Pre-adamites

[Paul McNabb]

I'm one of those guys that thinks the scientific evidence is quite strong for an old earth and for evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, including humans. Like most Christians who believe the same, I just assume evolution was God's way of getting us to where we are today. I'm open to the idea that the YEC folk are correct, but I just haven't seen the evidence for it yet.

Recently I was talking to a fellow Latter-day Saint who rejects human evolution and who believes there was no human or Homo sapiens on the earth prior to Adam and Eve. When I said that I believe that Adam and Eve were a real couple and the ancestors of all living today, I was challenged to explain my views on those pre-Adamites who I must believe were "human" and yet not descended from Adam and Eve.

To be honest, this isn't a hot topic for me and I haven't spent much time thinking about it. I'm looking for opinions and arguments that others may have for and against the idea of pre-Adamites and how the existence of such people could fit within the LDS theological framework.

Has someone here spent a lot of time musing over this stuff and does he/she have any material for me to read?

thanks!

[Palador]

Heh, this is one of those regular topics that appear on this board every once in a while, along with "grace v. works" and the local LDS politics scene.

Short of it is that there are people who agree with you who are also faithful LDS believers, as well as people who will disagree with you who are also faithful LDS believers.

There's a wide spectrum of beliefs on this board on evolution and creation.

[Paul McNabb]

Heh, this is one of those regular topics that appear on this board every once in a while, along with "grace v. works" and the local LDS politics scene.

Short of it is that there are people who agree with you who are also faithful LDS believers, as well as people who will disagree with you who are also faithful LDS believers.

There's a wide spectrum of beliefs on this board on evolution and creation.

Yup. I'm quite aware that this isn't an original topic and that other people here may have discussed it ad nauseum. I'm not wanting to debate whether or not there were pre-Adamites. I just want to know how believers in pre-Adamites have reconciled their belief with other LDS doctrines and with statements in the scriptures. I'm just looking for information. Can you help?

[thesometimesaint]

Paul McNabb:

I don't have any sources handy, but I think it has something to do with the probable difference between what man calls man, and what God calls man.

[Shera]

During the 1970s and 1980s evolution was a popular belief among some in the LDS faith because they felt they could harmonize the theory with the principles of the gospel. This is false! You cannot harmonize the theories of man with the inspired words of the Lord and His prophets. In 1909 the First Presidency of the church (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund) issued a statement entitled "The Origin of Man" which states that the inspired words written in The Pearl of Great Price and the book of Genesis, in the Bible, are truly accurate - that God did create Adam "in his own image and likeness" (Genesis 1:26) "And the first man of all men have I called Adam" (Moses 1:34). Also stated in this statement is the confirmation that 2 Nephi 2 is exact in it's mentioning that until the Fall of Adam there was no death and that if Adam had not fallen he would have remained in the garden of Eden and "all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end" (verse 22).

If you are truly looking for truth in this matter go to the source of truth on earth in Prophets and Apostles called of God. The First Presidency's statement "The Origin of Man" can be referenced at:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jspvgnex..._&hideNav=1

This statement is truly enlightening on the topic at hand.

We need to understand, as humans, that God is not a student in a labratory performing experiments! He is truly omniscient in his designs and knows exactly what He is doing and why He is doing it. Any who think that God has experimented with the human race over millions and billions of years of evolution do not understand the principles of eternity.

[Paul McNabb]

During the 1970s and 1980s evolution was a popular belief among some in the LDS faith because they felt they could harmonize the theory with the principles of the gospel.

I haven't taken a survey, but I would bet nickels to dollars that more active LDS today believe in evolution than in the 1970s and 1980s.

This is false! You cannot harmonize the theories of man with the inspired words of the Lord and His prophets.

When you said "you cannot harmonize" you were referring to yourself, right? I mean, I know lots of people who believed that many "theories of man" are not only harmonizable with the inspired words of the Lord but that those "theories of man" were actually inspired by God Himself.

