When Did the First Human Walk this Earth?

[clbent04]

If it's true that the temporal existence of man on Earth will only be a total of 7,000 years (Doctrine and Covenants 77:7), then Adam, "the primal parent of our race" (Source), could not have been created more than 7,000 years ago.  However, how does that make sense when we have discovered human fossil remains as old as 300,000 years? (Source)

In other words, how do these 300,000 year old human fossil remains fit on the timeline with Adam being the father of the human race when it is thought he lived on this Earth no more than 7,000 years ago (give or take a few years based on calendar discrepancies)?

And is it true that the Second Coming will come to pass after these 7,000 years?  If so, how close are we to it happening?  “Many scholars agree that there were approximately 4,000 years from Adam to Christ” (Source).  Take 4,000 years from Adam to Christ plus 2,017 years from Christ to present time and we are in year 6017 out of 7,000 years.  Am I understanding it correctly that we have approximately 983 years left to go until the Second Coming?  

Doctrine and Covenant 77:7 

Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?

A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.

Edited August 13, 2017 by clbent04

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

If it's true that the temporal existence of man on Earth will only be a total of 7,000 years (Doctrine and Covenants 77:7), then Adam, "the primal parent of our race" (Source), could not have been created more than 7,000 years ago.  However, how does that make sense when we have discovered human fossil remains as old as 300,000 years old? (Source)

In other words, how do these 300,000 year old human fossil remains fit on the timeline with Adam being the father of the human race when it is thought he lived on this Earth no more than 7,000 years ago (give or take a few years based on calendar discrepancies)?

And is it true that the Second Coming will come to pass after these 7,000 years?  If so, how close are we to it happening?  “Many scholars agree that there were approximately 4,000 years from Adam to Christ” (Source).  Take 4,000 years from Adam to Christ plus 2,017 years from Christ to present time and we are in year 6017 out of 7,000 years.  Am I understanding it correctly that we have approximately 983 years left to go until the Second Coming?  

Doctrine and Covenant 77:7 

Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?

A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.

Well, man certainly wasnt walking this earth 300,000 years ago. Scientists have beliefs too and beliefs dont equate to truth.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

If it's true that the temporal existence of man on Earth will only be a total of 7,000 years (Doctrine and Covenants 77:7), then Adam, "the primal parent of our race" (Source), could not have been created more than 7,000 years ago.  However, how does that make sense when we have discovered human fossil remains as old as 300,000 years old? (Source)

In other words, how do these 300,000 year old human fossil remains fit on the timeline with Adam being the father of the human race when it is thought he lived on this Earth no more than 7,000 years ago (give or take a few years based on calendar discrepancies)?

And is it true that the Second Coming will come to pass after these 7,000 years?  If so, how close are we to it happening?  “Many scholars agree that there were approximately 4,000 years from Adam to Christ” (Source).  Take 4,000 years from Adam to Christ plus 2,017 years from Christ to present time and we are in year 6017 out of 7,000 years.  Am I understanding it correctly that we have approximately 983 years left to go until the Second Coming?  

Doctrine and Covenant 77:7 

Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?

A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.

The Earth is not only 7,000 years old.  This is based off of a faulty application of Genesis (that the "days" of creation were actually literally days rather than time periods).  I don't have a reference on me, but apparently Brigham Young thought the Earth was billions of years old.

Here is my theories.

How old are the first humans?  Depends on what you mean by "human".

When Adam ate the fruit, "death" (which I interpret to be "sin") entered the world.  This was probably about 6-7000 years ago.  Around this time, homo sapiens began acting less like animals and more like modern Humans, as this was around the time of the birth of civilization as we know it (living in societies, modern agriculture, etc.)  Something happened, and I think that something is that homo sapiens, through Adam, tasted the fruit and stopped acting like animals - they suddenly became aware on a different level than before.  

This doesn't mean that homo sapiens didn't exist before Adam.  The fossil record shows that there were a small group of homo sapiens (e.g., Neanderthal man, etc.) existing well before.  Perhaps Adam was in the garden for millions of years, and these pre-adamites lived and died in the rest of the world during this time.

What is the purpose of these pre-adamites in the plan of salvation?  No one knows.  We will have to ask God when we get to heaven.  Are they saved in the Celestial Kingdom?  They did come before sin was introduced to the world, so maybe?  Are they glorified animals, or humans incapable of sin, or what?  We really don't know.  Perhaps their relationship to the plan of salvation is different from ours, having lived in a world where sin was not yet introduced.  They certainly do not appear to have behaved like modern humans, living outside of civilization itself and in a decidedly animalistic fashion.

