The New Era: "The Church Has No Official Position on The Theory Of Evolution"

[Johnnie Cake]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Totally false logic.  figure it out

There could be spirit children of someone else -even other gods to make the point- before Adam and Eve from that statement.  The statement doesnt say that, of course but that would not be ruled out by that statement.   Just look at what it says.  You could argue that the earth was made of green cheese before Adam and Eve and be consistent with the statement.  It says NO REVELATION before A&E.  That's all it says.  It is not a science text either.  The only thing that contradicts the statement is that there WERE spirit children of HF before A&E.  There could have been Martians or green eyed reptilian humans who were spirit children of Urg of Wotlak.   Got the idea yet??   All it says is that there were no spirit children of HF!!!!

Further animals could have spirits but just not be spirit children of Heavenly Father.   Dude I know you can do better than this.  This is four year old logic

Speculative logic like that and I'm the I'm the one with juvenile logic? Ummm ok...I'll proudly wear that one...

I know its part of this MD&D game to marginalize posters by attaching characterizations to posters we disagree with (I'm guilty as well) but honestly to characterize my post as that of a 4 year old logic seems a bit beneath you.  But that said lets move on.

Let's agree on some details. The church has now published their belief that there were no spirit children of heavenly Father on earth prior to Adam and Eve.  That statement is the basis from which all arguments both for and against must flow.

If we accept the churches premise, yet we also accept reality that modern humans have excited on earth for 200,000 years...we are left with the reality that for nearly 194,000 years (using the churches 6,000 year Adamic timeline (happy to provide references if you require them)  modern humans existed on earth with no spirits.  How do I get here?  It is the church who is stating that there were no spirit children on earth prior to 6,000 years ago...yet we know for fact that there were humans on earth prior to the adamic timeline.

It's just mental gymnastics to assert that some mystery made up God figure had some dealing with a world that was specifically created (again Mormon Doctrine) for the habitation of the Mormon God's spirit children.  To assert that another god's spirit children inhabited the bodies of the pre-adamites is a completely unsubstantiated, unfootnoted, pulled out of ones *** assertion.  It's the epitome of an unsubstantiated, completely unsupported claim and it to be honest is not grounded in anything but compete conjecture and only created to get you out of the difficulty the church has put you and your fellow believers in by publishing this article. 

This article requires an explanation...how do its claim sync with reality?  space aliens? Mystery Gods? It's just complete and utter nonsense 

My posted questions stemmed from the reality of the churches claim that there were no spirit children on earth prior to 6,000 years ago. This is the premise each of us must start from.

If anyone proposed that some mystery god spirit child inhabited the humans that existed before Adam...then they must support that premise and explain how this makes any sense...other wise my four year old logic is the most logical explanation for this seemingly new wrinkle in Mormon Doctrine

Johnnine Cake

 

PS: If Admin reads this...Please restore my posting privileges 

 

Edit to add: That this is an example of the church opening up an entirely new can of worms in an effort to sync its doctrines with the scientific realities it finds itself dealing with in the real world.  What a mess

Edited September 30, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

You need to read Douglas Adams, "So Long and Thanks For All The Fish"

I have. I was alluding to it.  

[The Nehor]

51 minutes ago, Gray said:

They were human beings. Are we creating another second class status for people based on another misguided attempt to read a symbolic story as if it were referring to two actual living human beings? Adam and Eve symbolize men and women. That's it. 

I have no idea what their status is. They could have been greater then us for all I know. Are you worried we are going to discriminate against them somehow?

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have no idea what their status is. They could have been greater then us for all I know. Are you worried we are going to discriminate against them somehow?

Geico is already guilty of this.

#cavemanshaming

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Let's agree on some details. The church has now published their belief that there were no spirit children of heavenly Father on earth prior to Adam and Eve.  That statement is the basis from which all arguments both for and against must flow.

If you mean by that that any possible explanation for what happened back then must take that into account then we are agreed.

23 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

If we accept the churches premise, yet we also accept reality that modern humans have excited on earth for 200,000 years...we are left with the reality that for nearly 194,000 years (using the churches 6,000 year Adamic timeline (happy to provide references if you require them)  modern humans existed on earth with no spirits.  How do I get here?  It is the church who is stating that there were no spirit children on earth prior to 6,000 years ago...yet we know for fact that there were humans on earth prior to the adamic timeline.

