Pre-Adamites?

[Calm]

Wow- thanks!

Thank Stone Holm, I'd never heard of it.

[SamIam]

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?

If three has never been in contention then go with that. It states precisely what you are claiming to want proof for. I have a few more quotes but I'm not going to waste my time when you don't give credence to some of the best of the bunch. You are too close minded to consider things that disturb your preceived destiny.

However, since a fall in space seems improbable to you perhaps if we come at this from some reasonably recent scientific theoretics you will be so much more comfortable with that information:

1.)

Now, Vanderbilt astronomers report in the May issue of the Astronomical Journal that they have identified a group of more than 675 stars on the outskirts of the Milky Way that they argue are hypervelocity stars that have been ejected from the galactic core. They selected these stars based on their location in intergalactic space between the Milky Way and the nearby Andromeda galaxy and by their peculiar red coloration.

These stars really stand out. They are red giant stars with high metallicity which gives them an unusual color," says Assistant Professor Kelly Holley-Bockelmann, who conducted the study with graduate student Lauren Palladino. (http://www.scienceda...20430140033.htm)

2.)

This NASA-provided graphic shows the heliosphere (3^rd image) around the sun. The region is dominated by the sun and is inflated, like a bubble, in local interstellar material by the million mile-per-hour solar wind. This bubble keeps out the ionized or charged particles and magnetic fields from the galaxy and so protects us from dangerous galactic cosmic rays.

What this means is that there is much less oxygen in the interstellar medium than in our own solar system, and this is significant because oxygen and hydrogen are vital for making planets and people (and hydrogen is of course, crucial for making stars). So, where has all the oxygen gone to?

This is the cosmic puzzle that now confronts astrophysicists. Some scientists are speculating that this could mean that our sun originated from someplace else in the galaxy with much less oxygen, and then somehow moved to its present location.

Additionally, the IBEX probe has detected the interstellar wind coming from a different direction (from the constellation Scorpio) than was previously believed — and at 12% slower speed (about 52,000 mph).

Current calculations are that the wind exerts 20% less pressure on our solar system’s heliosphere — a giant bubble of solar wind atoms blown into the interstellar medium — that protects our little corner of the galaxy from dangerous cosmic rays.(In First, NASA Probe Detects ‘Alien Matter’ Entering Our Solar System February 1, 2012 By Michael Ricciardi, http://planetsave.co...r-solar-system/)

3.)

Last November astronomer David Nesvorny of the Southwest Research Institute in Colorado … proposed that a fifth gas giant emerged from the planet-birthing cloud 4.5 billion years ago. Suddenly his simulations started matching reality. The outer planets still jockeyed for position, but this time Jupiter spared Uranus and Neptune and ejected the extra planet instead. (Images 4 and 5)The loss of the extra world also shifted the orbits of the surviving planets. Jupiter darted toward the sun, while Uranus and Neptune got shoved farther away to the positions they have today. Nesvorny’s study in The Astrophysical Journal Letters came out just as other scientists announced that our galaxy may contain hundreds of billions of rogue planets floating aimlessly through interstellar space. If Nesvorny is correct, one of them may be our long-lost neighbor. (http://discovermagaz...ems-lost-planet)

But wait there's more!;

4.)

Seven years ago, astronomers boggled when they found the first runaway star flying out of our galaxy at a speed of 1.5 million miles per hour. The discovery intrigued theorists, who wondered: If a star can get tossed outward at such an extreme velocity, could the same thing happen to planets?

New research shows that the answer is yes. Not only do runaway planets exist, but some of them zoom through space at a few percent of the speed of light -- up to 30 million miles per hour.

"These warp-speed planets would be some of the fastest objects in our galaxy. If you lived on one of them, you'd be in for a wild ride from the center of the galaxy to the Universe at large," said astrophysicist Avi Loeb of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

"Other than subatomic particles, I don't know of anything leaving our galaxy as fast as these runaway planets," added lead author Idan Ginsburg of Dartmouth College. (http://www.scienceda...20322113604.htm)

5.)

