Neanderthal temple work

[MikeFoxtrot]

10 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

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. 

What would that evidence look like?

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Two reasons:

1. No genealogical records  
2. More importantly, the children of God started later, with Adam and Eve.

And what were all the Home Sapiens before Adam and Eve?

Edited June 27, 2022 by Teancum

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

What a refreshing curve ball.

Why would you say you differ from the scientific consensus about Neanderthals?

Because it conflicts with his faith and his faith triumphs over fact.

[OGHoosier]

I believe that, as living souls are a fusion of spirit and body, the way we define what we are must include spirit. One of the essential conditions of "human" is that the body is host to a spirit child of God who took part in the Great Council and chose to come to planet Earth. 

If this definition is held, then any member of the Church who believes old-Earth and human evolution (or who believes that at any point humans interbred with those who were not) must believe that humans lived and reproduced alongside creatures of similar capacities which were not, nevertheless, human. Our reflexive cultural reaction against racism makes this sort of belief uncomfortable for many, but I believe this discomfort to be misplaced and deeply anachronistic. The old racists were morally wrong because they unjustly denied human status to those who truly possessed it, and paired such denial with cruelty based on that distinction. Their false anthropology was a critical part of their moral malpractice. I don't think they would be so guilty had their anthropology been correct AND had they refrained from cruelty. I do not believe that belief in a distinction between people is cruelty if it is in fact true. Belief in truth is self-justifying.

So, in other words, if Neanderthals had spirits from the Great Council, they were human. If they did not, they were not, regardless of their respective capacities. I do not know the answer to this question and thus take an agnostic stance. 

I will note in passing that this is not a question unique to members of the Church. Anybody who believes in human evolution has to deal with it. If we maintain that the categories of "human" and "non-human" exist (and they obviously do) then the evolutionist must believe that, at the point where humans diverged from their predecessor species, the species were very similar in capacities and yet different in a way that triggers the reflexive racism antibodies. Physician, heal thyself.

Additional postscript: this sort of lawyering-about-the-edges in pursuit of clear and rigid categories in all things is a fruitless effort characteristic of left-brain overcomputation. Many categories, if not all, have blurred edges. "Ambiguity exists and we'll let God sort it out" is a perfectly good reaction from a properly holistic mindset.

Edited June 27, 2022 by OGHoosier

[Fether]

.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Fether

[Fether]

11 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

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?

 

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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?

Because they look different than us and are stupid

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, Fether said:

Because they look different than us and are stupid

Big brow? I've met people who have brows every bit as big as a Neanderthal, or who have a similar build. 

How do you know they were stupid? Serious question. What are you basing that on? "Because they look different than us?" 

Edited June 27, 2022 by rongo

[Fether]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

Big brow? I've met people who have brows every bit as big as a Neanderthal, or who have a similar build. 

How do you know they were stupid? Serious question. What are you basing that on? "Because they look different than us?" 

Because they are dead and we are alive. And they look different than us. Hairy man apes don’t deserve temple ordinances.

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, Fether said:

Because they are dead and we are alive. And they look different than us. Hairy man apes don’t deserve temple ordinances.

Oh, tongue-in-cheek. Got it! 👍

[Fether]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

Oh, tongue-in-cheek. Got it! 👍

I run a very serious and Vehemently anti-Neanderthal organization. We are meeting outside the SLC temple This next Monday night to protest the potential recognition of sub-human species.

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

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

I know many will disagree but I think they are. And I think you need to do a lot of mental gymnastics to make it work. I did this for decades but facts won out over faith.

15 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

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

I think they do but again others disagree. And to be fair in the early 20th century there were debates among a number of top leader about this. While the official church position is basically no position and we do now know.  However for much of the 20th century the JFS/McConkie position seemed to prevail.

15 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. There are also enough remains to clearly delineate Neanderthal skeletons from modern human skeletons. 

See Rongo's comment represents his faith position and thus he dismisses evidence as sketchy or limited which it really is not.

15 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

I’m pretty sure some of those would be very interesting finds for future scientists, but the anthropologists of future generations should have no problem classifying them as modern humans (barring some sort of cataclysmic event wiping out our knowledge of anatomy)

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. 

 

[CA Steve]

Gravity is just a theory too.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Fether said:

I run a very serious and Vehemently anti-Neanderthal organization. We are meeting outside the SLC temple This next Monday night to protest the potential recognition of sub-human species.

This is a secret way to try to keep down furries isn’t it?

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I know many will disagree but I think they are. And I think you need to do a lot of mental gymnastics to make it work. I did this for decades but facts won out over faith.

I think they do but again others disagree. And to be fair in the early 20th century there were debates among a number of top leader about this. While the official church position is basically no position and we do now know.  However for much of the 20th century the JFS/McConkie position seemed to prevail.

See Rongo's comment represents his faith position and thus he dismisses evidence as sketchy or limited which it really is not.

 

One would need to be rather dull and practice mentally lazy gymnastics to not consider all the possibilities. Many critics seem to be in a world of false dichotomies. Is there only ever two options? No one can believe in evolution and the Biblical Creation? No one can be wrong but be on the right side? Were B.H. Roberts, John A Windstow and James Talmage nobodies when they supported pre-Adamite Theory, countered Joseph F. Smith and lead the way for the church to officially say they have no position on pre-Adamites?

Edited June 27, 2022 by Pyreaux

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

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. 