In 1909 the First Presidency of the church (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund) issued a statement entitled "The Origin of Man" which states that the inspired words written in The Pearl of Great Price and the book of Genesis, in the Bible, are truly accurate - that God did create Adam "in his own image and likeness" (Genesis 1:26) "And the first man of all men have I called Adam" (Moses 1:34).

And why would this contradict the view that God used evolution to create a body "in his own image and likeness"? I can't see how the statement or the scriptures rules out a number of ways God could have acted to achieve His purposes.

Also stated in this statement is the confirmation that 2 Nephi 2 is exact in it's mentioning that until the Fall of Adam there was no death and that if Adam had not fallen he would have remained in the garden of Eden and "all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end" (verse 22).

I see. So when 2 Nephi says "all things" he literally means ALL things, right? So when Adam and Eve ate plants, they didn't really digest them, and the plant cells came out their back ends with no ill effects, right? And there was no cell division in the skin of Adam or Eve because otherwise they would have turned into eternally increasing masses of skins the size of galaxies. Right? In fact, was there no cell division anywhere on earth among plants or animals since any non-zero growth is unsustainable on a finite earth? Also, according to your reading of 2 Nephi 2, trees did not grow since bark is dead tree cells and trees couldn't have created new bark to cover any new trunk or limb growth, right?

And can I assume then that your way reading of "all things" would apply to the word "whole" in Romans 1:8 and that the Australian aborigines and Alaskan Inuits were among the "whole world" that were speaking about the faith of the Christians in Rome?

And can I assume that a similar reading of Romans 10:18 means that you believe those same peoples, who were part of "all the world," had heard the preaching of Isaiah?

And can I assume that a similar reading of "every" in Acts 2:5 means the Jewish Inuits and Jewish aborigines were in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost?

I don't know about you, tonistaheli, but I am willing to consider that "all" and "whole" and "every" don't always literally mean "all" and "whole" and "every" when used in the scriptures. And since that is the case, maybe 2 Nephi 2 can be read a bit less rigidly that what you seem to prefer.

If you are truly looking for truth in this matter go to the source of truth on earth in Prophets and Apostles called of God. The First Presidency's statement "The Origin of Man" can be referenced at:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jspvgnex..._&hideNav=1

This statement is truly enlightening on the topic at hand.

Yes. It is truly enlightening. And it may surprise you that I don't see that it necessarily contradicts the idea that God used evolution to create the bodies of mankind with Adam being the first of the "race" that God created.

We need to understand, as humans, that God is not a student in a labratory performing experiments!

Of course. And I've not heard anyone suggest that God's using evolution to create modern man meant that He was a student or that He was performing experiments.

He is truly omniscient in his designs and knows exactly what He is doing and why He is doing it. Any who think that God has experimented with the human race over millions and billions of years of evolution do not understand the principles of eternity.

And anyone who thinks that God's use of evolution means that God was merely experimenting doesn't understand the current discussion.

[katherine the great]

Yup. I'm quite aware that this isn't an original topic and that other people here may have discussed it ad nauseum. I'm not wanting to debate whether or not there were pre-Adamites. I just want to know how believers in pre-Adamites have reconciled their belief with other LDS doctrines and with statements in the scriptures. I'm just looking for information. Can you help?

This is a hot button topic. I have studied evolution in earnest for over ten years and don't think of it as a belief, but as an indisputable fact. I also consider my testimony an indisputable fact that is more important to me than anything scientific. I honestly don't really know how to reconcile the two but I now read Genesis in a very different way than I did when I thought of evolution as a "philosophy of man." I view Adam and Eve as the first human beings that God made His covenant with, and that they are, in a very real way, our primordial parents. They are the first parents of the earth as it pertains to us. However, I don't view them as the first fully modern human beings to exist on this planet--not even close. I don't really know what exactly changed in the earth when God made his covenant with Adam. Perhaps this was the time that the Holy Ghost first descended on the earth and became available to mortals to connect us directly to God. I just really don't know how it all fits together, but I have faith that it does. I view the creation story as largely allegorical.

