Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Neanderthal temple work


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

I’ll say it… Neanderthals are sub human and don’t deserve temple ordinances.

A similar mischaracterization has been made by past church leaders about other groups to justify denying them temple ordinances. Turns out they were wrong.

What makes a human sub-human?

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Was that the response you were waiting for?

I must admit, this wasn’t it.

I’m content with discussion. I don’t have any pro-Neanderthal agenda, if that’s what you’re implying. 

Link to comment

Well, Fether gave the first uncharitable opinion, but was met with your most pointed reply thus far. Most people seem to be saying "yes", if they are human, they can and should have temple ordinances done for them. You seem to have waited until someone finally said "no" to really push back, I assume it clashed with your values, but you must have expected someone might say what Fether did.

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Well, Fether gave the first uncharitable opinion, but was met with your most pointed reply thus far. Most people seem to be saying "yes", if they are human, they can and should have temple ordinances done for them. You seem to have waited until someone finally said "no" to really push back, I assume it clashed with your values, but you must have expected someone might say what Fether did.

I think I’ve been consistently pushing back against claims that Neanderthals aren’t human. My values surrounding Neanderthal temple work are actually pretty lax. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Are the claims of biological evolution and the claims of Mormonism mutually exclusive?

Do the truth claims of Mormonism require there to have been no other species of hominids preceding modern humans?

For me, personally, yes --- but not for others. It isn't something that the Church, institutionally, takes a creedal stance on (in spades. The Church today is loathe to really take a stance on anything controversial, without caveats and wiggle room). 

3 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

It’s also interesting to me how much data can be gleaned from so little. The Neanderthal genome has been decoded, and Neanderthal DNA has been found in modern humans (I think these descendants all take the same road as I do to work every day), indicating they could produce viable offspring.

 Very much agree. I find the desire to discount Neanderthals in this thread (for example) to be interesting, but not surprising. As you say, if they successfully reproduced with humans (if their offspring had offspring --- and if there is Neanderthal DNA today, then that is the case), then that disposes of the "they weren't our species" argument. That's the definition of species kids learn in school (can reproduce and issue reproducible offspring). Horses and donkeys yield mules, but mules are sterile because their parents are different species. Ditto for a wild fox/Pomeranian cross a family in Chicago I hometaught had. The fact that Neanderthals reproduced with man and that there is some Neanderthal DNA today proves that they were related species. 

3 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Writing is younger than humanity by a long ways. Neanderthals had speech. They had technology. There is strong indication that they had rituals and customs. 

Which is why I consider him to be man. 

For those who believe the Book of Moses isn't just allegorical, Adam had sophisticated writing (Book of Remembrance) and speech (Adamic) from the very beginning. According to both the Bible and the Book of Moses, music technology and metallurgy go back to the very beginning, not a lengthy process of social evolution (Tubal-Cain and Jubal). 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, rongo said:

For me, personally, yes --- but not for others. It isn't something that the Church, institutionally, takes a creedal stance on (in spades. The Church today is loathe to really take a stance on anything controversial, without caveats and wiggle room).

Yeah. This site would have been a blast in the 1970s

1 minute ago, rongo said:

 a wild fox/Pomeranian cross a family in Chicago I hometaught had.

What a hilarious hybrid. 

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Which is why I consider him to be man.

A man, but genetically different? Are the genetic differences trivial to your definition?

1 minute ago, rongo said:

For those who believe the Book of Moses isn't just allegorical, Adam had sophisticated writing (Book of Remembrance) and speech (Adamic) from the very beginning. According to both the Bible and the Book of Moses, music technology and metallurgy go back to the very beginning, not a lengthy process of social evolution (Tubal-Cain and Jubal). 

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Pyreaux said:

Or in pre-Adamite times, like if Azazel was a human priest, in the chance the Book of Enoch is an Apocalypse, whom taught the Adamites the priestly arts.

Are you saying Neanderthals could have been pre-adamic priests?

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, rongo said:

For those who believe the Book of Moses isn't just allegorical, Adam had sophisticated writing (Book of Remembrance) and speech (Adamic) from the very beginning. According to both the Bible and the Book of Moses, music technology and metallurgy go back to the very beginning, not a lengthy process of social evolution (Tubal-Cain and Jubal).

