The Origin Of (Our) Species

[bluebell]

My opinion….Adam and Eve were acting as representatives on behalf of all creation at that time as well as the first covenant people.  When the Fall occurred for them, it occurred for all.

 

In Genesis, the animals and plants, etc. did not participate directly in accepting the fruit (or whatever the actual commandment that was broken was) and thus commiting the transgression that led to the Fall.  Yet they were part of it.  So why cannot other humans be a part of it as well?

 

I must not be understanding you right because I don't disagree with anything that you've said (and that makes your last question confusing to me).

 

It's not that other humans couldn't be a part of the fall that i'm thinking about.  It's the idea that Adam and Eve never existed and never brought about the Fall that i'm struggling to reconcile to the plan of salvation.

[Calm]

I believe that there is something significant different about those God has chosen to be part of his family and the spirits he created for them as opposed to the spirits of animals and others.  Even if bodies are identical, the spirit can make a huge difference.  We see this imo when the spirit is limited from fully expressing itself by physical limitations.  In the case of the preadamites, it is the spirit that is limited and not the body.

 

Even if the bodies were genetically identical, the differences in spirits imo means there is going to be a difference in behaviour and emotions.  What that difference means, I don't know.

 

I think that preadamites were part of the preparation of the earth for the children of God, whether there is a direct biological connection (parent to child) or the body template was shared but Adam and Eve's spirits were placed in bodies that were not born of preadamite parents, I don't know.  

 

It is not a theory I am locked into.  It simply explains for me what the science has been able to show us so far.

Edited February 27, 2015 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

I must not be understanding you right because I don't disagree with anything that you've said (and that makes your last question confusing to me).

 

It's not that other humans couldn't be a part of the fall that i'm thinking about.  It's the idea that Adam and Eve never existed and never brought about the Fall that i'm struggling to reconcile to the plan of salvation.

 

Don't give up the faith.  If it seems like a mass of confusion it probably is.

[Calm]

So maybe other children of God on other worlds breathe nitrogen or helium or whatever just as we breathe oxygen, and other people (let's call us all people okay?) on other worlds have green or orange or whatever color skin instead of the colors we have, and stuff like that?

More likely they adapted to a slightly different ratio of oxygen to other elements in the air.  Unless God was rigidly precise in creating worlds (and it seems to me he let the worlds obey him rather than forcing them to be a certain way) and controlling how much oxygen and other elements were produced by geological and biological processes, there would likely be some differences.  Think of it as similar to how mankind has adapt to lower levels of oxygen at higher altitudes even just on this earth.

 

Other variations could be gravity slightly higher or lower, water availability different, perhaps humans are more carnivore or less than they are here, hairier, six fingers instead of five being the standard, no little toes or appendixes, etc.

Edited February 27, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I've never thought about the spirits of animals being intelligences that were just less 'great' than humans.  Is that a part of our theology that i just never noticed before or is that from your perspective?

It seems a logical conclusion to me (and is much like my own) though there are likely other characteristics that would influence what type of animal one intelligence was.

[Ahab]

More likely they adapted to a slightly different ratio of oxygen to other elements in the air. Unless God was rigidly precise in creating worlds (and it seems to me he let the worlds obey him rather than forcing them to be a certain way) and controlling how much oxygen and other elements were produced by geological and biological processes, there would likely be some differences. Think of it as similar to how mankind has adapt to lower levels of oxygen at higher altitudes even just on this earth.

I can buy into that idea because that is just as we are, and we are diverse enough without imagining strange looking aliens like some of those depicted on Star Wars and Star Trek.

Pointed ears would be pretty cool, though. Live long and prosper on the other side now, Leonard Nimoy.

[SmileyMcGee]

The other point is that even without the Adam & Eve story you still have the same issue. There would have to be a cutoff between animal and man.

How is that an issue?

[JLHPROF]

How is that an issue?

 

Because you still have the situation where a virtually identical father and son, and one is eligible for eternal blessings that the other isn't for no reason other than biology.

[SmileyMcGee]

Because you still have the situation where a virtually identical father and son, and one is eligible for eternal blessings that the other isn't for no reason other than biology.

