Can sin still disgust us?

[Traveler]

 

[Seminarysnoozer]

I believe you are making assumptions contrary to biological evidence.  Did you know you have Neanderthal DNA?  The percent of Neanderthal DNA increases for non-Africian sub-species.  According to scripture, Adam was the first man and Eve was the first woman.  What the scriptures do not say is that Adam and Eve were the only humans.  -- This thought ought to keep minds busy for a while.

I have thought about that before as well especially with this verse; Genesis 6:2 " 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."

 

... then what happens, God realizes there is too much of that mix and so the flood comes to stop mixing in too much of that DNA.

 

But here is an additional thing to think about, in that light, that also ought to keep minds busy for a while; which part of the DNA is more like God's make up, the Neanderthal or the other humans?

[The Folk Prophet]

I have thought about that before as well especially with this verse; Genesis 6:2 " 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."

 

... then what happens, God realizes there is too much of that mix and so the flood comes to stop mixing in too much of that DNA.

 

But here is an additional thing to think about, in that light, that also ought to keep minds busy for a while; which part of the DNA is more like God's make up, the Neanderthal or the other humans?

 

Really? So, scripturally, Adam is the first "man", but you're translating "daughters of men" to mean ape-women that weren't born of Adam?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Really? So, scripturally, Adam is the first "man", but you're translating "daughters of men" to mean ape-women that weren't born of Adam?

I don't see the problem in pondering such an idea.  To me, it doesn't go against any of our accepted gospel teachings. But, still, it is just a pondering, nothing more.

 

Why are you calling them "ape-women"?   The most recent articles I have seen about the subject suggest that most of the unfair comparisons made about Neanderthals is because the comparisons are made with groups of humans that lived at a different time.   One article states it this way; "So far, Neanderthals have been subjected to unfair comparison because "[r]esearchers were comparing Neanderthals not to their contemporaries on other continents but to their successors," Dr. Villa said. "It would be like comparing the performance of Model T Fords, widely used in America and Europe in the early part of the last century, to the performance of a modern-day Ferrari and conclude that Henry Ford was cognitively inferior to Enzo Ferrari."

 

And I have seen other articles suggest that the small portion of Neanderthal DNA we have has helped our creativity.

 

What is really interesting is that one of the theories for their demise is male hybrid sterility.  If that is true, I can see why they would want to go and find some other males.

 

And, it is certainly possible that all of that mixing of neanderthal DNA occured before Adam.

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't see the problem in pondering such an idea.  To me, it doesn't go against any of our accepted gospel teachings. But, still, it is just a pondering, nothing more.

 

I disagree that it does not go against our gospel teachings. But my response is "just pondering" in the same regard. As I stated earlier, the official church position is no position.

 

"The decision reached by the First Presidency, and announced to this morning's assembly, was in answer to a specific question that obviously the doctrine of the existence of races of human beings upon the earth prior to the fall of Adam was not a doctrine of the Church; and, further, that the conception embodied in the belief of many to the effect that there were no such Preadamite races, and that there was no death upon the earth prior to Adam's fall is likewise declared to be no doctrine of the Church.  I think the decision of the First Presidency is a wise one in the premises. This is one of the many things upon which we cannot preach with assurance and dogmatic assertions on either side are likely to do harm rather than good." James E. Talmage

 

Why are you calling them "ape-women"? 

 

To be snarky and express my contempt for the idea.

 

I simply do not believe that we interbred with "humanoid-creatures" (yes, I know...another snarky description) that were not of the race of Adam. The entire idea is ludicrous to me.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Just a note and observation about sin.  As much as I would personally like sin to be abhorrent the simple truth, at least for me, is that not only is there some attractiveness associated with sin – but sin can also be habit forming.  I have decided to avoid sin but it is not because it is abhorrent.  The sins I have the most problems avoiding are both fun and exciting and they are not that difficult to rationalize if it comes down that that sort of thing. 

 

The problem for me with sin is not in finding some excuse to be involved with sin – my problem is the hassle that comes from trying to repent of sin.  In fact I am convinced that it we could somehow make repentance truly as easy as many say it is at church – I would be much more willing to try a lot more sins.   