What evidence do you need?  There is evidence that humans existed long before Adam and Eve allegedly existed.  By the way where is your evidence for Adam and Eve?

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I will note in passing that this is not a question unique to members of the Church. Anybody who believes in human evolution has to deal with it. If we maintain that the categories of "human" and "non-human" exist (and they obviously do) then the evolutionist must believe that, at the point where humans diverged from their predecessor species, the species were very similar in capacities and yet different in a way that triggers the reflexive racism antibodies. Physician, heal thyself.

Well if one take out the idea that there is  God and that there was a pre existence (which other Christians reject) then how does the above apply?  Homo Sapiens are simply a more evolved and intelligent animal species.  And as far as we can tell, the most advanced and most evolved.  A human is just a species.  An advanced form of ape.  So what if humans diverged from their predecessors given the fact that we are just animals like other animals?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

One would need to be rather dull and practice mentally lazy gymnastics to not consider all the possibilities. Many critics seem to be in a world of false dichotomies. Is there only ever two options? No one can believe in evolution and the Biblical Creation? No one can be wrong but be on the right side? Were B.H. Roberts, John A Windstow and James Talmage nobodies when they supported pre-Adamite Theory, countered Joseph F. Smith and lead the way for the church to officially say they have no position on pre-Adamites?

The thing I never understood about this comic is whose side they are on. I mean, the implied meaning is that the apologists are wrong but it also makes apologists look awesome and amazing.

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Gravity is just a theory too.

I very much suspect your comment was intended to be ironic. Yet, there is something reasonably profound in it for those that have eyes and ears to understand*.
https://www.edge-of-knowledge.com/edge-blog/2021/6/7/astrophysicist-explains-gravity-in-5-levels-of-difficulty

 

PS: There are several on this board, but mkbukowski is good example. I say this even though I don't see exactly eye to eye with him on several things.

[Nofear]

21 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What evidence do you need?  There is evidence that humans existed long before Adam and Eve allegedly existed.  By the way where is your evidence for Adam and Eve?

The scriptures for one. But, there's lots of things in the scriptures that are rather ... inflated. That doesn't make everything untrue.
I think the conference meeting at Adam-ondi-Ahman will provide some significant insight on the matter. Until then, we work with what we got.

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well if one take out the idea that there is  God and that there was a pre existence (which other Christians reject) then how does the above apply?  Homo Sapiens are simply a more evolved and intelligent animal species.  And as far as we can tell, the most advanced and most evolved.  A human is just a species.  An advanced form of ape.  So what if humans diverged from their predecessors given the fact that we are just animals like other animals?

That doesn't answer the question. If humans diverged from their predecessors, when did it happen? If you believe in incremental changes, then you accept that each passing generation was basically the same as the one right before it with only minute differences. And yet, somewhere along the line, humans came into being when they previously were not. When did that happen? Which generation became "human" when their parents were not? It had to happen somewhere in there. 

I'm not even trying to dispute evolution. I'm just saying that the question @MikeFoxtrot poses does not present a unique challenge to the Latter-day Saints. Anybody who believes in human evolution will have to come up with an answer for it. 

[Teancum]

24 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

That doesn't answer the question. If humans diverged from their predecessors, when did it happen? If you believe in incremental changes, then you accept that each passing generation was basically the same as the one right before it with only minute differences. And yet, somewhere along the line, humans came into being when they previously were not. When did that happen? Which generation became "human" when their parents were not? It had to happen somewhere in there. 

I'm not even trying to dispute evolution. I'm just saying that the question @MikeFoxtrot poses does not present a unique challenge to the Latter-day Saints. Anybody who believes in human evolution will have to come up with an answer for it. 

It is the same issue for any species that evolved.  So why is it relevant?

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

The scriptures for one.

THe scriptures are not evidential.  They make a claim but do not provide evidence.

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

 

 

But, there's lots of things in the scriptures that are rather ... inflated. That doesn't make everything untrue.
I think the conference meeting at Adam-ondi-Ahman will provide some significant insight on the matter. Until then, we work with what we got.

 

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

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. 

With regard to the origin of species in the intents of God, aside from what we see in the scriptures (both ancient and modern), it is ALL hand-waving. When you ask questions about topics of speculation, well surprise surprise, you will get hand-waving. AKA speculation. The only facts I have are that homo sapiens is a species which God says was created in His image. God has said nothing about neanderthalensis. If neanderthalensis has a path to exaltation, we cannot know anything about it because we have been told nothing about it. 

What I understand about the purpose of this earth is this: that God created it as a venue for testing His children to see which would be worthy of exaltation. If this earth was a testing ground for neanderthalensis or denisova as well, or for what purpose, we have no way of knowing. I expect that His purposes suffice for Him, though.

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

It is the same issue for any species that evolved.  So why is it relevant?

Because Homo sapiens think we are the ultimate and therefore labeling anything as nonhuman implies they are less than rather than just different…and yet they are family/ancestors.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

On 6/26/2022 at 2:55 PM, 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?

Just fyi, at the resurrection and during the Millenium ALL spirits will be able to appear and tell us themselves who they are and want the ordinances.

"Hey you guys! I got my records lost, and here I am!  Baptize me etc. please !"

So that goes for all that we will not know about.  They COULD be from ANY time, but if they are eligible, the will show up.

"Every knee shall bend...."

That's the Doctrine 

As usual trying to figure out the science is a dead end, but of course around here it will be at least a 10 pager

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by mfbukowski