Bottom line - yes, humans (or human-like creatures) have existed for tens of thousands of years.  No, this does not conflict with the Book of Genesis.  It just means that, as usual, God has not told us everything there is to know.

Edited August 13, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[clbent04]

4 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

The Earth is not only 7,000 years old.  This is based off of a faulty application of Genesis (that the "days" of creation were actually literally days rather than time periods).  I don't have a reference, but apparently Brigham Young thought the Earth was billions of years old.

How old are the first humans?  Depends on what you mean by "human".

When Adam ate the fruit, "death" (which I interpret to be "sin") entered the world.  This was probably about 6-7000 years ago.  Around this time, homo sapiens began acting less like animals and more like modern Humans, as this was around the time of the birth of civilization as we know it (living in societies, modern agriculture, etc.)  Something happened, and I think that something is that homo sapiens, through Adam, tasted the fruit and stopped acting like animals - they suddenly became aware on a different level than before.

This doesn't mean that homo sapiens didn't exist before Adam.  The fossil record shows that there were a small group of homo sapiens (e.g., Neanderthal man, etc.) existing well before.  Perhaps Adam was in the garden for millions of years, and these pre-adamites lived and died in the rest of the world during this time.

What is the purpose of these pre-adamites in the plan of salvation?  No one knows.  We will have to ask God when we get to heaven.  Are they saved in the Celestial Kingdom?  They did come before sin was introduced to the world, so maybe?  Are they glorified animals, or humans incapable of sin, or what?  We really don't know.  Perhaps their relationship to the plan of salvation is different from ours, having lived in a world where sin was not yet introduced.

Bottom line - yes, humans (or human-like creatures) have existed for tens of thousands of years.  No, this does not conflict with the Book of Genesis.  It just means that, as usual, God has not told us everything there is to know.

I have never heard this kind of perspective before. Thanks for sharing it

Edited August 13, 2017 by clbent04

[clbent04]

@DoctorLemon I'm trying to reconcile some of your perspective with this statement from the First Presidency back in 1909:

“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’, and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race.” (First Presidency of the Church, The Origin of Man, Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, 75–81)

Even if Adam and these early humans weren't related genealogically, the fossil remains we are finding today are classified as human

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

@DoctorLemon I'm trying to reconcile some of your perspective with this statement from the First Presidency back in 1909:

“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’, and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race.” (First Presidency of the Church, The Origin of Man, Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, 75–81)

Even if Adam and these early humans weren't related genealogically, the fossil remains we are finding today are classified as human

Adam could have been the original human being in two senses:

1) the Lord put Adam in the garden, where he stayed for millions of years.  Neanderthal man lived concurrently to some of this, in other parts of the world.  But Adam was first.

2) Neanderthal man was not really "human" because Adam had not yet eaten the fruit.  Neanderthal man was physically like humans, but was an animal at heart and had no capacity to sin, live in civilization, etc.  Neanderthal man was essentially just an animal, with no moral agency whatsoever.

Let's also remember the reason the First Presidency said this back in 1909: it was fighting a version of Darwinism that was arguing that evolution replaces the need to believe in God.

I do believe (very strongly) in the theory of evolution and a very old Earth and I see no conflict with this type of science and the Book of Genesis.  There is no war between science and Mormonism, nor should there be.  I do not believe in atheistic Darwinism, which purports to be an alternative to belief in God.

Edited August 13, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Rob Osborn]

The scriptures teach that Adam was the first man of all men. Secular teachings teach that Adam, if he even existed for real, was not the first man of all men. Two opposing teachings, one of God and one of man. Like was said today in our sacrament meeting- some of us have one hand on the temple wall and one hand on the world.

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't know that Neanderthals can be completely dismissed as mere animals.  Over hundreds of thousands of years they made tools, carried them thousands of miles, used them to butcher animals, cooked food, and may well have buried their dead.  Nor do I think the distinction between Neanderthal man and modern man can be cleanly made in the anthropological record around 6,000 BCE.