And for some reason all humans must be spirit children of our God? Why?

24 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It's just mental gymnastics to assert that some mystery made up God figure had some dealing with a world that was specifically created (again Mormon Doctrine) for the habitation of the Mormon God's spirit children.  To assert that another god's spirit children inhabited the bodies of the pre-adamites is a completely unsubstantiated, unfootnoted, pulled out of ones *** assertion.  It's the epitome of an unsubstantiated, completely unsupported claim and it to be honest is not grounded in anything but compete conjecture and only created to get you out of the difficulty the church has put you and your fellow believers in by publishing this article. 

And why does your unsubstantiated, unfoototed, pulled out of a far less agreeable orifice explanation which blatantly contradicts LDS doctrine and understanding (asserting that there is life that has no spirit) get some special privileged status that makes it some kind of default understanding? Since your explanation defies LDS doctrine yours is even less likely if we assume the LDS faith is true which you have to do if you want to argue the framework and how it makes sense.

You, of course, believe no such thing and see this as a rhetorical brickbat and then we pointed out it is a nerf-bat and will not hurt us. Now you are sitting on the sidelines crying and explaining how unfair it is that your illogical explanation is not considered true by default.

30 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This article requires an explanation...how do its claim sync with reality?  space aliens? Mystery Gods? It's just complete and utter nonsense 

Actually it doesn't.

30 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

My posted questions stemmed from the reality of the churches claim that there were no spirit children on earth prior to 6,000 years ago. This is the premise each of us must start from.

If anyone proposed that some mystery god spirit child inhabited the humans that existed before Adam...then they must support that premise and explain how this makes any sense...other wise my four year old logic is the most logical explanation for this seemingly new wrinkle in Mormon Doctrine

Johnnine Cake

So special pleading for you? We have to source our speculations which we never claimed to have proof for but you do not have to present us with a spiritless human to substantiate yours?

32 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

PS: If Admin reads this...Please restore my posting privileges 

Why would anyone want more of your posts? And you seriously want to attach your plea to this post? Most unwise in my opinion.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Geico is already guilty of this.

#cavemanshaming

[thesometimesaint]

17 hours ago, cinepro said:

In what could be the most momentous development since the publication of the essays, the Church has finally conceded major ground on the evolution issue. 

If going from "evolution is unbelievable" to "who knows?!" is progress, then this is major progress.

 

We don't have a position on the Pythagorean Theorem either.  

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, cinepro said:

In what could be the most momentous development since the publication of the essays, the Church has finally conceded major ground on the evolution issue. 

If going from "evolution is unbelievable" to "who knows?!" is progress, then this is major progress.

Sounds like the same old same old to me, cinepro.  Nothing momentous here, and no concessions of any kind by the LDS Church.  There is still no official policy on biological evolution, same as in the past.  Just an unsigned opinion piece in a magazine for LDS youth.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Speculative logic like that and I'm the I'm the one with juvenile logic? Ummm ok...I'll proudly wear that one...

I know its part of this MD&D game to marginalize posters by attaching characterizations to posters we disagree with (I'm guilty as well) but honestly to characterize my post as that of a 4 year old logic seems a bit beneath you.  But that said lets move on.

Let's agree on some details. The church has now published their belief that there were no spirit children of heavenly Father on earth prior to Adam and Eve.  That statement is the basis from which all arguments both for and against must flow.

If we accept the churches premise, yet we also accept reality that modern humans have excited on earth for 200,000 years...we are left with the reality that for nearly 194,000 years (using the churches 6,000 year Adamic timeline (happy to provide references if you require them)  modern humans existed on earth with no spirits.  How do I get here?  It is the church who is stating that there were no spirit children on earth prior to 6,000 years ago...yet we know for fact that there were humans on earth prior to the adamic timeline.

It's just mental gymnastics to assert that some mystery made up God figure had some dealing with a world that was specifically created (again Mormon Doctrine) for the habitation of the Mormon God's spirit children.  To assert that another god's spirit children inhabited the bodies of the pre-adamites is a completely unsubstantiated, unfootnoted, pulled out of ones *** assertion.  It's the epitome of an unsubstantiated, completely unsupported claim and it to be honest is not grounded in anything but compete conjecture and only created to get you out of the difficulty the church has put you and your fellow believers in by publishing this article. 

