Pre-Adamites?

[cdowis]

http://en.fairmormon...n_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.

Yep, those antimormons will swallow any stupid argument against the church.

He is ********speculating********, giving an opinion == "I rather think it is, I rather think so, no doubt (in my mind) about it". He is not teaching from his church position but as a man as he thinks about the solar system.

It has nothing to do with any teachings of the church, but everything to do with BY the man.

He has also told us that he likes his bread with a thick crust -- is that official doctrine, a claim on how perfect bread must be be made.

What other pathetic argument will you swallow next. Those antis are poisoning your mind with their garbage.

Edited June 16, 2013 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

Seventeen pages worrying about science and religion, all for naught.

Sigh.

[Stone holm]

Yep, those antimormons will swallow any stupid argument against the church.

He is ********speculating********, giving an opinion == "I rather think it is, I rather think so, no doubt (in my mind) about it". He is not teaching from his church position but as a man as he thinks about the solar system.

It has nothing to do with any teachings of the church, but everything to do with BY the man.

He has also told us that he likes his bread with a thick crust -- is that official doctrine, a claim on how perfect bread must be be made.

What other pathetic argument will you swallow next. Those antis are poisoning your mind with their garbage.

Well actually he was on the right track, just off a bit on application. He suspected that we needed roughage in our diet, he just miscues when he thought bread crust constituted roughage.

[cinepro]

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

Fundamentalists indeed...

Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was ^asealed on the back with seven seals?

A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, ^bmysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this ^cearth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

D&C 77

D&C 77:6–7. Why Was the Book Sealed That John Saw?

“‘The book which John saw’ represented the real history of the world—what the eye of God has seen, what the recording angel has written; and the seven thousand years, corresponding to the seven seals of the Apocalyptic volume, are as seven great days during which Mother Earth will fulfill her mortal mission, laboring six days and resting upon the seventh, her period of sanctification. These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity.” (Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, p. 11.)

Thus, what John saw as each seal was opened symbolized events that occurred during that thousand years of history—the first seal representing the first thousand years after the Fall, the second seal representing the second thousand years, and so forth.

New Testament Study Guide

Revelation 5. This earth has a temporal existence of seven thousand years from the Fall of Adam to the end of the Millennium. Every creature will praise the Lamb of God, who was slain to redeem us in His kingdom.

New Testament Teacher Resource Manual

In sum, the ultimate conditions of uniformity that we observe in the course of nature in our present sphere are severely limited. From the time of the Fall until the end of the Millennium is described as seven thousand years (see D&C 77:6). And while seven thousand years is long in comparison to a human lifetime, from the perspective of eternity (and also from the perspective of modern theories of astronomy or geology), it is extremely short. In seven thousand years, neither stars nor earth nor biological species change enough, according to naturalist principles, to be very significant.

It is therefore helpful to remember, when pondering the millions of years secularists postulate to explain the formation of the earth, that all current geological dating processes are based on the assumption that the present order of nature preceded us and will continue uniformly hereafter. This secularist view also holds that God, if he exists, never has and never will interfere.

The Gospel and the Scientific Worldview

(Emphasis added)

For those who would argue that the world was created in a mortal state, then that would mean the mortal age of the Earth began during creation, not after Adam's fall.

Edited June 17, 2013 by cinepro

[Stone holm]

Fundamentalists indeed...

For those who would argue that the world was created in a mortal state, then that would mean the mortal age of the Earth began during creation, not after Adam's fall.

Yes, as to everything outside the Garden.

[thesometimesaint]

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

I sure don't, but with 42 years experience in the Church there are more than a few that still believe it. Bring up Evolution in Sunday School and watch the sparks fly. The Neanderthals were enough like our species to interbreed, but I don't know as they were close enough to us for God to call them man.

Edited June 17, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[cinepro]

I sure don't, but with 42 years experience in the Church there are more than a few that still believe it. Bring up Evolution in Sunday School and watch the sparks fly. The Neanderthals were enough like our species to interbreed, but I don't know as they were close enough to us for God to call them man.

To be clear, the most "fundamental" influences in the Church towards these views (and away from "evolution") were President Joseph Fielding Smith, and his son-in-law Elder Bruce R. McConkie. In the years since their deaths, their influence has carried on among those who read their writings (including those still found on the Church website and in manuals and curriculum), and through "traditions" being passed along informally.

Less direct, but I suspect still as "fundamental" in their beliefs would be Elders Nelson and Packer.

