What do you think about pre Adamites?


BJ64
 Share

Recommended Posts

There are two theories (could be more) from prophets I have read:

1) Brigham Young (someone feel free to correct me if I am quoting him wrong) said the Lord commanded Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth. This meant that there were people on the earth, outside of the garden who were living and dying. Or, simply meaning at one point the earth was populated (all species now dead) and Adam and Eve were to repopulate the earth.

2) Joseph Fielding Smith (In correlation with this) said No. Adam and Eve were the first (condensed version of his whole words)

If Joseph Fielding Smith is correct, then our understanding of pre-Adamites is incorrect. If Brigham Young is correct, well, then Adam and Eve truly "replenished" the earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

There are two theories (could be more) from prophets I have read:

1) Brigham Young (someone feel free to correct me if I am quoting him wrong) said the Lord commanded Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth. This meant that there were people on the earth, outside of the garden who were living and dying. Or, simply meaning at one point the earth was populated (all species now dead) and Adam and Eve were to repopulate the earth.

2) Joseph Fielding Smith (In correlation with this) said No. Adam and Eve were the first (condensed version of his whole words)

If Joseph Fielding Smith is correct, then our understanding of pre-Adamites is incorrect. If Brigham Young is correct, well, then Adam and Eve truly "replenished" the earth.

 I think you have shown the two sides of the argument quite well. 

I personally feel that pre-humans lived on earth before Adam and Eve  just as the dinosaurs did and at some point the earth was cleansed and they were removed. Therefore  Adam and Eve had to replenish the earth.

Young earth creationists however believe that no life existed on earth before Adam and Eve and that there was no death on earth before the fall so they totally reject that idea.

If seeing is believing then we do not need to have faith that pre-humans existed, we have a perfect knowledge because we can’t see the remains. Therefore I don’t know how their existence can be denied.

Therefore the mystery as I see it is who were they, why were they here, and what part do they have in the plan of the earth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do I think?  Three things:

1) I think I'm grateful to belong to a church where the Young-Earth-Creationists and Intelligent-Designists and old-school-Darwinists and Punctuated-Equilibriumists and Evolutionists can all be sitting next to each other in the temple through the endowment ceremony, blissfully unaware of each other's seemingly bizarre notions about the age of the earth and stuff.  In the end, this is all that really matters to me.  The rest is just yellin'.

2) Scientific ignorance is not a Christian virtue.  And most people with a handy diatribe against Darwin I've encountered, tend to be pretty dang scientifically ignorant.

3) #2 is quite the pity - the creationists could easily claim this video for their own, if only they'd chill for a second and let some light into their dark and closed minds.

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m inclined to agree that they existed, but that Adam (whom I accept as a historical figure living about 4000 years BCE) was spiritually/cognitively superior to his predecessors and is a common ancestor of all humans alive today.  

Yes I agree. As I’ve said before I believe Adam to be a literal son of God and therefore not a descendent of pre-humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m inclined to agree that they existed, but that Adam (whom I accept as a historical figure living about 4000 years BCE) was spiritually/cognitively superior to his predecessors and is a common ancestor of all humans alive today.  

This is where I'm at for no other reason than it's where I have to be at this stage of my learning.  I can wrap my brain around the existence of pre-Adamites as evolutionary bodies that weren't souls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Anddenex said:

There are two theories (could be more) from prophets I have read:

1) Brigham Young (someone feel free to correct me if I am quoting him wrong) said the Lord commanded Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth. This meant that there were people on the earth, outside of the garden who were living and dying. Or, simply meaning at one point the earth was populated (all species now dead) and Adam and Eve were to repopulate the earth.

2) Joseph Fielding Smith (In correlation with this) said No. Adam and Eve were the first (condensed version of his whole words)

If Joseph Fielding Smith is correct, then our understanding of pre-Adamites is incorrect. If Brigham Young is correct, well, then Adam and Eve truly "replenished" the earth.

I think these two ideas can both be true, and reconciled as follows:

Upon the Fall, all creation was destroyed and was subsequently revived following purely natural laws since Adam and Eve, having been given dominion from the beginning, chose those laws to operate over the laws of Eden by eating the forbidding fruit.

Adam and Eve were “taken up” to where they came from until billions of years later, the natural physical laws resulted in an appropriate time and condition on this Earth for them to begin the seven-seal covenant history.

This allows other human beings (some of whom we identify as species other than sapiens, and subspecies of these other species and sapiens) to arise upon the Earth through alternate means than being the literal offspring of Adam and Eve. The scriptures only describe our genealogy from Adam and Eve, but even those others who are not their offspring can conceivably be sealed up under the universal atonement of Jesus Christ.

