Preadamites LDS Website (Long)

[lostindc]

http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/adamites.html

Adamites, Pre-Adamites, and the Origin of Race in Mormon Theology

This is chapter 24 from the online book The Mormon Faith & Black Folks by Darrick Evenson. It is presented here because some people have questions regarding the origin of human beings, and the origin of races. In other words, did all human beings spring from one pair, Adam and Eve. If so, what race or color were they? If they were one race, why are there so many different races of men today? Where there pre-Adamites or not? Etc. This chapter attempts to answer these questions. THIS ARTICLE IS NOT COPYRIGHTED! Make copies for yoru students and other teachers/instructors! 18 printed pages.

Question #24

Q. If the Adamites were a new race of men how then are all human beings the descendants of Adam and Eve?

A. It says in Genesis that the â??sons of Godâ? saw that the â??daughters of menâ? were beautiful, so they intermarried with them:

â??And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.â? (Genesis 6:1-2)

Catholic and Evangelical scholars have various theories as to what this verse means. Jehovahâ??s Witnesses teach that this verse means that the sons of God were angels, who saw mortal women and lusted after them, and that these angels actually came down and had children with these mortal women. They believe this at the same time believing that angels do not marry, are sexless, and cannot reproduce.

There are two theories in the Church as to what this verse means:

The Pre-Adamite Theory states that the sons of God referred to the Pre-Adamites, and that the daughters of men referred to the Adamites; since the word â??menâ? in â??daughters of menâ?? here is Ah-dawm . The Adamites intermarried with the Pre-Adamites, and thus the children of the sons of God and the daughters of men became Adamites (the descendants of Adam and Eveâ??as well as pre-Adamites). The Hebrew of this verse says that men (aw-dawm) spread about on the face of the land (erets) and that they had daughters which the sons of God saw were fair (beautiful), and took them as wives.

The Pre-Adamites would still be the â??sons of Godâ?; although not the sons or daughters of Adam. Hyrum Smith, brother to the Prophet Joseph Smith, believed that there were Prophets on earth before Adam. He said:

â??There were Prophets before Adam, and Joseph has the spirit and power of all the Prophets.â? (Millennial Star 23:406)

If the Pre-Adamites had prophets, it means they too were the sons (children) of God (Heavenly Father). If so, they had souls subject to salvation. They were given laws to guide them by their prophets.

Once the sons of God (Pre-Adamites) had children with the daughters of men (Adam), then their offspring from then on would be Adamites (descendants of Adam and Eve--as well as the descendants of the Pre-Adamites).

The First-Humans Theory, states that Adam and Eve were literally the first male and female human beings on earth, that the â??sons of Godâ? refer to the Sethites; the descendants of Seth, and the â??daughters of menâ? refer to the Cainites; the descendants of Cain. Under this theory, the white-skinned Sethites (sons of God) saw that the black-skinned Negro Cainite women (daughters of men) were â??fairâ? (beautiful). So, instead of marrying other white-skinned Caucasian Sethite women (who apparently werenâ??t that attractive), the Sethite males took Cainite (Negro) women for wives.

Do you believe that?

Also, if Noah and his wife and their sons and their wives were all Caucasians, except for Hamâ??s Cainite wife, then the world should be filled only with Caucasians and Mulattoes; no Negroes, no Chinese, no Malaysians, no Dravidians, no Ainu of Japan, no "anything" but Caucasians and Mulattoes.

In order to deal with this contradiction, those who adhere to the First-Humans Theory had to come up with yet another theory; that Hamâ??s black-skinned wife had become pregnant not from the white-skinned Ham, but from another black-skinned Cainite before she and Ham entered the Ark; thereby Canaan would be a full-blooded Negro. But there is nothing about this in the Bible nor LDS revelation, and in fact both present Hamâ??s sons as his â??sonsâ?. This theory does not explain how Ham's "full-blooded" non-son found a full-blooded Negro woman to marry! This additional theory cannot explain races such as the Chinese and others.

The First Humans Theory condradicts LDS revelation in The Book of Moses which identifies the daughters of the sons of Noah (all Sethites) as among the â??daughters of menâ? that the â??sons of Godâ? married (Moses 8:13). Moses himself calls the Gentiles (nations) the â??sons of Godâ? (Deuteronomy 32:42); further evidence that the â??sons of Godâ? referred to those who were not the â??sons of Adamâ?.

The First-Humans Theory really has no explanation for races such as the Chinese, or the Malaysians. If the First-Humans Theory is correct, then everyone on earth should either be a Northern-European looking Caucasian, or a Mulatto. The variations and diversity of the races of men bear strong evidence against this.

The Pre-Adamite Theory holds that the flood was not universal, but only covered the â??landâ?? where Noah lived. When Cain is banished, he says:

â??Behold, Thou has driven me out this day from the face of the earth.â? (Genesis 4:14)

Did Cain go to a different earth (planet)? No! He was driven out from the face of the erets (land). In Hebrew, it says that the flood covered the entire â??landâ?? (Heb. erets). The Hebrew term erets is translated â??earthâ? in many Bibles, but in fact it means â??landâ??. Israel today is called Erets Yisrael (The Land of Israel). It doesnâ??t mean â??The Planet of Israelâ? nor â??The Earth of Israelâ?.

The First-Humans Theory holds that the flood covered the entire planet Earth; with all animals and humans dying except Noah, his family, and the animals in the Ark. This is because translations say that the entire â??earthâ? was covered. But in Hebrew, it says the â??landâ? was covered.

It is entirely possible that the children of Cain and his wife intermarried with Africans, and this is how Africans also became Cainites (and later Hamites), and how Cainites became black-skinned. Certainly science tells us that the Africans are the oldest race of people on earth. This suggests that Adam and Eve founded a new race of men, and that the Cainites intermarried with a much older race.

Do you believe that Cain, a white man with Nordic features, was turned into a Negro and that he married his sister (a white woman) and then had pure Negro children? Some of you do. Personally, I believe that Cain was a white Adamite, and was all his life; and so was his sister. I believe that the "children of Cain were black" because the Cainites intermarried with black-skinned pre-Adamites. The name "Cain" (KAYIN) can refer to the son of Adam, or to his descendants; just like the name "Israel" can refer to a son of Isaac, or to his descendants (an entire PEOPLE). How many times does YHWH refer to "Israel, My Son" in the Old Testament where He is addressing NOT Jacob, but the Israelites?

According to science, people have black skin because their ancestors lived for hundreds or thousands of years, perhaps millions of years, near the equator; where the ultraviolet rays of the Sun are strongest. In order to protect bare human skin from these harmful rays, melanin is created in great quantities. The name melanin comes from the Greek word for black: melos. The black-skinned people of New Guinea and Polynesia are called Melanesians (Black-polynesians).The more melanin a person has, the darker-skinned they are, and the more their skin is protected from the harmful ultraviolet rays of the Sun. People living in Europe did not need such protection, so they have far less melanin. The Celts, a race of red-haired and white-skinned people, have the least melanin of all; so little that their own blood can be seen in their face. The Celts are those native of northwestern Europe; where clouds cover the sky most of the year, and where comparatively little ultraviolet radiation reaches human skin.