This article requires an explanation...how do its claim sync with reality?  space aliens? Mystery Gods? It's just complete and utter nonsense 

My posted questions stemmed from the reality of the churches claim that there were no spirit children on earth prior to 6,000 years ago. This is the premise each of us must start from.

If anyone proposed that some mystery god spirit child inhabited the humans that existed before Adam...then they must support that premise and explain how this makes any sense...other wise my four year old logic is the most logical explanation for this seemingly new wrinkle in Mormon Doctrine

Johnnine Cake

 

PS: If Admin reads this...Please restore my posting privileges 

 

Edit to add: That this is an example of the church opening up an entirely new can of worms in an effort to sync its doctrines with the scientific realities it finds itself dealing with in the real world.  What a mess

I apologize for the juvenile logic remark.  It was not called for.

I don't mind being accused of the same, because I allow my ARGUMENTS to stand for themselves and I am always confident about my arguments, and I know they are sound or I do not post them.  I would be grateful for any genuine criticisms of my arguments, but I haven't seen any.  When someone condemns my logic without showing anything wrong with it, I consider the source and move on.

There is no such thing as "speculative logic"- there are "speculative theories" and indeed that was my purpose- to put out totally speculative theories which would still be compatible with the church statement.  THAT was the entire point of the post- for those who like speculative theories, I was providing them.

In the King Follette discourse, Joseph Smith said that God had a father who had a father etc.  These ideas are common theories that LDS people put forth.  I neither agree nor disagree with these speculative theories.  I am not omniscient- I only believe what I believe.   I do not know if God had a father- that has not been revealed to me.  But indeed this statement is compatible with that view- and my intent was to show what other speculative theories could also be compatible with the church statement.  Just about anything is compatible with the church statement- since it is essentially structured as a negative statement - that there is "NO REVELATION" on the subject.   That means that area is wide open for speculation for those who wanted to put it forth,  and I was shoveling it to make the point.  You missed that point I guess.

I do not think as you do- I do not think that science describes "what is"- I believe that is impossible.  Science gives us theories that work within certain circumstances and give us predictable results in those circumstances.  The epistemological assumption that they "describe reality" has been shown again and again to be inadequate.  That is why I keep that Rorty quote handy in my siggy.  Refuting this view would be to refute Rorty and all who hold similar positions- and I would invite you to go ahead and try. 

You have not shown any errors in "logic".  I never said that scientific explanations were compatible with spiritual truths.  In fact I have often said on this board that they are not 

I have often condemned the idea that ANY beliefs should be thought to "correspond to the truth" and especially in the case of spiritual beliefs allegedly "corresponding to scientific 'facts'"

I find this belief to be committing category errors, mixing language games, and any other kind of logical problem one can imagine which is relevant.  Religion is about our internal private relationship with God which results in certain attitudes 

That is the way fundamentalists think, and I am not a fundamentalist.  Your views- in structure- are identical to those who believe that evolution conflicts with the Bible.   Identical.

Your belief is that God cannot be explained scientifically- and therefore does not exist, is a mirror image of the idea that God CAN be explained scientifically - and that the bible can be shown to be scientifically "true" though such theories as creationism-  and that view is fundamentalism.  You argue with fundamentalists on their level about whether or not God can be explained scientifically.  You say no, they say yes.  You are both wrong.  You are both committing the same errors, the idea that belief in God has anything to do with science.  Essentially you only disagree with the fundamentalists on their "science".   This is Galileo vs Bellarmine all over again.  This is a 15th century argument that is out of touch with the 21st century.

But I can't blame you- it seems that many here are also fundamentalists who believe that the church's stance on evolution has ANYTHING to do with spiritual belief.   We see the same thought patterns in questions about biblical archaeology somehow making the bible more reliable than the Book of Mormon, or the quest for historical sites alleged to be able to "prove" the religious truths of the BOM.

I have made my positions on these questions clear many times here.   That is about enough from me on this issue with you.

Edited September 30, 2016 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds like the same old same old to me, cinepro.  Nothing momentous here, and no concessions of any kind by the LDS Church.  There is still no official policy on biological evolution, same as in the past.  Just an unsigned opinion piece in a magazine for LDS youth.

