The People before Adam

[Snow]

OK. So, to be sure I understand, is it your position then that:

1. People who believe that there were no pre-Adam humans are people who subcribe to "backwards religious ideology"?

2. Science proves that there were pre-Adam humans, therefore anyone who rejects science in this matter is either, a) ignorant, b) dishonest, or c) dishonestly ignorant?

Did I correctly restate your position?

Thank you again for your time.

Regards,

Finrock

No,

1. There may be reasons other than religious ideology that cause people to not accept the long existence of mankind - ignorance or non-religious mythology, for example.

2. Whether or not science has proven it in absolute terms can be debated, What cannot be legitimately debated is the overwhelming amount of evidence for prehistoric humans.

a) ignorant, b) dishonest, or c) dishonestly ignorant was a euphemism for people who are blissfully unaware or so dogmatically superstitious that their opinions don't merit the time that is wasted debating them.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Snow

[Finrock]

Good evening all. I hope everyone has had a great day and is doing well! :)

First, before I get in to the meat of my post, I wish to define a term so that it is clear as to what I am speaking to:

Man - 1. The species that Heavenly Father is. 2. The species known to science as Homo Sapiens Sapiens (or anatomically modern human).

Second, my point is not to discount evolution or science or anything of the sort. I believe all truth, whether found through science or revelation, is circumscribed in to one great whole. There is no conflict between true religion and true science. I believe that our religion can accomodate scientific truths, but I do not think all scientific beliefs necessarily constitute actuality. Science is useful, for sure, but it has it's limits. This means that there are beliefs that science postulates that contradicts revealed scripture and doctrine. In those cases, I will always defer to what scripture reads and what the position of the Church is.

Although I respect the agency of others to believe what they wish to believe, I also think that to postulate that (1)the first "man" was some other species than the anatomically modern human being or (2)someone other than Adam or (3)that Adam evolved from a different species, is to postulate a belief that contravenes the revealed scriptures and doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One is sure to find all sorts of scientific data to support this claim, but they are not going to find scriptural or doctrinal support for it. Not because it is hidden, a mystery, etc., but because it doesn't exist, and I state this categorically. So, one may believe as they desire and they may say that science believes (I am using "believe" purposefully here) that claims 1, 2, and 3, are the truth, but they cannot claim that this is what revealed scripture and doctrine of the LDS Church claims as truth.

This is what scripture has to say about the matter:

Heavenly Father is Man of Holiness (Moses 7:35). He is Man, in fact, He is the epitome of the species Man. As the literal offspring of Heavenly Father, we are of the same species as Heavenly Father. There is no man, but that man is the same species as God the Father.

Adam and Eve's physical bodies were created in the image of God's body (Gen. 1:27). The scriptures teach that God's body has never been nor will it ever be in the form of Homo Erectus or in the form of any other species of animal (1 Jn. 3:2). It is in the form of Man and we, as Man, are in the form of Man.

The following describes the official doctrinal position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in regards to the origin of man.

"Adam, our first progenitor, “the first man,” was, like Christ, a preexistent spirit, and like Christ he took upon him an appropriate body, the body of a man, and so became a “living soul.” The doctrine of the preexistence—revealed so plainly, particularly in latter days—pours a wonderful flood of light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of man’s origin. It shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality. It teaches that all men existed in the spirit before any man existed in the flesh and that all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner.

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.

True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.

Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam’s race—God alone can reveal them. Some of these facts, however, are already known, and what has been made known it is our duty to receive and retain.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. By His almighty power He organized the earth and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist coeternally with Himself. He formed every plant that grows and every animal that breathes, each after its own kind, spiritually and temporally—“that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual.” He made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant, but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with godlike reason and intelligence. Nevertheless, the whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, each class in its “distinct order or sphere,” and will enjoy “eternal felicity.” That fact has been made plain in this dispensation (see D&C 77:3).

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God (First Presidency, Origin of Man).