Others believe that the reason why some races of men are black (Africans, Dravidians, Melanesians, Negritoes, Aborigines), and other races of men are brown, red, yellow, or white, is because the darker the race, the older it is; the longer it has been exposed to the Sunâ??s heat and light. If you put a piece of white dough in an oven, the longer it is exposed to light and heat, the darker it will become. The lighter the dough, the less heat and light (radiation) it has been exposed to. Thus, if this theory is true, then the black-skinned races (there are at least four of them) are the oldest races on earth; while the brown-skinned, red-skinned, and yellow-skinned are younger, and the white-skinned being the youngest. The more melanin in the skin, the older that race of human beings has been on the earth. The lesser the melanin, the younger the race. The longer you keep dough in the oven (exposed to light and heat) the darker it becomes.

*Adam and Eve: First Humans or First Adamites?

Some believe that new human races are created sometimes out of older ones. One can see this in the animal world; when occassionally a animal is born different than itâ??s parents. In 1962 a blond-haired, blue-eyed, white-skinned gorilla was born. Both his parents were normal African gorillas (black-skinned, black-haired, and brown eyed). The keepers named the baby gorilla â??Snowflakeâ?; because of his white-skin. This gorilla was not an Albino (who have white hair and pink eyes), but an entirely new type of gorilla: one with blue eyes and blonde hair. (National Geographic, Oct. 1970).

Among the Ile-Ife tribe of Nigeria there is an old oral tradition that is passed down from one generation to the next. It says that is very ancient times all the people in the world were black. Then one day a woman had a white baby. The elders of the village thought this a bad omen from the gods, so they killed the baby, and told the men not to touch the woman. Nobody did. Then the woman became mysteriously pregnant again, but this time the elders thought it a good omen from the gods, and decided not to kill the baby once it was born. The woman bore twins; a boy and a girl, and they were white and had red hair. This is the Ile-Ife explanation for the Caucasian race.

The Bakuba tribe of the Congo have a legend of the origin of man that says the white god Mbombo created the first man and woman; who were white also. Woto, their first king, was also born white, and he married his sister Labama. He took black dye and dyed his skin black; along with his wife and children. The Book of Moses says that the Cain married one of his sisters, and that the â??seed of Cain were blackâ? (Moses 3:22).

In ancient times when twins were born, it was believed that one was created in the womb out of the side of the other. In Hebrew the word â??ribâ? means â??sideâ?, and the Bible says in Genesis that Eve was made out of a rib from the side of Adam.

*The Wisdom of the Egyptians

Many Mormons reject the noting of Pre-Adamites because The Book of Moses, a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, declares that Adam was â??the first manâ? upon the earth. Joseph claimed that The Book of Moses was actually a work of Moses; who was â??learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.â? (Acts 7:22).

The ancient Egyptians, like most ancient peoples, believed they were the only true â??menâ??. They called themselves â??menâ??; but did not call people of other races â??menâ??. Egyptologist Barbara Mertz writes:

â??Like the Greeks and others, the Egyptians called themselves â??the peopleâ??. Other men were not people, they were only barbarians.â? (Black Folk Here and There, p.187)

Another Egyptologist has written:

â??The ancient Egyptian...was semi-urban and sophisticated of mind and felt foreigners to be rustic and uninitiated.... He made a distinction between â??menâ?? on the one hand, and Libyans or Asiatics or Africans on the other. The word â??menâ?? in that sense means Egyptians.â? (Black Folk, p.187)

This was also true of other ancient or primitive peoples; like the Amerinds (Native Americans).

Paul A.W. Wallace writes:

â??The Delawares, as far back as the white manâ??s memory goes, were the Indians most closely associated with Penssylvania, called themselves Lenni Lenape, which means the Real (or Original) People.

***

Other Indian nations gave themselves comparable names. Illinois means Real Men; Ongwe Honwe (Iroquois), Original People: names which suggest priority over all other peoples on earth. â??We are The Peopleâ??, said Emerson Metoxon (an Oneida) to me, with a twinkle in his eye. â??The rest are only Indians.â??â? (Indians in Pennsyvania, pp.2-3)

Protestant Bible scholar Arthur C. Custance has written:

â??Among most primitive people the habit is to refer to themselves (in their own language of course) as â??true menâ??, referring to all others by some term which clearly denies to them the right of manhood at all. Thus the Naskapi call themselves Neneot, which means real people. The Chuckchee say that their name means real men. The Hottentots [of South Africa] refer to themselves as Khoi-Khoi; which means Men of Men. The Yahgan of Tierra del Fuego (of all places) say that their name means men par excellence. The Andamese [of the Indian Ocean], a people who appear to lack the rudiments of law, refer to themselves as Ong, meaning Men. All these people reserve these terms only for themselves.â? (Noahâ??s Three Sons, p.63)

Where the ancient Hebrew any different? There is evidence to suggest they werenâ??t, and when they referred to Adam as â??the first manâ?? they meant the first one of their race; not to human beings of other races. Some believe that non-Adamites were referred to in the Bible as â??Chayâ?; which means â??breathing thinking entityâ? (erroneously translated in most English Bibles as â??beastâ?). The Bible says that â??Chaysâ? have hands, and have the ability to repent in sackcloth and ashes; awfly difficult things for animals to do. The LORD told the Prophet Jonah to go into the city of Niveveh, in Assyria, and call them to repentence or they would be destroyed:

â??But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn from violence that is in their hands.â? (Jonah 3:

How could dumb animals pray to God for forgiveness? Do animals sin? How could they do violence in their hands?

There are three Hebrew words which are translated into English as â??beastâ?:

1. Behemah (a domesticated animal)

2. Beiyr (a wild undomesticated animal)

3. Chay (living creature)

Some feel that â??Chayâ? actually means â??savageâ??. The first white Americans usually referred to themselves as â??menâ?? and they usually referred to the Indians (native Americans or Amerinds) as â??savagesâ??. The early white Americans usually did not refer to Negroes (Africans) as â??menâ?? either, but by some other term. To refer to Amerinds and Africans (admittedly both human beings) as â??menâ?? was considered by most early white Americans as a novelty; if not a radical or even ridiculous notion.

The Prophet Joseph Smith himself seemed to believe in the existence of Pre-Adamites when he approvingly quoted his brother Hyrum saying:

â??There were Prophets before Adam, and Joseph has the spirit and power of all the Prophets.â? (Millennial Star 23:406)

That statement was later changed to read:

â??There were prophets before, but Joseph has the spirit and power of all the prophets.â? (History of the Church 6:346)

Why was this changed?

The answer is simple. When Creationist apostles came to power, they felt that it had to be "changed" so that young Mormons did not believe in Pre-Adamites; which they thought would "damn" them.

If a belief in Pre-Adamites is "damning" then some LDS Presidents and apostles will be damned; because they believed in pre-Adamites.

In 1854, in General Conference, Apostle Orson Hyde declared:

â??The world was peopled before the days of Adam as much so as it was before the days of Noah.â? (Journal of Discourses 2:79)

Yet, 100 years later Apostle (later President) Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

â??Adam was the first mortal on the earth;...Since Adam was the first man on the earth, that does away with the false notion that there were pre-Adamites.â? (Doctrines of Salvation 1:78)

Many Mormons assume that what President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote was â??officialâ?? Church doctrine.

