Pre-Adamites?

[CV75]

Yes, but in spite of your altruistic love of them all, they are as ugly as posts in the ground. Of course, so are swathes of the current human race, but I love them too....

From the Book of Ray:

Everything is beautiful in it's own way.

Like the starry summer night, or a snow-covered winter's day.

And everybody's beautiful in their own way.

Under God's heaven, the world's gonna find the way.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

We must not close our minds; we must let our thoughts be free.

For every hour that passes by, we know the world gets a little bit older.

It's time to realize that beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.

And everything is beautiful in it's own way.

Like the starry summer night, or a snow-covered winter's day.

Oh, sing it children!

Everybody's beautiful in their own way.

Under God's heaven, the world's gonna find the way.

We shouldn't care about the length of his hair, or the color of his skin.

Don't worry about what shows from without, but the love that lives within.

And we're gonna get it all together now; everything gonna work out fine.

Just take a little time to look on the good side my friend,

And straighten it out in your mind.

And everything is beautiful in it's own way.

Like the starry summer night, or a snow-covered winter's day.

Ah, sing it children!

Everybody's beautiful in their own way,

Under God's heaven the world's gonna find a way.

One more time!

Everything is beautiful in it's own way.

Like the starry summer night, or a snow-covered winter's day...

[canard78]

To some, there is enough gospel facts to answer this question.

This scripture comes right out and answers it. Not only was Adam the first man, but the first flesh. So if there were any others before Adam, they were also before the creation, and not part of THIS earth.

The first presidency has also come out and stated that Man did not evolve from lower life forms.

These hairs have been split so thin as to become non-existant.

To me, it is simply an attempt to reconcile religion with science, and I don't believe science is in place to be overlayed on religion...not enough data ... yet.

All flesh? No pigs/lions/etc etc? Clearly there was flesh on the earth before Adam. He was the 'end' of the creation process if you follow the 6 'day' sequence (followed by Eve). 'Flesh' therefore refers not to living creatures and instead Adam as a symbol of the beginning of our life in the flesh. The first to symbolise mortality.

[Stone holm]

All flesh? No pigs/lions/etc etc? Clearly there was flesh on the earth before Adam. He was the 'end' of the creation process if you follow the 6 'day' sequence (followed by Eve). 'Flesh' therefore refers not to living creatures and instead Adam as a symbol of the beginning of our life in the flesh. The first to symbolise mortality.

Well, actually he may have a doctrinal point. There is a line of doctrine which reconciles conflicting portions of Genesis. The way the argument goes is that the six day creation period refers to the Spiritual creation of the Earth, then the entire physical creation occurs on the 7th day with Adam being created first. There are some mind-boggling implications to this argument, but it has been made repeatedly. I do not think we need to dwell on it very much so long as we do not adopt the global Garden theory. Adam, at least according to BY and the teaching of several other authorities wasn't "created" on this planet, but rather on Heavenly Father's home planet from which Adam and Eve were transplanted to the Garden. Under this theory, then you still could have the Garden as sort of an isolated enclave and the rest of Creation is doing its thing outside the Garden.

[canard78]

Well, actually he may have a doctrinal point. There is a line of doctrine which reconciles conflicting portions of Genesis. The way the argument goes is that the six day creation period refers to the Spiritual creation of the Earth, then the entire physical creation occurs on the 7th day with Adam being created first. There are some mind-boggling implications to this argument, but it has been made repeatedly. I do not think we need to dwell on it very much so long as we do not adopt the global Garden theory. Adam, at least according to BY and the teaching of several other authorities wasn't "created" on this planet, but rather on Heavenly Father's home planet from which Adam and Eve were transplanted to the Garden. Under this theory, then you still could have the Garden as sort of an isolated enclave and the rest of Creation is doing its thing outside the Garden.

Some interesting theories. I tend to settle them all by coming back to my original statement. It's all figurative. I spend much less time worrying about the sequence of flesh, location of gardens (Adam's altar!), timing of departure and instead try to just focus on the principles taught in the stories.

[thesometimesaint]

Again the OP is not evolution per se. However, let's come at this through the back door. Can you think of any other single concept that has been taught amongst men, that though it may have points of truth, has had the probable effect of turning more of the population of earth away from God and Jesus Christ and or undermining their actuality than the theory of evolution? Not in terms of measurable numbers but simply an honest appraisal of the over all impact which initiates from this theory and permeates everything that flows from it. Has it benefited mankind or has it damaged mankind?

False dichotomy. Evolution doesn't concern itself with religion. You are still free to believe anything you want.

I guess if you like, say modern medicine, then Evolution has greatly benefited mankind. OTOH if you believe that crucifying cats will somehow get rid of Bubonic Plague. I would suggest you stay away from the science labs.

