The People before Adam

[Hemidakota]

This was my point...if a Saint looked into the past spiritual birth before this mortal probation and what took place, a remarkable characteristic peculiarity will stand out when you meet either Lucifer or Jehovah. It is then; you know why the FATHER chooses our beloved elder Brother Jehovah over Lucifer.

[thablue718]

Any of the seven arch-angels, this does include Joseph Smith, could have sat in that seat but why bother to bring this up? It is Jehovah that our FATHER had selected. I cannot fathom any other person be seated to the right of the FATHER.

what seat are you talking about

[thablue718]

I was defending that he is not deceptive, however did he not command Abraham to sacrafice his son knowing that before the death blow he would stop him?

True , it was the Christ not God the father who was stopping Abraham , And christ does not know everything yet , everything is not fulfiled yet

Mark 13:32-37

"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is. For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch."

[Casslan]

In regards to the OP this probably says it all:

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10)

Edited May 11, 2010 by Casslan

[Hemidakota]

what seat are you talking about

Seated means who is on the right hand of the throne of GOD. Who is considered the first councilor to the Godhead.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I do not think that is deceptive at all.

Esp. if the depiction is close to the mark.

Yes ... that was my point.

[thablue718]

Seated means who is on the right hand of the throne of GOD. Who is considered the first councilor to the Godhead.

Yeah what does that have to do with what i have said.

[Hemidakota]

Go it...went back and read the thread and noted, your reference of calling the Savior the last Adam. No problem.

[Seminarysnoozer]

There are no indepth descriptions of God the Father. Period. We do not know exactly what he looks like, nor what his physical or spiritual bodies look like. We do not know whether he has a liver, and if he does, what function it may provide in an exalted being.

Remember, our scriptures were generally written long before anyone had any idea what a liver was for. Even in Joseph Smith's day, there was not a lot of knowledge available concerning the human body. Anyone for a good bleeding to get the "humors" and sicknesses out of you?

Egyptians preserved with mummies the internal body parts that they felt were important. However, they sucked the brains out through the nose and tossed them out, as they did not appear to provide any use to the body.Both Jacob and Joseph were mummified, so I would imagine that their brains were not kept....

I can imagine God having a nose, so that he can smell. A mouth to speak and to eat (as the resurrected Jesus did). Ears to hear, and other external body parts as we generally have. Internal organs may be another issue. We understand from Joseph Smith's teachings that resurrected beings have Spirit coursing through their veins, rather than blood. I would suggest he meant the Light of Christ, but he often used terms like this to mean a general group of related things related to light, intelligence and spirit. So, we can think that resurrected beings probably have veins, or something similar that courses through them.

Can Gods eat? Jesus did as a resurrected being, so I guess that is true. Must Gods eat? That is another issue entirely, which has not been determined by prophets. Other ancient beliefs show the Gods eating as a necessity. In some traditions, a god must eat from the Tree of Life, or some other god-life sustaining plant in order to sustain their own life. In many traditions, the gods survive off of the burnt offerings and sacrifices made by humans for them, in a kind of symbiotic relationship: humans provide sustenance to the gods, and the gods then bless the humans.

While traditional Christians believe that God is without "body, parts and passions" and therefore did not literally make us in his image; LDS do take these concepts literally. But how literally must we take them? Is God really the Creator of all things ex nihilo? Is the LDS view of God really one of an almighty Being? Or do LDS teachings of his limited power (i.e., cannot create from nothing, etc) suggest more of an advanced space alien/being, who has sprinkled his genetic seed throughout the galaxy and seeks to have us advance to the next sphere of existence with him? Or is there something in between the traditional all-powerful Spirit and the anthropomorphic holy being LDS call Elohim?

Finally, does it really matter if God has a spleen? Many people on earth live without spleens, appendix, 2/3 of their liver, the second lung or kidney. Hearts are interchangeable. Millions live with birth defects or later tragic loss of limb. Many are brain damaged, blind, deaf, mute. Some do not even look human, or in the image of God.

