Pre-Adamites?

[tagriffy]

Here we go. This is taken from a comment on a blog post:

In Sterling Talmage's book "Can Science Be Faith Promoting?" published in the early 1990's, he quotes from a letter his father James E. Talmage wrote regarding "Physical Death before the Fall:" Simply, Talmage Sr., a PhD Geologist, went to Adam Ondi-Ahman and observed the following evidences: He noted that in the stones Adam piled for the Altar, identified by Joseph Smith, there are "fossil corpses" of pre-Adamic sea animals. He also noted that in the hill under the Altar there is a coal seam. He concludes that, by these evidences, Life with ordained Physical Death existed on this earth for ages upon ages before the Earth was fit for human habitation, prior to Adam, before the Fall.

ETA: Unless Sterling's Book was reprinted lately, I don't remember it being published in the 1990s. I think it is actually older.

Edited June 15, 2013 by tagriffy

[Calm]

ETA: Unless Sterling's Book was reprinted lately, I don't remember it being published in the 1990s. I think it is actually older.

I found it being cited as published in 2001, editor Stan Larson.

[mfbukowski]

Yes. Someone should introduce what the "Church" as a whole, and not just in part, actually teaches on these subjects, with all the variety, trends and schools of thought that actually exist in the past and present, as a realistic guide as to what exists to guide us towards the future.

http://www.dhbailey....ence-quotes.pdf

http://www.dhbailey....dhb-talmage.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Wow!

VERY cool! Thanks!

[Stone holm]

Yes. Someone should introduce what the "Church" as a whole, and not just in part, actually teaches on these subjects, with all the variety, trends and schools of thought that actually exist in the past and present, as a realistic guide as to what exists to guide us towards the future.

http://www.dhbailey.com/papers/lds-science-quotes.pdf

http://www.dhbailey.com/papers/dhb-talmage.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Very interesting articles, very worthwhile reading.

[canard78]

Even if you could visit the house that Adam and Eve lived in while in the garden how would that make the principles and ordinance of the gospel any more valid? How would it improve the atonement of Jesus Christ?

It wouldn't. Not in the slightest. Like Arthur's round table, many locations lay claim to it. But in the end, if it (and the Garden of Eden) exist only as features of myth and legend it does nothing to undermine the principles and legends the Garden and its occupants teach. Nor does it make a difference to their ability to teach a principle that sets up the need for the gospel and atonement.

[cdowis]

There is a story that Elder James E. Talmage tested the rocks of Adam's altar and concluded they were made of fossiliferous material.

I understand that tourists visiting this area would take rocks from the alter as a souvenir, and the locals would replace them.

[Alan]

ETA: Unless Sterling's Book was reprinted lately, I don't remember it being published in the 1990s. I think it is actually older.

I find it difficult to believe that a pile of stones placed by Adam would have survived the flood intact.

In my view, there was no death before the fall.

[Stone holm]

It wouldn't. Not in the slightest. Like Arthur's round table, many locations lay claim to it. But in the end, if it (and the Garden of Eden) exist only as features of myth and legend it does nothing to undermine the principles and legends the Garden and its occupants teach. Nor does it make a difference to their ability to teach a principle that sets up the need for the gospel and atonement.

Did they live in a house? Oh cool...oh wait that wasn't the point, oh shucks. But, the Church or Organizations working closely with it have worked hard at acquiring and restoring historical sites. Given that, there seems to be educational and spiritual value to trying to pierce the veil of history rather than writing everything off to myth and legend. There is something about seeing the bloodstain on the floor of the Carthage Jail that has an impact that changes a person. I have heard this rebuke in the quote from my wife countless times, but material culture does in fact teach and make a difference.

