Neanderthal temple work

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Wouldn’t  Neanderthals be able to do this?

Sure.  I don’t believe we can say for sure in the future we won’t be baptizing and sealing anyone sentient (including anyone who was capable of being our ancestors even if they weren’t) to God’s family or perhaps other God the Fathers (those who are the Father of spirits of the other Homo hominids) than our own.

But perhaps they won’t need it, because they are not accountable (whatever that means in an eternal moral sense).  We do not baptize those who we believe were not accountable in mortality, such as those who died before age 8…if this is a rule that continues when we know more of the realities of individuals’ lives, we would not need to baptize anyone who lacks that capability that defines and creates moral agency in humanity.  We do seal though…but maybe there is also a state in our early ancestors where they don’t need a covenant to create an eternal family bond or maybe it will be a different covenant than our own because their minds/spirits work differently than ours…we have no direct interaction that could point us to likelihoods, it is all speculation. 
 

But it seems to me if someone is capable of desiring to be sealed into God’s family, to truly be his child and our eternal sibling, God will provide a way.  Why wouldn’t he?

Edited June 26, 2022 by Calm

[MikeFoxtrot]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

For the record, Mike, although it seems that most want to tiptoe using "Before Adam" logic (i.e., only Adam and Eve and after matter, anything that came before is irrelevant, etc.), I believe that Adam and Eve were the first people. I believe that remains from the Neander Valley, etc. came after Adam and Eve. So, yes,in my view they will receive their ordinances.

What a refreshing curve ball.

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

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

What makes something human?

They have to be Homo sapiens.

Quote

Scientists define ‘human’ according to Carl Linnaeus’ Latin two name system. This consists of a ‘genus’ name and a ‘species’ name. Humans are classified under the genus Homo (man) and under the species sapiens (wise). The scientific name for a human is a Homo sapiens.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/culture/octagon/defining-human

Neanderthals are of the same genus Homo, but belong to the neanderthalensis species (rather than sapiens).  So, not human. 

Humans are the last living creatures of the otherwise extinct genus Homo.   

Along with neanderthals, I suppose you could include Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo heidelbergensis to your list of temple work questions.  But none of these are humans. 

[Pyreaux]

20 minutes ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

What makes something human?

I don't think anyone but God would know to settle whether all Homo Sapiens should be defined by our taxonomy and qualify as children of God. It is interesting that everyone living today could potentially be descendants of Adam, but it ignores the millions of people who were not, right? Aside from that, there are lots of non-Israelite people ignored and unaccounted for in the Bible. After all, why should they account for them? Its a Hebrew record. If they didn't concern themselves with others who inhabited the land with them (and before them), or who dwelt in other lands, they certainly did not deny humanity to them. I don't accept a premise other people "unaccounted for" in the Bible is some sort of theological problem or think that its something particularly unpleasant to be one of such people. We certainly do not deny them a place in God's affection or even a right to exaltation, our scriptures allow it.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Pyreaux

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

What a refreshing curve ball.

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

Mostly my conservative Mormon beliefs. I'm pretty literal with most things in scripture. 

I think man-like remains were people, and ape-like remains were forms of apes.

It's interesting to me how few actual remains there are (especially intact skeletons), upon which this is conjectured. It seems like every new find is a new species (everyone wants a name for himself), and almost always it's a knuckle bone or a tooth. When you look at the wide range of skeletons today and imagine them being buried for a few thousand years, in fragments, how would they be classified thousands of years in the future. What about the Elephant Man, or the kid in that Cher movie Mask? Modern day pygmies vs. Massai cattlemen? New species and branches, all of them.

As far as your question about what makes someone human, I would say culture. Writing and speech. Technology. Rituals and customs. Things like that.

[MikeFoxtrot]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

They have to be Homo sapiens.

Neanderthals are of the same genus Homo, but belong to the neanderthalensis species (rather than sapiens).  So, not human. 

Humans are the last living creatures of the otherwise extinct genus Homo.

There are plenty of anthropologists and biologists who would call a Neanderthal a human.
What percentage of Neanderthal DNA is the threshold for you? There are, as another poster noted, 3-5% Neanderthals walking around today. 

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

Along with neanderthals, I suppose you could include Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo heidelbergensis to your list of temple work questions.  But none of these are humans. 

I had included Denisovans in my OP originally, but I decided to focus on the one. 