The scriptures and our doctrine are clear on the origin of man. The Church's position is clear. One is free to believe what they wish to believe, but they are not free to postulate that views that are in contradiction to revealed scripture and doctrine of the Church are views that are in harmony with the Church. Adam did not evolve from a lower species. There was no man prior to Adam on this earth. Adam is the first man on this earth. No other creature was created in God's image, but man.

Regards,

Finrock

[Traveler]

You don't know it wasn't, and I didn't say it was. For those who belive God created man by evolution, I was saying that only mankind can beget mankind. In other words, "IF" Adam was born he was born to a man and a woman, not to another species. I was trying to demonstrate that evolution cannot be the way God created Adam.

Regards,

Vanhin

Two things - First: The scriptures tell us of G-d's creation of man. There is an assumption that I find no where in scripture that the creation of Adam is somehow different than the rest of man kind.

Second: If Adam was created by birth like the rest of mankind and he was born to a man and a woman then Adam was not the first man. The only way the scriptures can be correct if Adam was born is if he was born of a different species and therefore the first man. I see nothing in scripture to indicate that G-d altered his method of creation. BTW the scriptures also do not use the term species but rather "kind". I see no reason to assume that species and kind are the exact same thing.

The Traveler

[JohnnyRudick]

Two things - First: The scriptures tell us of G-d's creation of man. There is an assumption that I find no where in scripture that the creation of Adam is somehow different than the rest of man kind.

Second: If Adam was created by birth like the rest of mankind and he was born to a man and a woman then Adam was not the first man. The only way the scriptures can be correct if Adam was born is if he was born of a different species and therefore the first man. I see nothing in scripture to indicate that G-d altered his method of creation. BTW the scriptures also do not use the term species but rather "kind". I see no reason to assume that species and kind are the exact same thing.

The Traveler

I never thought for most of my life that Adam was the first man.

It is like if there was not a man to till the ground here in America and you were to land ashore with family and have a child born on this soil and say that child is the first American.

Or the first man child and just leave off what is understood.

[Traveler]

Good evening all. I hope everyone has had a great day and is doing well! :)

First, before I get in to the meat of my post, I wish to define a term so that it is clear as to what I am speaking to:

• Man - 1. The species that Heavenly Father is. 2. The species known to science as Homo Sapiens Sapiens (or anatomically modern human).

Second, my point is not to discount evolution or science or anything of the sort. I believe all truth, whether found through science or revelation, is circumscribed in to one great whole. There is no conflict between true religion and true science. I believe that our religion can accomodate scientific truths, but I do not think all scientific beliefs necessarily constitute actuality. Science is useful, for sure, but it has it's limits. This means that there are beliefs that science postulates that contradicts revealed scripture and doctrine. In those cases, I will always defer to what scripture reads and what the position of the Church is.

Although I respect the agency of others to believe what they wish to believe, I also think that to postulate that (1)the first "man" was some other species than the anatomically modern human being or (2)someone other than Adam or (3)that Adam evolved from a different species, is to postulate a belief that contravenes the revealed scriptures and doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One is sure to find all sorts of scientific data to support this claim, but they are not going to find scriptural or doctrinal support for it. Not because it is hidden, a mystery, etc., but because it doesn't exist, and I state this categorically. So, one may believe as they desire and they may say that science believes (I am using "believe" purposefully here) that claims 1, 2, and 3, are the truth, but they cannot claim that this is what revealed scripture and doctrine of the LDS Church claims as truth.

This is what scripture has to say about the matter:

• Heavenly Father is Man of Holiness (Moses 7:35). He is Man, in fact, He is the epitome of the species Man. As the literal offspring of Heavenly Father, we are of the same species as Heavenly Father. There is no man, but that man is the same species as God the Father.

• Adam and Eve's physical bodies were created in the image of God's body (Gen. 1:27). The scriptures teach that God's body has never been nor will it ever be in the form of Homo Erectus or in the form of any other species of animal (1 Jn. 3:2). It is in the form of Man and we, as Man, are in the form of Man.

The following describes the official doctrinal position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in regards to the origin of man.