But, for theological purposes, I am quite comfortable saying a) that there was something different about Adam and his descendants than about those proto-humans who had gone before; b) that Adam's spirit was the first of our order of spirits to come to the earth; and c) that all humans alive today could trace at least part of their family tree back to Adam and Eve.  I have no problem with the idea of Adam's progeny intermarrying with remnants of Neanderthals or earlier Homo Sapiens ("sons of God marrying daughters of men", anyone?) which may account for Neanderthal DNA sequences turning up in the modern human genome. I'm not sure where I come down on the idea of no death before the fall--I believe Adam and Eve were immortal until the action/decision Genesis describes as "partaking the fruit", and probably the creatures in Eden as well.  I can't speak as to living things over the rest of the world--given the fossil record, it seems pretty tough to cavalierly state that all those dinosaurs were alive until a few thousand years ago.

I generally take scriptural absolutes when describing history ("every", "all", "always") with a pretty heavy dose of salt.  Genesis wasn't written to be a historical record in the modern (or even Book of Mormon) sense of the word "history".

[person0]

23 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

. . . these pre-adamites lived and died in the rest of the world during this time.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I'm not sure where I come down on the idea of no death before the fall . . . I can't speak as to living things over the rest of the world

Latter-day revelation teaches. . .

Quote

. . . there was no death on this earth before the Fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the Fall.
(Bible Dictionary - Death)

I have said it before in this forum, and will say it again.  I have no problem logically with the various seemingly rational conclusions/speculations people both within and without the Church tend to make about evolution, creation science, dinosaurs, neanderthals, etc.  However, to actually believe anything that would require physical death to have occurred anywhere on this earth prior to the fall of Adam, while potentially logical, is clearly contrary to the established doctrines and current teachings of the Church.

23 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

Bottom line - yes, humans (or human-like creatures) have existed for tens of thousands of years.  No, this does not conflict with the Book of Genesis.

It might not conflict with Genesis, but it conflicts with the teachings of the Church and with 2 Ne. 2:22:

Quote

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

God has not told us everything there is to know.

That part is 100% true!  

EDIT:  As do you, I also accept the idea of an old earth, but it and evolution are not mutually necessary events.

Edited August 14, 2017 by person0

[Just_A_Guy]

58 minutes ago, person0 said:

Latter-day revelation teaches. . .

I have said it before in this forum, and will say it again.  I have no problem logically with the various seemingly rational conclusions/speculations people both within and without the Church tend to make about evolution, creation science, dinosaurs, neanderthals, etc.  However, to actually believe anything that would require physical death to have occurred anywhere on this earth prior to the fall of Adam, while potentially logical, is clearly contrary to the established doctrines and current teachings of the Church.

It might not conflict with Genesis, but it conflicts with the teachings of the Church and with 2 Ne. 2:22:

That part is 100% true!  

EDIT:  As do you, I also accept the idea of an old earth, but it and evolution are not mutually necessary events.

A couple of responses:

1). Yes, I freely admit to being outside the orthodoxy as commonly understood.  However--define "the world".  In what sense is the world we live in today the same as the one that hypothetically existed one, or sixty, or a hundred million years ago?  Accounting for plate tectonics, subduction, continental drift, climate change, and even differing atmospheric chemical compositions; at what point might we be able to argue that "the old world had passed away" and that we live in a new world, patterned after an older one where other beings used to live?  Adam knew nothing of any other world.  Do we perhaps know just a little bit more than he did?

I'm comfortable assuming a certain degree of agnosticism here.   And as for 2 Nephi, my thoughts are -"1) whoops!  There's that phrase "all things" again; and 2)  "end" may signify "purpose" rather than a termination of the system.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[person0]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

A couple of responses:

1). Yes, I freely admit to being outside the orthodoxy as commonly understood.  However--define "the world".  In what sense is the world we live in today the same as the one that hypothetically existed one, or sixty, or a hundred million years ago?  Accounting for plate tectonics, subduction, continental drift, climate change, and even differing atmospheric makeups; at what point might we be able to argue that "the old world had passed away" and that we live in a new world, patterned after an older one where other beings used to live?

I'm comfortable assuming a certain degree of agnosticism here.   And as for 2 Nephi, my thoughts are -"1) whoops!  There's that phrase "all things" again; and 2)  "end" may signify "purpose" rather than a termination of the system.

Okay I'm officially having fun with this!  Here is my rebuttal to your rebuttal :

1)  When you were born you gained a physical body.  Before the moment of birth on this planet, you did not have a physical body.  Your physical body today is extremely different from your physical body at birth.  You have changed physically, spiritually, and mentally, and yet, are you not the same being?  Your appearance has changed, your intellect has advanced, but you are the same intelligent entity that you were even before you were born.  Likewise, Christ, in scripture is noted as being the same, yesterday, today, and forever (different context - same principle).