Exactly!

... Just make it easy on yourself and accept the thing that we have debated over and over again, that your brain's natural drive is to sin and the spirit's natural drive is to obey God.  The sins are hard-wired, carnality is hard-wired, being an enemy to God is hard-wired by our corrupted nature, the body - i.e, the body is weak even when the spirit is willing. The choice is continually before us while in this life, carnality vs spirituality.  Paul desired the thorn in the flesh to be gone in this life but realized it would exalt him above measure. If one could really get rid of that in this life then it would be like a 1st grader walking into medical school class - exalted above measure, higher than what we should be currently tested on and therefore not really a fair test.  Be glad for the thorn in the flesh as the struggle with it is where the growth comes from but remain in hope in realizing the "thorn in the flesh" will be for a short moment.

[The Folk Prophet]

Exactly!

... Just make it easy on yourself and accept the thing that we have debated over and over again, that your brain's natural drive is to sin and the spirit's natural drive is to obey God.  The sins are hard-wired, carnality is hard-wired, being an enemy to God is hard-wired by our corrupted nature, the body - i.e, the body is weak even when the spirit is willing. The choice is continually before us while in this life, carnality vs spirituality.  Paul desired the thorn in the flesh to be gone in this life but realized it would exalt him above measure. If one could really get rid of that in this life then it would be like a 1st grader walking into medical school class - exalted above measure, higher than what we should be currently tested on and therefore not really a fair test.  Be glad for the thorn in the flesh as the struggle with it is where the growth comes from but remain in hope in realizing the "thorn in the flesh" will be for a short moment.

 

I've pretty much stayed out of your spiritual vs. carnal debate...but I have to interject a question. If all evil stems from the carnal, then how do you explain Satan and the third of the hosts of heaven?

[Seminarysnoozer]

I disagree that it does not go against our gospel teachings. But my response is "just pondering" in the same regard. As I stated earlier, the official church position is no position.

 

"The decision reached by the First Presidency, and announced to this morning's assembly, was in answer to a specific question that obviously the doctrine of the existence of races of human beings upon the earth prior to the fall of Adam was not a doctrine of the Church; and, further, that the conception embodied in the belief of many to the effect that there were no such Preadamite races, and that there was no death upon the earth prior to Adam's fall is likewise declared to be no doctrine of the Church.  I think the decision of the First Presidency is a wise one in the premises. This is one of the many things upon which we cannot preach with assurance and dogmatic assertions on either side are likely to do harm rather than good." James E. Talmage

 

 

To be snarky and express my contempt for the idea.

 

I simply do not believe that we interbred with "humanoid-creatures" (yes, I know...another snarky description) that were not of the race of Adam. The entire idea is ludicrous to me.

You do realize that because of the Fall, Adam and Eve's bodies were changed from the original creation.  Christ's atonement and our ability to now overcome the effects of the Fall is based in the idea that our current body will turn back to dust from where it came and that we will have a new body, similar to the original bodies Adam and Eve had.

 

Whatever form of "dust" our body has and how it came to be, really does not matter a lot in the long run, it is a temporary creation and existence, it is less than the body of Adam and Eve created in the Garden of Eden.  Our bodies are not descended from the original body Adam and Eve had but from the fallen bodies they had after the Fall. Christ will later give us the body that is descended from the original creation of God with resurrection.

 

Also, I have read Talmage' statement about this topic many times and I would point to the use of the words "human beings".  In that sense, I agree because I believe the use of the words "human being" refers to a humanoid body with a son or daughter of God spirit attached to it.  Before Adam there were no groups that had a humanoid body and an attached child of God spirit. That does not rule out the possibility of humanoids without a child of God spirit - i.e. - children of men.

 

And, if they had no child of God spirit attached to them then there could be no "death" according to the gospel definition of death which is a separation of the spirit from the body.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I've pretty much stayed out of your spiritual vs. carnal debate...but I have to interject a question. If all evil stems from the carnal, then how do you explain Satan and the third of the hosts of heaven?