• "Adam, our first progenitor, “the first man,” was, like Christ, a preexistent spirit, and like Christ he took upon him an appropriate body, the body of a man, and so became a “living soul.” The doctrine of the preexistence—revealed so plainly, particularly in latter days—pours a wonderful flood of light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of man’s origin. It shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality. It teaches that all men existed in the spirit before any man existed in the flesh and that all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner.

  It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.

  True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.

  Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam’s race—God alone can reveal them. Some of these facts, however, are already known, and what has been made known it is our duty to receive and retain.

  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. By His almighty power He organized the earth and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist coeternally with Himself. He formed every plant that grows and every animal that breathes, each after its own kind, spiritually and temporally—“that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual.” He made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant, but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with godlike reason and intelligence. Nevertheless, the whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, each class in its “distinct order or sphere,” and will enjoy “eternal felicity.” That fact has been made plain in this dispensation (see D&C 77:3).

  Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God (First Presidency, Origin of Man).

The scriptures and our doctrine are clear on the origin of man. The Church's position is clear. One is free to believe what they wish to believe, but they are not free to postulate that views that are in contradiction to revealed scripture and doctrine of the Church are views that are in harmony with the Church. Adam did not evolve from a lower species. There was no man prior to Adam on this earth. Adam is the first man on this earth. No other creature was created in God's image, but man.

Regards,

Finrock

My friend - you may be painting yourself into a corner. The genetic diversity of man constitutes a single race and not really a species. The term species is a scientific term and not a religious term – I am not sure that every human, including those with severe genetic flaws should be genetically tied to G-d in their flawed state. It may be possible that man’s connection to G-d is not as genetically tight as you are implying. I prefer to think that those born with genetic flaws will be “healed” in the resurrection. I am thinking that not until the resurrection will man (and only those whose bodies are Celestial) be the same species, scientifically speaking, as G-d.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I never thought for most of my life that Adam was the first man.

It is like if there was not a man to till the ground here in America and you were to land ashore with family and have a child born on this soil and say that child is the first American.

Or the first man child and just leave off what is understood.

Interesting thought. However, the meaning of Eve is also an interesting title to go along with Adam; which means the first of man.

The Traveler

[JohnnyRudick]

My friend - you may be painting yourself into a corner. The genetic diversity of man constitutes a single race and not really a species. The term species is a scientific term and not a religious term – I am not sure that every human, including those with severe genetic flaws should be genetically tied to G-d in their flawed state. It may be possible that man’s connection to G-d is not as genetically tight as you are implying. I prefer to think that those born with genetic flaws will be “healed” in the resurrection. I am thinking that not until the resurrection will man (and only those whose bodies are Celestial) be the same species, scientifically speaking, as G-d.

The Traveler

Hummmmmmmmmm:cool:

OK.

What's my comment?

Hummmmmmmmmm:cool:

[JohnnyRudick]

Interesting thought. However, the meaning of Eve is also an interesting title to go along with Adam; which means the first of man.

The Traveler

I guess that takes us back to the Scriptural account then:mellow:

[Vanhin]

Two things - First: The scriptures tell us of G-d's creation of man. There is an assumption that I find no where in scripture that the creation of Adam is somehow different than the rest of man kind.

Second: If Adam was created by birth like the rest of mankind and he was born to a man and a woman then Adam was not the first man. The only way the scriptures can be correct if Adam was born is if he was born of a different species and therefore the first man. I see nothing in scripture to indicate that G-d altered his method of creation. BTW the scriptures also do not use the term species but rather "kind". I see no reason to assume that species and kind are the exact same thing.

The Traveler

Adam was not the first man "ever", just the first man of all mankind on this earth. Clearly God the Father, who is a glorified Man with a body of flesh and bone, was a Man before Adam's tenure on this earth. So, that kind of kills the rest of your reasoning.

Plus, I already showed from our scriptures that when God creates a world to place man on, he names the first of all men Adam, and that this process has been going on long before our earth and our Adam.

JohnnyRudick's "first American" example is not that far off, IMO.

