Created From The Dust Of The Earth?

[lewisqic]

I've had this question for quite awhile now, any insight would be greatly appreciated...

Was Adam really created from the dust of the earth? I've read several times from differnet LDS prophets and scholars that a man can not be created in any other way than that of which we know now, which is by procreation. If this is the case, who are adams parents? who begot adam?

[Dr T]

Genesis says God created him out of the dust of the ground and breathed life into his nostrils. (no other comments on that for now.)

Dr. T

Welcome Lewisqic :)

[lewisqic]

Thanks.

And i've read that in the bible, among other things. But it doesn't quite satisfy me. Are you LDS Dr.T?

[Dr T]

I'm sorry, Lewisqic, I ought to have told you that up front. I am not LDS. I have been spending some time looking into it-that's all. Others need to give you the official LDS position on your question.

Dr. T

[lewisqic]

Looking into it huh? if you don't mind me asking... what's holding you up?

[Dr T]

Great question, Lewisqic. There are both subtleties and deep difficulties that I am discovering as I learn. I am not in a place (right now) where I can lay them out for you. As many can attest, I have been asking questions since I've been here on LDS Talk. Some answers, I can accept, others I cannot. I would love to talk to you about some of them but I'm not feeling well and I fear that I will not be able to explain myself clearly. When I am feeling better, I will be much better able to lay out my thoughts and why I have trouble reconciling them. I ask that you be patient and allow me to heal for a little bit and then maybe we can talk through PM's. If you would like to discuss those things on the larger forum, that's fine with me too. I look forward to talk to you. Maybe you can clear up my confusion with acceptable arguments. How does that sound to you, sir?

Thank you,

Dr. T

[CrimsonKairos]

If this is the case, who are adams parents? who begot adam?

Hey lewis, welcome. The short answer to your question is that there is no official LDS position about whether Adam was born like we are, or simply had his spirit inserted into a ready-made mortal body. As you said, there are several prophets who teach specifically about what they believe happened. However, none of them tried to establish their views as canonized-authorized-binding-on-all-church-members-revelations. It's an interesting question to be sure, and Brigham Young certainly offers interesting possibilities.

Depending on how you read it, the 1909 First Presidency Statement on evolution might help you form your own opinion. Here's an excerpt:

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 declares 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; and 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.

I think the point of these remarks is to teach that Adam wasn't the great-great-great-grandson of an ape, and not necessarily to teach that Adam began life as a "human germ or embryo," i.e. gestation within and birth from a woman.

Another interesting clue is found by comparing Genesis 2:7 with Moses 6:59 which I reproduce here as well (I've put the key statements in bold type):

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)

That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory; (Moses 6:59)

Assuming both passages share the same context, we find God using identical phraseology to describe both Adam's "creation," and our mortal birth from a woman. Does that mean Adam was born from a woman? I don't necessarily have an opinion on the issue at present. We simply don't have a clear-cut, canonized, authoritative revelation from God on the question. There's enough evidence for and against Adam's being born from a woman that I can't adhere to either position with any amount of certainty. What about you, lewis? What do you think?

[Dr T]

Good words, CK, as usual :)

[pushka]

I hope you're feeling better soon Doc! :)

[Dr T]

Thank you Michele :)

[Traveler]

Genesis says God created him out of the dust of the ground and breathed life into his nostrils. (no other comments on that for now.)

Dr. T

Welcome Lewisqic :)

I believe that Genesis addresses the creation of man rather than the creation of "Adam". It is my belief and understanding that all men are created by G-d and I see no reason to assume that creation of life today has changed from what we are told in Genesis. If there is reason to believe otherwise I would be very interested in and explanation of where such ideas and notions come from.

As to who were the parents of Adam; there is little reference and it is difficult to be sure what is symbolic and what is "scientific" fact. There is some that are concerned with the possibility that Adam (and man) evolved from the same source as apes - I do not see why this is of any more concern than the concept of man coming from "dust" - dust being of an order much lower than apes.

The Traveler

[CrimsonKairos]

I'd have a problem with the theory of man coming from apes for one reason: "Intelligences." I believe that what makes man a "man" and what makes a horse a "horse" is the type of its consciousness or "intelligence" (as per the general definition of "intelligence" found in D&C 93). Dirt or "dust" isn't living and hence comparing a monkey to mere matter--to dust--is comparing apples and oranges. As for the difference between mankind and other forms of life...