[cinepro]

Yes. Someone should introduce what the "Church" as a whole, and not just in part, actually teaches on these subjects, with all the variety, trends and schools of thought that actually exist in the past and present, as a realistic guide as to what exists to guide us towards the future.

http://www.dhbailey....ence-quotes.pdf

http://www.dhbailey....dhb-talmage.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

It would be interesting to see how many of those quotes are available on the Church website or in any current Church publication. Because, as we all know, not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.

We need to look at what is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

This is one of the weirdest stories about dealing with "evolution" I've seen the Church publish. If the theories in this thread are correct, then this student should have explained that evolution is compatible with our doctrine and no problem. I wonder why they didn't, and the New Era felt the need to make all LDS teenagers feel like it wasn't?

“But what about evolution?” my friends asked.

My biology teacher, who had a reputation for being stubborn and persistent, turned his head momentarily from his papers and said: “Now, let’s be logical here. Look at the facts. Where does the evidence point?”

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

Within seconds a thought crossed my mind: “It is not you who converts, but the Spirit.”

Upon hearing those simple words, I began to share my testimony with my friends. I said, “I know there is a God, and He has a Son who created the world and saved us all. Whether or not we have all the answers now doesn’t discredit the fact that there is a God. God works line upon line and precept upon precept. Until we prove our faith, God will not reveal more to us.” I finished by confirming my testimony of the Church and its leaders, forgetting to even address the original questions posed.

After I finished, they all sat in silence, staring at me. I could feel my face getting hot. Just then, the bell rang. I grabbed my bag, thankful for this escape route, and headed for the door.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing, anywhere on the Church website that even hints to the possibility that evolution is at all compatible with the LDS doctrines of the Creation and Fall. Any time it is mentioned, it is as an obstacle to belief and a false teaching. The closest I've ever seen is from this talk (from a GA chemist):

The theory of evolution as presently taught posits that higher forms of life arose gradually from lower stages of living matter. Inheritable genetic changes in offspring are assumed to be spontaneous rather than the result of arranged or directed forces external to the system.

This theory conflicts with a basic law of chemistry, the second law of thermodynamics, which states in part that it is not possible for a spontaneous process to produce a system of higher order than the system possessed at the beginning of the change.

An example of a spontaneous process is a boulder that dislodges from a mountaintop and rolls down the mountain. The only way to get the boulder back up the mountain (thereby increasing its height, or the order of the system) is for energy outside the system to be expended—such as someone directing the process by seeing that the rock is carried up the mountain.

One of the current explanations of the improvement in plant and animal species over time is that cosmic radiation caused genetic changes resulting in a higher order of offspring survivability than the parent possessed.

A number of years ago, a renowned biologist and geneticist told of an experiment he had directed in which grasshoppers in their various stages of growth had been subjected to radiation levels greater than that insect family had received during its existence. He said the experiment caused many genetic changes, including the loss of a foreleg, an antenna, or some other inheritable change. However, not one of those changes gave the offspring a greater viability or survivability than that of the parent.

Many Latter-day Saints recognize that the processes involved in evolution are valid. We see improved strains and varieties of plants and animals developed through judicious selection of their parents. But we would have to agree with those who understand the limitation defined in the second law of thermodynamics limitation that such changes can only occur if guided or if outside energy is available to improve the system.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/06/seek-ye-diligently?lang=eng

[ERayR]

It wouldn't. Not in the slightest. Like Arthur's round table, many locations lay claim to it. But in the end, if it (and the Garden of Eden) exist only as features of myth and legend it does nothing to undermine the principles and legends the Garden and its occupants teach. Nor does it make a difference to their ability to teach a principle that sets up the need for the gospel and atonement.

Thus my comment that it is irrelevant.

[Kevin Christensen]

It would be interesting to see how many of those quotes are available on the Church website or in any current Church publication. Because, as we all know, not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.

We need to look at what is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

This is one of the weirdest stories about dealing with "evolution" I've seen the Church publish. If the theories in this thread are correct, then this student should have explained that evolution is compatible with our doctrine and no problem. I wonder why they didn't, and the New Era felt the need to make all LDS teenagers feel like it wasn't?