[MikeFoxtrot]

 

20 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I don't accept a premise other people "unaccounted for" in the Bible is some sort of theological problem or think that its something particularly unpleasant to be one of such people. We certainly do not deny them a place in God's affection or even a right to exaltation, our scriptures allow it.

Would that mean they get a free pass? Or would they just need to do a bunch of makeup work in the hereafter?

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

 

Would that mean they get a free pass? Or would they just need to do a bunch of makeup work in the hereafter?

I would say a "free pass" in the sense they would seem to be deemed "Innocent" but that wouldn't settle whether that is because they equaled a normal Gentile who didn't have the law, a child/mentally handicapped person or an animal. Or possibly even their own group, and part of some other covenant we know nothing about.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Pyreaux

[MikeFoxtrot]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

Mostly my conservative Mormon beliefs. I'm pretty literal with most things in scripture.

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?

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think man-like remains were people, and ape-like remains were forms of apes.

It's interesting to me how few actual remains there are (especially intact skeletons), upon which this is conjectured.

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. 

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

What about the Elephant Man, or the kid in that Cher movie Mask? Modern day pygmies vs. Massai cattlemen? New species and branches, all of them.

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)

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

As far as your question about what makes someone human, I would say culture. Writing and speech. Technology. Rituals and customs. Things like that.

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. 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

the anthropologists of future generations should have no problem classifying them as modern humans

My guess is in the future they won’t need to reconstruct skeletons and muscles, etc from extrapolation, but will be able to use the dna to create images of the being and will be able to use the variations of dna to place the individual at the proper time and relationship to the rest of the organic creation.

[Pyreaux]

1 minute 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?

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. 

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. 

Depends on who you ask.

I support those willing to study and question evolutionary theory and old earth theory. Many LDS are converts and hold classical and conservative interpretations common with other Christians, but many LDS are attracted to the hard sciences, and when asked, typically regard the earth is millions of years old and on the same hand believe the scriptures are 100% "true". Generally that interpretation is the factor, and that our belief in "ongoing revelation" leaves lots of room for opinions, all based on what you are willing to accept. If for one reason or another you don't want to hold that the Bible's dating is wrong and don't want to believe the "creation science" lobby to be right, the possibilities are still many. And as long as they exist, then evolution will always fit well within LDS doctrine unless it gets revealed otherwise.

Joseph Smith's Book of Moses adds a lot to support an evolutionary view of Genesis 1. We are told that "out of the ground made I, the Lord God, to grow every tree naturally..." (Moses 3:9) We aren't told what "naturally" means. One might suspect that it entails the natural process of evolution.

Dr. Hugh Nibley made many such observations in the Book of Abraham, such as "Let us prepare the earth to bring forth grass" (Abraham 4:11), not "Let us create grass." "Let us prepare the waters to bring forth abundantly.... And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great whales, and every living creature that moveth." (Abraham 4:20.)

Note the future tense: the waters are so treated that they will have the capacity. The whales were not made on the spot but arranged it so that in time they might appear. They created the potential. "And the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good" (Abraham 4:21), that is, it was working, not because they were doing the work themselves - there were other agents at work: they were being obeyed. By whom? Well, the land animals "would obey." (Abraham 4:25.) "And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed." (Abraham 4:19, 18.) That important word "until" tells us two things: (1) that they took all the time that was necessary, no matter how long it might have been, measuring the period in terms not of a terminal date but in terms of the requirements of the task; (2) "until" means up till a certain time, but not thereafter. When things were running smoothly, they were left on their own, which implies a shift from one time-scale to another. When, for example, "the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth" (Abraham 4:24), after they had prepared the waters to do the same long before, how long do you think that took? Again, the record is deliberately vague.

[CV75]

2 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?

I would say that if Adam named them, they would be like the animals. If he didn’t, they are either part of Adam’s family (scripturally designated as those children of God living during “the seven thousand years of [this earth’s] temporal existence”) through lineage or adoption, or they are part a separate system of temporal existence on this earth, within which they are either incarnated spirit children of God (similarly descended or adopted into the family of a “first parent”) or animals.

I figure that, just as there are multiple dispensations for this earth, we can have multiple "temporal existences" taking place on this earth, each representing the covenant history of a "generation" of God's children progressing into the second, probationary estate from the premortal estate. Maybe all these generations will come together in the celestial world, their unfinished ordinance work getting done in "Zion from above."