Sure we have different bodies from horses, but when I say we have different "intelligences" I'm referring to the quality of our consciousness, about behavior and the ability to retain and express knowledge.

If horses had opposible digits instead of hooves, for instance, I doubt they'd turn out any equine artists on par with Michelangelo, because horses aren't capable of the type of analytical and creative thought that humans are. For instance, D&C 77:3 explains that there are orders or classes among living things. Animals belong to a class separate from man.

So if a monkey became a man, it wouldn't be so much a physical evolution as an evolution of a being's consciousness or core awareness. Humans and chimpanzees are fairly similar in appearance, so it's not that I object to the concept that monkeys could have one day stood up straight, developed handsomer facial features (lol), and began producing thoughts like "I think, therefore I am." I object to the concept that one class or order of living beings can alter their fundamental consciousness to the point of leaving their old classification and joining a new order, i.e. the order of mankind. I object to this because if such a thing was possible, then it's possible that our God is really just the great-great-great-<insert insane number of "greats" here>-grandson of a particularly bright ape on another world.

The glory of God is intelligence. I believe His fundamental consciousness or the "order" of beings to which God belongs is the highest, most advanced class of beings with the most potential for knowledge and joy...a class of beings which we as His children happen to belong to as well. I don't believe a chimpanzee's "consciousness" or fundamental "intelligence" would ever evolve into the type of consciousness worthy of a child of God.

Now back to the question at hand: Could Adam have been born as you and I are, from a mother? Sure. Could his spirit have been joined with a pre-made mortal body in its physical prime? Sure. How's that different than Jesus commanding Lazarus's spirit to re-enter his "dead" body and animate it with life again? In both cases you have an empty mortal body becoming animated by the insertion of a spirit into it. My point is that I could believe either theory right now, due to a lack of light and truth on the issue. Adam could have been born, or could have been given a mature mortal body just waiting for his spirit to animate it. I don't think anyone can truly establish or disprove either standpoint with the amount of knowledge we now have from God.

[lewisqic]

Great question, Lewisqic. There are both subtleties and deep difficulties that I am discovering as I learn. I am not in a place (right now) where I can lay them out for you. As many can attest, I have been asking questions since I've been here on LDS Talk. Some answers, I can accept, others I cannot. I would love to talk to you about some of them but I'm not feeling well and I fear that I will not be able to explain myself clearly. When I am feeling better, I will be much better able to lay out my thoughts and why I have trouble reconciling them. I ask that you be patient and allow me to heal for a little bit and then maybe we can talk through PM's. If you would like to discuss those things on the larger forum, that's fine with me too. I look forward to talk to you. Maybe you can clear up my confusion with acceptable arguments. How does that sound to you, sir?

Thank you,

Dr. T

I hope you feel better soon. I'd love to discuss further issues with you, in whatever manner that you're most comfortable with. Just let me know. How does that sound to you, sir?

<div class='quotemain'>

If this is the case, who are adams parents? who begot adam?

Hey lewis, welcome. The short answer to your question is that there is no official LDS position about whether Adam was born like we are, or simply had his spirit inserted into a ready-made mortal body. As you said, there are several prophets who teach specifically about what they believe happened. However, none of them tried to establish their views as canonized-authorized-binding-on-all-church-members-revelations. It's an interesting question to be sure, and Brigham Young certainly offers interesting possibilities.

Depending on how you read it, the 1909 First Presidency Statement on evolution might help you form your own opinion. Here's an excerpt:

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 declares 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; and 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.

I think the point of these remarks is to teach that Adam wasn't the great-great-great-grandson of an ape, and not necessarily to teach that Adam began life as a "human germ or embryo," i.e. gestation within and birth from a woman.

Another interesting clue is found by comparing Genesis 2:7 with Moses 6:59 which I reproduce here as well (I've put the key statements in bold type):

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)

That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory; (Moses 6:59)

Assuming both passages share the same context, we find God using identical phraseology to describe both Adam's "creation," and our mortal birth from a woman. Does that mean Adam was born from a woman? I don't necessarily have an opinion on the issue at present. We simply don't have a clear-cut, canonized, authoritative revelation from God on the question. There's enough evidence for and against Adam's being born from a woman that I can't adhere to either position with any amount of certainty. What about you, lewis? What do you think?

