Adam And The Apes

[Rob Osborn]

Both sides are correct. According to Moses 2, the spiritual creation of man happened in the 6th day, and the earthly bodies of Adam and Eve were created on the 7th day...

3 And I, God, blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it I had rested from all my work which I, God, had created and made.

4 And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day (the 6th day) that I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men (on the 6th day); and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth (this is what was done on the 6th day of creation), neither in the water, neither in the air;

6 But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground (this is happening on the 7thday), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.

8 And I, the Lord God, planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there I put the man whom I had formed. (Moses 2)

And don't forget about the D&C verse-

 

12 Q. What are we to understand by the sounding of the ^atrumpets, mentioned in the 8th chapter of Revelation?

A. We are to understand that as God ^bmade the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and ^csanctified it, and also formed man out of the ^ddust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God ^esanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and ^fjudge all things, and shall ^gredeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years—the ^hpreparing of the way before the time of his coming. (D&C 77:12)

[teddyaware]

And don't forget about the D&C verse-

 

12 Q. What are we to understand by the sounding of the ^atrumpets, mentioned in the 8th chapter of Revelation?

A. We are to understand that as God ^bmade the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and ^csanctified it, and also formed man out of the ^ddust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God ^esanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and ^fjudge all things, and shall ^gredeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years—the ^hpreparing of the way before the time of his coming. (D&C 77:12)

 

And with that one you and I nailed this one down tight! Swooooosh!

[thesometimesaint]

If Adam had ape ancestors how do you deal with the scripture "Let us make man in our own image"

 

Process and results.

[thesometimesaint]

This logic could be applied to evaluating cars.  We would similarly conclude that a 2014 BMW 740 Li was literally descended from a 1924 Ford Model T.  There is a good alternative explanation for organisms having similar parts, including DNA.  And it does not involve one organism descending from another more primitive organism.

 

The First Presidency stated that humans did not descend from more primitive species.  I believe that.  And I do not see the scientific evidence contradicting that.

 

True in a limited sense of the word. Both cars are powered by the internal combustion engine, and both have analogous means of controlling its movements. Beyond those there isn't much they have in common. That being said planes, trains, and automobiles are not living organisms and so don't use biological evolution.

 

The more similarities in parts, expressed by DNA, the closer in evolutionary terms they are. All dogs are animals, but all animals are not dogs.

 

They and you are entitled to any ideas that are wanted. The simple fact is that as a biological species we are descendent from simpler creatures. Science can not and does not speak to any Spiritual creation. Whatever that is. Then you haven't been paying attention.

 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Evolution

 

Evolution

See this page in the original 1992 publication.

Author: Evenson, William E.

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity…. Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes (see Appendix, "Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency").

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….

Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].

[SeekingUnderstanding]

That our species pre-dates and inhabits a countless plurality of worlds makes unguided evolution improbable to say the least. Even if a couple of worlds might accidentally make for similar biological forms, the probability of random accident creating the similarity required by LDS doctrine across countless worlds is just not possible.

I really enjoyed your post and agreed with most of what you said. Just thought I would point out that evolution is anything but a random process or accident. Convergent evolution tells us that given similar environments we'd expect similar forms to be created.

[DragonLancer]

My view is one of hybridization between genetically compatible species, something like from the last episode of the new series of Battlestar Galactica.  On Galactica, the race from Kobol hybridized with the evolved races from the earth, that were genetically compatible.

 

Adam's race was from a colony from Heaven in Missouri, descendants from the evolved race from Kolob, or whatever planet Elohim was born on.  Adam was a son of the Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother literally.  And Elohim's race evolved on his world.  So, Adam's race hybridized with the descendants of the other human species on the earth that came out of Africa once they met up with them.  So yes, we are a product of an evolutionary process.  However, we are a hybrid of an evolved race from another world, and evolved races from this world that were genetically compatible enough to co-mingle DNA.

[changed]

 evolution is anything but a random process .

Nothing happens randomly ... random = devoid of cause... there is a cause behind every effect, or the basis of science is null and void.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What it comes down to is a question of the nature of life itself - is life a purely mechanical entity created by the (fine-tuned) laws of the universe? Or is there more to life than atomic interaction potentials / lots of time / inherited traits & environmentally caused behaviors?  ie - is there an eternal spirit in the mix, some entity called "intelligence"?  And if intelligence/spirit does exist, to what extent does it alter/manipulate the matter it inhabits? 