Definition - The World:  The planet on which mankind currently resides and has resided from the time Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden.  The spiritual entity, now physically clothed, which was created as the planet where Jesus Christ would accomplish His Atonement.

The other 1)  You might have to link me to another post because I think I'm missing something.  However, I interpret 'all things' in this context to at least mean: All things in existence, which were created by God, and which are within the 'sphere' (domain) applicable to this earth.

2)  I think the context makes it clear that 'end' signified termination or death, not purpose.  Congruently, Adam ate fruit, and fruit came forth spontaneously.  At a minimum, the edible vegetation in the Garden of Eden would have still had a purpose.

[Just_A_Guy]

1). Re "same world" (which I should have phrased as "this earth")--this still strikes me as semantics.  With your parable of the body--I was taught that at the molecular level, the body renews itself every 7 years.  Let us take another example:  in the early 1970s the US Navy funded construction of a research submersible named Alvin.  Shortly after entering service the sub sank.  It was raised and returned to service.  Over the next forty years it was repeatedly retrofitted, upgraded, and overhauled. Today the Navy continues to operate Alvin, but **every single part of it** has been replaced at some point in the sub's history.  There is no wire, no battery, no motor, no manipulator, no exterior panel remaining from the original sub. Even the pressure hull has been replaced at least twice.  If you dive on Alvin tomorrow, and the pilot reassures you that "this sub has never sunk"--is he right?

We often hear young-earth LDS apologists cite Joseph Smith for the proposition that this earth was created from fragments of older earths; and thus fossils may be explained as imprints of creatures that lived on other, older earths. The paradigm I propose is in line with that; except that rather than God smashing the old world to smithereens and then cobbling something new together from the pieces, it seems to me that He might cleanse and renew it through processes geologists are finally beginning to understand.

1.1). I think it was this thread, earlier tonight, where I expressed concern about the use of absolutes in scripture generally; and particularly in cases where they are cited for historical exposition.

2). Maybe, but see vv 11-12.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, person0 said:

Latter-day revelation teaches. . .

I have said it before in this forum, and will say it again.  I have no problem logically with the various seemingly rational conclusions/speculations people both within and without the Church tend to make about evolution, creation science, dinosaurs, neanderthals, etc.  However, to actually believe anything that would require physical death to have occurred anywhere on this earth prior to the fall of Adam, while potentially logical, is clearly contrary to the established doctrines and current teachings of the Church.

It might not conflict with Genesis, but it conflicts with the teachings of the Church and with 2 Ne. 2:22:

That part is 100% true!  

EDIT:  As do you, I also accept the idea of an old earth, but it and evolution are not mutually necessary events.

Yeah, about that, I think we are going to have to interpet 2 Nephi 2:22's "all things" as meaning "all things [regarding actual humans, which, as I explained, Adam and Eve were the first]".

The fossil record is very clear that death has existed among non-human organisms for hundreds of thousands of years.

Besides, the Book of Genesis makes it very clear that Adam and Eve were eating various fruit in the garden of Eden.  Eating fruit implies change and death death did exist in plant cells, in some form (thus showing that some liberty has to be taken with 2 Nephi 2:22 no matter what you believe).

 

Edited August 14, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[my two cents]

On 8/13/2017 at 1:36 AM, clbent04 said:

Am I understanding it correctly that we have approximately 983 years left to go until the Second Coming?  

No

[CV75]

On 8/13/2017 at 1:36 AM, clbent04 said:

If it's true that the temporal existence of man on Earth will only be a total of 7,000 years (Doctrine and Covenants 77:7), then Adam, "the primal parent of our race" (Source), could not have been created more than 7,000 years ago.  However, how does that make sense when we have discovered human fossil remains as old as 300,000 years? (Source)

In other words, how do these 300,000 year old human fossil remains fit on the timeline with Adam being the father of the human race when it is thought he lived on this Earth no more than 7,000 years ago (give or take a few years based on calendar discrepancies)?

And is it true that the Second Coming will come to pass after these 7,000 years?  If so, how close are we to it happening?  “Many scholars agree that there were approximately 4,000 years from Adam to Christ” (Source).  Take 4,000 years from Adam to Christ plus 2,017 years from Christ to present time and we are in year 6017 out of 7,000 years.  Am I understanding it correctly that we have approximately 983 years left to go until the Second Coming?  