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited April 29, 2010 by Vanhin

[Snow]

Although I respect the agency of others to believe what they wish to believe, I also think that to postulate that (1)the first "man" was some other species than the anatomically modern human being or (2)someone other than Adam or (3)that Adam evolved from a different species, is to postulate a belief that contravenes the revealed scriptures and doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One is sure to find all sorts of scientific data to support this claim, but they are not going to find scriptural or doctrinal support for it. Not because it is hidden, a mystery, etc., but because it doesn't exist, and I state this categorically. So, one may believe as they desire and they may say that science believes (I am using "believe" purposefully here) that claims 1, 2, and 3, are the truth, but they cannot claim that this is what revealed scripture and doctrine of the LDS Church claims as truth.

Oh brother - that's laying it on just a tad thick don't you think? If you got any more sanctimonious, without it dripping drip off the page? It's wrong and disingenuous.... and your poorly disguised questions were clumsy (besides being with guile), asking a series of little polite questions, trying to ensure that my position was well clarified in advance, all the while knowing that you were going to post a big wrap up that sought to demonize the informed and intelligent position.

The scriptures and our doctrine are clear on the origin of man. The Church's position is clear. One is free to believe what they wish to believe, but they are not free to postulate that views that are in contradiction to revealed scripture and doctrine of the Church are views that are in harmony with the Church. Adam did not evolve from a lower species. There was no man prior to Adam on this earth. Adam is the first man on this earth. No other creature was created in God's image, but man.

Regards,

Finrock

... and if the first quote wasn't enough, was that just so we really really really know you mean it?

The Church has no official position on evolution and faithful members are free to what they choose on the matter. Anyone who tells you different has an unsavory intent:

"OREM — Despite characterizations by some Latter-day Saints that their theology eschews the theory of evolution, two LDS scientists say their church has no definitive position on whether humans evolved from earlier life forms.

William Evenson and Duane Jeffery told dozens of people gathered at Utah Valley State College on Tuesday that what definitely has evolved over time is the position taken by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the issue."

They came to that conclusion after dissecting the history of statements made by past LDS leaders at the request of former Brigham Young University president Rex Lee. In 1991, Lee asked Evenson — then dean of physical and mathematical sciences at BYU — to draft a document that could be given to students who routinely queried him on the church's position....

"What the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.'" President Hinckley added that scientists can speculate on the rest, and recalled his own study of anthropology and geology, saying, "Studied all about it. Didn't worry me then. Doesn't worry me now."

From the Feb 28, 2006 Deseret News

No definitive LDS stance on evolution, study finds | Deseret News

Edited April 29, 2010 by Snow

[Hemidakota]

Needle and thread - 15,000 years ago

Bow and arrow - 15,000 years ago

Making fire - 10,000 years ago

Rugs and mats - 25,000 years ago

etc.

Perhaps they are irrelevant to you, but they are not to the rest of mankind.

:lol: right...

[Vanhin]

Oh brother - that's laying it on just a tad thick don't you think? If you got any more sanctimonious, without it dripping drip off the page? It's wrong and disingenuous.... and your poorly disguised questions were clumsy (besides being with guile).

... and if the first quote wasn't enough, was that just so we really really really know you mean it?

The Church has no official position on evolution and faithful members are free to what they choose on the matter. Anyone who tells you different has an unsavory intent:

"OREM — Despite characterizations by some Latter-day Saints that their theology eschews the theory of evolution, two LDS scientists say their church has no definitive position on whether humans evolved from earlier life forms.

William Evenson and Duane Jeffery told dozens of people gathered at Utah Valley State College on Tuesday that what definitely has evolved over time is the position taken by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the issue."

They came to that conclusion after dissecting the history of statements made by past LDS leaders at the request of former Brigham Young University president Rex Lee. In 1991, Lee asked Evenson — then dean of physical and mathematical sciences at BYU — to draft a document that could be given to students who routinely queried him on the church's position....

"What the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.'" President Hinckley added that scientists can speculate on the rest, and recalled his own study of anthropology and geology, saying, "Studied all about it. Didn't worry me then. Doesn't worry me now."

