Is It Really True, That...

[Uncle Dale]

Is it really true that there are very tiny (some so

much so that they're microscopic) critters living

on our human bodies, that live nowhere else?

Little eyelash mites, head lice, intestinal bacteria,

etc., which have near-neighbor species living in

other environmental niches (and upon other

primates), but which uniquely have us for their

cozy home?

Was Adam created with these little "friends"

already ensconced upon (and inside) his

perfect body -- or were they created after his

"fall" and implanted as part of his punishment

for eating forbidden fruit?

Does LDS theology touch upon such things

at any point, or are we left to our own faulty

speculation? -- Some of us not even believing

there ever was a garden of Eden....

???

UD

[pogi]

Is it really true that there are very tiny (some so

much so that they're microscopic) critters living

on our human bodies, that live nowhere else?

 

As much as we like to hate those little beasties, we share a beutifull simbiotic relationship with them.   Their existance in our gastrointestinal tract is vital to life as we know it, so one would assume that these bacteria lived in Adam's gut as well.  Was he "created" with them?  That would require an answer as to how he was created.  Bacteria comes from the environment.  Babies are born with bacteria through their mother, but were they created with them?  It depends on what you consider the point of creation.

Edited March 1, 2015 by pogi

[Uncle Dale]

As much as we like to hate those little beasties, we share a beutifull simbiotic relationship with them.   Their existance in our gastrointestinal tract is vital to life as we know it, so one would assume that these bacteria lived in Adam's gut as well.  Was he "created" with them?  That would require an answer as to how he was created.  Bacteria comes from the environment.  Babies are born with bacteria through their mother, but were they created with them?  It depends on what you consider the point of creation.

I don't have my old Lamoni class notes to consult on

this topic, but I'm almost positive that I was told that

there was no death before Adam ate the apple (or

fig, or raisins glued to a sagebrush, or whatever).

If there was no death -- until after that point -- then

Adam would have needed the stomach microbes

for digestion only AFTER his fall, I suppose.

But, if we are all of the same species, does the

Angel Moroni also have human-specific eyelash

mites? If the resurrected Jesus ate fish with his

disciples, did that celestialized, flesh and bone,

body have the same digestive bacteria resident

as when a last supper was served in an upper room?

Questions... Questions....

If there were only a true church, with a living

prophet, where questioners like myself could

obtain definite answers (sigh...)

.

UD

[pogi]

Questions... Questions....

If there were only a true church, with a living

prophet, where questioners like myself could

obtain definite answers (sigh...)

 

If there were such a church and prophet to ask these questions to, I would expect him to answer - "You could ask me anything, and this is what you ask?" 

 

A prophet is not omniscient - especially regarding issues that have no bearing on our salvation.

Edited March 1, 2015 by pogi

[Freedom]

Yes, knowing how the tiny organisms got on our body is right up there with the atonement in terms of importance. 

[Uncle Dale]

If there were such a church and prophet, would you really expect him to know the answer to these questions?  A prophet is not omniscient - especially regarding issues that have no bearing on our salvation.

 

If there were such a church and prophet, would you really expect him to know the answer to these questions?  A prophet is not omniscient - especially regarding issues that have no bearing on our salvation.

 

 

One of the interesting (and sometimes comforting) things

pertaining to the Roman Catholics and to the Greek Orthodox

adherents, is that they have century-upon century-upon century

of compiled revelation, council decisions, papal bulls, scholarly

comment, mystical teaching, etc. -- It would probably take a

curious visitor a month to wander through the Vatican Library,

and that would be just perusing the Christian stuff (and leaving

the pagan writings for a follow-up visit).

 

But, Latter Day Saintism, being a new religion, has not yet had

its centuries of doctrinal accumulation. It may profess to actually

be a very old institution (the Apostolic Church, and all that went

on even before St. Peter's day and age) -- but it disowns most

of the mainstream Christian tradition and lore as being apostate,

precepts of men, and downright persecution of the truth.

 

Thus, some pious Baptist minister may have composed entire

volumes explaining our head lice -- but the Saints typically will

shy away from such doctrine, and look instead to that of their

own consensus profession.

 

Give the Saints another thousand, or two thousand, years

and the details of doctrine will pile up as high as what the

RCC and Orthodox have accumulated (not to mention the Jews).

 

There will be no second-coming during that foreseeable future -- 

no millennial Kingdom of God administered from the Jackson

County Temple's holy of holies (or so it seems to me). So, if

I'm patient, my questions will be answered, within the guarded

confines of latter day "gospel doctrine," but I may die first.

 

UD

(and, with my luck, the sought-for wisdom will

probably be confined to explanation in the temple)

[thesometimesaint]

Who knows there might be Celestial gut bacteria. I agree it has no bearing on my Salvation.

[Ham Clam]

I'm going to bring this up in Sunday School to gross people out.

[Uncle Dale]

Yes, knowing how the tiny organisms got on our body is right up there with the atonement in terms of importance. 