Oh I see. I thought you were saying it's an issue from a purely scientific standpoint

Edited February 27, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[pogi]

I've never thought about the spirits of animals being intelligences that were just less 'great' than humans.  Is that a part of our theology that i just never noticed before or is that from your perspective?

 

"Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence (D&C 93:30)."

 

Anything that acts was created from intelligence and has intelligence - or there would be no existence.  This to me says that not only do animals have intelligence, but plants and the earth itself, as they all act to obey the word of the Lord as evidenced by the process of creation.  This passage also hints that intelligences have been placed into different "spheres" of existence. 

 

Here is another passage that speaks of these "spheres" of intelligences:

"Q. What are we to understand by the four beasts, spoken of in the same verse?A. They are figurative expressions, used by the Revelator, John, in describing heaven, the paradise of God, the happiness of man, and of beasts, and of creeping things, and of the fowls of the air; that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created.

 

"Q. Are the four beasts limited to individual beasts, or do they represent classes or orders?A. They are limited to four individual beasts, which were shown to John, to represent the glory of the classes of beings in their destined order or sphere of creation, in the enjoyment of their eternal felicity (D&C 77:2-3)."

 

More scriptures on the continuum of intelligences that I am speaking about:

 

"Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

"And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all  (Abraham 3:18-19)."

 

Anything that has a spirit was organized from intelligence:

 

"A spirit, Abraham says, is an organized intelligence. This is the first beginning we have in our understanding of what a spirit is. It is an organized intelligence that lived as a spirit before this world was.  (The Teachings of Harold B. Lee,  p.28)"

 

"There is something that is not created or made. The scriptures called it "intelligence," which at a certain stage in the pre-existence was organized into a "spirit."  (The Teachings of Harold B. Lee,  p.74)"

 

"Intelligence or light and truth, is also used as a synonym for spirit element (Bruce R. McKonckie)."

"Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning?  The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have an end. . . . Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle.  (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp.353-354)"

 

Edited February 27, 2015 by pogi

[pogi]

This is fun. Can we go back even more than that?

Back to eternal matter, existing as scattered particles,

each possessing a smidgeon of intelligence?

 

It was fun until you lost me.  There is no "back further than" intelligence.  Intelligences are eternal.

"Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning?  The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have an end. . . . Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle.  (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp.353-354)"

 

Then again, I'm told that eternal progression had no

beginning and will have no end. So perhaps both of my

desired Sistine Chapel temperas are but imagination.

 

Eternal progression is not an evolution of element, as element is eternal.

Edited February 27, 2015 by pogi

[pogi]

Kind of ridiculous that man can get so confused as to his origins when in fact the good book states emphatically that we are the very sons of God.

 

Is anybody disagreeing with this?

 

Our own doctrine even goes further to say that we are not the result of a lower order of animals. But yet, we will continue to deny such truths in light of man's feeble and corrupt understandings.

 

Our own doctrine says that huh?

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Evolution/Official_stance

[bluebell]

I believe that there is something significant different about those God has chosen to be part of his family and the spirits he created for them as opposed to the spirits of animals and others.  Even if bodies are identical, the spirit can make a huge difference.  We see this imo when the spirit is limited from fully expressing itself by physical limitations.  In the case of the preadamites, it is the spirit that is limited and not the body.

 

Even if the bodies were genetically identical, the differences in spirits imo means there is going to be a difference in behaviour and emotions.  What that difference means, I don't know.

 

I think that preadamites were part of the preparation of the earth for the children of God, whether there is a direct biological connection (parent to child) or the body template was shared but Adam and Eve's spirits were placed in bodies that were not born of preadamite parents, I don't know.  

 

It is not a theory I am locked into.  It simply explains for me what the science has been able to show us so far.

 

I agree.

 

I'm just not sure how two bodies, with two specific non-spirit children of Heavenly Father spirits, creates a body that does house a spirit child of God.  I'm also not sure of the theological repercussions of that for the parents and the child, agency, justice, and all that.

 

I've often leaned toward the idea of pre-adamites, but i can't find a way to make the evolution from pre-adamite to post-adamite work theologically yet.