From the Feb 28, 2006 Deseret News

No definitive LDS stance on evolution, study finds | Deseret News

Hey Snow,

Clearly the Church has spoken on the matter and does have an official stand. I never could understand why anyone would make the statement that the Church has no official stand on evolution. Finrock is not the one laying it on thick, the First Presidency is. The following is from the subtitle of the above statement.

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.

So, it is expressing the Church's doctrinal position. If you say otherwise you are ignoring the facts presented in the proclamation. Here is a specific excerpt for you to respond to.

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.

True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.

What do you think those two paragraphs are saying, if not the Church's position that our race did not evolve from lower orders of animal creation (evolution)?

Regards,

Vanhin

[rameumptom]

Forgive me but i didnt read the whole thread. But Im new here and wanted to contribute.

First off the world didnt exist 194,000 years ago so there couldnt have been any humans on Earth.

Secondly, there were no one before Adam. Adam was the first sinner and that is when God put the curse over all creation causing death. If there were people before Adam they had to have died because they werent around when Adam came to be. So death before sin cant happen. If it did happen, the whole entire Bible is fake and Christ died in vain.

Many LDS scholars DO believe the earth is ancient. And again, Joseph Smith accepted the idea that the earth is 2.555 billion years old.

Second, I believe that there was no death in the Garden of Eden, and that Adam and Eve were the only humans there. When they fell, they were brought with the Garden to this telestial world, where death was introduced to everything in the Garden, including Adam and Eve. They were the first parents of the covenant, and through them all the peoples of the earth could be adopted into the family of Adam and God, just as we can be adopted into the House of Israel.

[rameumptom]

Is God capable to do anything? Of course, He is God and He can do what he wants because he is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, etc. Like I said before humans could not have existed before Adam because they werent living when he was created. That means if there were humans before Adam they would have all died. And death before sin totally conflicts with the Bible. So if there were humans and creation before Adam, then the Bible is totally false and the God I know does not exist.

So back to Godless's question that humans before Adam were so dumb they couldnt comprehend sin. Yes this interferes with God's plan because death didnt exist until sin occurred. So since there was no death, if people before Adam never sinned then they should have still been living.

Back to the original statement about how God is capable. Of course God is capable to create Earth in millions of years but he didnt according to Genesis. Anytime a number is used next to day it means a 24 hour day. "It was evening and morning the first day, etc" This means that Earth was created in 6 literal days and that the earth is roughly 6,500 years old.

Many prophets wrote things as they understood them. Those who think that Moses or Joseph Smith knew everything concerning science OR religion are off the mark. Nephi noted that in their shared vision of the Tree of Life, his father Lehi missed seeing the dirty river, as his mind was caught up on other things.

It is too easy to presume from generalized statements and traditions. No LDS scholar, and probably no LDS General Authority believes the earth was created in 6 literal days. And Joseph Smith had no problem with believing the earth is at least 2.555 billion years old.

Let's be careful in taking scripture too literal, as it isn't necessarily meant to be taken that way. The Lord gives us symbolism in his teachings, and it is very possible that much of the creation story is symbolic: something to build a religion on.

Here's an example: Brigham Young taught that there were pre-Adamites. He also told us not to believe in childish baby stories about the Creation, but to understand that Eve was not literally created from Adam's rib.

We accept all truth, regardless of where it comes from. When religious belief and science seem to disagree, it usually means that there is a problem with interpretation of the data.

If you take the Bible too literally, then you have to believe the earth is flat, for the Bible teaches a flat earth. That is why Galileo was not accepted by the religious leaders of his day. I don't think there is a single educated Christian out there today who would insist on a flat earth, even though they profess to believe in the Bible.

So, if you are going to insist on six 24 hour days for creation, then you better also insist on a flat earth.

[Hemidakota]

I would love to see this writing by President Young, "Brigham Young taught that there were pre-Adamites. ."

[rameumptom]

What laws are you stating? I may not be reading it right. I know GOD works with Celestial Laws and not physical laws.

