Pre-Adamites?

[Stone holm]

Am opening this thread at the suggestion of Canard in another thread. What is the feeling about non human hominids, given recent assertions that Neanderthal DNA has shown up especially in the European races.

[Kevin Christensen]

There is this by Nibley in 1980, something I found profoundly helpful at the time.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=52&chapid=471

Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God's affection or even a right to exaltation—for our scriptures allow them such. Nor am I overly concerned as to just when they might have lived, for their world is not our world. They have all gone away long before our people ever appeared. God assigned them their proper times and functions, as he has given me mine—a full-time job that admonishes me to remember his words to the overly eager Moses: "For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me." (Moses 1:31.) It is Adam as my own parent who concerns me. When he walks onto the stage, then and only then the play begins. He opens a book and starts calling out names. They are the sons of Adam, who also qualify as sons of God, Adam himself being a son of God. This is the book of remembrance from which many have been blotted out. They have fallen away, refused to choose God as their father, and by so doing were registered in Satan's camp. "Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom." (Moses 7:37.) Can we call them sons of Adam, bene-Adam, human beings proper? The representative Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans, to name only the classic civilizations of old, each fancied themselves to be beings of a higher nature, nearer to gods than others who inhabited the land with them (and before them), or who dwelt in other lands. And yet they did not deny humanity to them.

Later, he treated the Book of Abraham account as a script for a temple drama:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=21&chapid=8

Barker does something similar with the Adam story in Temple Theology: An Introduction, as not a story of the creation of the physical world, but of the erection of the tabernacle, which is nothing less than a "model" of the world. How do you create world in six days? As a ritual drama symbolizing the event.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[SamIam]

Am opening this thread at the suggestion of Canard in another thread. What is the feeling about non human hominids, given recent assertions that Neanderthal DNA has shown up especially in the European races.

And I am sorry to say, the so-called theistic evolution, the theory that God used an evolutionary process to prepare a physical body for the spirit of man, is equally false. I say I am sorry because I know it is a view commonly held by good and thoughtful people who search for an acceptable resolution to an apparent conflict between the theory of evolution and the doctrines of the gospel.

Boyd K. Packer The Law and the Light

I consider the thought as expressed in the OP just one more sophistry and agree with Elder Packer.

[ERayR]

Am opening this thread at the suggestion of Canard in another thread. What is the feeling about non human hominids, given recent assertions that Neanderthal DNA has shown up especially in the European races.

I think that the advent of Adam and Eve were much earlier than six thousand years ago. I also think that Adam and Eve were not primitive beings climbing from the primordial ooze.

[BCSpace]

Am opening this thread at the suggestion of Canard in another thread. What is the feeling about non human hominids, given recent assertions that Neanderthal DNA has shown up especially in the European races.

I don't think they have to be non human at all. We know from science that modern homo sapiens have been around for more than a quarter of a million years. Therefore, any creation account that goes beyond doctrine, hopefully minimizing the denial of or the changing of doctrine, should attempt to account for them. Of course I believe my own hypothesis does not change deny any creation doctrine but admittedly, I reject the global Flood doctrine.

There is also the 1931 Heber J Grant First Presidency statement to the General Authorities in which it was stated that the existence of or non existence of pre Adamite races of people are not doctrines of the Church. I also maintain that there are scriptures and doctrine which imply that the creative state prior to the Garden state does not have to have the property of no death. Hence one can include full and complete evolution as science describes as well as living and dying pre Adamite people.

My own hypothesis has homo sapiens evolving as per science and two placed into the Garden state to await the Fall. This would possibly have involved a changing of the type of spirits placed within homo sapiens (pre Adamites perhaps not being the literal spirit children of God) or an "Uplift" in mental capacity or intelligence. Neither of which are necessarily detectable by modern science except for the change in technology, culture and society itself. Such a change could date the Fall and if, for example, one used the creation of the first civilizations as the marker, then the Fall could be placed around 8000 B.C., only one order of magnitude difference from Christian tradition and well within the range of the mythologies we are used to hearing which of course may have roots in pre and slightly post Deluge societies and God's dealings with them.

I like it this way as neither science or LDS doctrine are disturbed or disturbed significantly enough to introduce much in the way of fudge factors or denial. Science does what it does and the LDS God is not called on to do anything which He hasn't done already. In this case, you can mix in all the Neanderthal or "Hobbit" DNA you want.