But since the days of Elder Talmage (who died in 1933), I don't know of any General Authority who has publicly countered the anti-evolution stance taken by Elder McConkie (who died in 1985). It's easy to see the huge, huge problem evolution presents for the LDS doctrine on the paradisical creation of the Earth, but other than (at best) insisting there is a way for the two to be reconciled at some future date with more information from God, there hasn't been much improvement over the years. The evolutionists keep learning more and more and strengthening their theory, and the Prophets and Apostles keep telling us to have faith.

I'll also point out that every theory that is presented about limited gardens, mortal creation periods and the like are dependent on absurd semantic games that are absolutely insulting to the very Church leaders they're trying to defend. Church leaders teach these things as clearly and as plainly as they can, and then their words are twisted and parsed as if they had meant to leave room open for some odd evolutionary loophole. If an anti-Mormon even attempted such a strained and absurd twisting of their teachings, they would (rightly) be ridden off this message board on a rail. But somehow it's more acceptable if an LDS does it.

Edited June 17, 2013 by cinepro

[Stone holm]

To be clear, the most "fundamental" influences in the Church towards these views (and away from "evolution") were President Joseph Fielding Smith, and his son-in-law Elder Bruce R. McConkie. In the years since their deaths, their influence has carried on among those who read their writings (including those still found on the Church website and in manuals and curriculum), and through "traditions" being passed along informally.

Less direct, but I suspect still as "fundamental" in their beliefs would be Elders Nelson and Packer.

But since the days of Elder Talmage (who died in 1933), I don't know of any General Authority who has publicly countered the anti-evolution stance taken by Elder McConkie (who died in 1985). It's easy to see the huge, huge problem evolution presents for the LDS doctrine on the paradisical creation of the Earth, but other than (at best) insisting there is a way for the two to be reconciled at some future date with more information from God, there hasn't been much improvement over the years. The evolutionists keep learning more and more and strengthening their theory, and the Prophets and Apostles keep telling us to have faith.

I'll also point out that every theory that is presented about limited gardens, mortal creation periods and the like are dependent on absurd semantic games that are absolutely insulting to the very Church leaders they're trying to defend. Church leaders teach these things as clearly and as plainly as they can, and then their words are twisted and parsed as if they had meant to leave room open for some odd evolutionary loophole. If an anti-Mormon even attempted such a strained and absurd twisting of their teachings, they would (rightly) be ridden off this message board on a rail. But somehow it's more acceptable if an LDS does it.

So you believe the idea of the Garden of Eden being a discrete place absurd. Why bother then to have called it a garden? I believe what you have said demonstrates a flaw in the approach of Pres. McKay in trying to avoid a public denouncement of Fundamentalists, it leaves their writings uncountered and to have a greater impact than they should.

[cinepro]

So you believe the idea of the Garden of Eden being a discrete place absurd.

No, I believe the idea of a "discrete" Garden of Eden in a Telestial, evolving, mortal world is absurd.

Why bother then to have called it a garden? I believe what you have said demonstrates a flaw in the approach of Pres. McKay in trying to avoid a public denouncement of Fundamentalists, it leaves their writings uncountered and to have a greater impact than they should.

And it continues to this day. This was published in the Ensign in 1994!

What do we know about the location of the Garden of Eden?

Bruce A. Van Orden, associate professor of Church history, Brigham Young University.

We must remember that the whole earth was paradisiacal before the Fall. The Garden of Eden was a center place. After the Fall, there was no Garden of Eden or paradisiacal status on earth.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/01/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

This is taught repeatedly by Prophets and Apostles in Church magazines and curriculum to this day. The idea that the creation was done using countless generations of birth and death with gradual development of the species as they adapt to their environment (i.e. "evolution") is never even hinted at as a possibility. The doctrine is that there was no physical death, anywhere on the Earth, before the fall. That includes animals.

And it's okay to not believe it.

Edited June 17, 2013 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

And it continues to this day. This was published in the Ensign in 1994!

YAY! We all just got 20 years younger!

[thesometimesaint]

To be clear, the most "fundamental" influences in the Church towards these views (and away from "evolution") were President Joseph Fielding Smith, and his son-in-law Elder Bruce R. McConkie. In the years since their deaths, their influence has carried on among those who read their writings (including those still found on the Church website and in manuals and curriculum), and through "traditions" being passed along informally.

Less direct, but I suspect still as "fundamental" in their beliefs would be Elders Nelson and Packer.

But since the days of Elder Talmage (who died in 1933), I don't know of any General Authority who has publicly countered the anti-evolution stance taken by Elder McConkie (who died in 1985). It's easy to see the huge, huge problem evolution presents for the LDS doctrine on the paradisical creation of the Earth, but other than (at best) insisting there is a way for the two to be reconciled at some future date with more information from God, there hasn't been much improvement over the years. The evolutionists keep learning more and more and strengthening their theory, and the Prophets and Apostles keep telling us to have faith.