But it wasnâ??t.

Other Mormon Presidents and Apostles did believe in and preach the existence of Pre-Adamites. James E. Talmage, an Apostle and author of Jesus the Christ (the only official LDS work outside of the Standard Works) said in 1935 in the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City:

â??Geologists and anthropologists say that if the beginning of Adamic history dates back but 6000 years or less, there must have been races of human sort upon the earth long before that time--without denying, however, that Adamic history may be correct, if it be regarded solely as the history of the Adamic race.â? (The Earth and Man, p.11)

Elder Talmageâ??s talk was that year published by the Church, in itâ??s name, as a pamphlet and distributed to Latter-day Saints throughout the Church. Elder Talmage strongly suggests in the work that Pre-Adamites exist, and that Adam and Eve were the parents of a new race of men; not the first human beings on earth.

*Creationism & The Smith McConkie School

Also in 1935 Brigham H. Roberts, a Seventy, was writing a Church Manual called The Truth, The Way, The Life. Roberts wrote in the book that pre-Adamites existed. This offended Joseph Fielding Smith (the grandson of Hyrum Smith and son of Joseph F. Smithâ??6th President of the Church). Joseph Fielding Smith was an adherent of the writings of George McCready Price; the Seventh-day Adventist who founded Creationism. Joseph Fielding Smith (an Apostle at that time) believed that evolution (which he believed was the same as Darwinism) was a doctrine of the Devil, and he would not stand for the Church publishing a manual that people would use in Sunday School which taught the existence of Pre-Adamites. The two men argued, and The First Presidency decided to step in and issue a statement:

â??The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: â??There were not pre-Adamites upon the earthâ?? is not a doctrine of the Chruch. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all.â? (Excerpt from The Truth, The Way, The Life, p.8 online)

It was finally decided that the book should not be published as a Church Manual. Roberts decided to publish his work privately, but died before raising the necessary funds.

In 1954 Joseph Fielding Smith published Man: His Origin and Destiny, wherein he wrote:

â??There is no Redeemer other than Jesus Christ for this earth and since Adam could not have brought death on pre-Adamite life, such life could not obtain the blessings of the resurrection. Yet the Lord has declared that through the atonement all things partaking of the fall [of Adam] will be redeemed. So there were no pre-Adamites.â? (Man: His Origin and Destiny, p.279)

While initially sounding logical (i.e. â??if there was no Fall there was no need of an Redemption from the Fallâ??), this reasoning has some serious flaws:

First It assumes the Fall must have occurred in the physical dimension, and not the Spirit-World (where all Mormons believe Paradise exists).

Second It assumes that by â??no death before the Fallâ?? it refers to no physical or spiritual death; not just to no spiritual death. If Adam and Eve ate fruit, the cells of such fruit would have to die before being digested. If the cells of fruit died then indeed some physical death must have occurred before the Fall.

Third It assumes that the Fall had to be chronological. Paul wrote: â??As in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive.â? (I Corinthians 15:22). Using this chronological reasoning, if death entered the physical world just after the Fall, then all men (indeed all living things) should have been resurrected just after Christâ??s atonement. If He reversed the result of the Fall (physical death) then no man, woman, or living thing in the physical realm should have died after His atonement. To illustrate:

No death/Fall of Adam/death to all=Atonement of Christ/life to all

If Christâ??s Atonement has reversed the effects of the Fall of Adam, which is physical death, then why are physical things still suffering physical death?

Joseph Fielding Smith, in his book Man: His Origin and Destiny, relied heavily on the writings of George McCready Price; a Seventh-day Adventist â??self-taughtâ? geologist who was the father of modern Creationism. However, most of Priceâ??s theories and â??scholarlyâ?? opinions have been repudiated and refuted; some by Creationist scientists. Price was also a white racist.

Joseph Fielding Smith became the father of the Literal school of interpretation. Another name for it is the Smith-McConkie School; name after Smith and his son-in-law Bruce R. McConkie (author of Mormon Doctrine). The Smith-McConkie School taught:

*Adam was made out of dust or clay and fashioned like one makes a pot.

*Eve was made literally out of one of Adamâ??s ribs.

*The Garden of Eden was located in the Physical World, and there was absolutely no death of any kind in the Physical World before Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit.

*The talking snake in the Garden of Eden was Lucifer in the form of a talking snake with legs. All snakes today are the descendants of that one male snake.

*There were no Pre-Adamites; no humans or proto-humans on earth before Adam and Eve.

*Negroes and other non-white races are â??degenerationsâ?? from the original perfect white-skinned Adam and Eve. They are that way not because of evolution, or adaptation to their environment, but because their fathers sinned and God changed them to keep them separate from his chosen (white) people who were in the image of Adam and Eve who were in the literal physical image of God.

*The earth is no more than 12,000 years old: 6,000 years for itâ??s creation, and 6,000 years from Adam until now.

The Smith-McConkie school believes and teaches that the Flood of Noah covered the entire planet Earth by 15 cubits (about 23 feet). Two or more of every kind of living thing was brought inside the Ark; including wild undomesticated animals, poisonous snakes, lions, tigers, bears, etc.

But this presents a number of problems.

First How were the mountains all covered by 15 cubits of water if in fact the mountains are all unequal in size?

Solution: There were no mountains before Noahâ??s floodâ??only small hills (called â??mountainsâ?) which were all of equal size.

Second If two of every kind of species was brought upon the Ark by Noah then why didnâ??t the predators eat their pray?

Solution: God did something to make carnivores eat grass (if God could do that, why didnâ??t He just cause them not to be hungry?)

Third If two of every living thing was aboard, what about the dinosaurs? If â??every kindâ?? means â??every kindâ?? then the thousands of dinosaur species (some of them weighing many tons) must be included. What happened?

Solution: They died out long before the floodâ??perhaps a thousand years or more.

Forth If all the post-flood animal species on earth came from Noahâ??s Ark then why are indigenous animals of the Americas, Eurasia, Africa, and Australia to different?

Solution: They were divided into groups and sailed off in ships (can you imagine an Aboriginal family sailing off to Australia with a boat full of Kangaroos, Tasmanian devils, Tasmanian tigers, and all those other totally unique Australian species?)

Although many of the â??solutionsâ?? to problems that the Smith-McConkie school gives may seem lame, ever absurd, it doesnâ??t mean that the Smith-McConkie school isnâ??t popular with educated Mormons. They have been taught, over and over again, since childhood that â??evolutionâ?? is a lie; although no President of the Church ever said that. It is â??Darwinismâ?? that was condemned; not evolution. Darwinism is a false Philosophy of Man. Evolution is a fact of science; not mere theory. The two are not the same.

Some Church teachers (Seminary teachers and Institute Instructors) who teach Mormon youth and college-students adhere very strongly to the Smith-McConkie interpretations; even going so far as to present them as â??what the Churchâ??s stand is onâ?? evolution and many other subjects. Many or most of these teachers know that some Presidents and Apostles of the Church agreed with evolution, believed in Pre-Adamites, and said that the story of Adam and Eve is not literal but â??figurativeâ?.