In this reconciliation, I prefer to refer to these other ancient people as non-Adamites who can be adopted into the same human family. They are not pre-Adamites because he has no dependence upon them for his appearing upon the Earth. Their intermingling with the children of Adam shows that they are still children of God, just a different mortal manifestation of the Fall than we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought, not an idea I prescribe to. 

We have no indication of the time line in the creation. Perhaps the “let us make man in our image”  scripture takes place over millions/billions of years.

update: perhaps the “breath of life” was the placing of a spirit child of God unto into a body that was previously inhabited by an “animal” spirit?

update 2: there are a few words spoken in the temple video that make me think that spirits don’t naturally enter the human body, but are deliberately placed their upon creation. And that “creation” is not done by us humans, but is also done by God.

reminder: I don’t and won’t accept any of this as being true

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

There are two theories (could be more) from prophets I have read:

1) Brigham Young (someone feel free to correct me if I am quoting him wrong) said the Lord commanded Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth. This meant that there were people on the earth, outside of the garden who were living and dying. Or, simply meaning at one point the earth was populated (all species now dead) and Adam and Eve were to repopulate the earth.

2) Joseph Fielding Smith (In correlation with this) said No. Adam and Eve were the first (condensed version of his whole words)

 

Here's another one:

Joseph F Smith said that Adam was born of a woman.  I don't know if that fits either category unless #1 implies that people outside the garden gave birth to Adam before he was placed in the garden?   Or the birth took place in the garden?  Or somewhere outside earth?   I admit that don't know what he meant.

Here is the exact quote:

Adam, our earthly parent, was also born of woman into this world, the same as Jesus and you and I.

One thing for sure is that there is more than one theory presented by previous leaders of the Church and that they may or may not agree with each other.  

In addition to the idea quoted above (#1), he said at other times that Adam and Eve's human parents were from another planet:

Mankind are here because they are offspring of parents (Adam and Eve) who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species, and they (were) commanded to multiply and replenish the earth…(God) created man as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that (was), or that ever will be…We are flesh of (God’s) flesh, (and) bone of his bone” (Journal of Discourses 11:122; 9:283, OCT 1859).

Other prophets don't seem to hold this theory.  

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a quote from LDS Magaizine: 

OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE CHURCH: There is NO official position on the matter of pre-Adamites. 

The 1930 Heber J. Grant “Creationism Convocation” 

In 1930, in response to numerous queries from the membership as to the Church’s position on evolution and pre-Adamites, and sparked by philosophical disagreement between Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith (anti-evolution) and President of the Seventy B.H. Roberts (pro-evolution), the First Presidency under Heber J. Grant and the Twelve met in council to review all extant revelations, scientific assertions, and possible scenarios regarding the origin of man, in the hope of issuing an official statement. Apostle James E. Talmage recorded the minutes and decisions of the several meetings. 

“Neither Side Has Been Accepted” 

After some debate, examining interpretational views of the so-called scientific evidence, and endeavoring to prayerfully ascertain the Lord’s mind and will in the matter, the First Presidency issued the following statement : 

The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: There were not pre-Adamites upon the earth,’ is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all” (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, Charles W. Nibley; from the Journal of James E. Talmage). 

Recording his impressions of the decision, Elder Talmage wrote: “As to whether pre-Adamite races existed upon the earth, there has been much discussion among some of our people of late. 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 pre-Adamite 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 (subject, whether or not there were any true pre-Adamic men) 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” (Personal Journal, 29:42, 7 APR 1930). 

Reiterating to the Church on 5 APR 1931 the 1909 First Presidency statement that man is the direct lineal offspring of Deity,’ the Heber J. Grant Presidency concluded: “Upon one thing we should all be able to agree; namely, that…’Adam is the primal parent of our race’.” 

Statements from Leaders Clarified as “Personal Opinions” 

B.H. Roberts and James E. Talmage both passed away in 1933. Even after the renderings of the First Presidency, Elder Joseph Fielding Smith still felt strongly that pre-Adamites were incompatible with the scriptures and continued to voice his opinions to that effect. On 28 Jun 1954, he presented his views to the Seminaries and Institutes Conference at BYU. Exactly nine days later, Pres. J. Reuben Clark, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, before the same audience, addressed the issue: “When are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?” He made it clear that sometimes Apostles may try to resolve unsettled issues without making it clear that theirs is a private opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is more, but it's long:

https://ldsmag.com/article-1-14154/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Scott said:

Here's another one:

Joseph F Smith said that Adam was born of a woman.  I don't know if that fits either category unless #1 implies that people outside the garden gave birth to Adam before he was placed in the garden?   Or the birth took place in the garden?  Or somewhere outside earth?   I admit that don't know what he meant.