I appreciate your thoughts and viewpoints on the subject. I too have discovered those references and pieced them together, but here are a few more to throw out there. please let me know what you think about these....

The first is quoted from the book "the first 2000 years" by Cleon Skousen, on page 24. He states that,

"In fact, the Lord originally told Moses precisely what it meant to be made from the dust of the earth. This is a technical phrase. It means to be "born... by water, and blood, and the spirit which i have made, and so became of dust a living soul.

This is simply a description of the physical birth. That is also how adam's physical body was made. It was born of a mother just as the body of every other human being has been made from the dust of the earth."

The second is quoted in the journal of discourses, volume 3, page 319, by Brigham Young. He says,

"Though we have it in history that our father Adam was made of the dust of this earth, and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world, and was the chief manager in that operation.

He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle."

Any thoughts on this? Anyone is welcome, thanks.

[Dr T]

That sounds good Lewis :)

[Traveler]

I'd have a problem with the theory of man coming from apes for one reason: "Intelligences." I believe that what makes man a "man" and what makes a horse a "horse" is the type of its consciousness or "intelligence" (as per the general definition of "intelligence" found in D&C 93). Dirt or "dust" isn't living and hence comparing a monkey to mere matter--to dust--is comparing apples and oranges. As for the difference between mankind and other forms of life...

Sure we have different bodies from horses, but when I say we have different "intelligences" I'm referring to the quality of our consciousness, about behavior and the ability to retain and express knowledge.

If horses had opposible digits instead of hooves, for instance, I doubt they'd turn out any equine artists on par with Michelangelo, because horses aren't capable of the type of analytical and creative thought that humans are. For instance, D&C 77:3 explains that there are orders or classes among living things. Animals belong to a class separate from man.

So if a monkey became a man, it wouldn't be so much a physical evolution as an evolution of a being's consciousness or core awareness. Humans and chimpanzees are fairly similar in appearance, so it's not that I object to the concept that monkeys could have one day stood up straight, developed handsomer facial features (lol), and began producing thoughts like "I think, therefore I am." I object to the concept that one class or order of living beings can alter their fundamental consciousness to the point of leaving their old classification and joining a new order, i.e. the order of mankind. I object to this because if such a thing was possible, then it's possible that our God is really just the great-great-great-<insert insane number of "greats" here>-grandson of a particularly bright ape on another world.

The glory of God is intelligence. I believe His fundamental consciousness or the "order" of beings to which God belongs is the highest, most advanced class of beings with the most potential for knowledge and joy...a class of beings which we as His children happen to belong to as well. I don't believe a chimpanzee's "consciousness" or fundamental "intelligence" would ever evolve into the type of consciousness worthy of a child of God.

Now back to the question at hand: Could Adam have been born as you and I are, from a mother? Sure. Could his spirit have been joined with a pre-made mortal body in its physical prime? Sure. How's that different than Jesus commanding Lazarus's spirit to re-enter his "dead" body and animate it with life again? In both cases you have an empty mortal body becoming animated by the insertion of a spirit into it. My point is that I could believe either theory right now, due to a lack of light and truth on the issue. Adam could have been born, or could have been given a mature mortal body just waiting for his spirit to animate it. I don't think anyone can truly establish or disprove either standpoint with the amount of knowledge we now have from God.

I understand what you are trying to say but you have not understood a couple of things correctly. There are people that have liminted intelligence. Some such humans have inetelligence less than the horse you speak of - it is not kind to limit such slow minded people from human consideration. Also there was an ape named Coco that was taught to sign and scored 90 on an IQ test. Please understand that the average for all humans is 100. My point is that if G-d can raise man from dust he could also raise man from another already existing life form.

I would point out that most adults in our generation know and understand how humans (man) are created.

The Traveler

[sharyll]

Coco the Ape scored a 90 on an IQ test that is barely in the normal range for humans but in the normal range none the less. I have students who have lower IQs than an Ape - my word that is a weird thought.

Sharyl

<div class='quotemain'>

I'd have a problem with the theory of man coming from apes for one reason: "Intelligences." I believe that what makes man a "man" and what makes a horse a "horse" is the type of its consciousness or "intelligence" (as per the general definition of "intelligence" found in D&C 93). Dirt or "dust" isn't living and hence comparing a monkey to mere matter--to dust--is comparing apples and oranges. As for the difference between mankind and other forms of life...

