What Is Adamic Language? Adam And Pre-Adamites

[bu11fr0g]

If there were other homo sapiens when Adam lived that had speech, what was Adamic and how did Adam learn it? How did this relate to other languages in existence?

The existence of Adamic seems inviolable lds doctrine?

When did Adam live?

[ERayR]

If there were other homo sapiens when Adam lived that had speech, what was Adamic and how did Adam learn it? How did this relate to other languages in existence?

The existence of Adamic seems inviolable lds doctrine?

When did Adam live?

If we knew that for sure we wouldn't be having all these endless debates about it.

[cinepro]

Here's an interesting statement published by the Prophet Harold B. Lee in the Ensign:

I was somewhat sorrowed recently to hear someone, a sister who comes from a church family, ask, “What about the pre-Adamic people?” Here was someone who I thought was fully grounded in the faith.

I asked. “What about the pre-Adamic people?”

She replied, “Well, aren’t there evidences that people preceded the Adamic period of the earth?”

I said, “Have you forgotten the scripture that says, ‘And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also. …’” (Moses 3:7.) I asked, “Do you believe that?”

She wondered about the creation because she had read the theories of the scientists, and the question that she was really asking was: How do you reconcile science with religion? The answer must be, If science is not true, you cannot reconcile truth with error.

So I guess before we discuss the issue we need to ask ourselves if we are "fully grounded in the faith"?

[cinepro]

And this from President Marion G. Romney, first counselor in the First Presidency in 1980:

For many years I had an assignment from the First Presidency to serve on what was known as the Church Publications Committee. We were expected to read and pass upon material submitted for use in the study courses of our auxiliary organizations. In reading these materials my spirit was sometimes offended by the use of language which expressed the views of those who did not believe in the mission of Adam. I have reference to words and phrases such as “primitive man,” “prehistoric man,” “before men learned to write,” and the like. Sometimes these terms are used in ways which evidence a misunderstanding of the mission of Adam. The connotation of these terms, as used by unbelievers, is out of harmony with our understanding of the mission of Adam, as taught by such teachers as Enoch, Moses, and Nephi.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not a scientist. I do not profess to know much about what they know. My emphasis is on Jesus Christ, and him crucified, and the revealed principles of his gospel. If, however, there are some things in the strata of the earth indicating there were men before Adam, then they were not the ancestors of Adam. And we should avoid using language and ideas that would cause confusion on this matter.

So your "If there were other homo sapiens at the time Adam lived" question is a pretty big "if."

Edited June 15, 2012 by cinepro

[cinepro]

But here's what they say in the Pearl of Great Price Institute manual, relying on Bruce McConkie's ideas on the subject:

Moses 6:5–6. The Origin of Language and Writing

Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated:

“In the beginning God gave Adam a language that was pure, perfect, and undefiled. This Adamic language, now unknown, was far superior to any tongue which is presently extant. For instance, the name of God the Father, in this original language, is Man of Holiness, signifying that he is a Holy Man and not a vague spiritual essence. (Moses 6:57.)

“This first language spoken by mortals was either the celestial tongue of the Gods or such adaptation of it as was necessary to meet the limitations of mortality; and Adam and his posterity had power to speak, read, and write it” (Mormon Doctrine, 19).

Elder McConkie said the following about the book of remembrance mentioned in Moses 6:5: “From the beginning, the Lord provided a language and gave men the power to read and write. … The thing which they first wrote, and which of all their writings was of the most worth unto them, was a Book of Remembrance, a book in which they recorded what the Lord had revealed about himself, about his coming, and about the plan of salvation, which plan would have force and validity because of his atonement. This was the beginning of the Holy Scriptures” (The Promised Messiah, 86; see also Moses 6:46).

[Log]

Here's an interesting statement published by the Prophet Harold B. Lee in the Ensign:

I was somewhat sorrowed recently to hear someone, a sister who comes from a church family, ask, “What about the pre-Adamic people?” Here was someone who I thought was fully grounded in the faith.

I asked. “What about the pre-Adamic people?”

She replied, “Well, aren’t there evidences that people preceded the Adamic period of the earth?”

I said, “Have you forgotten the scripture that says, ‘And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also. …’” (Moses 3:7.) I asked, “Do you believe that?”

She wondered about the creation because she had read the theories of the scientists, and the question that she was really asking was: How do you reconcile science with religion? The answer must be, If science is not true, you cannot reconcile truth with error.

So I guess before we discuss the issue we need to ask ourselves if we are "fully grounded in the faith"?