Yet, they believe so strongly in the Smith-McConkie interpretations that they will deliberately tell their students that the Church is anti-evolution, that there were â??no pre-adamitesâ??, etc. They will quote only those Church leaders who are anti-evolution, and only those statements from the First Presidency which are anti-Darwinist. Any quotes from Presidents or Apostles which are in any way open to evolution they simply donâ??t quote or refer to; leaving their students to mistakenly believe that the Churchâ??s â??standâ?? on evolution is what Smith and McConkie said it was.

Those in the Church who insist that one must accept the Smith-McConkie interpretations as â??the official Church positionâ? and who deride others who hold other positions as â??going against the Brethrenâ? and even â??outside the pale of salvationâ? are sometimes referred to as â??Creationizersâ?; somewhat similar to the â??Judaizersâ? of the ancient Church who tried to force all Gentile Christians to become circumsized, adopt all the Jewish laws, or not be saved. The Apostle Paul preached against them.

Here are some quotes from latter-day prophets on the subject:

Brigham Young (original Apostle and 2nd President):

â??When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobes from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale...There is no such tthing in all the eternities were the Gods dwell.â? (Journal of Discourses 7:285)

Parley P. Pratt (one of the original Apostles of the Church):

â?Man, moulded from the earth, as a brick! A woman, manufactured from a rib!...O man! When wilt thou cease to be a child in knowledge?â? (Key to Theology, p.50)

John A. Widstoe (Apostle and scientist):

â?The statement that man was made from the dust of the earth is merely figurative....Likewise, the statement that God breathed into man the breath of life is figurative.â? (Rational Theology, pp.50-51)

Spencer W. Kimball (Apostle and 12th President):

â??The story of the rib, of course, is figurative.â? (Ensign, March 1976, p.71)

Are these Brethen â??outside the pale of salvationâ??? Where they â??going against the official position of the Churchâ??? Only in the minds of those who insist that the Smith-McConkie interpretations are â??official Church doctrineâ?? or â??what the LORD has to say on the matterâ??.

The Smith-McConkie school was basically diametrically opposed to the beliefs of Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith (Joseph Fielding Smithâ??s father and 6th President of the Church) , James Talmage, John Widstoe, Spencer W. Kimball, and other Apostles as to the meaning and interpretations of creation in Genesis.

Why is Creationism so popular among Members (especially those without professional degrees in the earth sciences)?

Because Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie were such popular and prolific writers, many or even most Mormons today assume their views are the official views of the Church. Their style of writing gives the reader the impression that they are not offering â??opinionâ?? but solid and official LDS Church â??doctrineâ??.

But it never was.

*The Talmage-Widstoe School (Metaphoricalist)

On the other side of the Smith-McConkie school is the Metaphorical school; sometimes referred to as the Talmage-Widstoe school (named after Mormon Apostles and scientists James E. Talmage and John A. Widstoe). This school teaches:

*Adam and Eve were born into mortality just like all of us where. The story of the dust and rib are figurative; as is the story of the talking snake and the forbidden fruit. All these are â??tokensâ?? or symbols to represent other things.

*Pre-Adamites may indeed have existed. Adam was not the first human on earth, but the first of a new type of human. He was the father of the Adamic race of humans. Adam was the first â??Awdawnâ? (blushing man).

*Negroes and other races are indeed the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve because the Adamic blood has diffused over the entire earth in the last 6,000 years. This doesnâ??t mean human beings didnâ??t exist before Adam. Abraham is called the â??Fatherâ? of the Jews; yet he had a literal human father, and so on.

*The earth is billions of years old, as is life. No death before the Fall of Adam refers to events in the Spirit-World, not the Physical World. Adam and Eve entered the Physical World the same way we all do. If the Garden of Eden existed in the Physical World, then â??no deathâ?? existed there alone; not throughout the entire Physical World.

Some feel that in the story of the Garden of Eden, Moses (a former priest of Amon) was using signs and tokens to represent certain truths. The â??talking snakeâ?? in Genesis bears a striking resemblance to the Egyptian god Nahbkoon. Theosophist H.P. Blavatsky wrote of Lucifer:

â??He is called the â??Dragon of Wisdomâ??...as all the Logoi of all the ancient religious systems are connected with, and symbolized by serpents. In Old Egypt, the god Nahbkoon...was represented as a serpent on human legs.â? (The Secret Doctrine, pp.472,473)

Indeed, Nahbkoon is a messenger of the Egyptian god Set, who many scholars believe is what the Jews based their â??Satanâ? upon. The Greek name for Set was Typhon. Helena P. Blavatsky wrote:

â??Typhon, in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, figures as the 'accuser'.One of Typhonâ??s appellations was Set; as Satan in Hebrew, means the adversary.â? (Isis Unvelied 2:483)

In some ancient Egyptian manuscripts the soul after death is brought to the Hall of Judgment; with Osiris as judge. One god is there to tell of the good deeds of the deceased, but Set is there to accuse the deceased. Set was known as the â??Accuser of his brethrenâ??.

Another occultic writer says:

â??In Egyptian tradition, the god Set represents the forces of chaos and destruction, or energy misplaced. He was the manifestation of Apep or Typon, opposers of the power of light.â? (Pagan Pantheon, p.13 online)

Literalists believe that when Moses wrote that a talking snake with legs gave Eve a piece of â??forbidden fruitâ?? to eat that means a talking snake, with legs, gave Eve a literal piece of â??forbidden fruitâ?? to eat.

Metaphoricalists believe that Moses here is using signs and tokens; symbols to represent certain spiritual truths. Theosophists and other Gnostics admit that the â??Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evilâ?? represents the â??Divine Wisdomâ??, or gnosis, that they believe Lucifer (symbolized by the serpent) gave to Adam and Eve. Gnostics praised the talking serpent as the messenger of â??Lightâ?? (Lucis or Lucifer); the God of Light.

What is meant by "forbidden fruit"? Literalists say it was an apple, or perhaps a fig; some literal fruit. Metaphoricalists believe "forbidden fruit" is a metaphor for "private parts". In the Bible, sexual organs are called "fruit":

â??As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons [of men]. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.â? (Song of Solomon 2:3)

Solomon speaks of the Queenâ??s charms as fruit:

â??They plants are an orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits; camphire, with spikenard.â? (Song 4:13)

Were they speaking of literal fruit? Or did they have something else in mind?

Literalists (First Humans School) believe that the story of Eve being made out of Adamâ??s â??ribâ? (the Hebrew actually says â??sideâ?) is literal. Metaphoricalists (Pre-Adamite School) believe that the story is figurative.

President Spencer W. Kimball, when he was President of the Church, wrote:

"The story of the rib, of course, if figurative.

***

The creators breathed into their nostrils the breath of life and man and woman became living souls. We donâ??t know how their coming into the world happened, and when weâ??re able to understand it the Lord will tell us.â? (The Ensign, March 1976, pp.72,73 emphases added)

In ancient societies twins were considered to be made out of each otherâ??s â??sideâ? or the second twin out of the â??sideâ? of the first.