Sure we have different bodies from horses, but when I say we have different "intelligences" I'm referring to the quality of our consciousness, about behavior and the ability to retain and express knowledge.

If horses had opposible digits instead of hooves, for instance, I doubt they'd turn out any equine artists on par with Michelangelo, because horses aren't capable of the type of analytical and creative thought that humans are. For instance, D&C 77:3 explains that there are orders or classes among living things. Animals belong to a class separate from man.

So if a monkey became a man, it wouldn't be so much a physical evolution as an evolution of a being's consciousness or core awareness. Humans and chimpanzees are fairly similar in appearance, so it's not that I object to the concept that monkeys could have one day stood up straight, developed handsomer facial features (lol), and began producing thoughts like "I think, therefore I am." I object to the concept that one class or order of living beings can alter their fundamental consciousness to the point of leaving their old classification and joining a new order, i.e. the order of mankind. I object to this because if such a thing was possible, then it's possible that our God is really just the great-great-great-<insert insane number of "greats" here>-grandson of a particularly bright ape on another world.

The glory of God is intelligence. I believe His fundamental consciousness or the "order" of beings to which God belongs is the highest, most advanced class of beings with the most potential for knowledge and joy...a class of beings which we as His children happen to belong to as well. I don't believe a chimpanzee's "consciousness" or fundamental "intelligence" would ever evolve into the type of consciousness worthy of a child of God.

Now back to the question at hand: Could Adam have been born as you and I are, from a mother? Sure. Could his spirit have been joined with a pre-made mortal body in its physical prime? Sure. How's that different than Jesus commanding Lazarus's spirit to re-enter his "dead" body and animate it with life again? In both cases you have an empty mortal body becoming animated by the insertion of a spirit into it. My point is that I could believe either theory right now, due to a lack of light and truth on the issue. Adam could have been born, or could have been given a mature mortal body just waiting for his spirit to animate it. I don't think anyone can truly establish or disprove either standpoint with the amount of knowledge we now have from God.

I understand what you are trying to say but you have not understood a couple of things correctly. There are people that have liminted intelligence. Some such humans have inetelligence less than the horse you speak of - it is not kind to limit such slow minded people from human consideration. Also there was an ape named Coco that was taught to sign and scored 90 on an IQ test. Please understand that the average for all humans is 100. My point is that if G-d can raise man from dust he could also raise man from another already existing life form.

I would point out that most adults in our generation know and understand how humans (man) are created.

The Traveler

[Serg]

May I reffer to you the striking truth, that, as a psicology student, it's a given for us that "IQ tests" are meaningless. The sole purpose of them is to proyect our capacity to remember, not to analize properly. The concept of IQ is a nowadays contested(very) issue. I for one, dont believe in it. Modern biology is realizing how unstable and unsure it's methods to define(or delimit) some features of humans are plainly too general, or not fit for so.

[Dr T]

Not true Serg. The WISC for example is an IQ test that shows a high correlation with academic success. I can't get into it now. While there is a component of memory in many IQ tests, we measure memory using different tests.

Dr. T

[CrimsonKairos]

Traveler, I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say "intelligence." I said I defined it according to D&C 93 which roughly says it's the part of man that has always existed and was not created. We're different enough from animals that we were given spirit bodies and ultimately, physical bodies in the image of God. When I say intelligence, I don't mean IQ or MENSA-worthy or anything like that. I'm referring to the capacity or potential or quality of a consciousness. What's it capable of? It's one thing for a monkey to learn sign-language and score well on an IQ test; it's quite another thing for the monkey to invent sign language and compose the IQ test all on its own. See what I mean?

For example, just because a horse is born with a mental handicap and can't coordinate its legs well enough to walk, doesn't mean that a lizard that can walk is one step away (pardon the pun) from being a horse. Similarly, just because some humans for whatever reason aren't particularly bright according to whatever definition we're using, doesn't mean that a monkey who has a higher "IQ" than them is pretty much in the same classification of "intelligences" as humans (again, refer to D&C 77 for this concept of classes or orders of beings).