This is the cosmic puzzle that now confronts astrophysicists. Some scientists are speculating that this could mean that our sun originated from someplace else in the galaxy with much less oxygen, and then somehow moved to its present location. (http://www.space.com...ve-missing.html)

Now here's a completely different idea but since I'm sure you are eating this up because after all it is science, I need to toss out something that will kind of slow you down on being too eager to accept that anything religious might, could maybe, possibly, perhaps, oh I doubt it, be analogous to a scientific principle:

D & C 88:45

45 The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.

Now expand upon the first and second images attached and perhaps consider. Look up Van Allen belts and find information on how they work with the same magnetic forces that surround our sun and indeed all plantery orbs and stars and perhaps you might make a connection that these represent some aspect of the force that moves the earth through space and maintains its relationship in orbit with the other orbs in the suns wake.

Edited June 10, 2013 by SamIam

[Stone holm]

Thank Stone Holm, I'd never heard of it.

I wonder though since this hymn has fallen from grace, so to speak, whether we can rely on it as valid teaching anymore. I suppose that depends on whether it was removed from the hymn book because the brethren no longer felt comfortable with its doctrinal status, or whether it was removed because of a general preference for doctrinal pablum in the later twentieth century. My guess would be that since they retained her Hie Unto. Kolob, that this one was removed because they no longer felt that the lyrics were doctrinally sound. If that is the case, the whole notion of a planet flying through space to a different system might be questionable. What are the thoughts of others?

[Stone holm]

If three has never been in contention then go with that. It states precisely what you are claiming to want proof for. I have a few more quotes but I'm not going to waste my time when you don't give credence to some of the best of the bunch. You are too close minded to consider things that disturb your preceived destiny.

However, since a fall in space seems improbable to you perhaps if we come at this from some reasonably recent scientific theoretics you will be so much more comfortable with that information:

1.)

2.)

3.)

But wait there's more!;

4.)

Now here's a completely different idea but since I'm sure you are eating this up because after all it is science and thus more believable that scripture, Brigham Young, Bruce R. McConkie and anything else I need to toss out something that will kind of slow you down on being to eager to accept that anything religious might, could maybe, possibly, perhaps, oh I doubt it, be analgous to a scientific principle:

Now expand upon the image attached and perhaps consider. Look up Van Allen belts and find information on how they work with the same magnetic forces that surround our sun and indeed all plantery orbs and stars and perhaps you might make a connection that these represent some aspect of the force that moves the earth through space and maintains its relationship in orbit with the other orbs in the suns wake.

The original number three talks about the state of the Earth as a planet at the onset of the Millenium. I have never thought that to be in contention by anyone. It does not, however, have anything to do with the topic which has to do with the pre-Adamites, not the conditions towards the end of times. The idea of a whole solar system moving as indicated in one of your quotes above would be different than the Earth plopping down into our current solar system. And since the Earth at the point it is converted into a celestial kingdom might resemble a star, certainly the detection of stars rapidly changing locations might work for that time period. The idea of escaped planets has been around for awhile, but doesn't work scientifically for the reasons previously noted.

[SamIam]

The original number three talks about the state of the Earth as a planet at the onset of the Millenium. I have never thought that to be in contention by anyone. It does not, however, have anything to do with the topic which has to do with the pre-Adamites, not the conditions towards the end of times. The idea of a whole solar system moving as indicated in one of your quotes above would be different than the Earth plopping down into our current solar system. And since the Earth at the point it is converted into a celestial kingdom might resemble a star, certainly the detection of stars rapidly changing locations might work for that time period. The idea of escaped planets has been around for awhile, but doesn't work scientifically for the reasons previously noted.

Okay stone explain the meaning of "that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory."

edited for my error on exact wording...