Evil comes from having agency, without the choice we do not call it evil, we call it being more or less valiant or faithful.  At the point of the first estate test, God gave us agency.  Then there were those that chose one way and others that chose another way.  All of us in this world chose the right way.  None of us enter this life as "evil". Our spirits are not "evil" because we did not choose against the plan of God.  Yes, some were more valiant than others but when it came down to having agency and revealing our alignment, we all aligned with God.  Those that were cast out did not align their selves with God and then were cast out.  And then there was wailing and gnashing of teeth (metaphor for carnality). Satan then was given power over the dust (not over our spirit) to again create the agency we need here for the test we face here. Once a person here chooses carnality over spirituality then they become "evil".  But to do that one has to have agency and accountability, thus those that die before the age of 8 are automatically accepted into the Celestial Kingdom. This test is not an all or nothing designation as it was in the first estate test as God has to take into account the strength of influences surrounding every choice and event, like the 'forgive them for they know not what they do' conditions.  This second estate test is like grading all the "A" students, the test gets harder but they all get a reward. (of course, with exception to those that become the sons of perdition)

[The Folk Prophet]

You do realize that because of the Fall, Adam and Eve's bodies were changed from the original creation.

 

Really? I had no idea. 

 

 

...Christ's atonement and our ability to now overcome the effects of the Fall is based in the idea that our current body will turn back to dust from where it came and that we will have a new body, similar to the original bodies Adam and Eve had.

 

Whatever form of "dust" our body has and how it came to be, really does not matter a lot in the long run, it is a temporary creation and existence, it is less than the body of Adam and Eve created in the Garden of Eden.  Our bodies are not descended from the original body Adam and Eve had but from the fallen bodies they had after the Fall. Christ will later give us the body that is descended from the original creation of God with resurrection.

 

What is your point? I don't see how this has anything to do with whether Adam's posterity got busy with the supposed Preadamites or not.

 

 

Also, I have read Talmage' statement about this topic many times and I would point to the use of the words "human beings".  In that sense, I agree because I believe the use of the words "human being" refers to a humanoid body with a son or daughter of God spirit attached to it.  Before Adam there were no groups that had a humanoid body and an attached child of God spirit. That does not rule out the possibility of humanoids without a child of God spirit - i.e. - children of men.

 

How do you know that he specifically meant "humanoid body with a son or daughter of God spirit attached to it". That's a stretch-and-a-half made-up translation to suit your purposes. Moreover, it has nothing to do with the point he was making, that being that the church had no doctrine on the matter.

 

And, if they had no child of God spirit attached to them then there could be no "death" according to the gospel definition of death which is a separation of the spirit from the body.

 

As has been pointed out, all creatures have spirits. This is a fine theory, except that it doesn't fit what we know.

 

D&C 77:2

2 Q. What are we to understand by the four beasts, spoken of in the same verse?A. They are figurative expressions, used by the Revelator, John, in describing heaven, the paradise of God, the happiness of man, and of beasts, and of creeping things, and of the fowls of the air; 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; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created.

 

Unless you're contending that God did not create these other human-like-but-not-apes-'cause-that's-offensive creatures ( I know...I can't resist the snarkiness) then the no spirit thing flies in the face of scripture.

[The Folk Prophet]

Evil comes from having agency, without the choice we do not call it evil, we call it being more or less valiant or faithful.  At the point of the first estate test, God gave us agency.  Then there were those that chose one way and others that chose another way.  All of us in this world chose the right way.  None of us enter this life as "evil". Our spirits are not "evil" because we did not choose against the plan of God.  Yes, some were more valiant than others but when it came down to having agency and revealing our alignment, we all aligned with God.  Those that were cast out did not align their selves with God and then were cast out.  And then there was wailing and gnashing of teeth (metaphor for carnality). Satan then was given power over the dust (not over our spirit) to again create the agency we need here for the test we face here. Once a person here chooses carnality over spirituality then they become "evil".  But to do that one has to have agency and accountability, thus those that die before the age of 8 are automatically accepted into the Celestial Kingdom. This test is not an all or nothing designation as it was in the first estate test as God has to take into account the strength of influences surrounding every choice and event, like the 'forgive them for they know not what they do' conditions.  This second estate test is like grading all the "A" students, the test gets harder but they all get a reward. (of course, with exception to those that become the sons of perdition)

 

There are distinct teachings that our pre-mortal existence was not all or nothing, that our status on earth is a direct result of variance in diligence there.

