Preadamites LDS Website (Long)

[BCSpace]

It is my understanding that all things were created in an immortal state

A key thought. 2 Nephi 2:22 (same state in which they were after they were created) seems to say that all things were created and then placed into the state of no death.

[Scott Gordon]

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.

Check out www.blacklds.org

[gitxsanartist]

Its funny how the church does not come down firmly on some of these issues. Issues by the way that have serious doctrinal implications. My feeling is that the church leadership does not have a answers because they really don't know, they don't know any more than you or I what the real answers are to the origins of man. What I would give for a little time machine, that would surely clear things up.

Physical evidence suggest that our species has been around for much longer than a few thousand years. The problem is that Adam and Eve play a large part in the temple ceremony, so to turn them into a myth really rocks our boat. I also don't know if evolution is the full answer, can anyone say panspermia?

I thought the original post, even though a tad bit long, was quite well written and did bring up some interesting points worth considering.

[annewandering]

When are we going to get over the idea there is more than one race of man? Scientists can't prove there are with good reason. There aren't more than one.

[Tsuzuki]

It is my understanding that all things were created in an immortal state when the earth and all its creations were still in the presence of God. It was not until after the fall that corruption entered in.

What about programmed cell death, without which complex multi-cellular organisms can't exist? If there was literally no death at all, does that mean that everything was in a state of cancer?

[kamenraider]

I disagreed with Evenson about a number of things in the article. Here are a few.

He mentions pre-Adamites as being Sons of God. I think that Gen. 6 is talking about fallen resurrected beings, and so I reject the Adamite/pre-Adamite interpretation of the story. How would that produce giants, anyway?

I do agree with his idea that the children of Cain married pre-Adamite African negroes.

The hebrew word translated as "rib" doesn't just mean "side", so he doesn't know what he's talking about as far as that goes.

Bruce R. McConkie is represented as believing that Adam was literally sculpted from clay, which he did not believe.

I don't believe in a universal flood. I don't see how anyone can.

Evenson tries to describe two sets of belief as far as the origins of life on earth: the literalists and the metaphoricalists. He comes up with some odd ideas to describe what he imagines that each group believes such as that the metaphoricalists believe that Eden still exists as some spirit world location, or that they believe that the "fruit" meant sex organs. His characterizations of these two groups, as well as the two additional groups are too flawed and simplistic.

He mentions the idea of two separate creation accounts (spiritual and physical) being described in Genesis, which I regard as absolutely false.

I do believe that Cain was marked at the time he was cursed. I believe the mark was black skin and was a token of the curse. I don't necessarily believe that included negroid features or that Cain's wife or children were marked. I do believe that they found their way to Africa and intermarried there though.

Since humans originated in Africa, I think that everyone could theoretically trace some of their ancestral lines back there. The problem there as far as the priesthood ban was concerned was with having ancestors from the cursed lines of Ham and Cain. I think that some Africans probably escaped being tainted by Cainite blood, but that for convenience and maybe because of racist ideas the Church lumped all Africans together and regarded them all as cursed as far as the priesthood ban was concerned. I think a better way for it to have been enforced would have been through individual revelation regarding each candidate for priesthood office.

I think that the comment that there is only one race still doesn't explain variations in physical appearance between groups of people from different geographic regions, so it is of little value in a discussion like this.

I believe that Canaan was Ham's real name, and that he was the one Noah cursed rather than his son of the same name.

I believe that there was death during the six "days" or stages of the earth's creation, and that after Adam and Eve were created, the earth was sanctified and made paradisiacal and relatively death-free (I don't get too nit picky about how death-free it was, such as the fruit from trees "dying" from being eaten or skin cells of animals or Adam or Eve "dying" from being scraped or bruised or things like fruit flies multiplying until they literally filled the earth or whatever). I believe that 70 years or so later the Fall occured and death came back.

I used to believe in the types of ideas about creation found in Joseph Fielding Smith's writings until I had a long talk with a guy who had a Phd in Botany while I was on my mission. I immediately understood that evolution was a correct principle that explains the diversity of life on earth. I didn't assume because of this that God had no hand in the way things turned out though. That being said, I still cringe when I hear some of the ridiculous things that creationists and proponents of intelligent design sometimes say.