[bluebell]

Is anybody disagreeing with this?

 

 

Our own doctrine says that huh?

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Evolution/Official_stance

 

It could be said that there is a part of our doctrine that teaches that everything was created to reproduce after their own kind.  I do like HBL's stance that is shared in your link though.  That's why i'm not comfortable having a set belief about it yet.  I just don't feel like i have enough information to proclaim anything as literal truth.

[pogi]

It could be said that there is a part of our doctrine that teaches that everything was created to reproduce after their own kind.  I do like HBL's stance that is shared in your link though.  That's why i'm not comfortable having a set belief about it yet.  I just don't feel like i have enough information to proclaim anything as literal truth.

 

Evolution agrees that all things are created to reproduce after their kind, so I don't see that as contradictory.  So called "speciation" does not happen in one generation.  The offspring will always be of the same kind as the parent, unless you are a mule - but that is not evolution.

 

I'm just not sure how two bodies, with two specific non-spirit children of Heavenly Father spirits, creates a body that does house a spirit child of God.  I'm also not sure of the theological repercussions of that for the parents and the child, agency, justice, and all that.

 

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but perhaps I can help.  Understanding that biological offspring of mother and father are only biological offspring and not spiritual offspring might help clear things up.  God creates all spirits and places them in our tabernacles of clay, we are not spiritual offspring of our parents.  it would be no more difficult for him to place a spirit child of god into the offspring of a preadamite then it would be for him to put a mule spirit in the offspring of a donkey and horse.  I don't see any problematic repercussions knowing that God is perfectly merciful and just in all his doings.

Edited February 27, 2015 by pogi

[Rob Osborn]

Is anybody disagreeing with this?

 

 

Our own doctrine says that huh?

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Evolution/Official_stance

Sure does- https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man

[pogi]

Sure does- https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man

  

The statement declares human evolution as one of the "theories of men," but falls short of explicitly declaring it untrue or evil.

The LDS Church has produced a number of official doctrinal statements on the "origin of man." These statements generally adopt the position, as a church-approved encyclopedia entry[a] states, "[t]he 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."

Evenson, William E. (1992). "Evolution". In Ludlow, Daniel H. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. New York: Macmillan Publishing. p. 478. ISBN 0-02-879602-0. OCLC 24502140.

 

[bluebell]

Evolution agrees that all things are created to reproduce after their kind, so I don't see that as contradictory.  So called "speciation" does not happen in one generation.  The offspring will always be of the same kind as the parent, unless you are a mule - but that is not evolution.

 

I can see what you are saying, but that doesn't match with the doctrine of creation (and i'm not a literal creationist so i'm really just pointing out some areas of conflict that i see and not arguing that genesis account has to be literal) which says that the horse, for example, was created and 'told' (for lack of a better term) to reproduce after it's own kind.

 

So it could be argued that once the horse's offspring stopped being horses (or dinosaur offspring stopped being dinosaurs, or whatever creature we want to use as the example) and became a new 'kind' then the horse became disobedient to the directives it was given when it was created.  And it can be argued that God's creations which have no agency are not capable of disobedience.

 

 

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but perhaps I can help.  Understanding that biological offspring of mother and father are only biological offspring and not spiritual offspring might help clear things up.  God creates all spirits and places them in our tabernacles of clay, we are not spiritual offspring of our parents.  it would be no more difficult for him to place a spirit child of god into the offspring of a preadamite then it would be for him to put a mule spirit in the offspring of a donkey and horse.  I don't see any problematic repercussions knowing that God is perfectly merciful and just in all his doings.

 

 

I do understand that.  And my issue isn't that God couldn't put whatever kind of spirit into whatever kind of body He wanted to.  My issue is that making a child eligible for exaltation and not the parent does not seem just.  For all intents and purposes the father and mother would be exactly like the child in every way (except for the type of spirit), capable of the same level of reasoning, intelligence, agency, etc.  (because as you said, the parent and child, even in evolution, are always essentially the same 'kind').

 

And that seems to imply that Calvin was right.  It's all about who God predestines to save.  But since i think that Calvinism is a heresy, I can't reconcile a pre-adamite giving birth to adam who is then offered salvation while adam's father isn't.