I'll also point out that every theory that is presented about limited gardens, mortal creation periods and the like are dependent on absurd semantic games that are absolutely insulting to the very Church leaders they're trying to defend. Church leaders teach these things as clearly and as plainly as they can, and then their words are twisted and parsed as if they had meant to leave room open for some odd evolutionary loophole. If an anti-Mormon even attempted such a strained and absurd twisting of their teachings, they would (rightly) be ridden off this message board on a rail. But somehow it's more acceptable if an LDS does it.

I'm perfectly willing to let people have their own ideas, even if those ideas are wrong. I'll go even further and state categorically that God doesn't make sock puppets. That the Church has a long established method for determining what our doctrines are. That one man or small group of men in the Church do not make Church doctrine.

BRM and JFS both claimed to have made mistakes in some of their publicly stated long held personal opinions. I allow them that. Moreover Joseph Smith apparently believed the earth to be 2.5 Billions of years old. A far cry from the 7000 years of the "Fundamentalists". Heck we have no formal denial that Pi is equal to exactly three. That is in the Bible, one of our sources of doctrine.

To claim a 7000 year old earth is patently ridiculous and absurd. It is demonstrably wrong. But even if true, and it is not, that would have nothing to do with my salvation or commitments I have made with God.

[Stone holm]

I'm perfectly willing to let people have their own ideas, even if those ideas are wrong. I'll go even further and state categorically that God doesn't make sock puppets. That the Church has a long established method for determining what our doctrines are. That one man or small group of men in the Church do not make Church doctrine.

BRM and JFS both claimed to have made mistakes in some of their publicly stated long held personal opinions. I allow them that. Moreover Joseph Smith apparently believed the earth to be 2.5 Billions of years old. A far cry from the 7000 years of the "Fundamentalists". Heck we have no formal denial that Pi is equal to exactly three. That is in the Bible, one of our sources of doctrine.

To claim a 7000 year old earth is patently ridiculous and absurd. It is demonstrably wrong. But even if true, and it is not, that would have nothing to do with my salvation or commitments I have made with God.

Because I believe the Garden issue is important, I have started a new thread specifically on it, so this thread can remain true to its original mission of discussing the hominids.

[cinepro]

To claim a 7000 year old earth is patently ridiculous and absurd. It is demonstrably wrong. But even if true, and it is not, that would have nothing to do with my salvation or commitments I have made with God.

The "claim" is that it is 7,000 years from the Fall of Adam (and mortality entering the planet) until the end of the Millennium. The creation and time in the Garden of Eden pre-date the Fall and aren't included in the calculation.

This is based on the scriptures, and statements in official Church publications and curriculum. If this does not qualify as "doctrine", then that's great.

Edited June 17, 2013 by cinepro

[cdowis]

The idea that the creation was done using countless generations of birth and death with gradual development of the species as they adapt to their environment (i.e. "evolution") is never even hinted at as a possibility. The doctrine is that there was no physical death, anywhere on the Earth, before the fall. That includes animals.

1. There are many things regarding the creation that are not "even hinted at". It is up to us to figure it out. Also, may I suggest that you take a look at logical fallacies -- I think your logic has a tiny flaw.

2. I would appreciate scriptural references to that doctrine, especially regarding the 5 days of creation. You are very confident with yourself, and I would like to see those scriptures.

[Stone holm]

The "claim" is that it is 7,000 years from the Fall of Adam (and mortality entering the planet) until the end of the Millennium. The creation and time in the Garden of Eden pre-date the Fall and aren't included in the calculation.

This is based on the scriptures, and statements in official Church publications and curriculum. If this does not qualify as "doctrine", then that's great.

The problem with that is if everything is more or less in stassis over the whole planet during the Garden of Eden period, it pretty much is the same as the young Earth theory, or am I missing something to this?

[bcuzbcuz]

Because I believe the Garden issue is important, I have started a new thread specifically on it, so this thread can remain true to its original mission of discussing the hominids.

This is not specifically addressed to you but to the issue. Simply stated, "Göbekli Tepe".

Göbekli Tepe, a relatively recent archaeological dig in southern Turkey, has ample evidence of populations that built temples, with elegantly carved columns. Carbon dating places the upper levels of the dig at 9000 years old and the lower levels are estimated at 11000 years old.

Somewhere, during this time period, our modern wheat plant went from being a single corn plant, that easily released its single seed, and was therefore difficult to harvest in a greater extent, to a multiple seeded plant, that also maintained its seed capsules. Without this development our modern usage of wheat would not be possible. Modern civilization may not have developed. Certainly, wheat would not have its predominance in our culture and market that it currently holds.