I believe that Adam and Eve were sexually procreated by someone from another earth and that God is the great procreative head of the human family on earth.

[Alan]

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.

Yes, but your degrees are from an American university so they don't carry a lot of weight If you think evolution is fantastic then you have been taken in my friend. It is impossible and an increasing number of scientists are now acknowledging that it has very serious problems. This is why Intelligent Design theory has undergone such a blossoming in recent years.

When I was studying at University I had a number of respectful confrontations with professors and other students over evolution. I was even invited to present my concerns to the students and faculty. I didn't use the time to preach creation, I just pointed out the absurdity of the Darwinian evolutionary theory. Although I didn't have it all my way I was successful inasmuch as I was able to demonstrate that belief in evolution was a matter of faith not fact, because reliance on the evidence alone is unconvincing. Some were honest enough to concede that point.

Alan

[thesometimesaint]

There is only one race. We're the race of Gods, and we're all flesh colored.

[John Larsen]

The wide and disparate views expressed by faithful members on this and other threads shows that the LDS Church has lost its way regarding science. If only they had some kind of dynamic leader, who could find God's will on such things. Oh well, that is probably too much to ask. But we do know that Enish-go-on-dosh governs the fifteen fixed planets & Floeese through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, all of which receives light from the revolutions of Kolob. So that's something.

[The Dude]

Let us start with Darwin himself. Charles Darwin himself made this statement in â??the origin of speciesâ??: "Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day, I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggeredâ?¦" Towards the end of his life, Darwin confessed: "Not one change of species into another is on recordâ?¦we cannot prove that a single species has changed (into another )".

You have got to be putting us on! LOL Are you saying Darwin recanted his theory? Please give me a break, I am not an expert about Darwin but I have more than one thick book about him and his life and I never, ever heard him recant the Theory of Evolution. So seriously, what is the context of this earth-shattering confession later in life?

All in all, your quote list will not be very interesting or convincing to people here. I think everybody has seen this common tactic on anti-mormon websites, which is browsing the Bible or the writings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and cherry picking quotes that are supposed to make Mormons look bad. You and the antimormons take them completely out of historical and textual context and throw them out like a shotgun blast. There are dozens of creationist websites doing this and obviously you cherry picked from their earlier harvest and dumped it here without much of a clue about who the people were and what else they said on the matter.

For example:

Nicholas Berdyaev, one of our great modern thinkers, wrote, "The naturalistic view of man as a product of evolution in the animal world is the feeblest of all anthropological theoriesâ?¦"

So, I want to know, from YOU, without plagarizing another website: who was Nicholas Berdayev and why are we to take his opinion as scientifically authoritative?

That is just one. You really ought to look up all of them and justify their credentials before you try and make this ridiculous, and thin, argument from authority.

Here are a list of a bunch

A bunch of what?

Look, a bunch of people with advanced science degrees who have signed a petition agreeing that evolution is, as you like to say, "bunk," is a pretty silly thing to trot out after BCSpace has linked your thread to the Wikipedia entry for "Argument from Authority." Here it is again:

Argument from Authority

On top of that, the list is useless because scientists have organized themselves with a few competing petitions like one that raised 50,000+ names of scientists in four days, or another that collected thousands of real scientists named Steve who agree with evolution. This is a serious attempt by scientists to make the Dissent from Darwin poll look pitiful and silly, because the DofD poll has been collecting signatures for eight years and only collected these few names, most of whom are evangelical christians and not practicing scientists anyway. The pro-evolution polls have totally demolished Dissent from Darwin.

And look at some of the statistics and references from this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

As anyone can see, the scientific community overwhelmingly supports evolution. Even if an Argument from Authority were a good kind of argument to make, your cause would be lost.

Evolution is a religion and many scientist think it is the closest way to explaining life, but I will continue to follow prophets who have seen visions, had the veil parted, and actually know what it is all about...

Accepting for a minute your illogical pejorative assertion that evolution is a religion (illogical coming from you, a proud religionist), I would remind you that the scientific community overwhelmingly endorses evolution and views creationism as pseudoscience. There is nearly 100% consensus among scientists (probably 99.9% according to one of the references on the "Level of support for evolution" link).