I've heard some who adhere to the purely materialistic viewpoint of a “mechanical” type life say they disagree with the existence of free will - they believe everything is traceable to outward causes, that there is no such thing as "act" only "acted upon" and "react".   ... as the war in heaven was over agency, I mistrust philosophies which attempt to belittle or discredit the existence of free will. 

For those who do not adhere to purely materialistic epistemologies, who recognize the existence of spirit/intelligence/conscience/will - the ability to act/create/progress/grow/live it becomes a question of what extent intelligence transforms matter, and to what extent the more traditional laws of nature transform matter. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As a materials engineer, there is a stark difference between the atomic structures of living and non-living materials.   I’m used to creating matter with specified properties of strength/ductility/corrosion resistance etc. through various combinations of atoms with known interaction potentials and bonding properties.  In the non-living world of ceramics and metals, we use phase diagrams:

there are known structures for given compositions, temperatures, and pressures.  Structures do not “evolve” with time.  The crystal lattice structure of quartz from a million years ago is the same as the crystal structure of quartz today – the structure is created through atomic interaction potentials and formation kinetics – structures are not created by “survival adaptations”, the structures survive because the forces between atoms have not changed with time, the physical constants have not changed with time, and so the structures of matter should not change with time either – and in the non-living world, they don’t.    

How non-living structures are created:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l7JqonyoKA

How living structures are created:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70

life from life… if someone is ever able to perform abiogenesis – to take a non-living rock with the right composition, crush it up, heat treat it, cold work it, and produce something that is self-aware and has free will – if someone comes up with a repeatable procedure to make life, then I might consider the possibility that life is some mechanical entity devoid of spirit – but even then, it would still be impossible to prove that the artificially created material shell did not simply invite a spirit to inhabit it.

Edited January 7, 2014 by changed

[halconero]

I found this to be a fairly well put together blog about a concerns regarding evolution, the Fall, and the Atonement:

 

http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/01/14/from-the-archives-death-before-the-fall/

 

It's chief argument rests on the idea that Biological death and Doctrinal death are two very different things, it's a problem of semantics. Biological death is the cessation of metabolic processes and the eventual commencement of decomposition. Doctrinal death is the Latter-day Saint belief in the separation of the body from the spirit.

 

He argues that if Adam and Eve had finger nails, and if they did eat of the fruit that they were "freely given," then there was biological death occurring on at least a cellular level. Did this involve the separation of bodies from spirits? At one point does an organism have a spirit? 

 

It doesn't answer the question of death, natural selection, and evolving species before the fall, but it does introduce nuances not usually present in some debates.

Edited January 7, 2014 by halconero

[DJBrown]

True in a limited sense of the word. Both cars are powered by the internal combustion engine, and both have analogous means of controlling its movements. Beyond those there isn't much they have in common. That being said planes, trains, and automobiles are not living organisms and so don't use biological evolution.

 

The more similarities in parts, expressed by DNA, the closer in evolutionary terms they are. All dogs are animals, but all animals are not dogs.

 

They and you are entitled to any ideas that are wanted. The simple fact is that as a biological species we are descendent from simpler creatures. Science can not and does not speak to any Spiritual creation. Whatever that is. Then you haven't been paying attention.

 

 

 

The similarities between a 2014 BMW and a 1925 Model T are far greater than you acknowledge here.  They both have 4 wheels.  They both have steering wheels.  The both have transmissions, axles, ignitions, brakes, windows, dashes, seats, doorknobs, and on and on.  And many of their common parts are made from similar materials.  It is not inherently true that because two things look alike or have similar parts that one descended from another.  

 

You appear to be assuming that evolution is a fact when you say that automobiles "don't use biological evolution."  I am suggesting that it is an assumption to say that organisms "use biological evolution."  

 

You state that the closer two organisms are in parts, or DNA, the closer they are in evolutionary terms.   One could also say that the closer two cars are in appearance and function (say, like a 2014 BMW and a 2002 Audi), the closer they are in evolutionary terms.  And compared to a 1924 Model T, this would certainly fit the claims and basis for those claims.

 

I certainly recognize that plenty of people in the sciences have concluded that we have descended from more primitive species.  But I have yet to see strong evidence to support this big leap.  Are you aware of evidence that supports this?  You really cannot, in my opinion, say that "the simple fact is that as biological species we are descendent from simpler creatures."  That is not a "simple fact."  