[mfbukowski]

There was an old owl who lived in an oak,

The more he saw, the less he spoke,

The less he spoke the more he heard,

Why can't we all be like that wise old bird.

Sadly advice I rarely heed.

I second that emotion.!

[mfbukowski]

Shhhhhhhhhh......

This is top secret- so don't tell anyone, ok?

Religion is not about science.

But keep it on the low-down, ok? We don't want to destroy the faith of any atheists or anything, do we?

[Stone holm]

Shhhhhhhhhh......

This is top secret- so don't tell anyone, ok?

Religion is not about science.

But keep it on the low-down, ok? We don't want to destroy the faith of any atheists or anything, do we?

Wasn't there a book published by one of the early Apostles entitled "The Science of Theology" or something like that? While I do believe in the beneficial aspects of having a healthy tolerance for cognitive dissonance when it comes to the intersection of Science and Religion, I tend to oppose people who demand that theology trump science, or who try to concoct a scientific explanation for everything in the Scriptures, or who convert everything in the Scriptures to symbolic stories so they don't have to think about religious conflicts. My preferred path is when there are blank spots in firm structural doctrine and there are multiple speculative paths to take through that blank spot to choose only those paths which pose the least amount of conflict between doctrine and science. I don't think there is any particular need to be ham fisted when it comes to either science or religion and refraining from doing so might actually tempt an atheist to convert. Just saying....

[thesometimesaint]

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein

[Stone holm]

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein

I tend to agree trying to separate religion from science and vice versa tends to result in weirdness, and is about as dull as trying to separate religion and politics.

[SamIam]

Wasn't there a book published by one of the early Apostles entitled "The Science of Theology" or something like that? While I do believe in the beneficial aspects of having a healthy tolerance for cognitive dissonance when it comes to the intersection of Science and Religion, I tend to oppose people who demand that theology trump science, or who try to concoct a scientific explanation for everything in the Scriptures, or who convert everything in the Scriptures to symbolic stories so they don't have to think about religious conflicts. My preferred path is when there are blank spots in firm structural doctrine and there are multiple speculative paths to take through that blank spot to choose only those paths which pose the least amount of conflict between doctrine and science. I don't think there is any particular need to be ham fisted when it comes to either science or religion and refraining from doing so might actually tempt an atheist to convert. Just saying....

KEY TO THE SCIENCE OF THEOLOGY Parley P. Pratt

[thesometimesaint]

I tend to agree trying to separate religion from science and vice versa tends to result in weirdness, and is about as dull as trying to separate religion and politics.

They and good many things make for strange bedfellows.

Edited June 10, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Calm]

They and good many things make for strange bedfellows.

Like men and women.

[thesometimesaint]

[mfbukowski]

Wasn't there a book published by one of the early Apostles entitled "The Science of Theology" or something like that? While I do believe in the beneficial aspects of having a healthy tolerance for cognitive dissonance when it comes to the intersection of Science and Religion, ...

And what of the "intersection" between poetry and quantum theory? Does that cause you cognitive dissonance as well?

Leonard Susskind: The Bad Boy of Physics [Preview]

Leonard Susskind rebelled as a teen and never stopped. Today he insists that reality may forever be beyond reach of our understanding

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bad-boy-of-physics

Edited June 10, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

One of the comments on the above article:

Antirealists such as Niels Bohr, who said that mental images are fraught with peril and that scientists should confine themselves to making and testing empirical predictions, are ironically very similar to Benedictine monks who follow the Rule of Benedict from like 500 AD. One phrase from the Rule comes to mind: Conversatio morum, or in one translation, continuous openness to change or growth. Meditative, wordless, image- and concept-free prayer is perhaps more empirical than science, as it is also free of predictions. It is freely open to what is -- or isn't.

[ERayR]

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein

And science and religion that over reach are frustrating.

ERayR (2013)

Edited June 10, 2013 by ERayR

[Stone holm]

And science and religion that over reach are frustrating.

ERayR (2013)

Tis a fine line we moderns are called upon to tread. Wasn't it Niels Bohr who responded to Einstein "Who are you to say what God does or does not do!" in response to Einstein claiming that God does not play dice?

[Lightbearer]

I am really sorry but I have never been able to swallow the fairy tale that so-called modern science tries to cram down our throats as proclaimed by Mr. Darwin. To me it falls under this category:

"O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God." (Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 9:28-29)

I think the reason the Church does not have an "offical doctrine" is that we are afraid of loosing those so weak in faith that they cannot accept the idea that this pet theory which have been enshrined as "fact" might be in error, that they might leave the Church over it. Of course nobody on this board cares what I think, but I could not let this thread pass in silence (thus implying approval) without speaking up for those who are constantly held in contempt by many here.