Edited June 10, 2013 by SamIam

[Stone holm]

Okay stone explain the meaning of "returned to"

Where does "returned" appear?

[SamIam]

The original number three talks about the state of the Earth as a planet at the onset of the Millenium. I have never thought that to be in contention by anyone. It does not, however, have anything to do with the topic which has to do with the pre-Adamites, not the conditions towards the end of times. The idea of a whole solar system moving as indicated in one of your quotes above would be different than the Earth plopping down into our current solar system. And since the Earth at the point it is converted into a celestial kingdom might resemble a star, certainly the detection of stars rapidly changing locations might work for that time period. The idea of escaped planets has been around for a while, but doesn't work scientifically for the reasons previously noted.

You are not debating with me anymore - these are your scientists folks and it is them that you are relegating to second class citizens, which I'm glad you do not just reserve for LDS apostles and such. You asked for evidence within the past ten years they are throwing evidence at you that boggles the mind. It has become clear that you simply don't want to see anything and discount everything on both sides of the debate. That tells me much.

You may think I'm just being the old scripture fanatic who can't see straight. I have spent 100's of hours in the past 2 years on this very subject. These scientific images and quotes come from the copious notes and research documents that I work on near daily.

What you have illustrated is that you have made hard and fast decisions and yet you are not adequately aware of the scriptural or prophetic utterances on the subject and now you illustrate you haven't even stayed up to date on the scientific. You are nowhere near having enough resources to have pondered this adequately and I am convinced you strictly go off of a cursory review and then create an opinion in your mind and that becomes your gospel.

Now faced with theories of origins of planets and stars, and observed facts of hyper velocity stars, Van Allen Belts and more, you still are resistent to updating your opinion.

Edited June 10, 2013 by SamIam

[SamIam]

Where does "returned" appear?

My mistake. I have edited the post to reflect the actual wording.

[SamIam]

Where does "returned" appear?

My mistake. I have edited the post to reflect the actual wording.

To help you out here is a quote of John Taylor to bring it full circle for you:

This habitation [i.e., the earth during the Millennium] may be compared to Paradise, from whence man, in the beginning, was driven.When Adam was driven from the Garden, an angel was placed with a flaming sword to guard the way of the Tree of Life, lest man should eat of it, and become immortal in his degenerate state, and thus be incapable of obtaining that exaltation, which he would be capable of enjoying through the redemption of Jesus Christ, and the power of the resurrection, with his renewed and glorified body. Having tasted of the nature of the fall, and having grappled with sin and misery, knowing, like the gods, both good and evil; having like Jesus overcome the evil, and through the power of atonement, having conquered death, hell, and the grave, he regains that Paradise, from which he was banished, not in the capacity of ignorant man, unacquainted with evil, but like unto a god. He can now stretch forth, and partake of the Tree of Life, and eat of its fruits, and live and flourish eternally in possession of that immortality which Jesus long ago promised to the faithful: "To him that overcomes, will I grant to sit with me in my throne; and eat of the Tree of Life which is in the midst of the Paradise of God." (John Taylor,

The Government of God

, Ch.12)

[Stone holm]

You are not debating with me anymore - these are your scientists folks and it is them that youi are relegating to second class citizens, which I'm glad you do not just reserve for LDS apostles and such. You asked for evidence within the past ten years they are throwing evidence at you that boggles the mind. It has become clear that you simply don't want to see anything and discount everything on both sides of the debate. That tells me much.

You may think I'm just being the old scripture fanatic who can't see straight. I have spent 100's of hours in the past 2 years on this very subject. These scientific images and quotes come from the copious notes and research documents that I work on near daily.

What you have illustrated is that you have made hard and fast decisions and yet you are not adequately aware of the scriptural or prophetic utterances on the subject and now you illustrate you haven't even stayed up to date on the scientific. You are nowhere near having enough resources to have pondered this adequately and I am convinced you strictly go off of a cursory review and then create an opinion in your mind and that becomes your gospel.

