Pre-Adamites?

[SamIam]

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.

You mistake my effort. I am in no way saying this is how it is done. I am simply illustrating that as we barely begin to see possibilities that ten years ago did not even exist - such a hyper velocity planets - we should be moving forward towards accepting concepts such as what Brigham states that this earth literally moved in space from one location to another. Instead, most still refuse to see possibilities because they demand absolute spot on proof - a faithless pursuit which nobody who is trying to please God should demand or expect. So for those who wish to wait for their proofs, great, go for it. We are no where near understanding the mechanics of how God would move a planet but why do we run and hide when the possibilities seem more realistic than ever.

That is beyond my grasp to understand - but I'm positive I can trust Brigham as being right - this earth and sun fell and somehow God managed a remarkable process.

Some of your previous posts have been rude. You will be removed from threads if you demean others.

Edited June 11, 2013 by SamIam

[cdowis]

Ah, there's the rub.

If we understood it, there would be no paradox. The paradox is evidence of our ignorance, some more so than others.

[SamIam]

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?

Again, I have already responded to your earlier post and covered my thought sufficient. However I'll add a bit more. How do you propose that one study it out in their mind. Do I strictly bind myself to the scriptures and prophetic as I have been accused of doing until now. Then when I illustrate that I have been true and sincere in my efforts to seek out truth wherever it may be found, Then I get accused of appealing to science for my evidences and you decry that effort as well.

I mean just step back for a minute. Think about what I have been writing up until today. Think about all of the little jabs and such about those who make their appeals to theology as if that ends the conversation. All pointed at the earlier nature of my posts. You have slid a couple in yourself. Which way do you think I should turn next if my appeals to both sides of the debate are discounted.

Cal, your are always level headed and thats a wonderful trait but you can't have it both ways. It is true that I appeal to scripture and prophetic utterance as my mainstay, my foundation and my standard. However, it is because those things are the foundation of my faith in Jesus Christ and that exceeds any merit of any so-called scientific proofs. I only provide the proofs, the quotes, the references for you folks that read this material. I no longer need them for in my studies they have done their job. I am more convinced now of the power of God to do exactly what he says he has done than ever in my life before. I do not expect anyone to give my tiny voice credence for the veracity of my statements. I am simply illustrating that I did not come to my conclusions in a vacuum and I hope that maybe if I illustrate some of the material that helped me gain testimonies that others will perhaps see the additional witnesses I provide and feel a need to pursue these things in a spiritual fashion that includes God as opposed to the lie that science does not allow a God.

Few temple goers understand the profoundness of the statement of "I said nothing about Father" in terms of the event taking place. The very first temptation that initiated the fall of man was couched in terms applicable to all sophistry that I have ever encountered. It is placed in the temple as a clue upon what conditions men will continue their personal falls when they agree also "to say nothing about Father"

Edited June 11, 2013 by SamIam

[SamIam]

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.

A link please. I do not read through very many threads and must have missed this one...

[SamIam]

Some of your previous posts have been rude. You will be removed from threads if you demean others.

Well it looks like my further participation is being discouraged and as I think I have covered all pertinent angles I am going to limit any further activity to the minimums. If it is true that someone has felt demeaned or devalued in some way, my apologies. Passion is often mistaken for rudeness but I did not intend such.

[ERayR]

Well it looks like my further participation is being discouraged and as I think I have covered all pertinent angles I am going to limit any further activity to the minimums. If it is true that someone has felt demeaned or devalued in some way, my apologies. Passion is often mistaken for rudeness but I did not intend such.

I can't remember which thread but this link will give you the essence of my posts.

http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%20MUSEUM/Out_Of_Place_Artifacts/OOPARTS.html

I don't see anybody discouraging you from posting only warning about the tone of your posts.