As far as I can tell, there is nothing, anywhere on the Church website that even hints to the possibility that evolution is at all compatible with the LDS doctrines of the Creation and Fall. Any time it is mentioned, it is as an obstacle to belief and a false teaching. The closest I've ever seen is from this talk (from a GA chemist):

D&C 109:7, the new improved inspired version, apparently.

And as all have not the same opinons, seek ye casually and hold one another to assumed consensus thoughts, yea seek ye out of the church website thoughts to call orthodox and therefore binding, yea, make creeds to set up stakes and bounds to your thoughts, yea, seek learning by minimal effort and urge deference to even the appearance of authority.

FWIW, I prefer the original. It gives me wings, further light and knowledge, not stakes and bounds.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 15, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[thesometimesaint]

Wrong direction. It was Westward about 40 miles from 'Adam's Altar' IIRC

I'm surprised this hasn't been cited by the 'limited garden' theorists. 'Adam's Altar' is, after all an incredible historical artefact that survived through 6,000+ years (even though the Book of Mormon's stone box disappeared within about 100).

Or it's a campfire story.

Though I don't have a particular problem with a limited garden. Even one in North America(harder to rationalize). Personally I relegate it to the campfire stories realm.

[ERayR]

As far as I can tell, there is nothing, anywhere on the Church website that even hints to the possibility that evolution is at all compatible with the LDS doctrines of the Creation and Fall. Any time it is mentioned, it is as an obstacle to belief and a false teaching. The closest I've ever seen is from this talk (from a GA chemist):

There is nothing that I know of in Church doctrine that supports evolution. The official church position is that the Church takes no official stance concerning evolution producing humans. A very long way from endorsing it.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

Then we have an absolute contradiction between what some in the Church claim as fact, and what is proven as fact. Everything from men on the sun and moon, to men will never be in space let alone go to the moon. Since we do, right now, have men in space, and have visited the moon. Someone is wrong. Whom do you propose it is?

[thesometimesaint]

There is nothing that I know of in Church doctrine that supports evolution. The official church position is that the Church takes no official stance concerning evolution producing humans. A very long way from endorsing it.

We also have nothing in Church doctrine that supports the Pythagorean Theorem. I would submit to you that it is still true.

[ERayR]

We also have nothing in Church doctrine that supports the Pythagorean Theorem. I would submit to you that it is still true.

You do have a knack for ridiculous comparisons. It appears it is another lame attempt at ridicule.

Edited June 15, 2013 by ERayR

[Rivers]

I think Elder McConkie had a good point when he said that evolution couldn't be easily reconciled with church doctrine. Threads like these really show how convoluted everything becomes when you try to make reconciliatons.

I also think Cinepro has a point when he points out that the material on the official church website is not very favorable to evolution. I think this is the because trying to harmonize evolution with other church doctrines becomes way too complicated and messy. The gospel is supposed to be plain and simple.

But I have learned to accept all the messiness and ambiguity.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Rivers

[Stone holm]

I think Elder McConkie had a good point when he said that evolution couldn't be easily reconciled with church doctrine. Threads like these really show how convoluted everything becomes when you try to make reconciliatons.

I also think Cinepro has a point when he points out that the material on the official church website is not very favorable to evolution. I think this is the because trying to harmonize evolution with other church doctrines becomes way too complicated and messy. The gospel is supposed to be plain and simple.

But I have learned to accept all the messiness and ambiguity.

As far as I have always understood it, and as late ago as 15 years ago the General Handbook of Instructions said, that the Church took no position on organic evolution other than as to Adam and Eve. However, there has always been a fundamentalist anti-science segment in the Church which waxes and wanes which likes to castigate evolutionists as the bane of society. It is very popular to denounce evolution in some cultural circles these days and denouncing it is a litmus test for certain ideologues. But one does not necessarily have to become embroiled in that confrontation to discuss the hominids that either existed concurrently with Adam or before him.