Edited June 8, 2013 by BCSpace

[thesometimesaint]

I have no problem with the idea that God used Evolution in the Creation of everything.

[SamIam]

I don't think they have to be non human at all. We know from science that modern homo sapiens have been around for more than a quarter of a million years. Therefore, any creation account that goes beyond doctrine, hopefully minimizing the denial of or the changing of doctrine, should attempt to account for them. Of course I believe my own hypothesis does not change deny any creation doctrine but admittedly, I reject the global Flood doctrine.

Well, since my first quote failed to make much of a dent in false notions - I might as well toss another one into the mix...

...This same knowledge is contained in the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. For aught we know the two sealed books are one and the same. Of this much we are quite certain: When, during the Millennium, the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon is translated, it will give an account of life in the premortal existence; of the creation of all things; of the Fall and the Atonement and the Second Coming; of temple ordinances, in their fullness; of the ministry and mission of translated beings; of life in the spirit world, in both paradise and hell; of the kingdoms of glory to be inhabited by resurrected beings; and many such like things. As of now, the world is not ready to receive these truths. For one thing, these added doctrines will completely destroy the whole theory of organic evolution as it is now almost universally taught in the halls of academia. For another, they will set forth an entirely different concept and time frame of the creation, both of this earth and all forms of life and of the sidereal heavens themselves, than is postulated in all the theories of men. And sadly, there are those who, if forced to make a choice at this time, would select Darwin over Deity. Bruce R. McConkie - The Bible a Sealed Book.

[mfbukowski]

There is this by Nibley in 1980, something I found profoundly helpful at the time.

http://maxwellinstit...d=52&chapid=471

Later, he treated the Book of Abraham account as a script for a temple drama:

http://maxwellinstit...kid=21&chapid=8

Barker does something similar with the Adam story in Temple Theology: An Introduction, as not a story of the creation of the physical world, but of the erection of the tabernacle, which is nothing less than a "model" of the world. How do you create world in six days? As a ritual drama symbolizing the event.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

That's a definite 9 in the Perry Scheme

[Garden Girl]

I have no problem with the idea that God used Evolution in the Creation of everything.

I don't hold to Darwinism per se, but I agree that there was probably a form of "evolution" or natural selection at work as part of the process. As I've said previously, in my own opinion, I think the book of Abraham (chap 4) addresses this when it talks about how the Gods organized the earth to bring forth grass... and the earth to bring forth the tree... and how the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they were obeyed.

I find this terminology to be quite interesting... i.e., the Gods would order something then they would sit back and watch the process until they could see that they were obeyed and their plan was good. How long did it take the heavens and the earth to "obey" and "bring forth" what was ordered. IMO the time involved could have been numerous time periods of many years to millions of years. In this sense, I can see a type of evolution taking place as part of the process..

GG

[ERayR]

I don't hold to Darwinism per se, but I agree that there was probably a form of "evolution" or natural selection at work as part of the process. As I've said previously, in my own opinion, I think the book of Abraham (chap 4) addresses this when it talks about how the Gods organized the earth to bring forth grass... and the earth to bring forth the tree... and how the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they were obeyed.

I find this terminology to be quite interesting... i.e., the Gods would order something then they would sit back and watch the process until they could see that they were obeyed and their plan was good. How long did it take the heavens and the earth to "obey" and "bring forth" what was ordered. IMO the time involved could have been numerous time periods of many years to millions of years. In this sense, I can see a type of evolution taking place as part of the process..

GG

From my calculus classes (too many years ago) I remember there are process that are valid only within certain parameters but do not extrapolate beyond those parameters. IMNSHO evolution is one of them. There is empirical evidence that evolution is valid within species but beyond that it is only inferred.

[mfbukowski]

Since we are all putting out our own two cents, far be it from me to ignore an opportunity to do likewise.

People make it complicated, but I suppose but I see rather simply. There were no "sons of God" until culturally we could define ourselves that way and understood the concept. Before that, "we" were essentially like unaccountable children. As a parent you don't give children more information than they need- information brings with it responsibility, especially in the gospel.

It reminds me of the old joke about the kid who asks his dad, "Daddy, where did I come from?"

Dad takes a gulp and does the birds and bees discussion- a half hour of explanation about Mommy and Daddy loving each other and the whole nine yards.

Kid replies "Oh- ok, because Tommy says he came from Texas!"

You don't give children more than they need tro know for their level of responsibility.