[Shera]

"I haven't taken a survey, but I would bet nickels to dollars that more active LDS today believe in evolution than in the 1970s and 1980s."

I inserted these specific dates because Elder Bruce R. McConkie, in a talk entitled "Deadly Heresies" set the membership straight on this very topic. If members still attempt justify evolution and try, in weakness, to discredit the words of an Apostle, they are then irrelevant to the arguement.

"When you said "you cannot harmonize" you were referring to yourself, right? I mean, I know lots of people who believed that many "theories of man" are not only harmonizable with the inspired words of the Lord but that those "theories of man" were actually inspired by God Himself."

Let me ammend this statement that you cannot harmonize the evolutionary theories (philosophies) of man with the inspired words stated in the "Origin of Man" statement. Indeed, TRUE science and true religion are the same things.

"And why would this contradict the view that God used evolution to create a body "in his own image and likeness"? I can't see how the statement or the scriptures rules out a number of ways God could have acted to achieve His purposes."

Yes, and He states His method very clearly when He says He formed man from the dust of the earth...in His own likeness and image (Moses 3:4-7). This, to me, states clearly that the only evolution man went through was from dust to man.

"I see. So when 2 Nephi says "all things" he literally means ALL things, right? So when Adam and Eve ate plants, they didn't really digest them, and the plant cells came out their back ends with no ill effects, right? And there was no cell division in the skin of Adam or Eve because otherwise they would have turned into eternally increasing masses of skins the size of galaxies. Right? In fact, was there no cell division anywhere on earth among plants or animals since any non-zero growth is unsustainable on a finite earth? Also, according to your reading of 2 Nephi 2, trees did not grow since bark is dead tree cells and trees couldn't have created new bark to cover any new trunk or limb growth, right?

And can I assume then that your way reading of "all things" would apply to the word "whole" in Romans 1:8 and that the Australian aborigines and Alaskan Inuits were among the "whole world" that were speaking about the faith of the Christians in Rome?

And can I assume that a similar reading of Romans 10:18 means that you believe those same peoples, who were part of "all the world," had heard the preaching of Isaiah?

And can I assume that a similar reading of "every" in Acts 2:5 means the Jewish Inuits and Jewish aborigines were in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost?

I don't know about you, tonistaheli, but I am willing to consider that "all" and "whole" and "every" don't always literally mean "all" and "whole" and "every" when used in the scriptures. And since that is the case, maybe 2 Nephi 2 can be read a bit less rigidly that what you seem to prefer. Yes. It is truly enlightening. And it may surprise you that I don't see that it necessarily contradicts the idea that God use evolution to create the bodies of mankind with Adam being the first of the "race" that God created.

Of course. And I've not heard anyone suggest that God's using evolution to create modern man meant that He was a student or that He was performing experiments.

And anyone who thinks that God's use of evolution means that God was merely experimenting doesn't understand the current discussion."

Your arguement here brings me to a couple of conclusions: First, that you were not just looking for a conversation on the topic at hand, as your post states, but a debate reaching into understanding you are obviously not ready for yet. Second, that you need a little more "milk" doctrine before you dabble into the "meat" of the doctrines of eternity. I would advise that you go back to the basics of the written word and stay close to the words of the prophets. I will advise to you as I advise to many others, stay close to the trunk of the tree of doctrine and do not venture out onto the branches where there is risk of falling off of the tree completely.

"But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God."

- 2 Nephi 9:29

[BCSpace]

Recently I was talking to a fellow Latter-day Saint who rejects human evolution and who believes there was no human or Homo sapiens on the earth prior to Adam and Eve. When I said that I believe that Adam and Eve were a real couple and the ancestors of all living today, I was challenged to explain my views on those pre-Adamites who I must believe were "human" and yet not descended from Adam and Eve.

To be honest, this isn't a hot topic for me and I haven't spent much time thinking about it. I'm looking for opinions and arguments that others may have for and against the idea of pre-Adamites and how the existence of such people could fit within the LDS theological framework.