Celestial laws ARE physical laws. God works within physical law. Period. We may not understand how his power works, but it works through the laws that were established long before he became God. All things, including God, are made of matter. Therefore, all things work according to the laws of the universe. The Celestial Laws are just the highest laws of the universe.

[rameumptom]

This is why I want to learn more about Mormons because I just dont get it. The Bible CLEARLY states God created everything. He created angels, matter, atoms, everything. So that would mean God clearly created the universe out of nothing. Could God snap his fingers and do whatever he wants? Absolutely because God is God. If he couldnt do that, then God isnt God and is not all powerful.

You are reading into the Bible what is not there. In the original Hebrew, it states that God "formed" the earth and the heavens. Science also shows that the universe and matter are not made from nothing. The Big Bang is not the creation of everything from nothing, but the creation of everything from everything.

Most Christian scholars agree that God cannot be as all powerful as some think. Can God create a rock larger than he can lift? Can God create a God that is greater than himself?

Bible Scholars have shown that the Bible comes to us in an imperfect form. It has gone through many hands, translations, and political/religious factions. It is still a very solid and inspired book, but there are traditions within it that may or may not be historical. And it is way too easy to read it too literally, or as tradition has read it, instead of how it originally was meant to be understood.

Many Jews believe the earth to be 2.555 billion years old. This is how they read the Bible. They believe Adam lived 6000 years ago.

[rameumptom]

Of course day could mean different things. It could mean 24 hours, it could mean roughly the 12 hour part of the day when the sun is shining. It could also mean a period of time (back in my grandfathers day). Im no expert in Greek and Hebrew and any other languages that the Bible was written in, but I was told if a number accompanies the word day, it always means 24 hours.

You were told incorrectly. The Hebrew word for "day" can also mean period of time. In the creation, it represents more the concept that God performed a work, and when he finished it, he called that period of time complete, labeling it a day. Peter stated that 1000 years of man is equal to one day to God. That shows, again, the understanding that the day is a period of time, not necessarily a specific amount, where each day is equal.

For the Hebrews, a day went from sundown to sundown. Guess what? Each day began and ended differently than the one before. As the days grow longer or shorter, the days were not exactly equal. For the Hebrews, who did not use watches as we do now, they lived according to cycles of time. A day was a cycle of time. But so was spring/planting season, and fall/harvest. Years were not measured exactly as we do now. Why does Easter always fall on different Sundays each year? Because it is based upon cycles of time, rather than a fixed date.

Until we understand the ancient views, and how they didn't have a problem with understanding things from a symbolic viewpoint, or from a cyclical viewpoint, then we really are not going to be able to understand the Creation as they did.

[rameumptom]

Let me point out something here that may not be talked about or may not be thought of…what we see in the night skies is the physical (telestial) observation when trying to date our beginnings. This light spectrum and speed thereof, belongs to the lesser telestial law. There is a vast difference between what a physical (telestial) spectrum and what a Celestial spectrum. They both work with different laws. Speed for our natural light versus what are Celestial, pales in comparison. Think about travel for any angel, ministering spirit, prayers, and so forth even in our galaxy to the core center. The time and distance it would take for any eternal being to move back and forth. Nor is GOD bound by telestial laws. The telestial worlds are bound to the laws HE prescribed to them. We have already seen this by Joseph Smith own writings, sermons, and to which glorified world that stands next to GOD in governing those beneath it [galaxy trailing arm].

While this may be true, as it is based upon the assumption that there are different levels of light (and I don't see anything in the scriptures backing that up), it still clearly shows that this universe spreads out for billions of light years.

Second, we are to understand that our universe is not a telestial universe, but that there are terrestrial and celestial spheres here, as well. For instance, Brigham Young believed the Sun to be a celestial sphere. And given that Kolob is in our sphere (it manages stars above our star), then we know that it isn't as separated apart as you suggest.

[Hemidakota]

Not even Ram. But that itself is another débuted. Even your last sentence is an ambiguous hanging chad. ‘…Higher law.’ Is there more than one law here?