[cdowis]

Then we have an absolute contradiction between what some in the Church claim as fact, and what is proven as fact. Everything from men on the sun

CFR, pleeeeeeeeze.

and moon,

We have discussed this at length, and it has been refuted.

These are antimormonism baloney, and you won't get away with it here on this forum. Please open a new thread and let's see what you got.

Edited June 16, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Brigham_Young/Teachings/Moon_and_sun_are_inhabited

Brigham Young: We are called ignorant; so we are: but what of it? Are not all ignorant? I rather think so. Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed "the man in the moon," and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows.

AND

So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.

Those darn Anti-Mormons at FAIR.

[Stone holm]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Brigham_Young/Teachings/Moon_and_sun_are_inhabited

Brigham Young: We are called ignorant; so we are: but what of it? Are not all ignorant? I rather think so. Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed "the man in the moon," and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows.

AND

So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.

Those darn Anti-Mormons at FAIR.

As far as the moon is concerned, I see no opinion being expressed, as to the Sun, well, many have speculated that it is a celestial kingdom, but to my knowledge the Church has never taught that as doctrine. It simply is derived from speculation given JS's descriptions of what celestial kingdoms are like, namely, sea of molten glass and everlasting burning s. but all of this has zero relation to this topic, so please take it to a new one.

[thesometimesaint]

As far as the moon is concerned, I see no opinion being expressed, as to the Sun, well, many have speculated that it is a celestial kingdom, but to my knowledge the Church has never taught that as doctrine. It simply is derived from speculation given JS's descriptions of what celestial kingdoms are like, namely, sea of molten glass and everlasting burning s. but all of this has zero relation to this topic, so please take it to a new one.

"Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?".

Never said it was doctrine. Thank God it is not. We either believe that men, even men in the Church, can have their own idea's about non-doctrinal subjects or we fall into the trap of 14 Fundamentals of Mormonism #5: "The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time".

Ps. I greatly admired the Prophet Gordan B. Hinckley. But if he wanted a scalpel to operate on me. I'd run.

This exactly ties in with the subject Pre-Adamites. Were there beings, before Adam, that were physically so similar to us as to indistinguishable from us? Yes. Does that make them the Children of God? No.

[Stone holm]

"Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?".

Never said it was doctrine. Thank God it is not. We either believe that men, even men in the Church, can have their own idea's about non-doctrinal subjects or we fall into the trap of 14 Fundamentals of Mormonism #5: "The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time".

Ps. I greatly admired the Prophet Gordan B. Hinckley. But if he wanted a scalpel to operate on me. I'd run.

This exactly ties in with the subject Pre-Adamites. Were there beings, before Adam, that were physically so similar to us as to indistinguishable from us? Yes. Does that make them the Children of God? No.

Well not sure about the indistinguishable bit. Seems like scientists have been distinguishing them, and we know next to nothing about their ways of thinking. Don't see the connection to whether Adam was Heavenly Father, which I don't believe and which is not a structurally implied by our teachings.

[thesometimesaint]

Well not sure about the indistinguishable bit. Seems like scientists have been distinguishing them, and we know next to nothing about their ways of thinking. Don't see the connection to whether Adam was Heavenly Father, which I don't believe and which is not a structurally implied by our teachings.

Our genus, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, is some 1/5 of a million years old. Biologically they are indistinguishable from us. Far older than a 7,000 year old Adam and Eve in a garden story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans

I don't see the connection either.

[Stone holm]

Our genus, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, is some 1/5 of a million years old. Biologically they are indistinguishable from us. Far older than a 7,000 year old Adam and Eve in a garden story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans

I don't see the connection either.

Does anyone except the fundamentalists believe in a seven thousand years, do you? Hominids I was referring to were Neanderthals, homo erectus, etc.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Stone holm