[Stone holm]

Let me step back and refocus this discussion a little bit. I don't think the location of the Earth before or after the Fall is necessarily pertinent to the pre-Adamites. However the question of whether the Garden of Eden included the whole Earth during Adam and Eve unmortal period is. Now we have several prophets and GAs who have said things which could be construed to be on either side of this issue. However although sometimes when a person says something that clearly says something it may not have been actually the point they were focusing on. I think it is pretty clear that the teachings are consistent that the Earth will during the Millenium become similar to the Garden of Eden. So for those of us who believe in a literal Interpretation, we can take the condition of the Earth during the Millenium off the table for discussion. The idea that the Garden was a special discrete place with a terrestrial status on an otherwise telestial world works nicely to allow us to have our Adam being placed therein from another world, and also allow for hominids to develop outside the garden. If, however, we go with a global garden then we have to come up with another explanation. One of those is the idea that the Earth has been constructed from prior creations. This has in fact been alluded to by GAs from time to time I believe. It presents some awkwardness with science and also presents some awkwardness theologically. I believe ERay alluded to this theory in another thread by mentioning anomalies in coal deposits. To me the idea of suspending death globally presents some really really difficult credibility issues with no real gain theologically. But I admit to some biases here and tend to not rate all GAs equally when it comes to tackling creation issues, I tend from my readings to rank Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie rather low in their opinions or at least in the way they expressed themselves on these issues. So without getting into the translocation of the Earth or discussion of the Millenium, how do we get a handle on these hominid bones that keep popping up?

[SamIam]

I can't remember which thread but this link will give you the essence of my posts.

http://www.discovery...ts/OOPARTS.html

I don't see anybody discouraging you from posting only warning about the tone of your posts.

Thank you. I have collected some similar anecdotes and find them very fascinating. It only takes one example such as these to give cause for pause.

[Stone holm]

I can't remember which thread but this link will give you the essence of my posts.

http://www.discovery...ts/OOPARTS.html

I don't see anybody discouraging you from posting only warning about the tone of your posts.

The anomalies in the coal deposits presents all types of issues both theologically and scientifically. While I have all ways felt slightly at uncomfortable with the carbon dating process, the young Earth theological theory would cause us to throw overboard basically all of our geologic science, not to mention what it does to biological science, -- as a result I tend to shy away from it and look for other ways to reconcile accounts which require less manhandling of either doctrine or science. While I do not feel uncomfortable with the idea that there may have been some type of being wandering around the Earth leaving artificial artifacts in the vegetation layer that later under the passage of years and pressure became coal -- we really do a number on both science and theology if we attribute those anomalies to post-Adamites such as during the Enochian era. The masons have some legends about Enochian period Temples being buried, but I don't think even they go so far as to suggest that they were as old as coal deposits. So in my mind that leaves the anomalies, assuming they are not hoaxes, to be either remnants from a recycled creation or some kind of litter left behind by some very ancient visitor to the Earth.

I tend to be partial to Von Daniken so I don't rule out the alien visitors or Atlanteans or whatever, but I think most Mormons kind of shy away from that explanation. The recycled creation is a possibility, except does that imply that sometimes creations get started go awry get scrubbed by God and recycled, or are they remnants of some planet whose inhabitants were not destined to stay on the planet? Since Earth is destined to become a Celestial Kingdom, I assume that God is going to do something to some orbs somewhere else to create telestial kingdoms and terrestrial kingdoms -- put I have always deemed those to be permanent in that fixed state so they would not be eligible for recycling. I realize that there are other planets with human life thereon that were saved by Christ's Atonement -- but it is my understanding that even the Celestials from there will not be transported to Earth, so I assume those planets are also destined to become Celestial Kingdoms. So where does that leave the recycling theory other than to say sometimes God's cake doesn't rise exactly as it was planned. Your thoughts?

[thesometimesaint]

My thoughts?

Two thoughts.

1. That the second we enter the world of the Supernatural we have left the Natural world far behind.

2. That someday we and/or God will reconcile Science with Faith, but that day probably isn't today.

[ERayR]

The anomalies in the coal deposits presents all types of issues both theologically and scientifically. While I have all ways felt slightly at uncomfortable with the carbon dating process, the young Earth theological theory would cause us to throw overboard basically all of our geologic science, not to mention what it does to biological science, -- as a result I tend to shy away from it and look for other ways to reconcile accounts which require less manhandling of either doctrine or science.

Assuming they are not hoaxes they put both young earth creationist and evolutionist in the same position (the oops maybe we don't have all the answers position). Hopefully someday both will start evaluating it.

While I do not feel uncomfortable with the idea that there may have been some type of being wandering around the Earth leaving artificial artifacts in the vegetation layer that later under the passage of years and pressure became coal -- we really do a number on both science and theology if we attribute those anomalies to post-Adamites such as during the Enochian era. The masons have some legends about Enochian period Temples being buried, but I don't think even they go so far as to suggest that they were as old as coal deposits. So in my mind that leaves the anomalies, assuming they are not hoaxes, to be either remnants from a recycled creation or some kind of litter left behind by some very ancient visitor to the Earth.