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

At this time…who knows what may come.

Agreed. I even almost wrote a caveat indication such might be possible but chose to be simple. But good for bringing up.

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

So, only direct descendants of Adam need saving ordinances? What about the humans who existed before them?

"When the ordinances are carried out in the temples that will be erected, [children] will be sealed to their [parents], and those who have slept, clear up to Father Adam." -- Brigham Young (DBY, 399–401).

My previous comment remains. I don't know about others outside Adam and Eve's posterity. God has not revealed any such information to me and the prophets haven't taught anything of such that I know of.

[CV75]

24 minutes 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?

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. 

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. 

I would say they are not mutually exclusive (see the Church's essay on the topic). The truth claims of Mormonism are not scientific. However, serial temporal existences* would allow for organic evolution; overlapping temporal existences would allow for interbreeding between God's children from separate temporal existences (we see hints of this in Genesis 6); and, depending on their level of depravity, either instance might allow for interbreeding between God's children  and compatible animals, with or without the assistance off technology.

* Posted just now

 

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Agreed. I even almost wrote a caveat indication such might be possible but chose to be simple. But good for bringing up.

I get the impression Mike wants the nuances of beliefs. 

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

2. When was that?

April 25th, 4246 BC, 4:25 PM (just kidding - I have no idea!)

I tend to agree with Hugh Nibley, here's a quote from his article Before Adam 

Quote

Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God’s affection or even a right to exaltation—for our scriptures allow them such. Nor am I overly concerned as to just when they might have lived, for their world is not our world. They have all gone away long before our people ever appeared. God assigned them their proper times and functions, as he has given me mine—a full-time job that admonishes me to remember his words to the overly eager Moses: “For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.” (Moses 1:31.) It is Adam as my own parent who concerns me. When he walks onto the stage, then and only then the play begins. He opens a book and starts calling out names. They are the sons of Adam, who also qualify as sons of God, Adam himself being a son of God. This is the book of remembrance from which many have been blotted out. They have fallen away, refused to choose God as their father, and by so doing were registered in Satan’s camp. “Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom.” (Moses 7:37.) Can we call them sons of Adam, bene-Adam, human beings proper? The representative Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans, to name only the classic civilizations of old, each fancied themselves to be beings of a higher nature, nearer to gods than others who inhabited the land with them (and before them), or who dwelt in other lands. And yet they did not deny humanity to them.

If you prefer audio, here's a link on Youtube:   Before Adam - Hugh Nibley

Edited June 27, 2022 by InCognitus

[Nofear]

29 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

April 25th, 4246 BC, 4:25 PM (just kidding - I have no idea!)

I tend to agree with Hugh Nibley, here's a quote from his article Before Adam (

If you prefer audio, here's a link on Youtube:   Before Adam - Hugh Nibley

Indeed, his essay that you quote is largely informed my comments. Thank you for the quote. Elsewhere (same essay I believe) he asserts that civilization started when we started keeping family history (again, with Adam and Eve).

[Chum]

2 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

So, if there is no paper trail to lead the minds of the 4% Neanderthal children to their fathers, is temple work for these ancestors impossible?

A paper trail isn't a prerequisite for temple work. Folks do need a way to be identified though.

[MikeFoxtrot]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

"When the ordinances are carried out in the temples that will be erected, [children] will be sealed to their [parents], and those who have slept, clear up to Father Adam." -- Brigham Young (DBY, 399–401).

My previous comment remains. I don't know about others outside Adam and Eve's posterity. God has not revealed any such information to me and the prophets haven't taught anything of such that I know of.

Do you trust any other sources on the topic of human origins?

[MikeFoxtrot]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I get the impression Mike wants the nuances of beliefs. 

I crush nuance up and snort it on the weekends. 

[MikeFoxtrot]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

April 25th, 4246 BC, 4:25 PM (just kidding - I have no idea!)

I tend to agree with Hugh Nibley, here's a quote from his article Before Adam 

If you prefer audio, here's a link on Youtube:   Before Adam - Hugh Nibley

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. 

[MikeFoxtrot]

55 minutes ago, Chum said:

A paper trail isn't a prerequisite for temple work. Folks do need a way to be identified though.

And how does this identification work for pre-written-record humans?

[Pyreaux]

Revelation.

[Fether]

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