Doctrine and Covenant 77:7 

Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?

A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.

Just in the spirit of showing that anything can happen, even miracles:

Let’s consider that Adam and Eve at the very least established the covenant among their personal posterity in the mortal earth 4,000 BC.

But he and Eve could have been very busy for millions of years before then. As stewards over all life, they could have been the last to exit Eden, or the last to experience the fallen condition and age and die. This would permit them, from their protected “headquarters” in Eden, to oversee those natural processes that scientists interpret from the geological and fossil record and in terms of human evolution. Eventually things were prepared and ready for them to have their own children. Thus, the humanoid / human beings they stewarded over before they themselves became mortal could have been introduced to the earth as the scientists say, yet their salvation just as dependent on post-mortal ordinances where they are sealed into the family of Adam just as readily as those who came into the world through their seed.

[CV75]

On 8/13/2017 at 2:07 AM, clbent04 said:

@DoctorLemon I'm trying to reconcile some of your perspective with this statement from the First Presidency back in 1909:

“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’, and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race.” (First Presidency of the Church, The Origin of Man, Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, 75–81)

Even if Adam and these early humans weren't related genealogically, the fossil remains we are finding today are classified as human

Adam was indeed the first of all  men by virtue of his position as chief steward over all life both in the Garden and that came into mortality since his fall.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

Besides, the Book of Genesis makes it very clear that Adam and Eve were eating various fruit in the garden of Eden.  Eating fruit implies change and death death did exist in plant cells, in some form (thus showing that some liberty has to be taken with 2 Nephi 2:22 no matter what you believe).

Not necessarily. Where there was no blood in their (and presumably any animals') veins, and presumably no corresponding "death element" in the systems of other forms of life, the consumption of "terrestrially connected" spirit and element did not result in death, but merely recycle life.

Edited August 14, 2017 by CV75

[person0]

2 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

The fossil record is very clear that death has existed among non-human organisms for hundreds of thousands of years

Once again, a reasonable belief, a logical conclusion based on the current state of human scientific knowledge, but not in keeping with scripture and modern prophets as it pertains to this particular earth.  If we are to believe the scriptures, and more importantly the prophets, ". . .there was no death on this earth before the Fall of Adam."  That is literally what the Church's bible dictionary declares.  I am excited about further light and knowledge to shed light on this issue, but in the meantime I will not accept what I believe to being the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.

I am 100% confident that the real answer lies in a correct resolution of both of these principles.  Whether dating mechanisms are incorrect for some reason (I am aware of the specificity and accuracy with which they are calculated), or whether there be another answer.  Either way, I'm sure there is a reconciliation, I'm just glad it has no bearing on our salvation or else this disagreement might be actually important!  

2 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

Eating fruit implies change and death death did exist in plant cells, in some form (thus showing that some liberty has to be taken with 2 Nephi 2:22 no matter what you believe).

Eating fruit does not have anything to do with death.  If Adam ate an apple and dropped the 'core' on the ground, rather than decay, it could spontaneously grow into another plant. One can certainly resolve eating and using plant cells from vegetation without death being required.  Besides, do you not think there is fruit in the celestial kingdom?  Is there then also death there when we eat the fruit?  I would say 2 Nephi 2:22 is pretty clear and non confusing, I don't think any liberties are taken to interpret it the way I interpret it.

[CV75]

Adam and Eve could have also been technically made mortal upon their Fall, but their aging processes kept in a suspended state while they oversaw the developments upon the earth for millions (even hundred of millions) of years prior to their having their children.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

Once again, a reasonable belief, a logical conclusion based on the current state of human scientific knowledge, but not in keeping with scripture and modern prophets as it pertains to this particular earth.  If we are to believe the scriptures, and more importantly the prophets, ". . .there was no death on this earth before the Fall of Adam."  That is literally what the Church's bible dictionary declares.  I am excited about further light and knowledge to shed light on this issue, but in the meantime I will not accept what I believe to being the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.

I am 100% confident that the real answer lies in a correct resolution of both of these principles.  Whether dating mechanisms are incorrect for some reason (I am aware of the specificity and accuracy with which they are calculated), or whether there be another answer.  Either way, I'm sure there is a reconciliation, I'm just glad it has no bearing on our salvation or else this disagreement might be actually important!  