Literalists believe that when the Bible says that the â??whole earthâ? was covered, it â??means what it saysâ??. Metaphoricalists point-out that in Hebrew the word â??earthâ?? means â??landâ??, and not â??planetâ?? or â??worldâ??. They also point out that when the Bible says that Noah took two of every â??kindâ?? the Hebrew says two of every behema; which means a dumb of mute animal like an ox, a cow, etc. It means a domesticated animal. It doesnâ??t say that two or every Beiyr (wild beast) was taken aboard the Ark. Metaphoricalists believe that the Flood of Noah was literal, but local; as the original Hebrew seems to declare. The flood covered the entire land that Noah lived in, and destroyed all flesh off of it. Two of every domesticated animal and fowl was aboard the Ark; because they had to take with them what they needed for food, clothing, and hunting.

Metaphoricalists believe in not one but two Creations: the spiritual and the physical:

"For I, the Lord God, created all things of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth.â? (Moses 3:5)

Each creation â??remaineth in the sphere in which I, God, created it.â? (Moses 3:9)

There are two planet earths; one spiritual and the other physical or material (the one we know). The LORD said to Joseph the Seer:

"That which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal being in the likeness of that which is spiritual; the spirit of man being in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created.â? (D&C 77:2)

Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Bible scholars realize that in Genesis not one, but two creations are presented. Literalists have been greatly perturbed by Genesis chapter 4 where it says plants were created before the Sun.

There is a verse in The Book of Moses which reads:

"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth.â? (Moses 3:4-5)

The eminent Mormon physiologist, Dr. Frank B. Salisbury, writes:

"These are the key verses if one is to understand Mosesâ?? account of creation. The remnants remain in Genesis, but without the restoration through Joseph Smith, we would never understand the abbreviated â??before it was in the earthâ??. The Lord tells us that the six generations of the heavens and the earth just presented refer to a spiritual creation. All organisms had been created â??spirituallyâ?? before they were naturally upon the face of the earth.

***

If the six periods refer to a spiritual creation, we should have no difficulty in trying to reconcile these periods with scientific findings.â? (The Creation, p.74)

There is a spiritual dimension where God creates things spiritually before they are created naturally, or materially. Some liken this to where a house is designed completely on a computer before it is built. The question â??When was the house created?â?? is thus dependent upon what you mean. Was the house created on the computer before it was created in brick and stone? Or vice versa? In one sense, the house was created on computer, and in another sense, or dimension, it was created by contractors using wood, metal, stone, and so forth.

Literalists (Smith-McConkie school) must believe there were two Paradises and two Gardens of Eden; one in the Spirit-World and one in the Physical-World. Metaphoricalists (Talmage-Widstoe) believe there was only one Paradise, and that it still exists and never disappeared or faded away.

In other words, Paradise, where Adam and Eve existed, still exists: in the Spirit-World. This is why Jesus said to the thief on the cross beside Him:

"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.â? (Luke 23:43)

Jesus meant â??todayâ??; not some day after the resurrection. Paul says that he knew a man â??caught up into Paradiseâ? (2 Corinthians 12:2-4) fourteen years before he wrote to the Corinthians. Thus, Paradise exists today. It existed when Jesus was on the Cross. It existed when Paul was preaching. It existed when Adam and Eve were there. It refers to a place in the Spirit-Worldâ??part of the spiritual creationâ??not the physical creation.

Literalists in the Church usually insist that they believe the truth about the creation, and those who believe that Mosesâ?? descriptions were metaphorical are â??wrongâ??, â??misguidedâ??, â??stupidâ??, â??going against the Word of the LORDâ??, â??going against The Brethrenâ??, â??not believing the Living Prophetsâ??, â??sincerely mistakenâ??, â??deceived by the Philosophies of Menâ??, and even â??are outside the pale of salvationâ??. If that is true, then Brigham Young, Orson Hyde, James Talmage, John Widstoe, Spencer W. Kimball, and quite a few other Presidents and Apostles of the Church are â??outside the pale of salvationâ?? because they also believed in the Metaphorical interpretation.

Of course, most Mormons donâ??t fall cleanly within either school of thought. Most Mormons believe bits and pieces of each, or really â??havenâ??t thought about itâ??. Yet, the Smith-McConkie school is the most popular school among Mormons who do â??think aboutâ?? such things; for the sole reason that the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie are so popular, they wrote so dogmatically, and because adherents of this school often insist (mistakenly) that it represents â??officialâ? Church doctrine (which is not true).

Metaphoricalists tend to believe in the existence of Pre-Adamites; that Adam and Eve were the first of a new race of men, not the first human beings on earth, and that other races of men are much older.

*Negro Race is the Oldest Race

Through intensive studies of peoples DNA (genes), scientists have discovered that the most ancient person we are all related to is an African woman who lived about 200,000 years ago (Newsweek, Jan. 11, 1988):

â??The scientistsâ?? Eveâ??subject of one of the most provocative anthropological theories in a decadeâ??was more likely a dark-haired, black-skinned woman, roaming a hot savannah in search of food.â? (Newsweek, Jan. 11, 1988, pp.46-7)

African-American researcher J.A. Rogers writes:

â??Increasingly it is being said in the most informed scientific circles that the Negro was the ancestor of the human race. Henry Fairfield Osborn, the late head of the American Museum of Natural History, who had himself a strong tinge of white fanaticism, said, â??Negroid stock is even more ancient than Caucasian or Mongolian man.â??â? (Sex and Race, p.28)

Journalist Boyce Rensberger writes:

â??We are all descended from black people. Because humans first evolved in Africa, the first people probably had dark skin. The white people of Europe descended from Africans who migrated north, between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago, and lost their coloring.â? (Washington Post, Nov. 11, 1994)

The scientific explanation of skin-color is based upon the rays of the Sun. In equatorial regions the skin of humans are almost always dark; because the ultraviolet rays of the Sun come intensely and directly. In higher regions, like Europe, the ultraviolet rays are not nearly as intense, not even in the Summer, because of the northern latitude. Many of these ultraviolet rays bounce off the atmosphere at higher latitudes.

If these theories are true, then the African race is the oldest race on earth, and the white races the youngest; with the other races somewhere in-between the two in age.

If the Pre-Adamite Theory (held by some LDS Presidents and Apostles but not by others) is true then it would make sense that God would cause Cain and or his descendants to become black; since this would be a protection for them in the Land of Nod (a hot desertâ??a land of wandering). It would also ally them with other black-skinned peoples; who would help protect them from the vengeance of angry Sethites seeking to avenge the murder of Abel via a tribal blood feud.

Some others believe that the natives of Africa were originally not a black-skinned but a brown-skinned people, and that their intermingling with a black-skinned race (Cainites?) caused all native Africans today to have skin tones from light brown to jet-black.

*LDS Church: NEUTRAL on Evolution vs. Special Creation

Official Mormon Faith doctrine is neutral on the matter of Evolution (Pre-Adamite) versus Special-Creation (First-Humans). Latter-days Saints can believe either view; as long as they acknowledge the following:

1. God as the literal Heavenly Father of their spirits of all human beings.

2. God created the Universe and this world. It did not come about merely by chance.

3. Adam and Eve are the literal parents of all human beings (this would be true under either theory; since the we are all the descendants of Adamites).