 

 

Well, if we were talking here about which hymns the

angels approve of, and which ones are an affront to

heavenly ears -- then I suppose you might have a

good point.

 

But the LDS teachers often say that all truth comes with

the realm of Mormonism -- certainly all things that Science

claims as fact (so long as they are indeed fully factual) are

not incompatible with Mormon teachings.

 

We are presented with the origins of human beings and

the physiology of celestialized bodies, not as fanciful myth

or poetic ideals -- but as fact. Somewhere Kolob actually

does exist. It is a fact of Science as well as Religion.

 

...Well, not consensus earthly Science in the year 2015,

perhaps, but the factual truth scientists (be they earthly

or otherwise) compile and teach.

 

I see nothing wrong is asking Mormons to describe these

otherworldly humans (as well as Adam and his offspring)

if they are indeed, real, historical, factual entities existing

among the same stars and planets I see in the sky above.

 

UD

[strappinglad]

There is a considerable difference between newborn poop and 2 month old poop. Bacteria picked up from the environment make the change. Babies arrive with few extra stowaways but accumulate them quite quickly. If Celestial bodies have their own internal " flux capacitor " then maybe there are very few if any hitchhikers .

[pogi]

Thus, some pious Baptist minister may have composed entire

volumes explaining our head lice

 

When we Mormons discover that some pious Lutheran or Catholic has composed volumes explaining the intricacies of heavenly bowel movements of resurrected beings  - aka "holy s***" the compiled work of thousand of years of revelation on the matter, we will rightfully proclaim "We thank thee oh God for a prophet to guide us in these latter days..."

Edited March 1, 2015 by pogi

[Uncle Dale]

When we Mormons discover that some pious Lutheran or Catholic has composed volumes explaining the intricacies of heavenly bowel movements of resurrected beings  - aka "holy s***" the compiled work of thousand of years of revelation on the matter, we will rightfully proclaim "We thank thee oh God for a prophet to guide us in these latter days..."

 

I was thinking more in terms of the peer-reviewed scholarly

journals beginning to publish articles leading off with the

sentence: "Who would have guessed that the Mormons were

prophetically correct, many years ago, in predicting this 

newly-discovered fact about the bad effects of tobacco..."

 

Actually -- I think there are a few such accepted reports already

in circulation. Sooner or later (I'm told) latter day teachings and

the facts acknowledged by the inhabitants of this world will

converge, and be one in the same.

 

UD

(maybe not until after Enoch's city returns to earth

and the ice and snows of the north pole melt away,

so that a highway to Missouri might rise up for the

return of the lost tribes... but soon, and for the rest

of our lives)

Edited March 1, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Kenngo1969]

I'm going to bring this up in Sunday School to gross people out.

Kewl!

[Uncle Dale]

Kewl!

 

Perhaps a more "delicate" way of raising the topic

would be to ask, what does it mean, that Adam was

free to eat the fruit of any tree in the garden, save

one particular tree? Was that Adam and Eve's first

experience with eating?

 

(No need to ask if it was their first experience with

digesting -- or whether parasites existed in Eden)

 

UD

[Calm]

How about "what did they use for fertilizer in the Garden"?

[Uncle Dale]

How about "what did they use for fertilizer in the Garden"?

My question was -- before the fall, when Adam

stepped on a bug, did it die?

UD

(the teacher wisely ignored my impertinence)

[Freedom]

We embrace all truth but not all truth comes from a prophet. Some comes from chemists, some from mechanical engineers, some from linguists. Since the type of microorganisms present on Adams body has no bearing on our eternal salvation, I cannot see such information being revealed in any pending general conferences. 

[The Nehor]

Perhaps our symbiotic organisms are part of us eternally and always have been. Perhaps we are our own gaias.

[Nofear]

Some background information to help people here form their own response (posted or otherwise) which is more informed.

[Uncle Dale]

Some background information to help people here form their own response (posted or otherwise) which is more informed.

 

 

.

I wish that there had been such teaching media available

to me, both as a kid in school and later in life, as a teacher.

It would have been more fun to study, and easier to understand.

 

MY view -- which I do not think is incompatible with this 

little animation -- is that we have unique adaptations of

various tiny lifeforms inhabiting our bodies due to the

process of evolution.

 

If I'm correct, then our ancestors of some two or three

millions of years ago would have hosted a somewhat

different set of parasitic and symbiotic creatures, and

those that we see accompanying us today have also

evolved along with our selves.

 

Then again, perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps there is a

way to consider that we are not "alone" in our own

bodies, and from that realization we can better accept

the profession of our ancestors and the scriptures:

that we are all descended from Adam and Eve, the

first humans on this planet, who lived but a few

generations prior to the great flood of Noah's day.

 

Am I wrong -- to conclude that the lifeforms on (and in)

our bodies are best explainable by scientific examination,

and such an investigation will produce results that are

more compatible with Science than with the history and 

prehistory related in our cherished ancient writings?