So, for me, the details do not matter. What matters is that I am here as a spirit child of God, experimenting and learning to use a physical body, so that one day I may fully overcome the flesh and be able to live as God lives. And I am sure that in that glorious day, we shall all look much like God does now. Whether that includes a liver or nose, does not matter. What does matter is that we shall live as God lives, and be as God is.

The reason this matters is because some LDS believe that our bodies are literal offspring of God (as well as the spirit being an offspring). I see it similar to you, it doesn't matter where this body comes from because it is a temporary state and not who we really are. I believe our Spirits are offspring of God, not the body. So to me, even if we have bodies that are the result of Godly DNA plopped into a monkey egg, it wouldn't matter because this body turns back to dust, it is not our permanent state.

When people believe that our body was formed out of some procreative method then there are all sorts of theories that go opposite to any process that would involve evolutionary means in part or whole.

If our body had any more resemblance to God's body than just saying it is in the image of God, then I don't think that it could be said that the Natural man is an enemy to God or that if we were in God's presence in this state that we could not see him or we would die. Otherwise, there was no need for JS or Moses to be transfigured to another state to see God if it just required a change of spirit only.

2 questions for you Ram; Where exactly does it say that Joseph Smith thought that spirit would course through the veins? That seems odd to me as I thought the spirit 'coursed' through all of our body, not just veins. ... that's running a little close to what JW believe.

Secondly, Do you believe that God needs any 'life-sustaining' anything? In other words, without that thing, He would die? Even though we are told that the resurrection means the body and spirit would never separate again. I think you were just throwing that out as a possibility, but I think that is not possible according to our gospel.

One curious side comment; maybe the brains were sucked out because they realized that primal, 'natural man', drives comes from the brain, the hypothalamus. And that is how satan has dominion over us. By taking that out, he has no access to our spirit.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Seminarysnoozer
typo

[Seminarysnoozer]

I have Prayed about this and through study it is possible that Adam was a Promised Savior like our Lord or Messiah for some humans , that where not Of the Priest line. Jesus was the LAST ADAM , Since we do not know that much about Adam we have to go on the stories of Jesus. Jesus was Promised For A long period of time. Adam might have been also. Because we see in the Abraham that it does say Periods of time not the usual thousand years time length. Also , in the Pearl of Great Price , we see Adam is of the Priest Line and any of other is not mentioned , like the Jaredites being mentioned in the Bible but only in one verse. The reason according to Hugh Nibley is that the Nation Of Israel Are Shemites , not Hamites , Which the Jaredites are. SO this could be a possibility. That the records we have are about Adam the king and his Line Not the Rest of the Humans families. Just as We are all Sons and Daughters of Abraham , and have access to the Abrahamic Covenant , Through Faith and Obedience not blood . Also the New Covenant , Through Faith and Obedience , Becoming Heirs with Christ, the only Begotten of Heavenly Father in the Flesh. Remember Heavenly Father Does talk in parables about things , through out the scriptures , show why not from the beginning. In Ecclesiastes Solomon , calls the Young Men , cattle and Beast , And through out the scriptures the men are refered to as beast , birds , " Creepy things " even though the beholder , Peter did not know it was man , the Lord was talking about until he was told . We must remember Heavenly Father ways of Explain Things are not our ways. The Lord is the Same Yesterday , Today , And Forever. so how he explains is the same. Now this possible, if we know what he has said to us on his terms , not our understanding .

:viking:

Adam (the first Adam) was promised for a long time. That is, in part, what we fought over in the war in heaven. And through Adam we are saved from eternal stagnation. So I suppose one could say that we knew about it and we are saved by him in some way. But, that doesn't require living beings on Earth prior to his coming.

My understanding of the "first Adam, last Adam" thing may be a simple understanding but I thought it was referring to what is said in 1st Corinthians. That first we get a natural body (via the first Adam) which dies and then we get a second body (via the last Adam - Jesus), it's the last because we will never die again. This is why the natural (which dies) has to come before the spiritual (something that doesn't die).