 

We can't define our spirits or our bodies as either "evil" or "good". It simply doesn't equate that way. A person (be it spirit of physical) chooses to be evil or good. Choice defines these things. Everyone who chooses evil is evil. The spirit and/or the body are not the defining characteristics of this status. You address this in your first sentence, but then seem to ignore it when you put all evil upon the body.

 

We enter this life without any evil because we are unaccountable as children. It is a clean slate because of the veil. We have no idea how valiant we were or were not prior to that, beyond the fact that we ultimately chose Jesus over Satan. I don't buy for a second that every spirit that comes down is just as righteous as every other spirit. Like we were just a huge collective with hive mentality. There was, scripturally, variance in our spiritual status. We know that. The idea of agency demands it.

 

Gnashing of teeth is a metaphor for carnality? Okay...that's your interpretation of it.

 

Satan has power over the dust but not over our spirits? Nonsense. Satan only has power as it is given to him. He has power over our spirits if we give it to him. He has power over our bodies if we give it to him. Satan's power comes to him through our disobedience to God. If everyone obeyed God, Satan would have no power. There are exceptions to this where God specifically gave Satan temporary power (actually all of Satan's power and influence is temporary as allowed by God) as in the case of Job, but Satan had no real power over Job.

 

Carnality is a part of the test of this life, but it is not, by any means, the ONLY test of this life.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Really? I had no idea. 

 

 

 

What is your point? I don't see how this has anything to do with whether Adam's posterity got busy with the supposed Preadamites or not.

 

 

 

How do you know that he specifically meant "humanoid body with a son or daughter of God spirit attached to it". That's a stretch-and-a-half made-up translation to suit your purposes. Moreover, it has nothing to do with the point he was making, that being that the church had no doctrine on the matter.

 

 

As has been pointed out, all creatures have spirits. This is a fine theory, except that it doesn't fit what we know.

 

D&C 77:2

2 Q. What are we to understand by the four beasts, spoken of in the same verse?A. They are figurative expressions, used by the Revelator, John, in describing heaven, the paradise of God, the happiness of man, and of beasts, and of creeping things, and of the fowls of the air; 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; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created.

 

Unless you're contending that God did not create these other human-like-but-not-apes-'cause-that's-offensive creatures ( I know...I can't resist the snarkiness) then the no spirit thing flies in the face of scripture.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be condescending with that statement.

 

My point is that you made it sound like this could go against the doctrine of the church and I am making points that it doesn't conflict with them.  I didn't use the word pre-adamites. We were talking about something contemporary to Adam, not "pre". 

 

God created every creature in the Garden of Eden.  The Fall (secondarily) caused all the things we see around us now to look and act and behave the way it does.  I don't think we have any evidence of anything that was around during the time that God created all things in the Garden of Eden.  The whole Earth changed and will have to be changed back to that state before it can accomodate anything that was created in the Garden of Eden.  The Fall was not just Adam and Eve walking out of some secluded area walled off from God's other creations.  Adam named all the creatures while in the Garden so there was nothing kept from him.  I think the Fall was bigger than we make it out to be, thus the opposing atonement is often bigger than we make it out to be.

 

Like I stated before, one of the pieces of this puzzle that one has to ponder is how long it took for Adam to be removed from the Garden - we don't know, a couple million years?  who knows?  Then the Fall resulted in this process of death that is a very important part of evolution.  There is no evolution without death.  So, if we are somehow going to suppose some way the two good work together we have to say that any evolutionary process we know about occured after the Fall of Adam.