If HE abides by physical laws, the mode of travel could not exceed what is term the speed of light [using Einstein’s thoughts], defy physical gravity; control all aspects of nature, move planets from one location to another, and so forth. GOD only works within that law based on what is given to that creation through the Son, in belonging to that order.

As it has been noted, throughout biblical history, GOD and the Savior have overridden this physical law (telestial law). That itself was not a physical law HE was using to accomplish HIS will. If it was so, none of which could have been possible. As GOD is not bound to any physical law of the telestial world. If HE was, HE could not be GOD. PERIOD. Ok! I used your own term.

And yes! I have stated many times here in the past, GOD is not the author of such laws but an enforcer and uses it to accomplish HIS own will to progress in glory.

Concerning matter, matter is not comprised of a single identifiable layer as you stated, being physical only. To consider all matter is physical is pure nonsense. Even Joseph saw this when he described one of those layer more purer form – called it spiritual matter. But noting Joseph descriptive observation in calling it spiritual purer form is just that. As our intelligence is housed in a purer matter called a spiritual body and then housed in a physical (mortal) form body, which will be housed in a glorified form body for those who will be inheritors of the kingdom. There is a difference of bodies of celestial that of telestial. For most here, all three could be called one single identity – matter. But the layering properties are different. It is pure semantics.

[rameumptom]

Ok I think Im getting where you are coming from. What do Mormons believe regarding the Trinity? God in spiritual form (the Holy Spirit) can be wherever He wants. I believe God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one in the same. While Jesus was on Earth he was also in Heaven.

This is something that is extremely hard for the human brain to comprehend. Its the same thing as God always was, is, and is to come. The is and is to come part are easy to understand because future and present are easy. But understanding eternity past is something that is hard to grasp. This is one of those scenarios that a human brain simply cant fathom.

And we believe the Bible and modern prophets teach that the Three are one God in everything except being. As John 17 teaches, the Father and Son are one, even as they want us to be one. To read that literally would mean that we would have to believe we will also one day be one giant spirit. But that is not what the scriptures teach. The scriptures teach an anthropomorphic (man-like) God. Many prophets spoke with God face to face. Noah walked with God. Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God, which would be a deceptive trick, if it were not literally so.

[rameumptom]

Any scholars?

Kolob has the same period of time as God's throne does, so it is Celestial. As for the earth (and I believe it was only the Garden of Eden - one piece only) in orbit around Kolob, it might have been terrestrial or celestial. Since the Father was there, it is more likely that it was celestial.

[Hemidakota]

Thanks...

[Finrock]

Good morning Snow! I hope you are doing well. :)

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post.

Oh brother - that's laying it on just a tad thick don't you think? If you got any more sanctimonious, without it dripping drip off the page? It's wrong and disingenuous.... and your poorly disguised questions were clumsy (besides being with guile).

I'm not sure I'm following you. What is laying it on thick and why? How is it (whatever it is) wrong and disingenous? It is not enough to assert a position and provide no evidence to justify it.

What questions are you referring to? Are you referring to the questions I asked you? If so, why are they clumsy and why do you believe they were presented with guile? Again, it is not enough to assert a position and provide no reason to justify it, especially when you are accusing a person of being dishonest or in any way morally deficient. Further, I haven't provided a response to your post #101. In fact, because you've clarified your position based on the questions I asked you, I see your claims as a different class of claims than what I'm addressing in post #102. For instance, your claim about science having evidence to suggest pre-historic humans is not an issue that I am particularly concerned about nor have I addressed. I'm not speaking to claims of pre-historic humans. Now, I am claiming Adam was the first "human" but, I'm not speaking to when Adam was placed on this earth. In fact, I don't necessarily have any specific claim as to when Adam was placed on this earth. My claims are more precisely dealing with what type of being Adam was and his origin.

...and if the first quote wasn't enough, was that just so we really really really know you mean it?