I have no problem with extending the Adam advent back to the beginning of this system. What I do have a problem with is the idea that Adam and Eve were ignorant savages. There is much to much evidence of advanced civilization and technology in the far distant past.

I tend to be partial to Von Daniken so I don't rule out the alien visitors or Atlanteans or whatever, but I think most Mormons kind of shy away from that explanation. The recycled creation is a possibility, except does that imply that sometimes creations get started go awry get scrubbed by God and recycled, or are they remnants of some planet whose inhabitants were not destined to stay on the planet? Since Earth is destined to become a Celestial Kingdom, I assume that God is going to do something to some orbs somewhere else to create telestial kingdoms and terrestrial kingdoms -- put I have always deemed those to be permanent in that fixed state so they would not be eligible for recycling. I realize that there are other planets with human life thereon that were saved by Christ's Atonement -- but it is my understanding that even the Celestials from there will not be transported to Earth, so I assume those planets are also destined to become Celestial Kingdoms. So where does that leave the recycling theory other than to say sometimes God's cake doesn't rise exactly as it was planned. Your thoughts?

I am not too partial to the ancient alien/guided evolution approach. I am much more comfortable with Brigham Young's approach.

[ERayR]

My thoughts?

Two thoughts.

1. That the second we enter the world of the Supernatural we have left the Natural world far behind.

2. That someday we and/or God will reconcile Science with Faith, but that day probably isn't today.

1) Not necessarily. You are much too exclusive. I have an idea that when number 2 is realized it will be a combination of the two, with each acting in the limits of their bounds.

2) On this we can agree.

[cdowis]

how do we get a handle on these hominid bones that keep popping up?

They were not descendants of Adam but part of the fifth day of creation.

Does that help.

[ERayR]

They were not descendants of Adam but part of the fifth day of creation.

Does that help.

As I have posted before, anything to keep the cog dis from reaching the breaking point. If it works for you fine, after all we have no provable answers.

[Stone holm]

Assuming they are not hoaxes they put both young earth creationist and evolutionist in the same position (the oops maybe we don't have all the answers position). Hopefully someday both will start evaluating it.

I have no problem with extending the Adam advent back to the beginning of this system. What I do have a problem with is the idea that Adam and Eve were ignorant savages. There is much to much evidence of advanced civilization and technology in the far distant past.

I don't have a problem with either of these assertions. I would tend to place Adam and Eve in the Garden, however, and have the Garden as a discrete Paradisaical spot on an otherwise Telestial world with time doing its thing out there in the Telestial part. If we preserve the genealogies in the Old Testament though for the post-Garden Era, then it would seem to me that we would have to account for anomalies in the coal deposit as being from something or someone outside the Garden while the Garden existed in the Telestial part of the planet which is a little troublesome.

I am not too partial to the ancient alien/guided evolution approach. I am much more comfortable with Brigham Young's approach.

Although I find Von Daniken fascinating, I tend towards God out there tinkering and tend to like most of what Brigham Young has to say. I am not adverse to the idea that sometimes God's cake doesn't raise properly and He aborts worlds and starts over. Which is consistent with him send down angels to get progress reports. But some people are offended with the notion that God would start a creation that goes awry -- His cakes, for them, always have to go smoothly from batter in the pan to perfect cake (I see that as unwarranted.)

[Stone holm]

My thoughts?

Two thoughts.

1. That the second we enter the world of the Supernatural we have left the Natural world far behind.

2. That someday we and/or God will reconcile Science with Faith, but that day probably isn't today.

I don't draw a dichotomy between the supra natural and the natural as you do, I view the former to be merely a part of the latter that we don't understand yet including Divine intervention and aliens.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't draw a dichotomy between the supra natural and the natural as you do, I view the former to be merely a part of the latter that we don't understand yet including Divine intervention and aliens.

Supernatural means pertaining to God.

Supranatural means transcending the natural.

It is more of a distinction without a difference. Whether it's an appeal to God or " little green men". It is a logical fallacy.

False Burden of Proof

In order to have a worthwhile argument, if you make a claim, you have the burden of proving it. This is the simple premise behind the false burden of proof fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim, and then says that because his/her opponent lacks evidence to the contrary, the claim is therefore correct or valid.