There were no sins until we were capable of understanding that there is a God who loves us, and what a sin is.

We could not be "naked" until someone told us that we were "naked" and that was something to be ashamed of.

There was nothing called a "sin" until we understood that- and that is the "fall from innocence"

Children do not understand death either- they understand that Daddy has gone away, maybe, but have no idea of what "death" is- what it is in an adult human context.

There was no concept of "death" in that sense until the "fall from innocence" and until we understood, for example that we were "naked" before the greatness of God.

So death and sin go together, as part of the fall from innocence- you cannot have one without the other. Understanding the principle of the atonement- that we can be healed and return to innocence by repentance- that Christ taught us- removes the sting of death and sin.

At least that's the way I see it.

[SamIam]

Since we are all putting out our own two cents, far be it from me to ignore an opportunity to do likewise.

So death and sin go together, as part of the fall from innocence- you cannot have one without the other. Understanding the principle of the atonement- that we can be healed and return to innocence by repentance- that Christ taught us- removes the sting of death and sin.

At least that's the way I see it.

I'm not going to imply that I really caught what you are trying to say. it sounds like the essence of what Elder Packer is trying to defend against in the first quote I provided above but I can easily see that that may not be the case. Still, as I see it there is a degree of latitude we can take with the creation model as recorded in scripture. We know enough to not conflate 24 hour day in to 7 actual 24 hour periods of creation. We can safely go with 7 creative periods as we have sufficient material from prophets and scriptural resources to make those adjustments etc. There are other ways to make some adjustments that do not conflict with the theological possibilities. I'm okay with all of that.

However, this issue is no different to me than any other that appears to conflict with the philosophies of men in the form of scientific explanation versus faith in God via the theological explanation. Neither the scientific explanation or the theological explanation really has a final clue as to what actually occurred. So we debate and we sift through the various details that have been espoused and we are swayed to one side of the discussion over the other.

There in is the same pattern that I believe is the type for all ideological subjects that tend to divide individuals into one group or another. The groups IMO always seem to come under varying degrees of subtly of those who sustain the prophets and stay within the boundaries that that conversation permits and those that tend to step over the council of scripture and prophets and side with the conclusions of men of science. It is not even that the answer to the question is really all that important. what is important is that when we do not have an answer we tend to side with the side of the debate that gives us the most comfort.

Will it be the "proofs" that men put forth as evidence for their claims or will it be faith in God and his leaders that defines where we find the greatest peace. Since it is faith that is one of God's key factors to have men develop it only appears a better choice to seek such that sustains a faith based paradigm. In a scenario that really has no clear cut answers, the side we choose to defend may be answer enough.

Edited June 8, 2013 by SamIam

[Jude2]

I once heard Walter Martin say God let Satan create first and that’s where cavemen came from.

[Stone holm]

Interesting comments one and all. I for one do not ascribe to the young Earth theory, nor think it is compelled by the Scriptures. My personal opinion is that there were things going on outside the Garden of Eden while Adam and Eve were doing their nudist thing in the garden. In addition, I doubt that when they were told not to eat of the tree of knowledge that it is unlikely that as soon as God was elsewhere they ran over and ate of it. We have no idea how many years, decades, centuries, millennia went by before Satan was able to persuade Eve. I tend to think that two possible things differentiate Adam and Eve from whatever hominids may have evolved outside the garden. One was that they had Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother as some kind of physical parents and/or their was something in the fruit which caused a permanent and transferable change in them. I discount what anyone says who claims to know what the sealed plates say.

[Stone holm]

I once heard Walter Martin say God let Satan create first and that’s where cavemen came from.

Haven't heard that one, but have heard that cavemen were actually humans who had degenerated or devolved.

[SamIam]

Interesting comments one and all. I for one do not ascribe to the young Earth theory, nor think it is compelled by the Scriptures. My personal opinion is that there were things going on outside the Garden of Eden while Adam and Eve were doing their nudist thing in the garden. In addition, I doubt that when they were told not to eat of the tree of knowledge that it is unlikely that as soon as God was elsewhere they ran over and ate of it. We have no idea how many years, decades, centuries, millennia went by before Satan was able to persuade Eve. I tend to think that two possible things differentiate Adam and Eve from whatever hominids may have evolved outside the garden. One was that they had Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother as some kind of physical parents and/or their was something in the fruit which caused a permanent and transferable change in them. I discount what anyone says who claims to know what the sealed plates say.