[pogi]

 

I can see what you are saying, but that doesn't match with the doctrine of creation (and i'm not a literal creationist so i'm really just pointing out some areas of conflict that i see and not arguing that genesis account has to be literal) which says that the horse, for example, was created and 'told' (for lack of a better term) to reproduce after it's own kind.

 

So it could be argued that once the horse's offspring stopped being horses (or dinosaur offspring stopped being dinosaurs, or whatever creature we want to use as the example) and became a new 'kind' then the horse became disobedient to the directives it was given when it was created.  And it can be argued that God's creations which have no agency are not capable of disobedience. 

 

I think it fits.  I don't know how else to explain it, other than what I already said - animals always reproduce after their own kind.

 

 I do understand that.  And my issue isn't that God couldn't put whatever kind of spirit into whatever kind of body He wanted to.  My issue is that making a child eligible for exaltation and not the parent does not seem just.  For all intents and purposes the father and mother would be exactly like the child in every way (except for the type of spirit), capable of the same level of reasoning, intelligence, agency, etc.  (because as you said, the parent and child, even in evolution, are always essentially the same 'kind').

 

Lots of things don't "seem" just when you think about it, many people become atheists for that reason.  Biologically speaking, they are the same kind, spiritually speaking, one is a child of God endowed with divine attributes and the other is not.  Biologically the same, but one is a man because he is the literal offspring of God and the other is not.  How similar they would have been in attributes is only speculation.  I believe that the biological parents will understand and be perfectly happy with their eternal just and merciful eternal existence, and even perhaps be honored to birth the child of God as Mary.

 

 And that seems to imply that Calvin was right.  It's all about who God predestines to save.  But since i think that Calvinism is a heresy, I can't reconcile a pre-adamite giving birth to adam who is then offered salvation while adam's father isn't.

 

"Predestination" is in regards to exaltation, not the potential for exaltation.  Like I said before, either model has to draw a line between potential for salvation and no potential for salvation.  Either way you look at it, God placed intelligences into different spheres, only one sphere has potential.  I would not consider that Calvinism.

Edited February 27, 2015 by pogi

[bluebell]

I think it fits.  I don't know how else to explain it, other than what I already said - animals always reproduce after their own kind.

 

 

Lots of things don't "seem" just when you think about it, many people become atheists for that reason.  Biologically speaking, they are the same kind, spiritually speaking, one is a child of God endowed with divine attributes and the other is not.  Biologically the same, but one is a man because he is the literal offspring of God and the other is not.  How similar they would have been in attributes is only speculation.  I believe that the biological parents will understand and be perfectly happy with their eternal just and merciful eternal existence, and even perhaps be honored to birth the child of God as Mary.

 

 

"Predestination" is in regards to exaltation, not the potential for exaltation.  Like I said before, either model has to draw a line between potential for salvation and no potential for salvation.  Either way you look at it, God placed intelligences into different spheres, only one sphere has potential.  I would not consider that Calvinism.

 

It's just too much up in the air for me.  Too much assumption mixed with opinion mixed with theology.  Too much "well, it could be this way and maybe it's this way and then this might have happened, perhaps...." for me to take a stand on macro evolution.  

[pogi]

It's just too much up in the air for me.  Too much assumption mixed with opinion mixed with theology.  Too much "well, it could be this way and maybe it's this way and then this might have happened, perhaps...." for me to take a stand on macro evolution.  

 

I think that is a wise approach to not take a stand on this issue.  There are a lot of unknowns.  Either way you look at it leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

 

I would never preach theistic evolution as an absolute truth or certainty, so let it be know that I am not claiming any of this as fact.  For me right now, it just makes the most sense and answers more questions then it leaves unanswered in my mind.  

 

"Perhaps if we had the full story of the creation of the earth and man told to us in great detail, it would be more of a mystery than the simple few statements that we have contained in the Bible, because of our lack of ability to comprehend. Therefore, for reasons best known to the Lord, He has kept us in darkness. Wait until the Lord speaks, or wait until that day when He shall come, and when we shall be among the privileged either to come up out of our graves and be caught up into the clouds of heaven or shall be living upon the earth likewise to be so translated before Him. Then we shall know all things pertaining to this earth, how it was made, and all things that now as children we are groping for and trying to understand.