Eating fruit does not have anything to do with death.  If Adam ate an apple and dropped the 'core' on the ground, rather than decay, it could spontaneously grow into another plant. One can certainly resolve eating and using plant cells from vegetation without death being required.  Besides, do you not think there is fruit in the celestial kingdom?  Is there then also death there when we eat the fruit?  I would say 2 Nephi 2:22 is pretty clear and non confusing, I don't think any liberties are taken to interpret it the way I interpret it.

Yeah, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this subject.  

It's OK, I disagree on this subject with many members.

[anatess2]

Define Human.

If you want to know when the FIRST SPIRITUAL MAN (that is, body AND spirit) walked the earth, then it would be whenever Adam and Eve completed the Fall.  Which, if you take the assumptions of dating taken from the Old Testament could be 7,000 years ago or so.

If you want to know when the first human-like body walked the earth... depends on which scientific discovery you want to ascribe to as human.  Archaic homo sapiens have been scientifically dated at 200,000 or so years ago.

Edited August 14, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

Quote

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity…. Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes (see Appendix, "Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency").

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….

Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].

 

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

 

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2012-05-0608-teachings-of-joseph-f-smith-the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

An opening statement in this video, "This work expresses the Church's doctrinal position on these matters."

In the our Sunday manuals, Teaching of the Prophets, the notion of doctrine is again given from this First Presidency message: https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-f-smith/chapter-37?lang=eng&_r=1

So adding to what you have shared.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Anddenex

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Define Human.

If you want to know when the FIRST SPIRITUAL MAN (that is, body AND spirit) walked the earth, then it would be whenever Adam and Eve completed the Fall.  Which, if you take the assumptions of dating taken from the Old Testament could be 7,000 years ago or so.

If you want to know when the first human-like body walked the earth... depends on which scientific discovery you want to ascribe to as human.  Archaic homo sapiens have been scientifically dated at 200,000 or so years ago.

Secular understanding.

[Traveler]

There are several ideas I have tried to make sense of during my lifetime.   For the most part I have concluded that symbolism used in scripture does not always mean what many think it to mean – especially when attempting to apply such symbolism to empirical scientific definitions as understood by our post modern generation.    Sometime I am left thinking there is very little intersection in the sets of revelation concerning the Great Plan of Salvation and empirical scientific endeavors.  Allow me to present some examples:

1. Death – I am convinced that the spiritual reference to the death of eternal beings is something very different than the empirical implications of a bio-medical understanding of the death of living organic tissues and complex life forms.   The fact that scripture indicates that there were trees producing fruit and plants producing seeds – would indicate that bio-medical deaths (and births) were taking place despite that we are told there was no death and everything would exist forever in the same state.

2. Man – From a spiritual standpoint the definition of man is the physical housing for the spiritual children of G-d.  Scientifically the lines are blurred between human genetic makeup and that of creatures that resemble man but existed prior (even thousands of years prior) to post fall Adam and Eve. 

3. World – Even from a scientific viewpoint the world we live in today is quite different from the earth the existed even 60,000 years ago.  The scriptures talk about such things as the “end” of the world and a new world for the millennium (new heaven and new earth) – and yet this earth will become a “Celestial” world.  I am not sure if we all understand what is meant by the saying that there was no death in the world before Adam.   When Adam fell and became a mortal resident of the world, it may have been a “changed” or “new” world to what had previously existed.

4. Heaven – the idea of a heaven from a scriptural definition is very difficult for me to understand.  We are told in scripture that plural heavens (not singular) were created for this earth.  We like to think that the heaves refer to the universe – but that is wild unfounded speculation.   I am often amused that religionists accuse us more scientific types of speculation as though speculation is heresy.  And then they speculate and assume their speculation is divine revelation and anything but heresy.

Here is an exercise for the LDS reader – Abraham Chapter 3 and Doctrine and Covenants Section 88.  Both of these scriptures reference the creation of our earth and heavens.  One with the symbolism of Ancient Egyptian Pythagoreans and the other by the symbolism of more modern Newtonian Physics.   Those unfamiliar with the history of physics (which are most – especially in the religious community) will not appreciate the subtly of such symbolism but will rather make up some strange understanding according to what they want to believe rather than to study the convergence of very different kinds of symbolism.

I know enough that I understand that I do not understand very much concerning such things and have no basis to say what is or what isn’t.  But I also know enough to be quite certain that the self-proclaimed experts in such matters do not know what they pretend to know and any effort to try to figure out how they came to their conclusions will result in their accusations and insinuations that to oppose or questions their ideas is pure evil heresy.

 

The Traveler