[Hemidakota]

Adam (the first Adam) was promised for a long time. That is, in part, what we fought over in the war in heaven. And through Adam we are saved from eternal stagnation. So I suppose one could say that we knew about it and we are saved by him in some way. But, that doesn't require living beings on Earth prior to his coming.

What stagnation?

[Seminarysnoozer]

What stagnation?

Stagnation = noun

A lack of action or activity: idleness, inaction, inactivity, inertness, inoperativeness

Just a colorful way of saying that we reached a point where we could not progress any further without receiving a body.

[Snow]

When people believe that our body was formed out of some procreative method then there are all sorts of theories that go opposite to any process that would involve evolutionary means in part or whole.

Uh - no.

There are no other theory's to account for man's origin besides evolution.

A "theory" isn't just an idea or notion or even a tenet of faith. A theory is "a particular framework used to describe and understand the world around us. Such a framework is only recognized as a theory after a firm empirical basis for its body of knowledge has been established. This is done through such things as extensive and long-term experimentation and observation." (Ellen Goodman). Theories incorporate facts, laws, predictions and tested hypotheses that have become widely accepted.

Beyond evolution, there are no valid theories to man's descent. There are merely hypotheses.

[Hemidakota]

Stagnation = noun

A lack of action or activity: idleness, inaction, inactivity, inertness, inoperativeness

Just a colorful way of saying that we reached a point where we could not progress any further without receiving a body.

Agreed....nice tough.

[rameumptom]

I have Prayed about this and through study it is possible that Adam was a Promised Savior like our Lord or Messiah for some humans , that where not Of the Priest line. Jesus was the LAST ADAM ,

I would suggest that Adam was the Abraham of his day. It was through Adam and his priesthood that the people of his day could be blessed by being adopted into the family of Adam. (see Abr 1).

There is only one Christ, and he is the only name on earth given to redeem us.

[rameumptom]

There is no 'WE' here but 'I'...'I DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY what HE looks like'. Any living prophet or apostle must meet the criteria of being a personal witness of the Godhead. This means, there is a need here to have a personal visitation or multiply visitation over a lifetime. This may also include, any chooosen Saint that the Godhead deems it necessary for that individual to receive the same.

Never assume, if it had not happened to you or the masses, it had not happened to the brethren or selected Saints.

True, but it misses my point. The prophets have not given us a detailed description of Christ, either. So WE still do not know what God looks like, even if an occasional prophet may have seen him. Besides, the prophets are only a witness of Christ, not of the Father. It is Christ who reveals the Father, and then only to a very few. Still, if those who are witnesses of either Christ or God do not give us a description of what they look like, the rest of us must continue guessing.

[rameumptom]

I was defending that he is not deceptive, however did he not command Abraham to sacrafice his son knowing that before the death blow he would stop him?

Some rabbinical traditions state that Abraham actually did sacrifice/slay Isaac, and the Angel of the Lord's Presence (Jehovah) came and brought Isaac back to life.

[rameumptom]

2 questions for you Ram; Where exactly does it say that Joseph Smith thought that spirit would course through the veins? That seems odd to me as I thought the spirit 'coursed' through all of our body, not just veins. ... that's running a little close to what JW believe.

Secondly, Do you believe that God needs any 'life-sustaining' anything? In other words, without that thing, He would die? Even though we are told that the resurrection means the body and spirit would never separate again. I think you were just throwing that out as a possibility, but I think that is not possible according to our gospel.

One curious side comment; maybe the brains were sucked out because they realized that primal, 'natural man', drives comes from the brain, the hypothalamus. And that is how satan has dominion over us. By taking that out, he has no access to our spirit.

“Concerning resurrection, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, or the kingdom that God inherits or inhabits, but the flesh without the blood and the Spirit of God flowing in the veins instead of the blood, for blood is the part of the body that causes corruption. Therefore we must be changed in the twinkle of an eye or have to lay down these tabernacles and leave the blood vanish away. . . . Blood is the corruptible part of the tabernacles.” (Joseph Smith, The Words of Joseph Smith, pp. 370-71; standardized)

As for God requiring sustenance, I do not know. I simply leave it at that. It is possible he does. It is possible he does not. Either way, he still is eternal and everlasting, so it is a very small thing to me.