 

As the "dust" was being prepared for Adams entry into this fallen world, God could have used all sorts of methods to allow for a Telestial like world in which to conduct this test we face now.  The evidence of that process could be in the form of all these humanoids and archeological findings etc.  So, these races are not really pre-adamite.  And this is why I have tried to be careful about saying son or daughter of God spirit as opposed to the spirit of a beast or the spirit matter that exists in all physical matter.

 

Does a zygote that is formed by the process of in vitro fertilization have a spirit son or daughter of God attached to it that seperates from it when it is killed after sitting in the tube for a while, "alive" and then "dead"?

 

I realize I have made some confusing statements and may sound like I am waffling, it is not on purpose, just part of the discussion and learning process. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be condescending with that statement.

 

My point is that you made it sound like this could go against the doctrine of the church and I am making points that it doesn't conflict with them.  I didn't use the word pre-adamites. We were talking about something contemporary to Adam, not "pre". 

 

God created every creature in the Garden of Eden.  The Fall (secondarily) caused all the things we see around us now to look and act and behave the way it does.  I don't think we have any evidence of anything that was around during the time that God created all things in the Garden of Eden.  The whole Earth changed and will have to be changed back to that state before it can accomodate anything that was created in the Garden of Eden.  The Fall was not just Adam and Eve walking out of some secluded area walled off from God's other creations.  Adam named all the creatures while in the Garden so there was nothing kept from him.  I think the Fall was bigger than we make it out to be, thus the opposing atonement is often bigger than we make it out to be.

 

Like I stated before, one of the pieces of this puzzle that one has to ponder is how long it took for Adam to be removed from the Garden - we don't know, a couple million years?  who knows?  Then the Fall resulted in this process of death that is a very important part of evolution.  There is no evolution without death.  So, if we are somehow going to suppose some way the two good work together we have to say that any evolutionary process we know about occured after the Fall of Adam.

 

As the "dust" was being prepared for Adams entry into this fallen world, God could have used all sorts of methods to allow for a Telestial like world in which to conduct this test we face now.  The evidence of that process could be in the form of all these humanoids and archeological findings etc.  So, these races are not really pre-adamite.  And this is why I have tried to be careful about saying son or daughter of God spirit as opposed to the spirit of a beast or the spirit matter that exists in all physical matter.

 

Does a zygote that is formed by the process of in vitro fertilization have a spirit son or daughter of God attached to it that seperates from it when it is killed after sitting in the tube for a while, "alive" and then "dead"?

 

I realize I have made some confusing statements and may sound like I am waffling, it is not on purpose, just part of the discussion and learning process. 

 

*shrug* It's an interesting theory.

 

Whether we call them pre-adamites or contemporaries of Adam's multi-million year exit from the garden is not really meaningful to me as to whether we are related to "beasts" that our forefathers mated with or not. I don't believe that either way.

 

I believe all mankind is directly descended from Adam and Eve. Period. This is what the scriptures teach. This is what the prophets teach. And trying to fit scientific discoveries into it that don't really fit does not appeal to me. I'm more likely to believe that there were human-ish non-spirit-children-of-God creatures that existed prior to (or even contemporary to) Adam, with the removal of the, they're my great-great-great...great-great grand-pappy and mammy theory.

 

I am disinclined to accept science that is clearly doing a whole bunch of guess-work from a species that is only capable of interpreting empirical evidence from a flea-on-dog perspective. Moreover, it doesn't take much research to find all sorts of "what about this" sort of issues in the record. These anomalies are brushed aside as unimportant because they don't fit the presumed model. I simply don't accept it as a foregone conclusion that our DNA has proven us related to a species that most of what we know about is sheer guess-work from evidence so ancient and inexact that we can never the real story.

 

So, like I said... *shrug*

[Seminarysnoozer]

*shrug* It's an interesting theory.

 

Whether we call them pre-adamites or contemporaries of Adam's multi-million year exit from the garden is not really meaningful to me as to whether we are related to "beasts" that our forefathers mated with or not. I don't believe that either way.

 

I believe all mankind is directly descended from Adam and Eve. Period. This is what the scriptures teach. This is what the prophets teach. And trying to fit scientific discoveries into it that don't really fit does not appeal to me. I'm more likely to believe that there were human-ish non-spirit-children-of-God creatures that existed prior to (or even contemporary to) Adam, with the removal of the, they're my great-great-great...great-great grand-pappy and mammy theory.