Here is what I believe:

1) Adam was the first man (no pre-adamites) he was a historical figure and not just symbolic or figurative

2) There was no death on this earth before the fall

3) This earth and everything on it was created in a paradisical state (terrestrial order)

4) The fall begun this mortal probation bringing death and sin into the world and it became a telestial order

5) Christ atoned for the fall and made possible the resurrection (something science does not account for either)

6) At the coming of Christ this earth will be brought back to a terrestrial order in which there will be no death as we know it.

7) We do not have all the answers and will not until the Lord comes and reveals all things.

I do not write this to pick a fight or start an argument, I say believe what you will. As for myself I do not find it urgent for me to believe in Darwin's theories, it does not degrade me as a human or a child of God to not believe in some of the teachings of men any more than any other notitions that are so popular in our "so-called enlightened age." I do not put my trust in science, and I detest those who try to make me bow down to the golden calf of science just because I do use the technology and findings of science, I just don't think that Darwin is important to my understanding of life and happiness.

[Stone holm]

I am really sorry but I have never been able to swallow the fairy tale that so-called modern science tries to cram down our throats as proclaimed by Mr. Darwin. To me it falls under this category:

I think the reason the Church does not have an "offical doctrine" is that we are afraid of loosing those so weak in faith that they cannot accept the idea that this pet theory which have been enshrined as "fact" might be in error, that they might leave the Church over it. Of course nobody on this board cares what I think, but I could not let this thread pass in silence (thus implying approval) without speaking up for those who are constantly held in contempt by many here.

Here is what I believe:

1) Adam was the first man (no pre-adamites) he was a historical figure and not just symbolic or figurative

2) There was no death on this earth before the fall

3) This earth and everything on it was created in a paradisical state (terrestrial order)

4) The fall begun this mortal probation bringing death and sin into the world and it became a telestial order

5) Christ atoned for the fall and made possible the resurrection (something science does not account for either)

6) At the coming of Christ this earth will be brought back to a terrestrial order in which there will be no death as we know it.

7) We do not have all the answers and will not until the Lord comes and reveals all things.

I do not write this to pick a fight or start an argument, I say believe what you will. As for myself I do not find it urgent for me to believe in Darwin's theories, it does not degrade me as a human or a child of God to not believe in some of the teachings of men any more than any other notitions that are so popular in our "so-called enlightened age." I do not put my trust in science, and I detest those who try to make me bow down to the golden calf of science just because I do use the technology and findings of science, I just don't think that Darwin is important to my understanding of life and happiness.

What is the logical or doctrinal basis for the idea that the entire Earth was in a paradisical state prior to the fall as opposed to just the Garden of Eden and that there was no death outside the Garden of Eden. I assume then that your unmortal Adam and Eve were vegetarians? I don't believe that 5-7 were ever in contention. I have no issue with the idea of Adam being the first man -- that is why i tried to refer to the others as Hominids. My first question should be taken as a request for you to expand on your opinion, not as a pesky CFR. The second question arises from the "no death" assertion that you made which I assume you meant to apply to animals as well.

[SamIam]

What is the logical or doctrinal basis for the idea that the entire Earth was in a paradisical state prior to the fall as opposed to just the Garden of Eden and that there was no death outside the Garden of Eden. I assume then that your unmortal Adam and Eve were vegetarians? I don't believe that 5-7 were ever in contention. I have no issue with the idea of Adam being the first man -- that is why i tried to refer to the others as Hominids. My first question should be taken as a request for you to expand on your opinion, not as a pesky CFR. The second question arises from the "no death" assertion that you made which I assume you meant to apply to animals as well.

Here are three for starters:

1.)

It is false to assume that all things have always been the same. For instance: When the Lord created this earth, it was in a terrestrial state, an Edenic state, a paradisiacal state; death had not then entered the world. Adam and Eve and all created things were in an immortal state.(Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. p3.)

2.)

This earth is our home, it was framed expressly for the habitation of those who are faithful to God, and who prove themselves worthy to inherit the earth when the Lord shall have sanctified, purified and glorified it and brought it back into his presence, from which it fell far into space. …When the earth was framed and brought into existence and man was placed upon it, it was near the throne of our Father in heaven. And when man fell—though that was designed in the economy, there was nothing about it mysterious or unknown to the Gods, they understood it all, it was all planned—but when man fell, the earth fell into space, and took up its abode in this planetary system, and the sun became our light. … This is the glory the earth came from, and when it is glorified it will return again unto the presence of the Father, and it will dwell there, and these intelligent beings that I am looking at, if they live worthy of it, will dwell upon this earth. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 17: 143.)

3.)

Articles of Faith 1:10

10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

[Stone holm]

Here are three for starters:

1.)

2.)

3.)