Well, yeah. It's a method of writing I learned in high school and college. You begin a thesis by stating what you intend to write about. Next you provide the proof. Lastly, you close a thesis by restating your conclusion. Do you find this method of writing problematic in some way?

The Church has no official position on evolution and faithful members are free to what they choose on the matter. Anyone who tells you different has an unsavory intent:

This may be true. But, then again, I wasn't speaking to evolution, per se, except in part to address how it applies to Adam. I was speaking to the status of Adam, his origins, etc. I'll restate what I stated in the beginning of post #102, that my intention is not to debunk evolution. I think you've misunderstood the point of my post because your quote speaks to LDS who "eschew" the theory of evolution on theological grounds. What I've presented isn't intended to "eschew the theory of evolution".

In my post I defined the term "man" so that readers would know what I mean when I use the term. I presented a list of specific claims and in the body of my text I provided evidence to support those claims. These claims had to do with the origin of man and not evolution. The scriptures are clear as to the origin of man. Further, the Church has interpreted scripture that sets forth the official stance on the origin of man. This official stance is: 1. Adam did not evolve from a lower species. 2. Adam was the first man on this earth. 3. Only man was created in God's image on this earth. If you disagree with the claims concerning Adam, then you would need to provide the counter evidence in scripture and doctrine indicating that Adam is not the first man, that Adam evolved from a lower species, and that other creatures were created in God's image, other than man. I've categorically denied that such evidence exist. If you think otherwise, show me the money!

One last note, although unrelated to the subject matter, but as an appeal for rational discourse, please consider for the future that if you have an issue with what I've written, take some time to address my evidences (a.k.a. premises) rather than attacking my character. Further, rather than assuming that I am being deceitful or disingenous, why not exercise charity and give me an opportunity to clarify myself? This is the hallmark of rationality and reasoned discourse. I promise to treat you the same way as I would want to be treated. It is, in fact, the reason why I ask questions so that I do not make incorrect assumptions. In the end, it is only one's own position that is weakened when it is supported with ad hominems and with arguments of irrelevancy and, furthermore, it does nothing to advance the discussion.

Regards,

Finrock

[Traveler]

Adam was not the first man "ever", just the first man of all mankind on this earth. Clearly God the Father, who is a glorified Man with a body of flesh and bone, was a Man before Adam's tenure on this earth. So, that kind of kills the rest of your reasoning.

Plus, I already showed from our scriptures that when God creates a world to place man on, he names the first of all men Adam, and that this process has been going on long before our earth and our Adam.

JohnnyRudick's "first American" example is not that far off, IMO.

Regards,

Vanhin

Wait, wait, wait – from your logic how could G-d create any planet and not be the first man on it.

I thought this thread was to discuss the possibilities that can be demonstrated by consideration of both scripture and science for methods by which the physical bodies were made ready for Adam and Eve.

Logical point one => I seen no indication in science or religion that would indicate that the process by which a body was made ready (created) for the spirits of Adam and Eve was any different than the humans being made ready (created) currently. Until shown otherwise I see no reason (scientifically or religiously) that G-d drastically altered how he creates humans.

Logical point two => There is compelling scientific evidence that demonstrates that mankind is descendent from very human like creatures that existed long before the scriptures tell us G-d prepared bodies for Adam and Eve. I see no compelling evidence, what-so-ever from the scriptures, to indicate that Adam and Eve could not have been genetically engineered using already existing living matter. In fact, the scriptures do indicate that life was generated for earth in steps or stages that could definitely indicate the possibility that the creation of life was ordered and that the order was necessary.

Logical point three => The scriptures tell us that all things testify of G-d. That we can learn of G-d and his methods by honest consideration of actual scientific evidence. Thus the scriptures tell us that ignoring truth in science is contrary to G-d’s will and design.

Logical point four => I have yet to see any better explanation of G-d’s preparing bodies for Adam and Eve than evolution that meets what we have learned from science and religion. I am not saying that evolution is the answer and the only answer – just that it is the best answer I have found so far to meet all the criteria from the evidence I have before me in scripture and observable, demonstratable and provable science.

The Traveler