Now, on the other hand, we see the true basis for your belief in creation, which comes down to: "prophets who have seen visions... and actually know what it is all about..." So what about the official LDS word on evolution/creation which is no official position? The prophets "who have seen visions" don't even support you.

You might want to think long and hard about this.

[Jason]

The wide and dispearte views of Church members on this issue, and God's refusal to provide more revelation on the subject, show that it's not important at all.

How much, really would knowing whether or not evolution was used in the creation of life on the planet help you be a more loving, Christlike person?

[Tchild2]

This is why Intelligent Design theory has undergone such a blossoming in recent years.

Alan

What was that theory again, how is it tested and how does it explain the myriad of life and why species go extinct? According to ID, why does a species become exinct?

[thesometimesaint]

Tchild2:

The design isn't all that intellect.

[lostindc]

You have got to be putting us on! LOL Are you saying Darwin recanted his theory? Please give me a break, I am not an expert about Darwin but I have more than one thick book about him and his life and I never, ever heard him recant the Theory of Evolution. So seriously, what is the context of this earth-shattering confession later in life?

All in all, your quote list will not be very interesting or convincing to people here. I think everybody has seen this common tactic on anti-mormon websites, which is browsing the Bible or the writings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and cherry picking quotes that are supposed to make Mormons look bad. You and the antimormons take them completely out of historical and textual context and throw them out like a shotgun blast. There are dozens of creationist websites doing this and obviously you cherry picked from their earlier harvest and dumped it here without much of a clue about who the people were and what else they said on the matter.

For example:

So, I want to know, from YOU, without plagarizing another website: who was Nicholas Berdayev and why are we to take his opinion as scientifically authoritative?

That is just one. You really ought to look up all of them and justify their credentials before you try and make this ridiculous, and thin, argument from authority.

A bunch of what?

Look, a bunch of people with advanced science degrees who have signed a petition agreeing that evolution is, as you like to say, "bunk," is a pretty silly thing to trot out after BCSpace has linked your thread to the Wikipedia entry for "Argument from Authority." Here it is again:

Argument from Authority

On top of that, the list is useless because scientists have organized themselves with a few competing petitions like one that raised 50,000+ names of scientists in four days, or another that collected thousands of real scientists named Steve who agree with evolution. This is a serious attempt by scientists to make the Dissent from Darwin poll look pitiful and silly, because the DofD poll has been collecting signatures for eight years and only collected these few names, most of whom are evangelical christians and not practicing scientists anyway. The pro-evolution polls have totally demolished Dissent from Darwin.

And look at some of the statistics and references from this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

As anyone can see, the scientific community overwhelmingly supports evolution. Even if an Argument from Authority were a good kind of argument to make, your cause would be lost.

Accepting for a minute your illogical pejorative assertion that evolution is a religion (illogical coming from you, a proud religionist), I would remind you that the scientific community overwhelmingly endorses evolution and views creationism as pseudoscience. There is nearly 100% consensus among scientists (probably 99.9% according to one of the references on the "Level of support for evolution" link).

Now, on the other hand, we see the true basis for your belief in creation, which comes down to: "prophets who have seen visions... and actually know what it is all about..." So what about the official LDS word on evolution/creation which is no official position? The prophets "who have seen visions" don't even support you.

You might want to think long and hard about this.

^^^^Still hanging out on a Mormon message board even though he does not believe in God yet alone Mormonism.

Misery needs company and you are looking to bring everyone down with your weird ideas of how man came from Chimp.

You have yet to put anything substantial on the board to prove to us "creationists" why the theory of evolution is correct. Please show me...

[lostindc]

What was that theory again, how is it tested and how does it explain the myriad of life and why species go extinct? According to ID, why does a species become exinct?

Please tell us how you came to existence again, was it the primordial stew where something comes from nothing?

Please tell us how the primordial stew developed into chimp which later developed into man, it is as stupid as it sounds.

[The Dude]

^^^^Still hanging out on a Mormon message board even though he does not believe in God yet alone Mormonism.

Maybe you're right, Dr lost. Maybe I should just take off again and see what kind of creationist troglodytes have infected the board 9 months from now. Maybe there's a kind of evolution going on here that needs to run its course.

Misery needs company and you are looking to bring everyone down with your weird ideas of how man came from Chimp.