Now faced with theories of origins of planets and stars, and observed facts of hyper velocity stars, Van Allen Belts and more, you still are resistent to updating your opinion.

I certainly don't pretend to be a scientist. Actually, I thought I was agreeing with you that the concept of a moving solar system works with the teachings of the early leaders. I was not disagreeing with the notion that escaped planets exist, but I know of no scientists who believe that Earth is an escaped planet since it fits in nicely with the expected composition and orbital location from the current model for our solar systems location. That does not preclude the idea of the whole solar system moving.

As to the whole Earth being a Garden , I don't think the notion of the Earth being renewed to a paradaisical state necessarily implies that the entire Earth was once like the Garden of Eden . I have no intention of swapping credentials with you. I am merely exploring the various views as to under what conditions did the hominids that we sometimes refer to as pre-Adamites exist.

[Stone holm]

To help you out here is a quote of John Taylor to bring it full circle for you:

This habitation [i.e., the earth during the Millennium] may be compared to Paradise, from whence man, in the beginning, was driven.When Adam was driven from the Garden, an angel was placed with a flaming sword to guard the way of the Tree of Life, lest man should eat of it, and become immortal in his degenerate state, and thus be incapable of obtaining that exaltation, which he would be capable of enjoying through the redemption of Jesus Christ, and the power of the resurrection, with his renewed and glorified body. Having tasted of the nature of the fall, and having grappled with sin and misery, knowing, like the gods, both good and evil; having like Jesus overcome the evil, and through the power of atonement, having conquered death, hell, and the grave, he regains that Paradise, from which he was banished, not in the capacity of ignorant man, unacquainted with evil, but like unto a god. He can now stretch forth, and partake of the Tree of Life, and eat of its fruits, and live and flourish eternally in possession of that immortality which Jesus long ago promised to the faithful: "To him that overcomes, will I grant to sit with me in my throne; and eat of the Tree of Life which is in the midst of the Paradise of God." (John Taylor,

The Government of God

, Ch.12)

Well you see if you read this snippet from John Taylor carefully, he is actually not subscribing to the whole Earth being like the Garden of Eden. All he is saying is that during the Millenium, the whole Earth will be like the Garden of Eden.

[SamIam]

I certainly don't pretend to be a scientist. Actually, I thought I was agreeing with you that the concept of a moving solar system works with the teachings of the early leaders. I was not disagreeing with the notion that escaped planets exist, but I know of no scientists who believe that Earth is an escaped planet since it fits in nicely with the expected composition and orbital location from the current model for our solar systems location. That does not preclude the idea of the whole solar system moving.

As to the whole Earth being a Garden , I don't think the notion of the Earth being renewed to a paradaisical state necessarily implies that the entire Earth was once like the Garden of Eden . I have no intention of swapping credentials with you. I am merely exploring the various views as to under what conditions did the hominids that we sometimes refer to as pre-Adamites exist.

I'm not a scientist. I'm just a guy who refuses to define something as truth until I have put my full effort into examing all sides of the data and process that I can discover. Then I pray and ponder and follow the guidance of the spirit in deciphering between truth and error - be it scientific or theological. Because I follow the process as outlined in the scriptures the Lord constantly unfolds things to my understanding. Not perfect understandings by any means but perfect for my capacity to understand. In all of this it is not an exercise in comparing opinions. It is clear to me that we can understand science in many ways within the context of scripture and prophetic utterance. However, there is absolutely no understanding of such when we form opinons that the tangibles of science somehow supercede the word of God. They do not and cannot.

Again, this is more than an opinion, I have worked harder than you can imagine for cherished insights and it is only because I beleive the scriptures enough to take them at their word that if you study it out in your mind...then insight is provided. On this principle, I will end again with Adam was the first Flesh, there are no pre-adamites, and death entered as a result of the fall instigated by Adam and Eve.