As for the Egyptians sucking out and tossing away the brains, it is solely because they did not see it of any use. They had no idea what a hypothalamus was.

[Seminarysnoozer]

As for God requiring sustenance, I do not know. I simply leave it at that. It is possible he does. It is possible he does not. Either way, he still is eternal and everlasting, so it is a very small thing to me.

As for the Egyptians sucking out and tossing away the brains, it is solely because they did not see it of any use. They had no idea what a hypothalamus was.

Thanks for the response.

I wonder if "blood" is metaphoric for DNA or the thing that changes after the fall and is corrupted by genetic mutation, alteration etc. away from God's original creation. As you say, their understanding of anatomy was limited. Using the word "veins" as opposed to arteries also reveals the limited understanding of anatomy. This is what is hard to make sense of these things because I think we read these things and couch them into our current understanding of human anatomy and physiology which is different from how they saw things when these comments were taken. I don't think that comment from JS was intended to be literal though. (my opinion)

The other possible reason for the use of "blood" could be that the resurrected body and in the presence of God there is no need for systems that sustain life, deliver oxygen, sugar etc., the body is just kept alive by spiritual power.

I think it is safe to say though that the use of the word "blood" and "flesh" is just metaphoric and not actual. Similar to the use of the word "heart" in the scriptures, as we know our feelings do not actually come from the heart.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Uh - no.

There are no other theory's to account for man's origin besides evolution.

A "theory" isn't just an idea or notion or even a tenet of faith. A theory is "a particular framework used to describe and understand the world around us. Such a framework is only recognized as a theory after a firm empirical basis for its body of knowledge has been established. This is done through such things as extensive and long-term experimentation and observation." (Ellen Goodman). Theories incorporate facts, laws, predictions and tested hypotheses that have become widely accepted.

Beyond evolution, there are no valid theories to man's descent. There are merely hypotheses.

Snow, what do you call manipulation of genetic material to form new life that did not exist before or even copying the same DNA sequence into a "hollowed out" cell to form new life. These are techniques that are being worked on right now, not just hypotheses.

"The research team, led by Nobel laureate Hamilton Smith, ordered short strands of genetic code from commercial DNA synthesis companies in the U.S. and Germany and stitched them into longer and longer strands using standard molecular biology techniques. To assemble the largest pieces of DNA, they inserted them into yeast cells and exploited a natural process called "homologous recombination," which is used by yeast to repair damaged DNA. The experiment's final product is equivalent to the naturally occurring genetic code of M. genitalium, with two minor exceptions: The scientists disabled the gene that gave the bug power to infect human cells, and they added a few "watermarks," short strips of signature genetic code that identify the product as man-made." Scientific American 1/24/08

That new cell is not born by procreation. You would call that evolution too?

[Traveler]

Snow, what do you call manipulation of genetic material to form new life that did not exist before or even copying the same DNA sequence into a "hollowed out" cell to form new life. These are techniques that are being worked on right now, not just hypotheses.

"The research team, led by Nobel laureate Hamilton Smith, ordered short strands of genetic code from commercial DNA synthesis companies in the U.S. and Germany and stitched them into longer and longer strands using standard molecular biology techniques. To assemble the largest pieces of DNA, they inserted them into yeast cells and exploited a natural process called "homologous recombination," which is used by yeast to repair damaged DNA. The experiment's final product is equivalent to the naturally occurring genetic code of M. genitalium, with two minor exceptions: The scientists disabled the gene that gave the bug power to infect human cells, and they added a few "watermarks," short strips of signature genetic code that identify the product as man-made." Scientific American 1/24/08

That new cell is not born by procreation. You would call that evolution too?

I would call it a form of evolution.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I would call it a form of evolution.