Similar development occurred in barley and oats, from wild single corn plants to multiple seed plants. And all around 6 to 10000 years ago. The theory that human development played an important role in these changes is not without merit. The evidence in pollen finds from dated digs and seeds from graves and temples is overwhelming.

Those who believe in a 7000 year old human development must either think of a sudden human influx in an already developed world that had somehow progressed rapidly some 3000 years prior to an "Adam" event, or that pre-Adamite apes started harvesting wheat all on their own.

Edited June 17, 2013 by bcuzbcuz

[thesometimesaint]

I guess if A&E were 4.55 billion years old minus 7000 that would work.

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. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

To date the ruminations and speculation of BRM and/or JFS don't doctrine make. Heck not even those of Joseph Smith Jr. make that cut.

[Stone holm]

This is not specifically addressed to you but to the issue. Simply stated, "Göbekli Tepe".

Göbekli Tepe, a relatively recent archaeological dig in southern Turkey, has ample evidence of populations that built temples, with elegantly carved columns. Carbon dating places the upper levels of the dig at 9000 years old and the lower levels are estimated at 11000 years old.

Somewhere, during this time period, our modern wheat plant went from being a single corn plant, that easily released its single seed, and was therefore difficult to harvest in a greater extent, to a multiple seeded plant, that also maintained its seed capsules. Without this development our modern usage of wheat would not be possible. Modern civilization may not have developed. Certainly, wheat would not have its predominance in our culture and market that it currently holds.

Similar development occurred in barley and oats, from wild single corn plants to multiple seed plants. And all around 6 to 10000 years ago. The theory that human development played an important role in these changes is not without merit. The evidence in pollen finds from dated digs and seeds from graves and temples is overwhelming.

Those who believe in a 7000 year old human development must either think of a sudden human influx in an already developed world that had somehow progressed rapidly some 3000 years prior to an "Adam" event, or that pre-Adamite apes started harvesting wheat all on their own.

Very interesting and important point which goes not to the creative period, but to the post-garden period. If any of the hominids had a form of agriculture, i suppose it would have been the Neanderthals, but I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to say they had agriculture. The limited garden theory only really helps us get past the Dinosaur age, but there is still the problem of the fact that humans themselves appear to have been around longer than Biblical accounts. I don't have an answer to that -- other than it appears that Church is moving away from the definite 1,000 year time slots to something a bit more expansive. It would seem to me, strictly according to my own speculations, that the days of the Lord early on were a lot longer, than they are currently -- that time seems to have speeded up with technology.

[thesometimesaint]

Very interesting and important point which goes not to the creative period, but to the post-garden period. If any of the hominids had a form of agriculture, i suppose it would have been the Neanderthals, but I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to say they had agriculture. The limited garden theory only really helps us get past the Dinosaur age, but there is still the problem of the fact that humans themselves appear to have been around longer than Biblical accounts. I don't have an answer to that -- other than it appears that Church is moving away from the definite 1,000 year time slots to something a bit more expansive. It would seem to me, strictly according to my own speculations, that the days of the Lord early on were a lot longer, than they are currently -- that time seems to have speeded up with technology.

From what is known of the Neanderthals they didn't have agriculture. But were a hunter-gatherer species.

Yes the earth has slowed down from the distant past. But that time frame is about a minute per million years.

[Stone holm]

From what is known of the Neanderthals they didn't have agriculture. But were a hunter-gatherer species.

Yes the earth has slowed down from the distant past. But that time frame is about a minute per million years.

I don't mean literally, I mean maybe developmentally. I mean it seems like if you measure it in terms of human history -- you have these long, long periods where there is very little change in society and then it starts building to a technological crescendo or perhaps disaster. Since Heavenly Father lives on another planet, maybe He views time in a very different fashion when looking at His creations -- think of when you were young (well maybe you are still young), but life seems to go slow while you were growing up, but as you grow older it goes by faster and faster.

[bcuzbcuz]

Very interesting and important point which goes not to the creative period, but to the post-garden period. If any of the hominids had a form of agriculture, i suppose it would have been the Neanderthals, but I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to say they had agriculture. The limited garden theory only really helps us get past the Dinosaur age, but there is still the problem of the fact that humans themselves appear to have been around longer than Biblical accounts. I don't have an answer to that -- other than it appears that Church is moving away from the definite 1,000 year time slots to something a bit more expansive. It would seem to me, strictly according to my own speculations, that the days of the Lord early on were a lot longer, than they are currently -- that time seems to have speeded up with technology.