Edited June 11, 2013 by SamIam

[SamIam]

Well you see if you read this snippet from John Taylor carefully, he is actually not subscribing to the whole Earth being like the Garden of Eden. All he is saying is that during the Millenium, the whole Earth will be like the Garden of Eden.

Okay here's another:

Now in time past this earth had a paradisiacal glory, and then came the fall, bringing a change, and that change has been upon the earth in the neighborhood of 6,000 years.

What is meant by the restoration of the earth? This earth is to be renewed and brought back to the condition in which it was before it was cursed through the fall of Adam. When Adam passed out of the Garden of Eden, then the earth became a telestial world, and it is of that order today. I do not mean a telestial glory such as will be found in telestial worlds after their resurrection, but a telestial condition which has been from the days of Adam until now and will continue until Christ comes. (Joseph Fielding Smith - Doctrines of Salvation, 1:85)

I've got more....

Edited June 11, 2013 by SamIam

[Calm]

Now faced with theories of origins of planets and stars, and observed facts of hyper velocity stars, Van Allen Belts and more, you still are resistent to updating your opinion.

The problem is not moving a planet as much as it moving intact so that it arrives at its new destination without having lost life, atmosphere, etc.

[ERayR]

The problem is not moving a planet as much as it moving intact so that it arrives at its new destination without having lost life, atmosphere, etc.

That is a problem only if you leave God out of the equation. That is the one of the problems I have with science. That and they won't admit that there may be bounds beyond which some of their observations are invalid. Died in the wool worshippers at the alter of evolution simply refuse to entertain that their extrapolations just may extend beyond the valid bounds of their observations.

[Calm]

That is a problem only if you leave God out of the equation. That is the one of the problems I have with science.

Well, I'm not the one trying to use science to explain how the earth moved after the Fall....for me it seems kind of silly to say (though speculation is often fun and the info itself is very interesting) up to this point everything was done just like one can see it out in space happening to thousands, if not millions of other planets and systems....but then for just this necessary but unable to be explained by science action God stepped in and worked whatever he needed to work to do his stuff.

At that point it becomes a statement of faith, so why not just start out with: "I believe the earth was moved somehow by God from here to there, all in one piece". Why try to justify it by appealing to science?

Edited June 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[Rivers]

One idea I recently heard is that Adam fell in behalf of all mankind before and after his lifetime the same way that Christ atoned for all mankind. The fall and atonement were both vicarious ordinances performed by the first and second Adam. Thus Adam was ritually and symbolically the first man. I think it was Dwane Jeffery who proposed the idea on a podcast.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Rivers

[ERayR]

Well, I'm not the one trying to use science to explain how the earth moved after the Fall....for me it seems kind of silly to say (though speculation is often fun and the info itself is very interesting) up to this point everything was done just like one can see it out in space happening to thousands, if not millions of other planets and systems....but then for just this necessary but unable to be explained by science action God stepped in and worked whatever he needed to work to do his stuff.

At that point it becomes a statement of faith, so why not just start out with: "I believe the earth was moved somehow by God from here to there, all in one piece". Why try to justify it by appealing to science?

I have no argument with what you have said. I get just as exasperated at dogmatic creationists as I do at dogmatic evolutionists. Both get so obtuse they reject anything that questions their dogma.

A couple of weeks ago I present three artifacts that were out of place and called into question both view points. It was quite illuminating that they were dismissed immediately, without any investigation, as obvious hoaxes.

[ERayR]

I one idea I recently heard is that Adam fell in behalf of all mankind before and after his lifetime the same way that Christ atoned for all mankind. The fall and atonement were both vicarious ordinances performed by the first and second Adam. Thus Adam was ritually and symbolically the first man. I think it was Dwane Jeffery who proposed the idea on a podcast.

Not to reject this but just an observation. It never ceases to amaze me the limits some stretch their cognitive dissonance to accommodate their theories from both the creation and evolution camps.