 

In my opinion, if you remove some pretty hefty and unsupported assumptions built into the concept of macro-evolution, there is not a basis upon which to conclude that we descended from simpler creatures.

[Anne E. Prufe]

Process and results.

 

It is also in canonized revelation that Adam's father was God, not lower forms of life.  Not some half breed monkey.

 

"And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed." Moses 6:22

 

". . . which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." Luke 3:38

 

For those who do care for what the Prophets of God have taught on the subject: http://www.josephsmithforum.org/research/faqs/11-adams-father-who-was-the-father-of-adam-do-we-have-a-royal-heritage/

[Anne E. Prufe]

It is also in canonized revelation that man lived for hundreds of years.  So instead of evolving, man has been DEvolving. 

 

http://www.josephsmithforum.org/research/faqs/26-patriarch-ages-are-the-long-life-spans-of-the-patriarchs-true-doctrine-what-does-this-mean-for-the-theory-of-darwinian-evolution/

[Anne E. Prufe]

Total aside...I love how that forum emphasizes they will let the prophets' words speak for themselves adding as little commentary as possible...and then it uses a bunch of loaded questions, lol....not that they actually keep themselves from guiding the inferences to be made by limiting commentary either.

 

Now that you mention it, I took another look at that site.  Every one of those questions has a strong bias towards the position of the Scriptures and the presidents of the Church.  I can see how that could be offensive to some.  You might want to suggest some changes to the site administrators.

[JAHS]

Brigham Young:

"Here let me state to all philosophers of every class upon the earth. when you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth. You tell me what I deem an idle tale when you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner. You are speaking idle words devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities. Where the gods dwell mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet and power was given them to propagate their species and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth." (Journal of Discourses 7:285-286)

 

Joseph Smith is quoted as saying:

 

"Now regarding Adam: He came here from another planet, an immortalized Being, and brought his wife Eve with him, and by eating of the fruit of this earth, became subject to death and decay. . . was made mortal and subject to death." - (Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., as recorded by Anson Call and copied by Patriarch John Whitmer)

 

 

The scriptures tell us that God made Adam's body from dust of this earth (Morm. 9: 17, D&C 77: 12, Moses 3: 7), and placed him in the Garden of Eden as an immortal being with flesh and bone (no blood). The book of Moses states that Adam's children were also created from the dust of the earth (see Moses 6:59). The same expression used to describe the bodily creation of Adam's children was used to describe the creation of Adam's body. Adam is also spoken of as being the "son of God" (Moses 6:22). So is it possible that Adam's immortal body was formed somewhere by immortal heavenly parents in a similar fashion that Adam and Eve created their own children? Or perhaps was Adam brought here in some embryonic form, using the substance of this earth to grow to maturity? It would solve the problem about those who do not believe in the evolution of man from lower forms of life.

[Calm]

Now that you mention it, I took another look at that site.  Every one of those questions has a strong bias towards the position of the Scriptures and the presidents of the Church.  I can see how that could be offensive to some.  You might want to suggest some changes to the site administrators.

I don't have a problem with bias, I have a problem with people pretending they are unbiased when they are not.  I have little doubt that they think they are doing exactly what they said they would.  Often people are so convinced of their position they see it as the only logical possibility and thus there is no bias in believing in it...but that is unfortunately an impossibility.  We choose what is important and what isn't as evidence and depending on how we weight the evidence, our conclusions will follow.

[halconero]

It is also in canonized revelation that man lived for hundreds of years.  So instead of evolving, man has been DEvolving. 

 

http://www.josephsmithforum.org/research/faqs/26-patriarch-ages-are-the-long-life-spans-of-the-patriarchs-true-doctrine-what-does-this-mean-for-the-theory-of-darwinian-evolution/

Devolving is a misnomer.

The scientific definition of evolution is the change in allele frequency from one generation to the next. So if a species somehow loses something, or somehow becomes more primitive, it's not "devolution" it's simply evolution. Evolution is not necessarily progression from simple to complex.

[changed]

Joseph Smith is quoted as saying:

 

"Now regarding Adam: He came here from another planet, an immortalized Being, and brought his wife Eve with him, and by eating of the fruit of this earth, became subject to death and decay. . . was made mortal and subject to death." - (Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., as recorded by Anson Call and copied by Patriarch John Whitmer)

 

 

 

 

in other words. Joseph Smith was a fan of panspermia, I'm a fan of that too.