I forgot to respond to this part. Sorry. I’m still trying to figure this board out. I like the quote boxes, but they’re tricky to get used to.

I think the archeological evidence for the time metallurgy arrived on scene for humanity is pretty conclusive. It was long after the Neanderthals, who were making flint razors with antler tools (a spectacular bit of technology in its own right).

Edited by MikeFoxtrot
Link to comment
Quote

Are you saying Neanderthals could have been pre-adamic priests?

Depending on the interpretation of the Apocalyptic code, yes. The Biblical serpent could have been some type of priestly pre-Adamite, the two Cherubim who replaced Adam and Eve as Eden's guardians could be pre-Adamite temple priests, the "Sons of God" who made the Nephilim (the fallen ones) might not be rebel angels, but pre-Adamite rebel priests.

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
49 minutes ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

When it comes to Nibley, I prefer four shots of espresso.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but this feels like hand-waving the fact that there used to be multiple species of humans that aren’t mentioned in ancient myths of human origin. Citing gods secret purposes doesn’t get us anywhere either. 

I like Nibley, but I agree about his "Before Adam." I feel like a lot of Mormons glom on to his "Before Adam" without giving it much thought. "Until Adam comes onto the stage with a book, there is no play," sounds  nice, but it's really a diversion. What do we do with pre-Adamites, then? "Doesn't matter --- they aren't our people. Our people don't start until Adam." Did God kick out a pre-Adamite spirit so Adam's could be placed in its body? "There is no play before Adam."  I like Nibley, but "Before Adam" is all over the map (he hits out at evolution in the same essay).

(quoting Professor Pilbeam on the Olduvai finds) "Our knowledge of the fossil record is sparse, and heavily skewed towards representation of jaws and teeth" (Before Adam, p. 56)

"And Professor Jelinek informs us that 'the entire excavated area of occupation surfaces all over the world is well under the size of a modern football field" (ibid)

"At Olduvai, 80% of the material comes from a band of strata representing only 4% of the time-span of occupation" (ibid)

(Pilbeam): "It is a paradoxical problem that the hominids are one of the poorest represented of the fossil mammal groups, relative to their apparent past diversity" (ibid, p. 57)

(Nibley): "This is a reminder that those who study the origin of man begin with the final answers. The ultimate questions that can only be answered after all the returns are in are the very questions with which Lyell, Hutton, and Darwin began their explorations. Our thrilling detective drama begins by telling us who did it and then expects us to wait with bated breath while the detective brings in the evidence . . . Well, if we grant [the axiomatic assumptions], we already have the answer to the big questions. We already know the final score." (ibid)

---

There is a lot more of this, but that's all I'm in the mood to hand-type right now :) . "Before Adam" is a bit of a head-scratcher, because Nibley spends most of his effort muddying the waters of evolutionists, but then he also acknowledges the existence of pre-Adamites before dismissing them as irrelevant because nothing matters before Adam comes onto the "stage." Which sounds glib, but it doesn't actually address the issue of these pre-Adamites, and how to reconcile this with things in the PoGP that can't just be waved away. 

"Before Adam" is also directly opposed to other things he compiled and wrote, such as "Evolution: A Convenient Fiction." It's a head-scratcher of a talk (he gave it in April 1980).

https://nibley.lib.byu.edu/1900/01/01/evolution-a-convenient-fiction/

 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

A man, but genetically different? Are the genetic differences trivial to your definition?

They could interbreed with fecund offspring. They had culture, religion, art, and technology. 

Yes, the genetic differences are trivial to me when it comes to whether or not Neanderthal is man. They were genetically similar enough to reproduce. Not even foxes and Pomeranians can do that, and they look similar enough (if cut off the Pom's lion mane). :) 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

I think the archeological evidence for the time metallurgy arrived on scene for humanity is pretty conclusive. It was long after the Neanderthals, who were making flint razors with antler tools (a spectacular bit of technology in its own right).

1) The evidence is shrouded in the past, and fraught with interpretation (and sometimes agenda).

2) Technology wasn't ubiquitous. In fact, there were advantages to preventing competitors from having it. Those advantages still exist today, in fact. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Fether said:

I’ll say it… Neanderthals are sub human and don’t deserve temple ordinances.