And this from President Marion G. Romney, first counselor in the First Presidency in 1980:

For many years I had an assignment from the First Presidency to serve on what was known as the Church Publications Committee. We were expected to read and pass upon material submitted for use in the study courses of our auxiliary organizations. In reading these materials my spirit was sometimes offended by the use of language which expressed the views of those who did not believe in the mission of Adam. I have reference to words and phrases such as “primitive man,” “prehistoric man,” “before men learned to write,” and the like. Sometimes these terms are used in ways which evidence a misunderstanding of the mission of Adam. The connotation of these terms, as used by unbelievers, is out of harmony with our understanding of the mission of Adam, as taught by such teachers as Enoch, Moses, and Nephi.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not a scientist. I do not profess to know much about what they know. My emphasis is on Jesus Christ, and him crucified, and the revealed principles of his gospel. If, however, there are some things in the strata of the earth indicating there were men before Adam, then they were not the ancestors of Adam. And we should avoid using language and ideas that would cause confusion on this matter.

So your "If there were other homo sapiens at the time Adam lived" question is a pretty big "if."

But here's what they say in the Pearl of Great Price Institute manual,relying on Bruce McConkie's ideas on the subject:

Moses 6:5–6. The Origin of Language and Writing

Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated:

“In the beginning God gave Adam a language that was pure, perfect, and undefiled. This Adamic language, now unknown, was far superior to any tongue which is presently extant. For instance, the name of God the Father, in this original language, is Man of Holiness, signifying that he is a Holy Man and not a vague spiritual essence. (Moses 6:57.)

“This first language spoken by mortals was either the celestial tongue of the Gods or such adaptation of it as was necessary to meet the limitations of mortality; and Adam and his posterity had power to speak, read, and write it” (Mormon Doctrine, 19).

Elder McConkie said the following about the book of remembrance mentioned in Moses 6:5: “From the beginning, the Lord provided a language and gave men the power to read and write. … The thing which they first wrote, and which of all their writings was of the most worth unto them, was a Book of Remembrance, a book in which they recorded what the Lord had revealed about himself, about his coming, and about the plan of salvation, which plan would have force and validity because of his atonement. This was the beginning of the Holy Scriptures” (The Promised Messiah, 86; see also Moses 6:46).

I don't think y'all can appreciate the humor with which I view these posts.

Now, what shall follow is the obligatory "It's not the official position of the Church!" ... except it is.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Log

[bcuzbcuz]

I don't think y'all can appreciate the humor with which I view these posts.

OK, explain it reeeeeeal slow for me, like you would for a dim-witted friend.

[Log]

OK, explain it reeeeeeal slow for me, like you would for a dim-witted friend.

Ok, bcuzbcuz, but only bcuz u axt.

It's funny to me because I can only think of perhaps one or two posters on this board who are, as Cinepro helpfully puts it, "fully grounded in the faith." And Cinepro is not one of them. Irony is ironic.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Log

[cinepro]

Ok, bcuzbcuz, but only bcuz u axt.

It's funny to me because I can only think of perhaps one or two posters on this board who are, as Cinepro helpfully puts it, "fully grounded in the faith." And Cinepro is not one of them. Irony is ironic.

I agree that if being "fully grounded in the faith" (President Lee's words, not mine) means to believe that there were no pre-Adamites, then I probably don't meet that standard.

[mfbukowski]

This sentence is false.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Liar_paradox

The problem here is that what we have is a failure to communicate. We are talking about the very nature of language itself by using language. It's like talking about what happened "before" time- there WAS no "before time" because before is a temporal concept.

In the same way we cannot think linguistically about what happened before language. Our brains don't work that way. At least with the liar's paradox, you can substitute a meta-language to solve the problem as Tarski showed, but in this case, any meta-language is- you guessed it-- a language anyway.

Arguably, trying to speak about what there was before there were names for things is impossible, since again, arguably, language at least as we can know it as humans, IS "reality". What existed before there was the idea of existence? Good luck on that one.

http://books.google....id=hGEOAAAAQAAJ

Of course you all knew this post was coming from me, so I didn't want to disappoint.

Edited June 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Ok, bcuzbcuz, but only bcuz u axt.

It's funny to me because I can only think of perhaps one or two posters on this board who are, as Cinepro helpfully puts it, "fully grounded in the faith." And Cinepro is not one of them. Irony is ironic.

Well I can tell who at least one of these is, at least in your opinion.