Actually, in the February 2002 Ensign it did say the Church had "official teachings" on evolution:

Quote

 

Ever wondered about the Church’s official teachings on the creation of mankind and evolution? Find assistance for your study of Genesis 1–3 [Gen. 1–3] on p. 26.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/making-the-most-of-this-issue?lang=eng

 

 

 

Then, as a preface to the reprinting of the First Presidency's "The Origin of Man", it says:

 

Quote

In the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters. 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

(emphasis added)

 

 

So as recently as 2002, the Church's official magazine was stating that the Church did have "official teachings" and a "doctrinal position" on "these matters" (i.e. the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution).

Edited September 30, 2016 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

Except that it didn't.

SEE

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). WILLIAM E. EVENSON

[bcuzbcuz]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

They were human beings. Are we creating another second class status for people based on another misguided attempt to read a symbolic story as if it were referring to two actual living human beings? Adam and Eve symbolize men and women. That's it. 

I recently watched a program from BBC about visiting Mecca during Hajj. All the grave sites around Mecca were destroyed during the reign of an early Saudi rule. In other words, the possibility of doing temple work for any of the people buried there is ZERO.

It is equally possible that early populations, not recorded in the biblical chronology, and without any physical evidence, are left without any possible signs of any genealogy. 

That means that millions of peoples in China, Mongolia, Peru, Mexico, northern Canada, etc., etc., are left without any possibility of family lines being established. In other words, no graves, no genealogy. It is as though they never existed............

The only people who get temple work, are those that belong to the modern concept of family lines, are those having graves marked with name and dates.  

That also means that any "people" who lived before Adam and Eve, are off the record.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

18 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Actually, in the February 2002 Ensign it did say the Church had "official teachings" on evolution:

Then, as a preface to the reprinting of the First Presidency's "The Origin of Man", it says:

So as recently as 2002, the Church's official magazine was stating that the Church did have "official teachings" and a "doctrinal position" on "these matters" (i.e. the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution).

Well, of course, the reference is directly to the 1909 First Presidency statement which is provided in full at https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng , but which does not in fact address biological evolution.  It does however suggest that, of the three possible theories on the origin of earthlife (evolution, transmission, and creatio ex nihilo), the LDS faith heavily favors transmission -- which is the  most likely strictly from a scientific POV.

The preface is not part of that formal First Presidency statement.

[thesometimesaint]

Very simple organic compounds have been found on meteorites, but that is a VERY BIG jump to have having A&E transported to this planet.

SEE https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2829962/

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Except that it didn't.

SEE

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). WILLIAM E. EVENSON

You forgot the link:

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

[Calm]

Just as an FYI if no one has already posted it:

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V35N04_33.pdf

[thesometimesaint]

Sorry. Fingers moving  faster than I can think.

[Johnnie Cake]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If you mean by that that any possible explanation for what happened back then must take that into account then we are agreed.

For the sake of our discussion...we are then in agreement

Quote

And for some reason all humans must be spirit children of our God? Why?

This earth according to LDS Doctrine (which I understand is squishy) was created by the Mormon God for His Children.  Can you give me any authoritative scripture or prophetic pronouncement where its taught otherwise? 24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; Note the reference to the Mormon god saying that He would make an earth for "These" to dwell referring to his own spirit children...not any other God's spirit children

 25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;  Note the reference to Their God

Quote

And why does your unsubstantiated, unfootnoted, pulled out of a far less agreeable orifice explanation which blatantly contradicts LDS doctrine and understanding (asserting that there is life that has no spirit) get some special privileged status that makes it some kind of default understanding? Since your explanation defies LDS doctrine yours is even less likely if we assume the LDS faith is true which you have to do if you want to argue the framework and how it makes sense.

Its the most logical explanation given that there were no spirit children prior to Adam...and yet there were humans...ergo these humans must not have had spirts per LDS doctrine

 

Quote

You, of course, believe no such thing and see this as a rhetorical brickbat and then we pointed out it is a nerf-bat and will not hurt us. Now you are sitting on the sidelines crying and explaining how unfair it is that your illogical explanation is not considered true by default.

Then you give me an explanation that both support "all" LDS doctrine and yet accounts for pre-adamite humans roaming the earth

Quote

Actually it doesn't.