That is a weird way of phrasing it. I would have gone with (as far as we know) they don’t need temple ordinances but why go with they don’t deserve it? What sin caused this?

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, rongo said:

---

There is a lot more of this, but that's all I'm in the mood to hand-type right now :) . "Before Adam" is a bit of a head-scratcher, because Nibley spends most of his effort muddying the waters of evolutionists, but then he also acknowledges the existence of pre-Adamites before dismissing them as irrelevant because nothing matters before Adam comes onto the "stage." Which sounds glib, but it doesn't actually address the issue of these pre-Adamites, and how to reconcile this with things in the PoGP that can't just be waved away. 

 

At one point Nibley mentions that the pre-Adamites might be capable of exaltation. I think it was more of a “we don’t know why they exist or what their spiritual needs, if any, were.

Link to comment

What is human? What is technology? Chimpanzees have 95 percent DNA compatibility with Humans, I've heard some scary reports that some have figured out how to make and use spears and are a roving in bands with pointed sticks with the purpose of hunting other animals with. Under the argument that a human is defined by his use of tools, well...

th-633811257.jpg

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

At one point Nibley mentions that the pre-Adamites might be capable of exaltation. I think it was more of a “we don’t know why they exist or what their spiritual needs, if any, were.

Sure, but all that for "we don't know?" More satisfying to me are attempts to actually place them in the big picture. Even if I disagree, it's not just a long "we don't know, and it doesn't matter."

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Depending on the interpretation of the Apocalyptic code, yes. The Biblical serpent could have been some type of priestly pre-Adamite, the two Cherubim who replaced Adam and Eve as Eden's guardians could be pre-Adamite temple priests, the "Sons of God" who made the Nephilim (the fallen ones) might not be rebel angels, but pre-Adamite rebel priests.

All of this happening in the Pleistocene era, though?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rongo said:

1) The evidence is shrouded in the past, and fraught with interpretation (and sometimes agenda).

2) Technology wasn't ubiquitous. In fact, there were advantages to preventing competitors from having it. Those advantages still exist today, in fact. 

Metallurgy leaves behind some pretty messy fingerprints, though, from smelting sites to metal artifacts.

What sort of agenda would keep someone from announcing major discoveries like the earliest known evidence of metallurgy? Because I think the usual human motivators would encourage them to announce it. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rongo said:

Sure, but all that for "we don't know?" More satisfying to me are attempts to actually place them in the big picture. Even if I disagree, it's not just a long "we don't know, and it doesn't matter."

I doubt God is going to reveal it and that leaves us with speculation.

Link to comment

When I was president of the postgraduate student association, one of our student reps (from Bologna) was a Neanderthal -- brow ridges and all. I'm quite happy for someone to perform temple ordinances for him if, as is statistically likely, he dies without receiving the ordinances for himself.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
1 hour ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

All of this happening in the Pleistocene era, though?

Are you asking if the Biblical timeline is off and/or does the events in Genesis encompass that era?

We are not told of the creation of the country of Eden which first appears to be one of many countries at that time and certainly not a full account of all of what all was outside of Eden. Who are the citizens of Cain's city in the land of Nod?

Accounts older than the Israelite culture that chronicles and testified of the same key events as the Bible, like the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Popol Vuh, but pushes the Noah's Flood back from 6000 years ago to about 10,000 years ago. If they are correct, that is the Pleistocene era.

 

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
14 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Is there any reason that Neanderthals shouldn’t require saving ordinances? Or are they more like dogs, where they axiomatically all go to heaven?

If they are not the sons and daughters of God, there would be no need for temple work to be done.  I see no evidence that the sons and daughters of God came before Adam. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Are you asking if the Biblical timeline is off and/or does the events in Genesis encompass that era?

No, I’m asking if you believe that Neanderthal priests were interacting with Adam during the Pleistocene.  

5 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Accounts older than the Israelite culture that chronicles and testified of the same key events as the Bible, like the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Popol Vuh, but pushes the Noah's Flood back from 6000 years ago to about 10,000 years ago. If they are correct, that is the Pleistocene era.

Would you say the Epic of Gilgamesh and Popol Vuh are reliable sources of historical facts, though?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...