*Mormon Faith: No Doctrine on How Cainites Became Black-skinned

There is no Church Doctrine on how the Cainites became a black-skinned people; only that they were. Most Mormons, especially the older ones, simply assume that when Cain was cursed he all of a sudden went from an Anglo-Saxon looking Caucasian into a full-blooded Negro. Of course, this is pure assumption; based upon traditions. Official LDS Doctrine does not say how the Cainites became black; although The Book of Moses suggests it was a gradual event by saying that a â??blackness came uponâ? the descendants of Cain ( Moses 7:. This suggests a gradualness; which would come about if in fact the Cainites began to intermingle with a black-skinned people.

In the Bible "Israel" can refer to a man (Jacob son of Isaac) or to an entire people ("Israel, my son" refers to an ENTIRE PEOPLE). I personally believe that KAYIN ("Cain") can also refer to the man Cain, or to his descendants; the KAYIN.

Official Mormon Faith doctrine says:

1) The descendants of Cain became black-skinned. 2) They followed Jesus in Heaven. 3) Their spirits are pure, and are the children of God. 4) They were blessed with wisdom, but cursed as pertaining to the Priesthood (i.e. lost the birthright to the Priesthood). 5) One day the curse would be removed, and they would enjoy all the blessings of the Priesthood as the other descendants of Adam and Eve.

Anything MORE than this is speculation, supposition, and personal opinion; no matter where it comes from.

*Science tells â??howâ?? but Revelation tells â??whyâ??

In conclusion, the Church is officially neutral on the subject of evolution. It may or may not have been the means-by-which man appeared on this physical planet. The Church is adamantly against Darwinism; which is a false Philosophy of Man, which teaches that there is no god involved in creation, but that the universe and life came about solely through random natural processes. While Literalists (Smith-McConkie School) insist their way is the only way one can believe, in truth Members can accept either the Literalist or Metaphoricalist view of creation and still be Members of the Church in good standing. Negroes may or may not be the oldest human race. Adam and Eve may or may not be the first human beings or the first of a new race of human beings. What is really important is now how man came to be, but why. Science can attempt to tell us how, but only the Revelations of God can tell us why.

*Some Quotes To Remember

Brigham Young:

"Here let me state to all philosophers of every class upon the earth, when you tell me that Father Adam was made as we make abobes from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle words bevoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell." (Journal of Discourses 7:285-6)

Joseph F. Smith:

"Man was born of a woman; Christ, the Savior, was born of a woman, and Adam, our earthly parent, was also born of a woman into this world, the same as Jesus and you and I." (Deseret News, Dec. 17, 1913)

David O. McKay:

"Neither MAN, HIS ORIGIN AND DESTINY by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, nor MORMON DOCTRINE by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, is an official publication of the Church." (Letter of David O. McKay, Feb. 3, 1959, LDS Church Archives)

Spencer W. Kimball:

"The story of the rib, of course, is figurative." (Ensign, March 1976, p.72)

*Conclusion

There are generally four main theories among Mormons on how life began on earth:

1) LITERALIST: It began 6,000 years ago when God planted a Garden that covered the earth. There was no death. He made Adam from mud and Eve from a rib. All races are pure Adamites. Other races are degenerates. Can was changed from a white Anglo-Saxon looking man into a pure Negro in one moment, and so was his sister he married. The Flood covered the entire earth; which had only hills at that time and not great mountains. All races are descended from Noah and his sons.

2) MODIFIED LITERALIST: It evolved from lower forms of life. There were pre-Adamites, but Adam and Eve were brought from another planet as fully-grown adults. They ate literal fruit which caused the spirit in their veins to become blood, and they became subject to death. There was death outside the Garden of Eden, but not inside of it until they partook of the forbidden fruit. They were cast out of the Garden of Eden; which long ago disappeared. All races today are pure Adamites because the pre-Adamite races all died out before Adam or perhaps in the Flood which covered the earth.

3) METAPHORICALIST: Adam and Eve were not the first man (Iysh) and woman (Iyshah) on this planet, but the first AWDAWM (Adamites); the first humans who "blush" or "show blood" in the face (from the Hebrew "aw--dawm": "to show blood" in the face). Over 6,000 years the Adamic race has mingled with all other races; so that we are now all Adamites. Cain (the man) was not a Negro nor was he "turned" into one. The "talking snake" and the "forbidden fruit" and the "rib" are metaphors (non-literal symbols that represent other things). The Bible reference that "Cain" was 'marked' refers to KAYIN (the people called "CAIN"). Cain's children intermingled with black-skinned pre-Adamites. The Flood wiped out all life in the "land" (Heb. eretz) where Noah lived; not the entire planet. Cain was driven from "off the land" (i.e. he didn't go to another planet). Noah and his sons were the remnant Adamites.

4) MYTHOLICALIST: Adam and Eve represent "men" and "women". They didn't literally exist. The talking serpent and forbidden fruit are myths from old Semitic stories. Many "Sunstone" Mormons hold to this view.

Why is this article imortant? Because:

*Thanks to the works of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie (MORMON DOCTRINE), most Members of the Church today believe that the Church is "officially" Creationist. Many believe that one cannot be a good Latter-day Saints and believe in Evolution (even divinely-guided evolution).

*Growing numbers of "Creationizers" in the Church are DEMANDING that other Members believe exactly as they, or they are "outside the pale of salvation".

*Young Mormons who are trained in the physical sciences are caught in the dilemma; having been told that "you MUST believe in creation or disbelieve in God". They are told by well-intended (but misinformed) Sunday School teachers, their own fathers, and other Mormon teachers, that the Story of Adam and Eve, the rib, the talking serpent, is literal, and that "Living Prophets" have "declared" this consistently! Young Mormon intellectuals often lose faith because of this!

Be promoters of FAITH, not destroyers of it! Teach your students that they CAN believe in divinely-guided evolution, and in Mormonism, at the same time. Darwinism and Mormonism contradict each other! But Evolution and Mormonism does NOT contradict each other. Darwinism (that life evolved by chance/randomly) is a Philosophy of Man. Evolution (that life evolved) is a scientific theory that DOES hold water! Evolution explains the "HOW". Mormonism explains the "WHY". Thank you.

Darrick Evenson

darrickevenson@yahoo.com

[Notquitewetyet]

[

Darrick Evenson

darrickevenson@yahoo.com

I really don't think you want to bring up anything by Darrick Evenson. He holds to very racist theories about preAdamites, believes that a Lebanese art collector is Jesus Christ reincarnated, and his language would make a sailor blush.

[lostindc]

I really don't think you want to bring up anything by Darrick Evenson. He holds to very racist theories about preAdamites, believes that a Lebanese art collector is Jesus Christ reincarnated, and his language would make a sailor blush.

Seriously, that is pretty messed up, I posted this site to see if there are any thoughts on his preAdamites theory. It is a shame if he is the way you say he is...