For example, say that Paul says, “Little invisible green men are living inside my brain and telling me what to do. You can’t prove me wrong, so therefore I’m right.” Unfortunately for Paul, this line of reasoning is flawed. If you make a claim, and assert it as true, you can’t then shift the burden to the other party and make them prove otherwise. This is why plaintiffs have the burden of proof in court–they’re the one(s) asserting the claim.

A good general rule for intense rational argument: if you can’t prove it, don’t assert it.

[ERayR]

Supernatural means pertaining to God.

Supranatural means transcending the natural.

It is more of a distinction without a difference. Whether it's an appeal to God or " little green men". It is a logical fallacy.

False Burden of Proof

In order to have a worthwhile argument, if you make a claim, you have the burden of proving it. This is the simple premise behind the false burden of proof fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim, and then says that because his/her opponent lacks evidence to the contrary, the claim is therefore correct or valid.

For example, say that Paul says, “Little invisible green men are living inside my brain and telling me what to do. You can’t prove me wrong, so therefore I’m right.” Unfortunately for Paul, this line of reasoning is flawed. If you make a claim, and assert it as true, you can’t then shift the burden to the other party and make them prove otherwise. This is why plaintiffs have the burden of proof in court–they’re the one(s) asserting the claim.

A good general rule for intense rational argument: if you can’t prove it, don’t assert it.

Herein lies one of the big problems. Both sides of this are more interested in polishing their arguments and getting firmly entrenched and decimating the opponent than they are getting together and formulating answers. Oh they are great for proposing answers as long as they support their side.

Edited June 11, 2013 by ERayR

[SamIam]

A good general rule for intense rational argument: if you can’t prove it, don’t assert it.

And hence why when people participate in religious discussions or discussions with a religious tangent there is a tacit understanding that many of the concepts of theology cannot be proven by direct evidence. By common assent we agree to the discussion within the parameters of accepted religious intent so that there can be a discussion at all.

[thesometimesaint]

Herein lies one of the big problems. Both sides of this are more interested in polishing their arguments and getting firmly entrenched and decimating the opponent than they are getting together and formulating answers. Oh they are great for proposing answers as long as they support their side.

Agreed both sides are committed to their own arguments. But when we look at what physical evidence both present we are required to judge between the two. So far the Natural side has the best arguments. I eagerly await the Supernatural side of the argument to rise to the occasion. What form that Supernatural winning argument will be I have no idea.

Ultimately God and I will come to an agreement on exactly HOW and WHY he did it. How can I become like God if I don't know how he did it? In the mean time I'm fine with letting the science inform me as to the HOW he did it, and leave my religion to explain the WHY.

[ERayR]

Agreed both sides are committed to their own arguments. But when we look at what physical evidence both present we are required to judge between the two. So far the Natural side has the best arguments. I eagerly await the Supernatural side of the argument to rise to the occasion. What form that Supernatural winning argument will be I have no idea.

Ultimately God and I will come to an agreement on exactly HOW and WHY he did it. How can I become like God if I don't know how he did it? In the mean time I'm fine with letting the science inform me as to the HOW he did it, and leave my religion to explain the WHY.

That would be fine if they were looking at all the evidence. Both sides dismiss evidence out of hand(hoaxes) without any investigation. A pox on both their houses and shame on them for claiming impartial and honest investigation.

And you will never know if the present mindsets do not change.

Edited June 11, 2013 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

And hence why when people participate in religious discussions or discussions with a religious tangent there is a tacit understanding that many of the concepts of theology cannot be proven by direct evidence. By common assent we agree to the discussion within the parameters of accepted religious intent so that there can be a discussion at all.

I expect a lively discussion from/on both sides. I am willing/do accept religious arguments. What I can't accept is imposition of one side over the other. Science so far has the better arguments when it comes to the Natural world. I look forward to the better arguments from the Faith/Religious side of the argument.

[cinepro]

Let me step back and refocus this discussion a little bit. I don't think the location of the Earth before or after the Fall is necessarily pertinent to the pre-Adamites. However the question of whether the Garden of Eden included the whole Earth during Adam and Eve unmortal period is. Now we have several prophets and GAs who have said things which could be construed to be on either side of this issue. However although sometimes when a person says something that clearly says something it may not have been actually the point they were focusing on. I think it is pretty clear that the teachings are consistent that the Earth will during the Millenium become similar to the Garden of Eden. So for those of us who believe in a literal Interpretation, we can take the condition of the Earth during the Millenium off the table for discussion. The idea that the Garden was a special discrete place with a terrestrial status on an otherwise telestial world works nicely to allow us to have our Adam being placed therein from another world, and also allow for hominids to develop outside the garden.