Has someone here spent a lot of time musing over this stuff and does he/she have any material for me to read?

Welcome my follow evolution harmonizer. Here is how I do it and so far, I've found it to be completely unassailable.....

Start with 2 Nephi 2:22. Notice that if Adam had not fallen, he would have remained in the state he was in AFTER he was created. In other words, this verse differentiates between a created state and a state during which creation is taking place. Notice also that the condition of no death is applied only to the created state. Hence it is possible within the realm of LDS doctrine to say there was no death before the Fall, but there was death during the creative process.

Now, on to "Pre Adamites".

Homo sapiens has been around for 200,000 or more years. What I hypothesize is that the spirits inhabiting those bodies were not the literal children of God as ours are. When all was ready, God placed Adam and Eve in the garden with proper spirits like ours to await the Fall.

This could also explain how humans have been around for so long but never really started developing civilization, technology, or culture until after the Fall.

Since Sumer, the earliest known civilization, goes back to 8000 BC, you'll have to certainly tweak the Fall date but it's within an order of magnitude.

I've read all the FP statements on the subject as well as all the scriptures and other doctrinal statements and can find no conflict at all with the notion that evolution was how God created our physical bodies and LDs doctrine and scripture.

Notice also the in the 70's, ETB said that the BoM was good for combating all sorts of notions such as evolution. A few years later, BRM restated it in the same venue (the Ensign) with the qualifier "that denies the Fall". One does not have to deny the Fall to accept evolution.

[BCSpace]

I inserted these specific dates because Elder Bruce R. McConkie, in a talk entitled "Deadly Heresies" set the membership straight on this very topic.

1. The talk was not in a venue (published by the Church) that is considered doctrine. It was given at BYU.

2. When read more carefully, one realizes that BRM is actually saying "Go ahead and harmonize it if you can, but here are the reasons why I can't."

[Freedom]

I take issue with the theory of evolution, but I donâ??t believe the theory has anything to do with the scriptures or doctrine. The scriptures teach us how to return to live with God, not about the history of the world. There are three separate and unrelated considerations.

1) The scriptural record which is largely symbolic and only taken literally when it suits the theologian. 2) the profoundly sparse evidence of our ancient history that provides us a few dozen pieces of a trillion piece puzzle

3) theories that that rely on the very sparse evidence to draw sweeping conclusions, despite the contradictions or gaps that are also evident.

No, I am not proposing that the theory of evolution is false, just premature. It is perhaps the best theory available, but I think it is na

[BCSpace]

No, I am not proposing that the theory of evolution is false, just premature. It is perhaps the best theory available, but I think it is na

[Kevin Christensen]

On this topic, I like Nibley's "Before Adam" from 1980, conveniently available online in CWHN vol 1, David Bailey's various survey's of science and LDS religion, Mike Ash's recent Dialogue essay, and of course, the chapter in Barker's Temple Theology on how Genesis as we have it descends from ritual involving erection of the tabernacle. She once commented to Kevin Barney that the key to everything is in what is missing from Genesis. And of course, for perspective, Massimo Introvegne's essay on The Book of Mormon Wars compared to the Bible Wars in JBMS.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[jmhughes]

While I'm very interested in this subject, I have to confess I know little or nothing about the specifics of evolution that would allow active LDS to accept it along with doctrines of the gospel. Please forgive me if I sound really stupid but I want to ask a few questions based on my very limited understanding.

Those active LDS who also accept evolution; is this the version where man, as he is today, originated (as with every other life form) as a single cell that eventually mutated, evolved or whatever into a man, dog or rose. I understand that may be significantly over simplifying it but is that the basic premise?

Or is it that there is a base species that allow for minor mutations like different skin, eyes or whatever based on environmental requirements and adjustments that provide for a better survival?

If it's the former, then where does the necessary DNA changes come into play? How are species defined?

I have a lot more questions, but that's a start. I don't really want to bore others with my lack of understanding so maybe I need some reading material first.