[Darren10]

While mammals most definitely communicate, only one mammal, humans, have a language. My understanding of the LDS church's official position on evolution is that of neutrality. If it happened, then great. If not, then great. What the LDS Church is firm on is that the first human male, known in the Book of Genesis as Adam, and the first human female, known in the Book of Genesis as Eve, were created by a divine being and for divine purposes. Nne other in God's creations were created at the same level as tha of humans. So, given this doctrine and that of neutrality on evolution, if there were human-like creatures before Adam, than fine. But doctrinally-speaking they cannot be of the same lineage as that of Adam and Eve.

As for language, who knows? If linguistic and biblical dates do not match up, than I take a wait and see approach to see what gets resolved. It doesn't change the doctrines at all so I simply enjoy the show.

[Ron Beron]

If ever there were a pure Adamic language it would have to be the Indo-European languages which we all share and use. For example, the word for mother and father is almost universal as well as the negative response of "no" or n sounds. Interestingly, Indo-European probably developed around the Caspian Sea region which is reputed to where Eden would have been.

[BCSpace]

I agree that if being "fully grounded in the faith" (President Lee's words, not mine) means to believe that there were no pre-Adamites, then I probably don't meet that standard.

Modern doctrine (OT Institute Manual Genesis 1-2) defines first flesh as meaning Adam was the first to Fall. It also points out that all the animals were here first, before Adam. So the real question is what is meant by "man"?

Also notice that he didn't directly address the question of the existence of preAdamites and also notice that he did not state what these theories of scientists were that he was talking about. I would hazard that he, like many creationists, confuse actual theory with personal conclusions.

In other words, what he said was still doctrine, just not in the way he or you hope it to be. There is something constraining them from actually comming out and saying what they want directly. Some would say it's the Spirit. I can handle that, but I'll bet it's the 1931 statement in conjunction with some of the answers David O Mckay gave in answer to similar questions at the very least.

Edited June 19, 2012 by BCSpace

[mfbukowski]

If ever there were a pure Adamic language it would have to be the Indo-European languages which we all share and use. For example, the word for mother and father is almost universal as well as the negative response of "no" or n sounds. Interestingly, Indo-European probably developed around the Caspian Sea region which is reputed to where Eden would have been.

There are even some Indo-European words in Chinese, how they got there is another question.

[blackstrap]

Is there a pre-hieroglyphic written language? Is there a pre-cuniform cuniform? Did not the most ancient of written language forms just "arrive" mostly in the form currently found? And were those first written forms not used extensively in religious texts? Just maybe there is some connection.

[mnn727]

I think its a problem for current Church leaders that past Church leaders tried to have an explanation for everything, even if it had not been revealed, they tried to extrapolate from what they did know and (dare I say it) possibly just made things up (I am sure with the best of intentions).

The problem today, when the Church is trying to become more mainstream (and look less weird to your average person),is that there is so much written by past leaders that is just so off-base.

----

--my opinion and its worth every penny you paid for it.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21458-first-neanderthal-cave-paintings-discovered-in-spain.html

[mfbukowski]

http://www.newscient...d-in-spain.html

Very cool. Those are symbolic representations = language. If you can do it with pigment on a wall, you can do it with sounds and your tongue.

Moses 1:

34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.

Calling someone something is defining him. "The first man of all men, I have defined as Adam, which is many"

After all, why are names so important in the temple? We become them by being "called" by that name.

Why do we have "callings" in the church instead of "ministries" or "jobs"? Same reason. Being "called" something defines what we are.

Was being "Adam" a "calling"?

Edited June 19, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Ron Beron]

There are even some Indo-European words in Chinese, how they got there is another question.

My background is Asian Studies and this came up at times. Japanese, for example, is related to, of all things; Turkish! There is great evidence that mummies found in the Tarim Basin in Northern China (at least 4000 years old) are unarguably Caucasian. The only reason they would be there is if they were part of a migratory pattern among which could arguably be Indo-European Tocharian. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies) I would even venture that among Japan's earliest residents, the Ainu who are decidedly Caucasian, were also part of this Indo-European migration. Further speculation would show that some of the peoples living in the Levant were also direct descendents of the Indo-Europeans.

[Rivers]

While mammals most definitely communicate, only one mammal, humans, have a language. My understanding of the LDS church's official position on evolution is that of neutrality. If it happened, then great. If not, then great. What the LDS Church is firm on is that the first human male, known in the Book of Genesis as Adam, and the first human female, known in the Book of Genesis as Eve, were created by a divine being and for divine purposes. Nne other in God's creations were created at the same level as tha of humans. So, given this doctrine and that of neutrality on evolution, if there were human-like creatures before Adam, than fine. But doctrinally-speaking they cannot be of the same lineage as that of Adam and Eve.