You discount Bruce R. McConkie? Surely you don't mean to sound so cavalier.

[ERayR]

You discount Bruce R. McConkie? Surely you don't mean to sound so cavalier.

Did you not realize that to some BRM is anathema.

[BCSpace]

Well, since my first quote failed to make much of a dent in false notions - I might as well toss another one into the mix...

...Bruce R. McConkie - The Bible a Sealed Book.

A daring prophecy which I predict will turn out to be false. For several reasons:

1) I've never heard an apostle or prophet who was specifically opposed to evolution accurately describe evolution. What they are in opposition to are some atheist conclusions about evolution which are also false. A modern example would be Russel M Nelson having to be corrected by his junior companion during the Pew interview. This is also to imply there are or were those who didn't oppose it and even defended it (some were neutral). James E Talmadge, David O. McKay, SWK, GBH, etc.

2) BRM himself essentially, though non doctrinally, admitted that perhaps it was possible to reconcile doctrine with evolution though he himself couldn't see how. That is in his Seven Deadly Heresies Speech.

3) Apostle Ezra Taft Benson gave a stirring Conference talk about the BoM (not mentioning the sealed portion though) in the 1970's; that it was good for combating all sorts of false notions including evolution. However, he repeated this same talk in Conference in the 80's but left evolution off the list.

4) In this very reference you give, BRM also mentions D&C 77:6, the published doctrine on which is a prime indicator that evolution might indeed be possible within the LDS context.

It is disappointing to see something like this published for Seminary teachers and it shows that the conflict within the Church hierarchy about evolution is alive and well even after the HJG first presidency statement. The debate cooled down for awhile especially under David O McKay when he had to clean up after BRM's outspoken views. There are a few who try to resurrect it from time to time. BRM of course continued to be outspoken about it when he could after DoM's death and we see some ripples from that. There was a GA, a Geology professor iirc, who in an Ensign article in the 1990's stated that evolution conflicted with the laws of thermodynamics. This of course has been proven false. Etc.

I've taught my children my views on this and they seem to believe them. We've had several good conversations in Seminary when they've brought it up and the teacher was opposed to evolution and we always ultimately came to the conclusion, at least on the surface, that accepting evolution and LDS doctrine at the same time presented no conflict. In my own case when I was a youth, I spoke up for evolution in the Teacher's quorum and was hauled before the Bishop (who I think merely wanted to convince me of the error of my ways) who then received a call from the Stake President (because of my Dad) who told him to stand down because evolution was not in conflict with the doctrines of the Church. That was more than 30 years ago.

It's been an interesting subject. Hopefully not too much of a Gospel Hobby, but one I enjoy discussing and debating very much. I speak up on it in Church from time to time, usually in answer to someone else who voices their opposition to it.

Edited June 8, 2013 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

Did you not realize that to some BRM is anathema.

I know you weren't addressing me at the time but just to be clear, I consider BRM to be one of the greatest apostles of all time even though I disagree with him on this issue. I would have loved to have debated him on the issue in life just as James E Talmadge and B.H. Roberts debated Joseph Fielding Smith on essentially the same issue which ultimately brought about the first presidency statement on pre Adamite races. I'd be willing to bet that if the issue became so controversial again that the FP would issue a similar statement today, likely even referring to the original.

Edited June 8, 2013 by BCSpace

[canard78]

There is this by Nibley in 1980, something I found profoundly helpful at the time.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=52&chapid=471

Later, he treated the Book of Abraham account as a script for a temple drama:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=21&chapid=8

Barker does something similar with the Adam story in Temple Theology: An Introduction, as not a story of the creation of the physical world, but of the erection of the tabernacle, which is nothing less than a "model" of the world. How do you create world in six days? As a ritual drama symbolizing the event.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I love and respect Nibley for his work on temple origins and Lehi in the desert. But I wouldn't consider citing him on human origins questions.

This: "They have all gone away long before our people ever appeared" has little basis in fact.

[ERayR]

A daring prophecy which I predict will turn out to be false. For several reasons:

1) I've never heard an apostle or prophet who was specifically opposed to evolution accurately describe evolution. What they are in opposition to are some atheist conclusions about evolution which are also false. A modern example would be Russel M Nelson having to be corrected by his junior companion during the Pew interview. This is also to imply there are or were those who didn't oppose it (some were neutral). James E Talmadge, David O. McKay, SWK, GBH, etc.