[Rivers]

Not to reject this but just an observation. It never ceases to amaze me the limits some stretch their cognitive dissonance to accommodate their theories from both the creation and evolution camps.

I am with you on this observation. The simplest way for me to overcome the cognitive dissonance is to acknowledge that the scriptures aren't science books.

[ERayR]

I am with you on this observation. The simplest way for me to overcome the cognitive dissonance is to acknowledge that the scriptures aren't science books.

But how can one treat science books as scripture? For many in any presumed discrepancies between the science books and scripture the science books are always chosen over scripture. Oh there is always a reason but to me those reasons stretch cog dis severely.

Edited June 11, 2013 by ERayR

[cdowis]

I am with you on this observation. The simplest way for me to overcome the cognitive dissonance is to acknowledge that the scriptures aren't science books.

I also suggest that we may not always understand what the scriptures are telling us. A simple example is when Adam is cast out of the Garden of Eden, what exactly was that boundary between "inside" and "outside" the Garden.

Now, as Nibley points out, before Adam, there were clearly no descendants of Adam. But exactly what does that mean? I find silly questions like these tend to point me to some insights as I try to give some meaningful answer to it.

First comes the question, then the insight so I spend alot of time trying to find the just the right question rather than pontificating, e.g. if the scriptures are true, then such and such must be true. More useful is to think, "Perhaps if my interpretation, my assumption on what the scriptures mean, what are some other possibilities."

The existence of pre-Adamities and the descendants of Adam on the same planet is one such delicious paradox. If I can figure that one out, then I am really on to something. What are my assumptions?

[cdowis]

But how can one treat science books as scripture? For many in any presumed discrepancies between the science books and scripture the science books are always chosen over scripture. Oh there is always a reason but to me those reasons stretch cog dis severely.

Why not see it as a paradox that we can eventually resolve if we are smart enough, rather than either....or.

[Questing Beast]

You raise an interesting point here which is I believe actually, surprise surpise not off topic. What is the consensus on the thread as to whether the Garden of Eden encompassed the whole planet, or was only a small portion of the planet. My personal belief which is based on the various references to there being a Garden and that Adam and Eve were placed in it, and the fact that they were cast out of it -- which requires them to have exited it to somewhere else, suggests that there was the Garden and then there was the rest of the planet, and it appears that time perhaps wasn't quite the same and the denizens of the garden perhaps weren't quite the same as outside the garden. This also has the pleasant other aspect of not seeming to be quite so contradictory of what we have discovered about the Earth via science. I have always felt that if there are two ways of looking at a doctrine of the Church and one requires you to run roughshod over known science and the other doesn't, then the prudent path to lean towards until you receive more light and knowledge is the one which does not require you to run roughshod over know science -- so as a result I have always favored the Garden as a discrete location and not a global phenomenon. Contrary views?

That's a safe and sensible position to take. I take it also. Genesis is the final writing down of a much longer oral tradition, going back into the time of myth, where Abraham stands at the edge of it; before Abraham we have nothing but a vague account of a timeless age, back to "in the beginning". To see how easily one can come up with the details for such a story, I enjoy suggesting The Silmarillion as a better, far more entertaining look at "in the beginning" and the ages of the earth that followed the creation. Genesis is not any more convincing than Tolkien, imho, of course....

[ERayR]

Why not see it as a paradox that we can eventually resolve if we are smart enough, rather than either....or.

As I posted in a thread a couple of weeks ago I have this category the size of warehouse 13 called "Waiting for Answers" I put these things on a shelf and as I gather information and insight I put that right up there with it. Then every once in awhile I get one of those Aha moments and God lets me take something down and move it to the little closet of things I understand.

As far as creation/evolution is concerned I have a lot on the shelves in warehouse 13 and have glimpses as yet I have not been able to move it to the I understand closet. What is frustrating is that I can not discuss with anyone because of the dogmatism of both evolutionists and young earth creationists. I get tired of the patronizing approach they extend to the poor deluded soul who must not understand either.