 

I am disinclined to accept science that is clearly doing a whole bunch of guess-work from a species that is only capable of interpreting empirical evidence from a flea-on-dog perspective. Moreover, it doesn't take much research to find all sorts of "what about this" sort of issues in the record. These anomalies are brushed aside as unimportant because they don't fit the presumed model. I simply don't accept it as a foregone conclusion that our DNA has proven us related to a species that most of what we know about is sheer guess-work from evidence so ancient and inexact that we can never the real story.

 

So, like I said... *shrug*

"We" are not our bodies.  I guess that is the factor that allows me to be okay with such a concept.  Whereas, I understand people are fairly sensitive about that issue.  My spirit is a daughter of God.  My corrupt body that I currently possess is dust and doesn't have to be related to anything in particular for me to be able to one day receive the body that has all the divine characteristics it needs. All it has to be is in the image of God and provide me enough ability to reason that agency is in play.

 

What does being the descendent of Adam and Eve really provide?  Look at the differences between the shortest man and the tallest man on Earth, the heaviest and the lightest, the variations in IQ etc, the variability amongst our current population of humans is enough to prove that we do not have to be in the exact likeness of Adam, like Seth or Able was.  WIth each generation there is a change in the DNA.  There are mutations, transcription errors - a certain mutation rate that is inherit in the system but then on top of that how behaviors change which DNA is passed on adds to the change. Again, we are descendents of the fallen Adam and Eve, not descendents of the body as it was created in the Garden of Eden.  Whether it is mixed with other DNA's is not that important because the change from Garden to Telestial is enough, unless one thinks Adam and Eve didn't really fall that far.

 

There is only one that needed to be a direct descendent, the Only Begotten.  The rest of us have no need to be Begotten, physically, while here in mortality.

[woundedknee]

Yes.  Thanks for commenting further.  I should have been clearer.  If we have no choice but to sin, there's no use in trying to live a sinless life because that would be impossible.  Yet, we do sin.  I thank God that Christ has set us free from the slavery of sin.  

 

 

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. It implies no choice. That goes against what we know to be true. We have our agency. We have choice.  I think it more accurate to say that we will all choose to sin, not that we cannot help ourselves.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I believe all mankind is directly descended from Adam and Eve. Period. This is what the scriptures teach. This is what the prophets teach. And trying to fit scientific discoveries into it that don't really fit does not appeal to me. I'm more likely to believe that there were human-ish non-spirit-children-of-God creatures that existed prior to (or even contemporary to) Adam, with the removal of the, they're my great-great-great...great-great grand-pappy and mammy theory.

 

Can you explain what is the specific doctrinal issue that is created if our mortal bodies (not spirit ancestry) is not 100% from Adam and Eve?    Also, I am not talking about the resurrected body.

[Seminarysnoozer]

There are distinct teachings that our pre-mortal existence was not all or nothing, that our status on earth is a direct result of variance in diligence there.

 

The variance was not in terms of good and evil though, it was in terms of more valiant or less valiant.  There is no spirit who received a body that God made a mistake with, that shouldn't have passed the first estate.  There were no equivocal cases. A person either passed the first estate test or they didn't.  God would not have tolerated a luke warm response. I am pretty sure a luke warm response would have resulted in a casting out.

 

And, the relationship between that variance and our current variance is not a 1 to 1 relationship, it is not a linear relationship.  There are those that were so valiant and good that they get to die before the age of 8 or live in a body that does not allow them to have accountability. And there are some that were valiant and were called to specific tasks and purposes.  Why was the blind man born blind?  Not because someone sinned - either in this life or the past life but so that Christ could show the works of God. Some are born into this world so that their blood can stand witness to those that do evil, as in Alma 14.

 

Who was more valiant in the pre-mortal life Joseph Smith or a child that dies before the age of 8?   We don't know, there is no formula that could tell us such a thing. It cannot be determined by their Earthly status or body etc.