As for language, who knows? If linguistic and biblical dates do not match up, than I take a wait and see approach to see what gets resolved. It doesn't change the doctrines at all so I simply enjoy the show.

1910 First Presidency Statement on Evolution

Priesthood Quorums' Table.

Origin of Man.-- "In just what manner did the mortal bodies of Adam and Eve come into existence on this earth?" This question comes from several High Priests' quorums.

Of course, all are familiar with the statements in Genesis 1: 26-27; 2: 7; also in the Book of Moses, Pearl of Great Price, 2: 27; and in the Book of Abraham 5: 7. The latter statement reads: "And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man's spirit) and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."

These are the authentic statements of the scriptures, ancient and modern, and it is best to rest with these, until the Lord shall see fit to give more light on the subject.

Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God;

whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and the partaking of natural foods, in the process of time;

whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been,

are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God.

This statement seems to indicate that the church is also neutral on whether Adam and Eve were related to Pre-Adamites.

[thesometimesaint]

Very cool. Those are symbolic representations = language. If you can do it with pigment on a wall, you can do it with sounds and your tongue.

Moses 1:

Calling someone something is defining him. "The first man of all men, I have defined as Adam, which is many"

After all, why are names so important in the temple? We become them by being "called" by that name.

Why do we have "callings" in the church instead of "ministries" or "jobs"? Same reason. Being "called" something defines what we are.

Was being "Adam" a "calling"?

Was "Adam" a "calling"?

I think it is a calling as well as a name. In a way each father is an Adam to their family, and each mother is an Eve to theirs. Whatever their individual names are.

[mfbukowski]

Was "Adam" a "calling"?

I think it is a calling as well as a name. In a way each father is an Adam to their family, and each mother is an Eve to theirs. Whatever their individual names are.

We are to think of ourselves as if we are, respectively, Adam and Eve.

[mfbukowski]

My background is Asian Studies and this came up at times. Japanese, for example, is related to, of all things; Turkish! There is great evidence that mummies found in the Tarim Basin in Northern China (at least 4000 years old) are unarguably Caucasian. The only reason they would be there is if they were part of a migratory pattern among which could arguably be Indo-European Tocharian. (http://en.wikipedia....i/Tarim_mummies) I would even venture that among Japan's earliest residents, the Ainu who are decidedly Caucasian, were also part of this Indo-European migration. Further speculation would show that some of the peoples living in the Levant were also direct descendents of the Indo-Europeans.

I think that is pretty clear considering Indo-Europeans were also called "Ayrans", a word which has become politically incorrect due to that famous German dictator we cannot even name on this board without the thread getting closed. In fact I have even seen reprimands for using that word which begins with A.

The "A" word it seems actually comes from the same root as the modern word "Iranian", which I presume we may use here.

That A word also appears in the Avesta, the Zoroastrian scripture. Iranians are famously protective about not being confused with Arabs.

Incidentally I have studied a bit about Zoroastrianism and believe that at its roots, before it became apostate, was possibly what we LDS might call a "dispensation" of the gospel- we have many many beliefs in common. And of course it is quite likely that the Persian (Iranian) Magi who sought the savior were indeed Zoroastrians, or at least from that tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan#In_Iranian_literature

[Ron Beron]

I think that is pretty clear considering Indo-Europeans were also called "Ayrans", a word which has become politically incorrect due to that famous German dictator we cannot even name on this board without the thread getting closed. In fact I have even seen reprimands for using that word which begins with A.

The "A" word it seems actually comes from the same root as the modern word "Iranian", which I presume we may use here.

That A word also appears in the Avesta, the Zoroastrian scripture. Iranians are famously protective about not being confused with Arabs.

Incidentally I have studied a bit about Zoroastrianism and believe that at its roots, before it became apostate, was possibly what we LDS might call a "dispensation" of the gospel- we have many many beliefs in common. And of course it is quite likely that the Persian (Iranian) Magi who sought the savior were indeed Zoroastrians, or at least from that tradition.

http://en.wikipedia....nian_literature

It does get a bad rap, doesn't it. I have many friends who are Persian and they are surprised that people do not they are Caucasian and not Arab or Semitic. My personal belief they are the focus of the beginning of all civilization... Eden, if you will.

I too am fascinated with Zoroastrianism, but as a religious practice it has almost been eradicated in Iran.