You feel that my post refers to a "post-garden"period. Where, therefore was the "Garden of Eden"? If it was in Missouri, how did the wheat developing populations of Göbekli Tepe get to Turkey after the "garden"? If it was in the Babylonia plain, then the distance is not so great.

I agree with TSS that there is no evidence that supports Neaderthal populations as other than hunter-gatherers.

I frankly don't see how populations developed in mere thousands of years. Egyptian sources, and Nubian, prior to those, evidence population and cultural development that took tens of thousands of years. To move from hunter-gatherers to cultivators, as the cultures around the Nile valley, do not happen over night. Each step in development is a slow, gradual process, wherein each step takes hundreds, if not thousands, of years to move from one population centre, or village, to another. Not only crop productions, but pottery, house building, even burial procedures, take many, many generations to change or develop. If one believes the Biblical version, then God merely plopped civilizations, packaged and ready, suddenly into chosen areas, each element of culture already developed and finished. There is nothing in the evidence that supports such an idea.

[Stone holm]

You feel that my post refers to a "post-garden"period. Where, therefore was the "Garden of Eden"? If it was in Missouri, how did the wheat developing populations of Göbekli Tepe get to Turkey after the "garden"? If it was in the Babylonia plain, then the distance is not so great.

I agree with TSS that there is no evidence that supports Neaderthal populations as other than hunter-gatherers.

I frankly don't see how populations developed in mere thousands of years. Egyptian sources, and Nubian, prior to those, evidence population and cultural development that took tens of thousands of years. To move from hunter-gatherers to cultivators, as the cultures around the Nile valley, do not happen over night. Each step in development is a slow, gradual process, wherein each step takes hundreds, if not thousands, of years to move from one population centre, or village, to another. Not only crop productions, but pottery, house building, even burial procedures, take many, many generations to change or develop. If one believes the Biblical version, then God merely plopped civilizations, packaged and ready, suddenly into chosen areas, each element of culture already developed and finished. There is nothing in the evidence that supports such an idea.

As I said there are additional issues that are not overcome by the limited Garden concept. It does not address the development time issue. Although you can have hunter gatherer coexisting with agriculture, and I am not sure that is appropriate to think of hunter gatherer populations as being people who subsist solely on wild grain and berries. The idea of prepared patches probably started rather early and we suspect game management probably did as well

[Ahab]

You feel that my post refers to a "post-garden"period. Where, therefore was the "Garden of Eden"? If it was in Missouri, how did the wheat developing populations of Göbekli Tepe get to Turkey after the "garden"? If it was in the Babylonia plain, then the distance is not so great.

I agree with TSS that there is no evidence that supports Neaderthal populations as other than hunter-gatherers.

I frankly don't see how populations developed in mere thousands of years. Egyptian sources, and Nubian, prior to those, evidence population and cultural development that took tens of thousands of years. To move from hunter-gatherers to cultivators, as the cultures around the Nile valley, do not happen over night. Each step in development is a slow, gradual process, wherein each step takes hundreds, if not thousands, of years to move from one population centre, or village, to another. Not only crop productions, but pottery, house building, even burial procedures, take many, many generations to change or develop. If one believes the Biblical version, then God merely plopped civilizations, packaged and ready, suddenly into chosen areas, each element of culture already developed and finished. There is nothing in the evidence that supports such an idea.

What radical changes are you imagining that would require thousands of years to develop? Just look at what has happened in the past 100 years in the electric/electronics industry. Or the steel industry. It doesn't take thousands of years to come up with new ideas. It just takes someone, like God, to inspire us with all those ideas.

[cinepro]

1. There are many things regarding the creation that are not "even hinted at". It is up to us to figure it out. Also, may I suggest that you take a look at logical fallacies -- I think your logic has a tiny flaw.

2. I would appreciate scriptural references to that doctrine, especially regarding the 5 days of creation. You are very confident with yourself, and I would like to see those scriptures.

There was no physical death, anywhere on the Earth, before the Fall of Adam:

Physical death is the separation of the spirit from the mortal body. The Fall of Adam brought physical death into the world (see Moses 6:48).

http://www.lds.org/topics/death-physical?lang=eng

The creation of a paradisiacal planet came from God.¹²Mortality and death came into the world through the Fall of Adam.

Russell M. Nelson, The Creation

[Stone holm]

There was no physical death, anywhere on the Earth, before the Fall of Adam:

It has been suggested that Elder Nelson travels the same road as BRM and Joseph Fielding Smith on these issues. Suspending all physical death on the entire planet presents some truly awesome confrontations with science which are completely unnecessary.