, not stone him.
LikeLike
They initially took up stones to stone him because he said he and the Father were one. Then he quoted Psalms and the record says “they sought again to take him”. I guess I assumed they were seeking to do what they had started mere moments before. Perhaps they were convinced it wasn’t blasphemy after all?
LikeLike
Cameron, I’m not trying to weigh in on this debate. I’m merely trying to be a little nit picky that, in the section in question, they sought to arrest him for what he said, not kill him. In John’s Gospel it makes abig difference when people try to kill Jesus vs. when people try to arrest him.
If you’d like to debate Mormonism I’d be glad to do so, but this isn’t really where I would have a starting point.
LikeLike
And I maintain that the intent was to stone him, as the record states. I think it’s clear that this was the case.
But even with the dispute of this point, either they wanted to stone him for blasphemy, or his correctly quoting the scripture “ye are gods” convinced them to lower the sentence. Eitehr way, the record is clear about what Jesus said.
LikeLike
“think it’s clear that this was the case.”
It wasn’t and it isn’t. In John’s gospel the difference between attempts to arrest and attempts to stone Jesus is very important.
You’re employing your pre-determined lense to the Gospel, and finding what you want to find. I would highly advise looking up something called the “chiasmatic structure” of the Gospel.
Further, the change in treatment towards Jesus reflects a 1st century honor challenge. After Jesus ‘shows them up’ they have been shamed, and no longer have the social standing that would be required to stone home, most especially in the Temple area. What may be ‘clear’ to you is based on a pre-conceived assumption about what the text says. For example, lots of folks seem to find a justification for capitalism in the “Parable of the Talents”, even though the passage has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism or economics.
I could read the parable of the talents and decide that the record is clear about Capitalism, but it doesn’t mean I’d be correct.
LikeLike