In Jesus the Christ Talmage states very forcefully that evolution can only occur within a species. This is considered canonized scripture, if Iâ??m not mistaken, is Talmage all wet or just an idiot?

Help me understand. I'm very open minded because ultimately I think true science will always agree with true religion, I really need some unbiased direction on this. I don't know how easy/hard that is because the Darwinists/Atheists seem pretty hell bent on showing how there is no way God and Darwin can exist in the same environment of thought. Thanks

[cinepro]

Has someone here spent a lot of time musing over this stuff and does he/she have any material for me to read?

thanks!

As I've said before and I'll say again, here are the most problematic points of conflict between evolution and LDS Doctrine:

1. No physical death before the Fall of Adam. Natural selection requires physical death.

2. Adam and Eve created in the image of God/ Spiritual Creation for all things before the physical creation. Evolution is a messy process that doesn't direct itself towards one specific outcome. It would be the worst "tool" to use if you were determined to create a creature with specific and precise organs and appearances. It would also be the most inefficient way to create any creature or plant. Basically, the "spiritual creation" is like having a blueprint or recipe, and evolution is like creating something through trial and error, as if you didn't know what the end result would be. They are totally different processes for different purposes.

3. Adam the first "man". We have a pretty solid date around 4,000BC for the Fall of Adam, but the history of humans reading, writing, farming, forming societies and governments, living, loving, fighting, and having religions goes back farther than that. From an archaeological and anthropological standpoint, these early civilizations aren't much different than the post-Fall ones. We can make up all sorts of theories about those other people not having "spirits", or being "children of God", but it apparently didn't stop them from acting like normal humans and developing accordingly. This would raise the question of what the world would be like if Adam hadn't ever fallen. Would he and Eve still be living in the Garden, while the rest of the humans kept evolving and creating societies outside (including making up their own religions, but never having actual communication with God)? How would the world look different today?

[BCSpace]

Those active LDS who also accept evolution; is this the version where man, as he is today, originated (as with every other life form) as a single cell that eventually mutated, evolved or whatever into a man, dog or rose. I understand that may be significantly over simplifying it but is that the basic premise?

For my part, full blown evolution from single-cell microorganisms.

1. No physical death before the Fall of Adam. Natural selection requires physical death.

Indeed. I accept both and find neither to be in conflict with each other because the scriptures differentiate bewteen a creative and a created state.

2. Adam and Eve created in the image of God/ Spiritual Creation for all things before the physical creation. Evolution is a messy process that doesn't direct itself towards one specific outcome.

Nevertheless, there was an outcome for the present. Why can't God have set initial conditions/guided the process?

Adam the first "man". We have a pretty solid date around 4,000BC for the Fall of Adam, but the history of humans reading, writing, farming, forming societies and governments, living, loving, fighting, and having religions goes back farther than that.

Sure. How do we know that the Biblical timeline/generations are complete?

This would raise the question of what the world would be like if Adam hadn't ever fallen.

Was it the whole world that got put into the state of no death or just the garden?

[Tribunal]

Now, on to "Pre Adamites".

Homo sapiens has been around for 200,000 or more years. What I hypothesize is that the spirits inhabiting those bodies were not the literal children of God as ours are. When all was ready, God placed Adam and Eve in the garden with proper spirits like ours to await the Fall.

This could also explain how humans have been around for so long but never really started developing civilization, technology, or culture until after the Fall.

BCSPace, are you saying that pre-Adamites had spirits but not from God? Are you also saying that at some time God started placing the spirits of His spirit-children into the bodies of the first Adamites?

If this is the case then who were the spirits of the pre-Adamites? Where did they come from? Were these the same types of spirits that inhabit animals?

The reason why I ask is because this subject came up in quorum a month ago and your answer would have been an interesting response.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

From other planets, they were....ummm

[Freedom]

As I've said before and I'll say again, here are the most problematic points of conflict between evolution and LDS Doctrine:

1. No physical death before the Fall of Adam. Natural selection requires physical death.

You would have to extablish the exact interpretation of this concept from the perspective of the origional author.