So special pleading for you? We have to source our speculations which we never claimed to have proof for but you do not have to present us with a spiritless human to substantiate yours?

Why would anyone want more of your posts? And you seriously want to attach your plea to this post? Most unwise in my opinion.

Again my explanation is the logical explanation given LDS doctrine of no pre adamic spirits...it then logically must be concluded that these humans had no spirit... (but that opens up its own can of worms doesn't it)

Edited September 30, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Jeanne]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If you mean by that that any possible explanation for what happened back then must take that into account then we are agreed.

And for some reason all humans must be spirit children of our God? Why?

And why does your unsubstantiated, unfoototed, pulled out of a far less agreeable orifice explanation which blatantly contradicts LDS doctrine and understanding (asserting that there is life that has no spirit) get some special privileged status that makes it some kind of default understanding? Since your explanation defies LDS doctrine yours is even less likely if we assume the LDS faith is true which you have to do if you want to argue the framework and how it makes sense.

You, of course, believe no such thing and see this as a rhetorical brickbat and then we pointed out it is a nerf-bat and will not hurt us. Now you are sitting on the sidelines crying and explaining how unfair it is that your illogical explanation is not considered true by default.

Actually it doesn't.

So special pleading for you? We have to source our speculations which we never claimed to have proof for but you do not have to present us with a spiritless human to substantiate yours?

Why would anyone want more of your posts? And you seriously want to attach your plea to this post? Most unwise in my opinion.

Wow Nehor..you are so above this. 

[Johnnie Cake]

Might I also suggest a few changes to LDS Scriptures...just so everything sync's better with this new clarification of doctrine:  Instead of Moses reading thus: 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; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

In light of the new doctrine on Evolution it should now read thus: 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, Except those damned Pre-Adamites. 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, except the Pre-adamites; and not yet a man to till the ground, except those pre-adamite which tilled the ground without any authority to do so; for in heaven created I them, except the pre-adamites; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, except the Pre-adamites, neither in the water, neither in the air;

[Jeanne]

Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

Might I also suggest a few changes to LDS Scriptures...just so everything sync's better with this new clarification of doctrine:  Instead of Moses reading thus: 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; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

In light of the new doctrine on Evolution it should now read thus: 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, Except those damned Pre-Adamites. 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, except the Pre-adamites; and not yet a man to till the ground, except those pre-adamite which tilled the ground without any authority to do so; for in heaven created I them, except the pre-adamites; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, except the Pre-adamites, neither in the water, neither in the air;

Oh wow..rep point Johnny Cake.  I had forgotten about this scripture.  All things were created spiritually first..

[Johnnie Cake]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Oh wow..rep point Johnny Cake.  I had forgotten about this scripture.  All things were created spiritually first..

Except Pre-Adamites :-)

[Johnnie Cake]

I'm guessing that an entirely new edited Book of Moses will have to be printed:

7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, except the pre-Adamites, the first man also, well sorta...but we don't need to get too technical do we; nevertheless, all things were before created, wink wink; but spiritually almost everything was created and made according to my word.

 

Edited September 30, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Except Pre-Adamites :-)

yeah..well..you know..all these folks here without spirits...which meant that had no emotions or feelings which creates survival instincts..so yeah..that would work.

[Calm]

Only if one accepts your premise that it means there were no spirits...which seems unlikely given that the scriptures themselves that you quoted stated all things are created spiritually before they are created temporally.

Not the same spirits as the spirit of the children of Gpd, but there are a lot of spirits out there roaming around on the earth that are not that so I don't see that big of a deal adding a few more variations if one choses to interpret it that way.

Exalted bodies of God's children are said not to have blood.  If we remove the mechanism of blood in the bodies we have now, there will need to be some major evolution of them.  I don't believe we need to assume the bodies we currently have are the bodies we will eventually be having and they may be just be temporary vehicles more suited to a different type of spirit or a vehicle that is able to be adapted to a variety of spirits that have a certain level of intelligence, etc. but only some are God's spirit children.

(My view is this focus on pre-adamites spirits not existing because of ...... is trying too hard to make scripture and modern doctrine fit a fundamentalist, black and white literal view, but such is not required of actual church doctrine or actual believers.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Calm