It doesn't have to be a huge mystery. The Church has a website where conference talks, articles and curriculum are published, along with the scriptures. Why not search those official resources and see if the Church has addressed the issue? I suspect if you do, you'll find one of three things has happened:

1. The issue has been addressed clearly and consistently, from many different Church leaders in a variety of official church venues (including correlated materials).

2. The issue has been addressed, but with a variety of opinions expressed in official Church publications (as found on the website).

3. The issue has not been addressed in official publications, and we are left to decide on our own.

So why not go to lds.org and see what has been taught about whether or not the Garden of Eden covered the entire Earth, and whether or not there was physical death for animals (and hominids) outside the Garden while Adam and Eve were inside the Garden?

[ERayR]

It doesn't have to be a huge mystery. The Church has a website where conference talks, articles and curriculum are published, along with the scriptures. Why not search those official resources and see if the Church has addressed the issue? I suspect if you do, you'll find one of three things has happened:

1. The issue has been addressed clearly and consistently, from many different Church leaders in a variety of official church venues (including correlated materials).

2. The issue has been addressed, but with a variety of opinions expressed in official Church publications (as found on the website).

3. The issue has not been addressed in official publications, and we are left to decide on our own.

So why not go to lds.org and see what has been taught about whether or not the Garden of Eden covered the entire Earth, and whether or not there was physical death for animals (and hominids) outside the Garden while Adam and Eve were inside the Garden?

And yet another error. The church does not need to address anything if the scientific community would look at the information out there instead of dismiss it out of hand.

[Stone holm]

Supernatural means pertaining to God.

Supranatural means transcending the natural.

It is more of a distinction without a difference. Whether it's an appeal to God or " little green men". It is a logical fallacy.

False Burden of Proof

In order to have a worthwhile argument, if you make a claim, you have the burden of proving it. This is the simple premise behind the false burden of proof fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim, and then says that because his/her opponent lacks evidence to the contrary, the claim is therefore correct or valid.

For example, say that Paul says, “Little invisible green men are living inside my brain and telling me what to do. You can’t prove me wrong, so therefore I’m right.” Unfortunately for Paul, this line of reasoning is flawed. If you make a claim, and assert it as true, you can’t then shift the burden to the other party and make them prove otherwise. This is why plaintiffs have the burden of proof in court–they’re the one(s) asserting the claim.

A good general rule for intense rational argument: if you can’t prove it, don’t assert it.

At this vantage point nobody can really prove anything, however, as with most issues of this nature you can go through and assess which explanations are the least problematic. They may not be right -- it may be for example that God sped up the processing time for turning fossilized vegetation into coal and did a lot of things which would then make the truth exactly as it is described in Genesis. I don't think any Mormon who has done much reading of the early prophets of the restoration are likely to go very far down that route. It doesn't seem that it is really necessary to cling to the young Earth concept. What I am proposing here isn't so much an answer -- I don't think we are ever likely to have "the answer" until after we croak and get a chance to discuss it with actual participants -- so what I am proposing is trying to develop a way of looking at these issues. That way is to say " Okay the logic of our leaders have suggested explanations x, y, and z. Z doesn't really seem to flow logically with our other teachings. X and Y do flow logically. X doesn't require us to make major structural changes to our scientific understandings, Y requires us to suspend a huge number of scientific laws and understandings -- thus we would tend to lean towards X as the best explanation that fits with science and with our religion.

Of course something may always come along an upset the applecart, namely a major scientific breakthrough, or a major theological course correction. Evolution, except possibly as to Adam and Eve, seems to be a major quagmire when it comes to our religion because you have Prophets going every which way on the issue, sometimes with great gusto. Plus there is always that cultural thing wherein you were brought up to summarily dismiss evolution as an insidiously evil doctrine, or you are brought up to summarily dismiss revelations regarding creation as superstitious fables. I think if you can cut through those two cultural positions, then you can have some rational discussion. You might even be able to get people to take a serious look at some of the coal anomalies that ERay has brought up and figure out what the heck could have resulted in those occurring.