2) BRM himself essentially, though non doctrinally, admitted that perhaps it was possible to reconcile doctrine with evolution though he himself couldn't see how. That is in his Seven Deadly Heresies Speech.

3) Apostle Ezra Taft Benson gave a stirring Conference talk about the BoM (not mentioning the sealed portion though) in the 1970's; that it was good for combating all sorts of false notions including evolution. However, he repeated this same talk in Conference in the 80's but left evolution off the list.

4) In this very reference you give, BRM also mentions D&C 77:6, the published doctrine on which is a prime indicator that evolution might indeed be possible within the LDS context.

It is disappointing to see something like this published for Seminary teachers and it shows that the conflict within the Church hierarchy about evolution is alive and well even after the HJG first presidency statement. The debate cooled down for awhile especially under David O McKay when he had to clean up after BRM's outspoken views. There are a few who try to resurrect it from time to time. BRM of course continued to be outspoken about it when he could after DoM's death and we see some ripples from that. There was a GA, a Geology professor iirc, who in an Ensign article in the 1990's stated that evolution conflicted with the laws of thermodynamics. This of course has been proven false. Etc.

I've taught my children my views on this and they seem to believe them. We've had several good conversations in Seminary when they've brought it up and the teacher was opposed to evolution and we always ultimately came to the conclusion, at least on the surface, that accepting evolution and LDS doctrine at the same time presented no conflict. In my own case when I was a youth, I spoke up for evolution in the Teacher's quorum and was hauled before the Bishop (who I think merely wanted to convince me of the error of my ways) who then received a call from the Stake President (because of my Dad) who told him to stand down because evolution was not in conflict with the doctrines of the Church. That was more than 30 years ago.

It's been an interesting subject. Hopefully not too much of a Gospel Hobby, but one I enjoy discussing and debating very much. I speak up on it in Church from time to time, usually in answer to someone else who voices their opposition to it.

Not to argue either side of the issue but just make an observation equally applicable to both sides. A multitude that is in error is just as much in error as one who is alone in his error.

[canard78]

Well, since my first quote failed to make much of a dent in false notions - I might as well toss another one into the mix...

This same knowledge is contained in the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. For aught we know the two sealed books are one and the same. Of this much we are quite certain: When, during the Millennium, the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon is translated, it will give an account of life in the premortal existence; of the creation of all things; of the Fall and the Atonement and the Second Coming; of temple ordinances, in their fullness; of the ministry and mission of translated beings; of life in the spirit world, in both paradise and hell; of the kingdoms of glory to be inhabited by resurrected beings; and many such like things. As of now, the world is not ready to receive these truths. For one thing, these added doctrines will completely destroy the whole theory of organic evolution as it is now almost universally taught in the halls of academia. For another, they will set forth an entirely different concept and time frame of the creation, both of this earth and all forms of life and of the sidereal heavens themselves, than is postulated in all the theories of men. And sadly, there are those who, if forced to make a choice at this time, would select Darwin over Deity. Bruce R. McConkie - The Bible a Sealed Book.

That BRM quote has so many holes in it they could use it to sieve pasta.

[canard78]

I consider the thought as expressed in the OP just one more sophistry and agree with Elder Packer.

Just as we don't hold it against Brigham Young for speaking of moon men or Adam-God we can also give a little slack to the statements of leaders who say things that will later be squirrelled away as the non-doctrinal, personal opinion of their era.

[Stone holm]

You discount Bruce R. McConkie? Surely you don't mean to sound so cavalier.

Absolutely. He was an inspiring and beloved Apostle, who unfortunately published a lot of his own opinions which have caused issues. Or was that remark meant as sarcasm?

[Stone holm]

As I recall, and its been about a decade and a half since I had access to the General Handbook of instructions, the Church has taken no official stance on organic evolution except as to Adam and Eve. If that still is the case, which it may or may not be, then there would be no doctrine as to the non human hominids. So there would be no real reason to vehemently deny the possibility that they evolved. As to the story in Genesis, it does not appear to me that Brigham Young thought very highly of it, and that he considered the whole affair to be more like terraforming as it is described in more recent sci fi novels. It is fairly clear that there has been some lack of consensus amongst GAs on the subject depending on their fundamentalist leanings and their tendency towards scriptural literalism. I don't think that we should be too upset about that, but it is, I believe important to be open minded on the subject as some investigators who have some science back grounding are likely to withdraw in revulsion if we are too dogmatic on the issue.