[BCSpace]

Too much to digest. Perhaps you can condense it down to what your question is or what you want to comment on.

Q. If the Adamites were a new race of men how then are all human beings the descendants of Adam and Eve?

My view of preAdamites is quite different than most. I hypothesize that evolution brought forth homo sapiens just as science teaches and they've been around for hundreds of thousands of years as per science also. When they first appeared on the scene, their spirits weren't literal children of God, rather more like an animal spirit, so they were not "man" as the scriptures define. When all was ready, God placed a couple of His spirit children in the bodies (possibly newborn) of a pair of homo sapiens and placed them in the garden into a state of no death to await the Fall.

One of the many advantages of this hypothesis imho, is that it explains why big brained homo sapiens have been around for hundreds of thousands of years and yet never developed civilization until very recently. Their spirits were of a lower order, "less intelligent".

I do not believe anyone alive today is a descendant of a preAdamite or if so, not penalized as some sort of "Canaanite".

*Thanks to the works of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie (MORMON DOCTRINE), most Members of the Church today believe that the Church is "officially" Creationist. Many believe that one cannot be a good Latter-day Saints and believe in Evolution (even divinely-guided evolution).

Most people I talk to in the wards accept some form of evolution. The older generation tend to fill in the doctrinal gaps like JFS and BRM did because of said teachings/books. However, such are not doctrinal and I seem to recall reading somewhere that DOM personally advised each of them not to publish those works.

*Growing numbers of "Creationizers" in the Church are DEMANDING that other Members believe exactly as they, or they are "outside the pale of salvation".

I've come across a few diehard creationists like this. A few, but not many. My mother is/was one. When I was young, my bishop and Teacher's quorum advisor were like this also. I expressed my opinion on evolution in class once and the advisor did not know what to say. Next Sunday, I and my Dad were hauled before the bishop who told me that evolution was contrary to doctrine. However, I was able to withstand them because I had done some research. My Dad said nothing but I think he was proud of me. I think people in the Church are far more educated on this issue now than most critics believe. The Stake Presidency and the Bishop in my current ward know my stand on the issue and yet they somehow allow me to teach the Gospel Doctrine class. Hmmm.........

*Young Mormons who are trained in the physical sciences are caught in the dilemma; having been told that "you MUST believe in creation or disbelieve in God". They are told by well-intended (but misinformed) Sunday School teachers, their own fathers, and other Mormon teachers, that the Story of Adam and Eve, the rib, the talking serpent, is literal, and that "Living Prophets" have "declared" this consistently! Young Mormon intellectuals often lose faith because of this!

I think it's better not to make the same mistakes the Catholic church did in the Dark and Middle Ages with regard to science. The best way to handle it is to admit there is no doctrine on such and such issues and try to find ways science and doctrine don't conflict. As far as I can tell, LDS doctrine and science don't conflict in any way.

Be promoters of FAITH, not destroyers of it! Teach your students that they CAN believe in divinely-guided evolution, and in Mormonism, at the same time. Darwinism and Mormonism contradict each other! But Evolution and Mormonism does NOT contradict each other. Darwinism (that life evolved by chance/randomly) is a Philosophy of Man. Evolution (that life evolved) is a scientific theory that DOES hold water! Evolution explains the "HOW". Mormonism explains the "WHY". Thank you.

I do teach as doctrine the fact that the Church does not take a side regarding evolution or creationism. I do not teach my personal hypothesis for doctrine, but I do present it as a way (there might be others) one can accept evolution and LDS doctrine without conflict.

Here is some doctrine (because it's published by the Church) for you...

While it is interesting to note these various theories, officially the Church has not taken a stand on the age of the earth. For reasons best known to Himself, the Lord has not yet seen fit to formally reveal the details of the Creation. Therefore, while Latter-day Saints are commanded to learn truth from many different fields of study (see D&C 88:77â??79), an attempt to establish any theory as the official position of the Church is not justifiable. OLD TESTAMENT STUDENT MANUAL GENESISâ??2 SAMUEL Section 2-3

That alone disestablishes creationism as doctrine of the LDS Church.

[Notquitewetyet]

Seriously, that is pretty messed up, I posted this site to see if there are any thoughts on his preAdamites theory. It is a shame if he is the way you say he is...

He does list some interesting theories, and this website seems to be from his better days. I guess I'd hold to a "METAPHORICALIST" position, except I do hold to all the beliefs Brigham Young said about Michael, in the "uh oh" Adam-God sense. I don't think evolution, as long as we still believe in Adam, is false. After all, one of the highest laws (hardly ever practiced among any Mormons any more) is the Law of Adoption. Brigham Young said:

God has made His children like Himself to stand erect, and has endowed them with intelligence and power and dominion over all His works, and given them the same attributes which He himself possesses. He created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be." (Journal of Discourses 11:122-123

I think it is good to point out that Joseph Fielding Smith-Bruce McConkie tag team, did introduce many erroneous ideas and are not the end all, be all to what is Mormon teaching. For example, here's what McConkie said:

Heresy one: There are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths.

This is false--utterly, totally, and completely. There is not one sliver of truth in it. It grows out of a wholly twisted and incorrect view of the King Follett Sermon and of what is meant by eternal progression.

God progresses in the sense that his kingdoms increase and his dominions multiply--not in the sense that he learns new truths and discovers new laws. God is not a student. He is not a laboratory technician. He is not postulating new theories on the basis of past experiences. He has indeed graduated to that state of exaltation that consists of knowing all things and having all power.

versus Brigham Young:

Some men seem as if they could learn so much and no more. They appear to be bounded in their capacity for acquiring knowledge, as Brother Orson Pratt, has in theory, bounded the capacity of God. According to his theory. God can progress no further in knowledge and power; but the God that I serve is progressing eternally, and so are his children: they will increase to all eternity, if they are faithful.

Journal of Discourses, 11:286.

[Tsuzuki]

Perhaps the stories recorded in scripture refer to events 130,000 to 200,000 years ago, with the emergence of modern humans in the geological record. They don't have to be pre-Adamites if you push Adam back in time a couple hundred thousand years. The tree of knowledge could be the huge increase in brain capacity, and the death brought into the world could be the awareness of death.

[docrick]

Excellent paper written by Hugh Nibley on the subject. http://farms.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=73

[Obiwan]

I wish there was a "faithful" LDS version of Everson on the Blacks and the Priesthood issue. He's put together a lot of good information, with only a bad premis or two, and as well as some of his other nutty views, actions & behavior's, and being in and out of the Church, etc. that's a problem, so everyone throws the baby out with the bath water unfortunately with his work.

[Alan]

As soon as Darrick Evanson was mentioned I'm afraid I lost interest. I did read the entire post, long though it was. But my approach was scewed because of the source. This guy was LDS, then he became an Ex-Mormon for Jesus and fought against the church, then had a change of heart and rejoined the church and wrote a book about the tactics of the anti-mormons. Then he left again to become a B'Hai. Enough said.

With regard to pre-Adamites my view is that it doesn't matter. We are all descended from Adam and that's that. He was the first man and assisted in the creation of the earth (that should be a big clue). If the scriptures teach the creation that is obviously what the Lord wants us to believe.