The Traveler

Please explain your reasoning.

One summary explanation of evolution; "Life forms reproduce to make offspring. The offspring differs from the parent in minor random ways. If the differences are helpful, the offspring is more likely to survive and reproduce. This means that more offspring in the next generation will have the helpful difference. These differences accumulate resulting in changes within the population. Over time, populations branch off to become new species as they become geographically separated and genetically isolated. This process is responsible for the many diverse life forms in the world today."

How is what I gave as an example fit within that definition of evolution when there is no reproduction and there is no randomness to it's design? Reproduction and random alterations from one generation to the next are vital parts of the theory of evolution, at least the way I understand it. You must have a different understanding or definition of evolution.

[Traveler]

Please explain your reasoning.

One summary explanation of evolution; "Life forms reproduce to make offspring. The offspring differs from the parent in minor random ways. If the differences are helpful, the offspring is more likely to survive and reproduce. This means that more offspring in the next generation will have the helpful difference. These differences accumulate resulting in changes within the population. Over time, populations branch off to become new species as they become geographically separated and genetically isolated. This process is responsible for the many diverse life forms in the world today."

How is what I gave as an example fit within that definition of evolution when there is no reproduction and there is no randomness to it's design? Reproduction and random alterations from one generation to the next are vital parts of the theory of evolution, at least the way I understand it. You must have a different understanding or definition of evolution.

The basic definition of evolution is any process of change or changing. That children are not clones of parents is a testament of human biological evolution. The idea of evolution is very broad – even ideas can evolve. To say humans do not evolve is rather silly and ignorant.

What I personally wonder about are those that say evolution (change) had no part in the creation of man when man is somewhat diverse – indicating there has been some changes (evolution). Then to say G-d can institute some changes (evolution) in creation but only to some arbitrary and unexplainable point – seems rather “pointless” to me.

The Traveler

Edited May 12, 2010 by Traveler

[Hemidakota]

True, but it misses my point. The prophets have not given us a detailed description of Christ, either. So WE still do not know what God looks like, even if an occasional prophet may have seen him. Besides, the prophets are only a witness of Christ, not of the Father. It is Christ who reveals the Father, and then only to a very few. Still, if those who are witnesses of either Christ or God do not give us a description of what they look like, the rest of us must continue guessing.

That is why I stated the MASSES. Only Joseph Smith could speak about the multiply times of being witnessed of the Godhead as a prophet. Sidney new it also...anytime, a person who sees the Godhead in person, it is more or less something to do with the election process. Prophets will have to meet Godhead and can easily describe them. This will include President Monson.

There are members of the church who had the opportunity in meeting the Godhead personally can describe them. All of them, will have the same description. Not just them but also may see the Holy Ghost, Joseph Smith, and to include Heavenly Mother.

Never allow us ourselves to have a close mind that it cannot happen. We simply don't know who-is-who in this world.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The basic definition of evolution is any process of change or changing. That children are not clones of parents is a testament of human biological evolution. The idea of evolution is very broad – even ideas can evolve. To say humans do not evolve is rather silly and ignorant.

What I personally wonder about are those that say evolution (change) had no part in the creation of man when man is somewhat diverse – indicating there has been some changes (evolution). Then to say G-d can institute some changes (evolution) in creation but only to some arbitrary and unexplainable point – seems rather “pointless” to me.

The Traveler

Well sure if you are using that broad of a definition that any change = evolution. .... but here is the thing, the example I gave was not of change, it was of something new, something that hadn't existed before. Even that doesn't fit in with "change" in the broader sense.

I disagree that God created diversity of man too. He created Adam and Eve. In fact Eve was taken from the rib of Adam, so not very diverse. The fall created diversity in man. But I don't think God created the diversity. He created a diverse number of species of animals. But there is nothing in the scriptures that say he created diversity within the species. Each kind was made to reproduce itself and stay within the realm it was created. Then the fall changed everything that was already created into different creatures, ones that could change and become diverse, including humans.