Edited January 8, 2014 by changed

[Stone holm]

Adam was the first flesh upon the Earth: Moses 3:7. Try again.

The Genesis account is the spiritual creation. Read Moses 3 thoroughly including its heading.

I have heard the argument that our doctrine is that the 6 days of Creation refer to the spiritual creation and that man was the first creation and the physical creation all occurred on the 7th. But have never been able to quite square that with the Temple or the Sabbath. Care to explain further?

[Rob Osborn]

I have heard the argument that our doctrine is that the 6 days of Creation refer to the spiritual creation and that man was the first creation and the physical creation all occurred on the 7th. But have never been able to quite square that with the Temple or the Sabbath. Care to explain further?

Not sure exactly why the discrepency but there is an issue. Its always bothered me that we cant nail that one down when it is so obvious according to scripture that Adam was formed on the seventh day.

[Stone holm]

Not sure exactly why the discrepency but there is an issue. Its always bothered me that we cant nail that one down when it is so obvious according to scripture that Adam was formed on the seventh day.

 

I tend to agree, but very few members understand it that way, and the Temple experience certainly would tend to lead a person in the wrong direction with regards to the Creation if it is true that the physical Creation occurred on the 7th day.  But then, I am not the best at understanding a lot of the Temple experience.

[DragonLancer]

Quoting scripture and attaching literalist interpretations to them doesn't always work.  Adam being the first flesh on the earth is not supported from the geological and paleontological records.  If by flesh, the scriptures mean more specifically "the first man who was a literal descendant of Elohim's body in the flesh", then it works.

[thesometimesaint]

in other words. Joseph Smith was a fan of panspermia, I'm a fan of that too.

 

Here I thought that Adam and Eve were made out of the dust of the ground. Then God breathed into Adam the breath of life. But it was really that they were immortal space aliens who after being tempted by a talking snake into eating a special fruit changed to became mortal.

Edited January 8, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[teddyaware]

Quoting scripture and attaching literalist interpretations to them doesn't always work.  Adam being the first flesh on the earth is not supported from the geological and paleontological records.  If by flesh, the scriptures mean more specifically "the first man who was a literal descendant of Elohim's body in the flesh", then it works.

I take a wait and see attitude. I wouldn't be at all surprised if when Heavenly Father finally reveals exactly how it all happened, it may very well turn science on its ear -- much to the shock and astonishment of our atheist friends. And I wouldn't be surprised if all the biological clues and evidence left behind ultimately fit together in a ways never before imagined. But I'm open minded to whatever the solution to our perplexity will turn out to be.

 

But I do believe the most important factor left out of the creation scenarios is that God is a God of miracles. And when I say a God of miracles I mean really, really, really big miracles. Remember the raising of Lazarus' rotting body from the dead, the day the night and the day in which there was no night, and the fact that this earth, apparently very rapidly, is going to be transformed into a celestial kingdom? Scientists would be very dubious, if not mocking about these things, but I truly believe they have happened and will happen.

18 And who shall say that Jesus Christ did not do many mighty miracles? And there were many mighty miracles wrought by the hands of the apostles.

19 And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles. (Moroni 9)

[Stone holm]

Here I thought that Adam and Eve were made out of the dust of the ground. Then God breathed into Adam the breath of life. But it was really that they were immortal space aliens who after being tempted by a talking snake into eating a special fruit changed to became mortal.

 

I prefer the term unmortal to immortal despite its Vampire usage -- in order to distinquish between a resurrected being who is therefore immortal, and a being who has not yet experienced mortality, but has a physical body.

[Stone holm]

Quoting scripture and attaching literalist interpretations to them doesn't always work.  Adam being the first flesh on the earth is not supported from the geological and paleontological records.  If by flesh, the scriptures mean more specifically "the first man who was a literal descendant of Elohim's body in the flesh", then it works.

 

Yes, if that were the only one, but the scripture about the description of creation being the spiritual creation is what becomes problematic.

[teddyaware]

I prefer the term unmortal to immortal despite its Vampire usage -- in order to distinquish between a resurrected being who is therefore immortal, and a being who has not yet experienced mortality, but has a physical body.

Excellent point! I've often thought there had to be a word that better conveys the idea of one not having to die (unless wanting to) to one who's incapable of dying.