2. Adam and Eve created in the image of God/ Spiritual Creation for all things before the physical creation. Evolution is a messy process that doesn't direct itself towards one specific outcome. It would be the worst "tool" to use if you were determined to create a creature with specific and precise organs and appearances.

you would have to model for us how evolution works. I have witnessed evolution my self as local farmers breed various types of animals and plants to produce a specific outcome. You are stuck on one limited definition of evolution as many Christians are stuck on one limited definition of creation. The scriptures tell a spiritual story, not a historical or biological story.

3. Adam the first "man". We have a pretty solid date around 4,000BC for the Fall of Adam, but the history of humans reading, writing, farming, forming societies and governments, living, loving, fighting, and having religions goes back farther than that.

It is not possible to take the record of the creation literally, at least no Mormon can. There are three versions of the creation and none of them agree. One in the bible, another in the Book of Abraham and the third in the temple. This story is not teaching history, but gospel principles. Also, the Adam in the bible seems to only be referring to a specific individual. The Adam in the temple is referring to a group of people, more specifically temple endowed people. Although I have no doubt Adam really lived at some point, the story we have of him is a story of Gods people, not the first human. The garden is much more a metaphor of life than a specific location with immortal creatures.

As I stated earlier, I take issue with the fervent endorsement of the theory of evolution, but I see it no more a stumbling block to the gospel than is the theory of relativity, or the laws governing reproduction.

[jmhughes]

For my part, full blown evolution from single-cell microorganisms.

Then how do you explain the overwhelming complexities of DNA and the lack of explanation of how it works/fits with this theory? There seem to be a lot of missing links that require a significant leap of faith in a theory that was developed by a guy that has kindergarten understanding of cell structure when compared to what we understand today.

It just seems to me that there is still a lot of science to be developed/explained when considering the single cell approach. Evolution within species seems obvious and even necessary.

BCSpace, could you also help me understand how you reconcile statements made by Talmage in Jesus the Christ?

I apologize again if I seem so obviously ignorant by asking silly questions.

[Luigi]

To be honest, this isn't a hot topic for me and I haven't spent much time thinking about it. I'm looking for opinions and arguments that others may have for and against the idea of pre-Adamites and how the existence of such people could fit within the LDS theological framework.

There is no official statement that explicitly denounces or favors evolution of which I'm aware. If you look in the evolution packet provided by BYU you will see that the 12 apostles and first Presidency, I believe under President Grant, discussed evolution and expressed differing views but all agreed that Adam was the first man. Other statements in the packet suggest the Church is neutral. Sadly however the Church, if neutral, has allowed some suprisingly negative things about evolution to be published in it's magazines. I did a search on evolution on the LDS Church's website and the articles I skimmed associated evolution with other negative things or were outright anti-evolution. One article from 1993 by an emeritus seventy brought up the second law of thermodynamics in order to refute evolution, an argument which has been overwhelmingly refuted by the scientific community. Personally it seems that if the Church wanted to be completely neutral on the subject of evolution then it would either avoid condemnations of it in their official publications, particularly when those condemnations include erroneous science to bolser such claims, or they would include an article expressing the view that evolution is correct from a general authority or other author who holds that view.

[cinepro]

You would have to extablish the exact interpretation of this concept from the perspective of the origional author.

That's not my job. That's for the modern day Prophets and Apostles to do. And they have been clear and unanimous in teaching that there was no physical death in the world before the Fall of Adam. I'm not basing my statement on ancient scriptural writings from long past, I'm basing this on currently, clearly and universally taught doctrines of the LDS Church.

We all believe in the fallibility of prophets, and the idea that prophets can be wrong about the little things, but they'll get the big things right. Sorry to say that if they're wrong about "no death before the fall", then they've gotten one of the big things wrong.