My point was that humans are fundamentally different from other forms of life on a core level, at our most basic level of existence, the part of us that pre-dates our spirit bodies even. We received spirit and physical bodies in the image of God. Why? I believe it's because we belong to the order of "beings" that God belongs to, and not because we scored well on a pre-mortal aptitude test. :)

Maybe making this distinction is all semantics or trivial, who knows? For me, I don't believe man ever came from apes due to the different orders of beings (consciousnesses) involved. I guess I also think pragmatically about evolution/creation...I mean, would God be more likely to: --A--have Adam be born from a woman; --B--insert his spirit into an empty, waiting mortal body; or, --C--bring Adam's distinct physiology and appearance into being through millions of years of evolution. I find A or B most plausible.

[Dr T]

CK,

Do you believe that "intelligences" have always existed but an all powerful being has not always existed from eternity?

Thank you

[CrimsonKairos]

I guess I think (my opinion here) there must always have been an all-powerful Being. I don't know how that can be anymore than I can comprehend how something exists without being created. I do comprehend the idea, just not how it translates into reality. So I don't know, I guess I don't think about it too much. It makes sense to me (as much as infinite concepts make sense to a finite mind) for there to always have been a God helping His children progress.

[Dr T]

Again, just to clarify, would you say that the God of this Earth was at one time, not god? Has there ever been a time, before the creation of this world that He was not god?

[lewisqic]

I'll repond to that with my opinion... To quote Joseph Smith, he once said that this life is a part of one eternal round, without beginning and without end. He used the analogy of a ring, saying that a ring has no beginning and also no end, and that if you were to make a cut in that ring, it then creates a beginning as well as an end. So to believe that there will be no end to life, you must also believe that there has been no beginning. Now to comprehend this infinite principle with the finite mind is rather confusing, but nonetheless i believe it to be true. As for your question Dr., I believe that the God of this earth was once a mortal upon another earth, and that he has progressed to his current state. To better understand the scriptures on this topic one must have an understanding of the use of titles and offices. For God is actually not an individual, but rather an office, or position, and that office is currently being occupied by the individual that we know as our God. Make sense? Now from this point, we can shoot off in a thousand different directions with a thousand different questions, but i have found it helpful in understanding the eternal scheme of things by simply understanding the principles of eternal progression as well as the principle of positions and offices.

[CrimsonKairos]

I don't have a hard-and-fast belief about what or where our Heavenly Father was before the creation of our earth. It would be reasonable to project backwards what is now happening for us. Namely, faithful and sanctified disciples of God can be exalted to live with Him and become as He is. So, perhaps our God was once as we are, going through similar experiences and ultimately being exalted by His Heavenly Father. I say perhaps, because the scriptures are largely silent on this issue. It's pretty much irrelevant to my salvation, but the popular LDS belief is that, yes, God was once as we now are...a mortal.

[Traveler]

Traveler, I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say "intelligence." I said I defined it according to D&C 93 which roughly says it's the part of man that has always existed and was not created. We're different enough from animals that we were given spirit bodies and ultimately, physical bodies in the image of God. When I say intelligence, I don't mean IQ or MENSA-worthy or anything like that. I'm referring to the capacity or potential or quality of a consciousness. What's it capable of? It's one thing for a monkey to learn sign-language and score well on an IQ test; it's quite another thing for the monkey to invent sign language and compose the IQ test all on its own. See what I mean?

For example, just because a horse is born with a mental handicap and can't coordinate its legs well enough to walk, doesn't mean that a lizard that can walk is one step away (pardon the pun) from being a horse. Similarly, just because some humans for whatever reason aren't particularly bright according to whatever definition we're using, doesn't mean that a monkey who has a higher "IQ" than them is pretty much in the same classification of "intelligences" as humans (again, refer to D&C 77 for this concept of classes or orders of beings).

My point was that humans are fundamentally different from other forms of life on a core level, at our most basic level of existence, the part of us that pre-dates our spirit bodies even. We received spirit and physical bodies in the image of God. Why? I believe it's because we belong to the order of "beings" that God belongs to, and not because we scored well on a pre-mortal aptitude test. :)

Maybe making this distinction is all semantics or trivial, who knows? For me, I don't believe man ever came from apes due to the different orders of beings (consciousnesses) involved. I guess I also think pragmatically about evolution/creation...I mean, would God be more likely to: --A--have Adam be born from a woman; --B--insert his spirit into an empty, waiting mortal body; or, --C--bring Adam's distinct physiology and appearance into being through millions of years of evolution. I find A or B most plausible.

If the intelligence of man has always existed and is based on the spirit of man then it should not matter at all where the physical body of man evolved from - I am just trying to understand why you oppose scientific possibilities.

The Traveler