If I had to choose between Darwinian evolution and creationism I would choose creation. I am a trained scientist (B.Sc. Honours, and M.Sc.) and am convinced Darwinism is mostly nonsense, and in many cases provably so.

Alan

[The Dude]

If I had to choose between Darwinian evolution and creationism I would choose creation. I am a trained scientist (B.Sc. Honours, and M.Sc.) and am convinced Darwinism is mostly nonsense, and in many cases provably so.

FYI, JeffK is going to castrate you for mentioning your degrees.

Oh well. I am a published research scientist with a couple degrees in biology that are better than yours, and I think evolution is fantastic and mostly true, and in many cases provably so.

I wish there was a "faithful" LDS version of Everson on the Blacks and the Priesthood issue. He's put together a lot of good information, with only a bad premis or two, and as well as some of his other nutty views, actions & behavior's, and being in and out of the Church, etc. that's a problem, so everyone throws the baby out with the bath water unfortunately with his work.

I've never heard of Darrick Evanson but his ideas are a mess. Which part is the baby we aren't supposed to throw out with the bathwater?

[Notquitewetyet]

I've never heard of Darrick Evanson but his ideas are a mess. Which part is the baby we aren't supposed to throw out with the bathwater?

The only thing of value in that mess to me is that he points out you don't have to buy into everything BRM preached to be a good Mormon, and that plenty of GAs have taught otherwise. I'd love to hear Obiwan's response.

[lostindc]

FYI, JeffK is going to castrate you for mentioning your degrees.

Oh well. I am a published research scientist with a couple degrees in biology that are better than yours, and I think evolution is fantastic and mostly true, and in many cases provably so.

I've never heard of Darrick Evanson but his ideas are a mess. Which part is the baby we aren't supposed to throw out with the bathwater?

And there are many with better evolutionary biology degrees (meaning better schools) than yours and with many publications that think that evolution is nonsense, especially the whole part of no ID.

[cdowis]

T I hypothesize that evolution brought forth homo sapiens just as science teaches and they've been around for hundreds of thousands of years as per science also. When they first appeared on the scene, their spirits weren't literal children of God, rather more like an animal spirit, so they were not "man" as the scriptures define. When all was ready, God placed a couple of His spirit children in the bodies (possibly newborn) of a pair of homo sapiens and placed them in the garden into a state of no death to await the Fall.

One of the many advantages of this hypothesis imho, is that it explains why big brained homo sapiens have been around for hundreds of thousands of years and yet never developed civilization until very recently. Their spirits were of a lower order, "less intelligent".

The problem with your hypothesis is that you hang your hat on the role of evolution.

I ask a few simple questions to our evolutionist friends, which they find rather difficult to answer. For example, tell us about the first homo sapiens male. How did he find the first woman?

"There was no first man or woman."

Huh?

[HiJolly]

... that think that evolution is nonsense, especially the whole part of no ID.

Huh?

Most scientific evolution evidence that I've seen is pretty reliable. ID is not science, as to whether it's nonsense or not I don't know...

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

For example, tell us about the first homo sapiens male. How did he find the first woman?

We'd need to know the culture of the day. Did he bring her flowers, or just have his way with her? Was he a 'nice guy' or not?

HiJolly

[Joseph Antley]

The problem with your hypothesis is that you hang your hat on the role of evolution.

I ask a few simple questions to our evolutionist friends, which they find rather difficult to answer. For example, tell us about the first homo sapiens male. How did he find the first woman?

"There was no first man or woman."

Huh?

In evolution, there is usually (99.9% of the time) never a clear dividing point between two species. Species A does not have a baby that is Species B. Species A simply has a baby that is a little different. There was never a 'first Homo sapien', or a real first of any species. Looking at ancient species, we're merely picking a point on the continuum of that animal's evolution and giving it a name.

[HiJolly]

In evolution, there is usually (99.9% of the time) never a clear dividing point between two species. Species A does not have a baby that is Species B. Species A simply has a baby that is a little different. There was never a 'first Homo sapien', or a real first of any species. Looking at ancient species, we're merely picking a point on the continuum of that animal's evolution and giving it a name.

That's right. Some creationist have a problem with speciation. Scientists get into arguements about where to draw the line, but they agree (excepting some *very* few holdouts) that it occurs.

Some also think there's some grand difference between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution". The only difference is time.

HiJolly

[katherine the great]

Isn't there some board rule about the number of literary volumes of racist smut one is allowed to cram into one post?

[Notquitewetyet]

Isn't there some board rule about the number of literary volumes of racist smut one is allowed to cram into one post?

Doing a search on his name, other threads with his objectionable content have been closed. I don't see how this one is any different.

[BCSpace]

The problem with your hypothesis is that you hang your hat on the role of evolution.

How is it a problem if my hypothesis is based on the truth of evolution?

I ask a few simple questions to our evolutionist friends, which they find rather difficult to answer. For example, tell us about the first homo sapiens male. How did he find the first woman?

You've made one of the most common mistakes critics make about evolution. Evolution does not have a homo sapiens child being born from a monkey. In evolution, everything is created after it own's kind. You do not see such a distinction in one generation, but rather by looking at one generation hundreds or thousands of times removed from the basis generation.

"There was no first man or woman."

In the gospel sense the first man and woman would be the first male and female homo sapiens whose spirits were literal spirit children of God.

[katherine the great]

And there are many with better evolutionary biology degrees (meaning better schools) than yours and with many publications that think that evolution is nonsense, especially the whole part of no ID.

List them please. Seriously. I'd really like to compare them to the Dude's impressive academic credentials. I don't agree with the Dude on some pretty basic religious points, but his scientific credentials are above reproach.

[The Dude]

And there are many with better evolutionary biology degrees (meaning better schools) than yours and with many publications that think that evolution is nonsense, especially the whole part of no ID.

<sigh>

Who do you have in mind, lost? I really, really, really would like to know who your hero authority is. Is it Boyd K Packer again? Or is it one of the ID experts from the Discovery Institute who (surprise!) accepts common descent and human evolution from pre-human ancestors, but just thinks a designer put together the first bacterial propeller.

[BCSpace]

Isn't it a logical fallacy to say one's opinion is better or more valid than another's because of one's education, status, or position?

Ah yes... argumentum ad verecundiam

Appeal to authority as logical fallacy

An (fallacious) appeal to authority argument has the basic form:

A makes claim B;

there is something positive about A,

therefore claim B is true.

The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process.

[The Dude]

Isn't it a logical fallacy to say one's opinion is better or more valid than another's because of one's education, status, or position?

This is especially futile on an anonymous message board. Of course I only brought it up because Alan did first. If you can find a place where I have ever tried to defeat a good argument by citing my authority (which you cannot verify anyway), please do me the favor of pointing it out.

[katherine the great]

Isn't it a logical fallacy to say one's opinion is better or more valid than another's because of one's education, status, or position?

Ah yes...argumentum ad verecundiam

I don't think it is a fallacy to say that a Biologist who has an advanced degree in Biology and is currently working in the biology field generally knows (a whole lot) more about biology than a person who has not studied biology.