The idea that there was physical death in the world before the Fall raises the interesting question of why God couldn't just start putting his spirits into the mortal bodies that had already evolved? What was the purpose of Adam and Eve if God already had thousands of mortal humans living and dying, only in need of spirits?

you would have to model for us how evolution works. I have witnessed evolution my self as local farmers breed various types of animals and plants to produce a specific outcome. You are stuck on one limited definition of evolution as many Christians are stuck on one limited definition of creation. The scriptures tell a spiritual story, not a historical or biological story.

Are you aware of any models of evolution that do not involve natural selection? And can you have natural selection without physical death? There are many gray areas and unknowns in the Theory of Evolution, but I thought everyone agreed with natural selection. And the idea that God used "evolution" to create plants, animals and man necessitates natural selection and physical death for the process to work. Otherwise, He wasn't using evolution, so there was no evolution before the Fall (4,000BC).

It is not possible to take the record of the creation literally, at least no Mormon can. There are three versions of the creation and none of them agree. One in the bible, another in the Book of Abraham and the third in the temple. This story is not teaching history, but gospel principles. Also, the Adam in the bible seems to only be referring to a specific individual. The Adam in the temple is referring to a group of people, more specifically temple endowed people. Although I have no doubt Adam really lived at some point, the story we have of him is a story of Gods people, not the first human. The garden is much more a metaphor of life than a specific location with immortal creatures.

As I stated earlier, I take issue with the fervent endorsement of the theory of evolution, but I see it no more a stumbling block to the gospel than is the theory of relativity, or the laws governing reproduction.

Maybe one day, General Authorities will agree with your unconventional view of Adam and Eve and the Garden. But as of today, they are still all agreed and teaching en force that Adam and Eve were two, literally and distinctly immortal people who lived in a specific, geographical immortal Garden called "Eden". This is the foundational doctrine upon which the LDS theory of the Atonement is based, so don't rattle it too much or the whole thing might come crashing down.

[zerinus]

I'm one of those guys that thinks the scientific evidence is quite strong for an old earth and for evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, including humans. Like most Christians who believe the same, I just assume evolution was God's way of getting us to where we are today. I'm open to the idea that the YEC folk are correct, but I just haven't seen the evidence for it yet.

Recently I was talking to a fellow Latter-day Saint who rejects human evolution and who believes there was no human or Homo sapiens on the earth prior to Adam and Eve. When I said that I believe that Adam and Eve were a real couple and the ancestors of all living today, I was challenged to explain my views on those pre-Adamites who I must believe were "human" and yet not descended from Adam and Eve.

To be honest, this isn't a hot topic for me and I haven't spent much time thinking about it. I'm looking for opinions and arguments that others may have for and against the idea of pre-Adamites and how the existence of such people could fit within the LDS theological framework.

Has someone here spent a lot of time musing over this stuff and does he/she have any material for me to read?

thanks!

You should bear in mind that LDS beliefs and doctrines are derived from LDS scripture; and unlike Christians of other denominations, we beleive in additional scripture besides the Bible; and the doctrine of the literal creation of Adam and Eve receives further support from modern LDS scripture than what might be obtained from the Bible alone. That is what distinguishes LDS belief from those of other Christian churches.

I had previously discussed this subject in this Blog post, that you might be interested in.

zerinus

[zerinus]

Yup. I'm quite aware that this isn't an original topic and that other people here may have discussed it ad nauseum. I'm not wanting to debate whether or not there were pre-Adamites. I just want to know how believers in pre-Adamites have reconciled their belief with other LDS doctrines and with statements in the scriptures. I'm just looking for information. Can you help?

If they were "believers in pre-Adamites," chances are that they discarded that belief when they decided to become Mormons. They did not need to "reconcile" it with LDS belief. When you discover the truth, you discard error; you don't try to "reconcile" it with truth.

zerinus

[cinepro]

If they were "believers in pre-Adamites," chances are that they discarded that belief when they decided to become Mormons. They did not need to "reconcile" it with LDS belief. When you discover the truth, you discard error; you don't try to "reconcile" it with truth.

zerinus

Unless, of course, you are Hugh Nibley.