You have yet to put anything substantial on the board to prove to us "creationists" why the theory of evolution is correct. Please show me...

So I take it you aren't going to respond to anything else I said? Just this?

[lostindc]

Maybe you're right, Dr lost. Maybe I should just take off again and see what kind of creationist troglodytes have infected the board 9 months from now. Maybe there's a kind of evolution going on here that needs to run its course.

Thanks for the biology lesson Dr. Dude. The first thing I have read that is correct and in good spirit, that has come from you, is that maybe you should take off again....run along

[Tsuzuki]

Maybe you're right, Dr lost. Maybe I should just take off again and see what kind of creationist troglodytes have infected the board 9 months from now. Maybe there's a kind of evolution going on here that needs to run its course.

Actually, I have my doubts about lostindc being a Mormon. He/she just seems so over the top.

[lostindc]

Actually, I have my doubts about lostindc being a Mormon. He/she just seems so over the top.

Sweet cartoon character for your moniker

[Tchild2]

Please tell us how you came to existence again, was it the primordial stew where something comes from nothing?

Evolutionary theory explains it quite nicely. BTW, evolution and biogenesis (life arising from the "primordial stew") are two separate issues. Even LDS grant God the initial creation of life, while ceding that God used natural laws (evolution) thereafter, with no religious conflict.

Please tell us how the primordial stew developed into chimp which later developed into man, it is as stupid as it sounds.

the earth has three billion years + of the history of life, while religion has about 4,000 years and Lostindc some two score. The fact that you live a life in geological terms so infinitesimaly short, shouldn't be held against you in your inability to comprehend the vastness of time and what is and has been possible for life to develop, adapt and speciate.

The question should be; why are you so vested in creationism, when Mormonism and its leaders are not?

[Tsuzuki]

Sweet cartoon character for your moniker

fnord

[Ahman]

What about programmed cell death, without which complex multi-cellular organisms can't exist? If there was literally no death at all, does that mean that everything was in a state of cancer?

Your presupposing an understanding of how a premortal spiritual body operates. I would suppose it is similar to a resurrected body. While these are similar in features, do they operate in the same manner? Is spiritual food eaten and broken down the same way a mortal body performs these actions? Do these bodies need to blink? Do these bodies need air to breathe? Do these bodies have microorganisms that dwell on them in a parasitic relationship as mortal bodies do? Is that even possible when some of these bodies operate inside of a sun the way Abraham viewed them?

We dont know. But we do know that they were immortal prior to the Fall.

[Droopy]

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

I just don't think this is tenable. Macroevolution is still, and is likey to remain for quite sometime, an inferential extrapolation from microevolution, grounded as much in guesswork and assumption as in empirical evidence.

While I pretty much accept evolution as an explanation for the development of life on earth at this point, serious questions remain as to exactly how that occurred. The extreme changes proposed by Macroevolution through tiny, micromutational events over vast reaches of time pose some very drastic empirical, mathematical, and engineering problems that evolutionary biology has yet to convincingly negotiate. There's a great deal of post hoc reasoning, circular argumentation, and claims that somehow, those vast reaches of time can overcome the inconceivable mathematical improbabilities involved, but little direct empirical data.

Reasonable scientists will admit to the uncertainties and lacuna in knowledge involved, while Darwinists will pretend that the entire edifice had been demonstrated as fact. Those people also usually have ulterior philosophical or personal agendas under consideration, that may or may not be made explicit.

[Anijen]

I just put those images up because I thought they would break some of the ice, the tension was getting thick. I do not have a stand on evolution either way, I am a math guy (chess player) not a biology guy. I would usually lean toward the scholars on this matter. I feel the Dude has been a little more articulate with his arguments so far ergo I side with him as of right now.

I can not explain the process but point of fact it doesn't bother me either way. I believe in God and I believe he loves and cares for me, and Id like to return to him. How he made us or the world is curious to me but not so much as I care too much about it.

You guys have a great day. BTW I'm working on my PhD + Infinity, neener neener JK

Anijen

[Alan]

I am personally satisfied that Darwinian evolutionary theory is, for the most part, complete and absolute nonsense. It is a fairy tale for grown-ups. In the fairy tale a frog turns into a prince, in evolutionary theory the same thing happens, the only difference is the timescale. It's laughable.

Alan