Okay, three has never been in contention. Two, is interesting. It was apparently the belief and teaching in the early days of the Church that the Earth fell through space. I believe there used to be a hymn by Eliza Snow to that effect, if I am not mistaken. If anybody knows please pipe up as I would not have a clue how to find where I read it, but can almost, but not quite, recall the lyrics. Many of her more controversial and informative hymns have disappeared from the hymn book, a sign that does not bode well for the continued credibility of the doctrine amongst the Brethren. There is of course something of a scientific issue with the idea since there is a mathematical formula worked out which predicts the location of the planetary orbits except that of Pluto, whose status as a planet has been the subject of considerable controversy. I bring up the formula since it suggests very strongly that the whole solar system was formed as a single process, hence it is unlikely that a planet was plopped down in it after it was formed. Plus this theory also seems at odds with the whole let there be light notion of creating the sun and moon. But it does, nevertheless, have the weight of early thinking behind it. With regards to One, I do not have access to McConkie's writing to which you refer. The Scriptures state, however, that God prepared a Garden and even gave a location for it and that Adam and Eve were placed in it and commanded to dress it. As a result, the door is left open that there was something somewhat special about that location. Logic would then seem to argue against McConkie on this issue as to whether the entire Earth was a terrestrial kingdom at that time. Is there something stronger than McConkie's assertion which logically supports a whole Earth contention?

[Calm]

It was apparently the belief and teaching in the early days of the Church that the Earth fell through space. I believe there used to be a hymn by Eliza Snow to that effect, if I am not mistaken.

can't post the image but the whole hymn is here: http://www.hymnary.org/text/thou_earth_wast_once_a_glorious_sphere

Text borrowed from this site:

"Thou, earth, wast once a glorious sphere of noble magnitude, And didst with majesty appear, among the worlds of God.

"But thy dimensions have been torn asunder, piece by piece, And each dismembered fragment borne abroad to distant space.

"When Enoch could no longer stay amid corruption here, Part of thyself was borne away to form another sphere.

"That portion where his city stood he gained by right approved; And nearer to the throne of God his planet upward moved.

"And when the Lord saw fit to hide the "ten lost tribes" away, Thou, earth, was severed to provide the orb on which they stay.

"And thus, from time to time thy size has been diminished, till Thou seemest the law of sacrifice created to fulfil....

"When Satan's hosts are overcome, the martyred, princely race Will claim thee, their celestial home —their royal dwelling-place.

"A 'restitution' yet must come, that will to thee restore, By that grand law of worlds, thy sum of matter heretofore.

"And thou, O earth, will leave the track Thou hast been doomed to trace; The Gods with shouts will bring thee back To fill thy native place."

http://www.losthymnsproject.com/14_Texts/Thou-Earth-Wast-Once-a-Glorious-Sphere.pdf

Edited June 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Here is what I believe:

1) Adam was the first man (no pre-adamites) he was a historical figure and not just symbolic or figurative

2) There was no death on this earth before the fall

3) This earth and everything on it was created in a paradisical state (terrestrial order)

4) The fall begun this mortal probation bringing death and sin into the world and it became a telestial order

5) Christ atoned for the fall and made possible the resurrection (something science does not account for either)

6) At the coming of Christ this earth will be brought back to a terrestrial order in which there will be no death as we know it.

7) We do not have all the answers and will not until the Lord comes and reveals all things.

Just FYI I believe all these things too, especially number 7. The key word of course being "believe" which means I take them on faith.

One can justify this view as a religious belief just as well as one can justify any belief, but just not in the same way.

[mfbukowski]

can't post the image but the whole hymn is here: http://www.hymnary.org/text/thou_earth_wast_once_a_glorious_sphere

Text borrowed from this site:

"Thou, earth, wast once a glorious sphere of noble magnitude, And didst with majesty appear, among the worlds of God.

"But thy dimensions have been torn asunder, piece by piece, And each dismembered fragment borne abroad to distant space.

"When Enoch could no longer stay amid corruption here, Part of thyself was borne away to form another sphere.

"That portion where his city stood he gained by right approved; And nearer to the throne of God his planet upward moved.

"And when the Lord saw fit to hide the "ten lost tribes" away, Thou, earth, was severed to provide the orb on which they stay.

"And thus, from time to time thy size has been diminished, till Thou seemest the law of sacrifice created to fulfil....

"When Satan's hosts are overcome, the martyred, princely race Will claim thee, their celestial home —their royal dwelling-place.

"A 'restitution' yet must come, that will to thee restore, By that grand law of worlds, thy sum of matter heretofore.

"And thou, O earth, will leave the track Thou hast been doomed to trace; The Gods with shouts will bring thee back To fill thy native place."

http://www.losthymns...ious-Sphere.pdf

Wow- thanks!