 

UD

(and also in our cherished latter day writings)

Edited March 2, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Nofear]

No, I don't think scientific examination is bad at all. While many find Adam and Eve incompatible with it, I don't. My current (and unpopular) pet theory is that the Garden of Eden was just that -- a garden. It was a separated space that allowed extraterrestrial life time to adapt to the unique, evolved biosphere of our earth -- time enough to become mortal and able to live here for a time.

 

As to how our bodies' very diverse and very abundant fauna relate to our resurrected bodies, I'm not 100% sure.  I quite strongly suspect that the Savior didn't get diarrhea from the fish and honeycomb he ate post resurrection. I also suspect that his (and our future) resurrected body was capable of handling things in a way we aren't and that it isn't so reliant on the biome that our mortal bodies are.

[Ahab]

Is it really true that there are very tiny (some so

much so that they're microscopic) critters living

on our human bodies, that live nowhere else?

Little eyelash mites, head lice, intestinal bacteria,

etc., which have near-neighbor species living in

other environmental niches (and upon other

primates), but which uniquely have us for their

cozy home?

Was Adam created with these little "friends"

already ensconced upon (and inside) his

perfect body -- or were they created after his

"fall" and implanted as part of his punishment

for eating forbidden fruit?

Does LDS theology touch upon such things

at any point, or are we left to our own faulty

speculation? -- Some of us not even believing

there ever was a garden of Eden....

???

UD

I like to think their spirits joined our spirits when we entered our mortal bodies created by our mortal parents and that when we are resurrected into our resurrected eternal bodies their spirits will be resurrected too, to join us in our eternal resurrected bodies.

So just as our spirits are not alone now in our mortal bodies, so too will we not be alone in our eternal resurrected bodies. We'll continue to keep each other company, forever and ever, and just think of them as a part of us.

I'd kinda miss them if they didn't live on in me.

[Uncle Dale]

I like to think their spirits joined our spirits when we entered our mortal bodies created by our mortal parents and that when we are resurrected into our resurrected eternal bodies their spirits will be resurrected too, to join us in our eternal resurrected bodies.

So just as our spirits are not alone now in our mortal bodies, so too will we not be alone in our eternal resurrected bodies. We'll continue to keep each other company, forever and ever, and just think of them as a part of us.

I'd kinda miss them if they didn't live on in me.

 

.

A downhome sort of reply -- and I appreciate the sentiment Ahab.

 

My own dilemma reaches into other areas, however, and I was

hopeful that somebody would offer up General Authority quotes

which might be helpful in my continued pondering.

 

Take those little eyelash mites that I mentioned before. Given

another million or two million years of human (and mite) evolution,

the descendants of those tiny critters will have changed into

mites of a new species -- a species different than the ones

inhabiting Neanderthal eyelids.

 

Will the human-inhabiting creatures evolve simultaneously in

our supposed celestial being relatives? Such that Moroni's

associated tiny "friends" will be different and incompatible

with (and a different species from) those of living earthlings?

 

My questions may sound peculiar and of no substance.

 

But, I'm very serious in my intent here.

 

Either the Adam and Eve of about 8,000 years ago were our

first ancestors, or else we are descended from other progenitors

and, most likely, those supposed first parents never existed.

 

???

 

UD

[mfbukowski]

Is it really true that there are very tiny (some so

much so that they're microscopic) critters living

on our human bodies, that live nowhere else?

Little eyelash mites, head lice, intestinal bacteria,

etc., which have near-neighbor species living in

other environmental niches (and upon other

primates), but which uniquely have us for their

cozy home?

Was Adam created with these little "friends"

already ensconced upon (and inside) his

perfect body -- or were they created after his

"fall" and implanted as part of his punishment

for eating forbidden fruit?

Does LDS theology touch upon such things

at any point, or are we left to our own faulty

speculation? -- Some of us not even believing

there ever was a garden of Eden....

???

UD

Oh come on, for Pete's sake.

Honestly, we are not as stupid as you think we are.

I don't know where you get this stuff

[mfbukowski]

.

A downhome sort of reply -- and I appreciate the sentiment Ahab.

 

My own dilemma reaches into other areas, however, and I was

hopeful that somebody would offer up General Authority quotes

which might be helpful in my continued pondering.

 

Take those little eyelash mites that I mentioned before. Given

another million or two million years of human (and mite) evolution,

the descendants of those tiny critters will have changed into

mites of a new species -- a species different than the ones

inhabiting Neanderthal eyelids.

 

Will the human-inhabiting creatures evolve simultaneously in

our supposed celestial being relatives? Such that Moroni's

associated tiny "friends" will be different and incompatible

with (and a different species from) those of living earthlings?

 

My questions may sound peculiar and of no substance.

 

But, I'm very serious in my intent here.

 

Either the Adam and Eve of about 8,000 years ago were our

first ancestors, or else we are descended from other progenitors

and, most likely, those supposed first parents never existed.

 

???

 

UD

Just search the umpteen threads here on evolution. We do not need another.

On the other hand maybe we are.....as you think we are.

Go ahead and discuss among yourselves....