Let's reserve judgment as to the facts concerning the Creation until we know these things for sure. (Harold B. Lee)"

Edited February 27, 2015 by pogi

[Uncle Dale]

It was fun until you lost me. There is no "back further than" intelligence. Intelligences are eternal.

"Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have an end. . . . Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp.353-354)"

Eternal progression is not an evolution of element, as element is eternal.

Maybe I misunderstood PPP -- in thinking that he said

matter has no beginning and no end, each small bit

possessing an equally small bit of intelligence. Thus,

the intelligence of a complex molecule would generally

be superior to that of a low weight atom, etc. etc.

But if fully fledged gods (incorporating billions upon

billions of those atoms and molecules) have ALWAYS

existed, then perhaps the seeming dilemma is solved.

Suppose Jehovah were to ask Eloheim, "what important

things did you do, before my spirit self came to be?"

Eloheim could provide some sort of an answer. But,

then if Jehovah were to ask a second question: "What

notable things did YOUR father do, before your spirit

life began, then Eloheim might have to go and ask

that question of Heavenly Grandfather.

However, if the gods themselves had no beginning,

then Eloheim's quest to provide Jehovah with a

family history would be an endless task.

I thought Pratt got around this little oddity by saying

that through a series of events there were more and

more gods, although the amount of intelligent matter

is infinite and eternal (timeless).

But that's Graceland College teaching from 1978. I

suppose that BYU cosmology courses in 2015 are

much more logical and scientific.

???

UD

Edited February 28, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[pogi]

Maybe I misunderstood PPP -- in thinking that he said

matter has no beginning and no end, each small bit

possessing an equally small bit of intelligence. Thus,

the intelligence of a complex molecule would generally

be superior to that of a low weight atom, etc. etc.

 

The first part is scriptural (matter is eternal), the second part is more speculative on the part of PPP.  It is neither prophetic nor scriptural.    

What the bounds are between element and intelligence is only speculation. 

[Uncle Dale]

The first part is scriptural (matter is eternal), the second part is more speculative on the part of PPP. It is neither prophetic nor scriptural.

What the bounds are between element and intelligence is only speculation.

Then again, Joseph Smith said that PPP's two most famous works

were equal to scripture -- were, in fact LDS standard works. See

the recent Pratt biography for documentation and discussion of

this endorsement by a living prophet -- and, not only that, but by

the one living prophet that God Himself says speaks for Him --

whose voice is the same as God's is to the Saints (see D&C).

That being the situation, I would suppose that some Mormon

authority, somewhere, would have taught something upon the

supposed eternity of matter and whether or not the number

of gods is infinite, and always has been infinite.

If finite, then Jehovah's ancestry, and Eloheim's ancestry,

and Heavenly Grandfather's ancestry can be traced backwards

to when the first particles of intelligent matter came together

in such a way that a DNA-possessing, sexually replicating,

intelligent, godly entity came into being. A progenitor God

capable of successfully mating with earthlings, fathering

Messiahs, and being genetically as closely related to the

chimps and bonobos as we ourselves are.

Where do I go for counsel? Talmadge? McConkie? Nibley?

UD

Edited February 28, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[thesometimesaint]

So maybe other children of God on other worlds breathe nitrogen or helium or whatever just as we breathe oxygen, and other people (let's call us all people okay?) on other worlds have green or orange or whatever color skin instead of the colors we have, and stuff like that?

Fun stuff to imagine I suppose but it's just speculation with no evidence to support it.

 

Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon are three of the top four elements in our galaxy, and presumably the known universe. Helium is number two but is chemically inert. Nitrogen while chemically active combines with far fewer elements than Oxygen. So in all likelihood if there is life on other planets it is a complex hydrocarbon tied onto one or more oxygen atoms. As life on this planet comes in many colors there is no reason to suggest that if it exists elsewhere it too wouldn't come in various colors.