Here is the exact quote:

Adam, our earthly parent, was also born of woman into this world, the same as Jesus and you and I.

One thing for sure is that there is more than one theory presented by previous leaders of the Church and that they may or may not agree with each other.  

In addition to the idea quoted above (#1), he said at other times that Adam and Eve's human parents were from another planet:

Mankind are here because they are offspring of parents (Adam and Eve) who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species, and they (were) commanded to multiply and replenish the earth…(God) created man as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that (was), or that ever will be…We are flesh of (God’s) flesh, (and) bone of his bone” (Journal of Discourses 11:122; 9:283, OCT 1859).

Other prophets don't seem to hold this theory.  

Also want to point out that Jehovah did the whole creation up until man was put on the Earth. At that point Heavenly Father came down and did it. Perhaps because he was the only one at the time that had a body necessary for the creation of man???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Also want to point out that Jehovah did the whole creation up until man was put on the Earth. At that point Heavenly Father came down and did it. Perhaps because he was the only one at the time that had a body necessary for the creation of man???

Source?

I believe that the official LDS position is that Jehovah and Michael (Adam) created the earth under the instruction of the Father (Elohim).  I haven't heard the second sentence, but if you know the source, would you mind pointing it out?   Could be interesting.   

Edit:  Or are you referring to the Adam-God theory?  

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Here's a quote from LDS Magaizine: 

OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE CHURCH: There is NO official position on the matter of pre-Adamites. 

The 1930 Heber J. Grant “Creationism Convocation” 

In 1930, in response to numerous queries from the membership as to the Church’s position on evolution and pre-Adamites, and sparked by philosophical disagreement between Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith (anti-evolution) and President of the Seventy B.H. Roberts (pro-evolution), the First Presidency under Heber J. Grant and the Twelve met in council to review all extant revelations, scientific assertions, and possible scenarios regarding the origin of man, in the hope of issuing an official statement. Apostle James E. Talmage recorded the minutes and decisions of the several meetings. 

“Neither Side Has Been Accepted” 

After some debate, examining interpretational views of the so-called scientific evidence, and endeavoring to prayerfully ascertain the Lord’s mind and will in the matter, the First Presidency issued the following statement : 

The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: There were not pre-Adamites upon the earth,’ is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all” (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, Charles W. Nibley; from the Journal of James E. Talmage). 

Recording his impressions of the decision, Elder Talmage wrote: “As to whether pre-Adamite races existed upon the earth, there has been much discussion among some of our people of late. 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 pre-Adamite 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 (subject, whether or not there were any true pre-Adamic men) 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” (Personal Journal, 29:42, 7 APR 1930). 

Reiterating to the Church on 5 APR 1931 the 1909 First Presidency statement that man is the direct lineal offspring of Deity,’ the Heber J. Grant Presidency concluded: “Upon one thing we should all be able to agree; namely, that…’Adam is the primal parent of our race’.” 

Statements from Leaders Clarified as “Personal Opinions” 

B.H. Roberts and James E. Talmage both passed away in 1933. Even after the renderings of the First Presidency, Elder Joseph Fielding Smith still felt strongly that pre-Adamites were incompatible with the scriptures and continued to voice his opinions to that effect. On 28 Jun 1954, he presented his views to the Seminaries and Institutes Conference at BYU. Exactly nine days later, Pres. J. Reuben Clark, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, before the same audience, addressed the issue: “When are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?” He made it clear that sometimes Apostles may try to resolve unsettled issues without making it clear that theirs is a private opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is more, but it's long:

https://ldsmag.com/article-1-14154/

Excellent!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Also want to point out that Jehovah did the whole creation up until man was put on the Earth. At that point Heavenly Father came down and did it. Perhaps because he was the only one at the time that had a body necessary for the creation of man???

I believe this to be true in that I believe our Heavenly Parents came to Earth and created Adam and Eve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Scott said:

Here's another one:

Joseph F Smith said that Adam was born of a woman.  I don't know if that fits either category unless #1 implies that people outside the garden gave birth to Adam before he was placed in the garden?   Or the birth took place in the garden?  Or somewhere outside earth?   I admit that don't know what he meant.

Here is the exact quote:

Adam, our earthly parent, was also born of woman into this world, the same as Jesus and you and I.

One thing for sure is that there is more than one theory presented by previous leaders of the Church and that they may or may not agree with each other.  

In addition to the idea quoted above (#1), he said at other times that Adam and Eve's human parents were from another planet:

Mankind are here because they are offspring of parents (Adam and Eve) who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species, and they (were) commanded to multiply and replenish the earth…(God) created man as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that (was), or that ever will be…We are flesh of (God’s) flesh, (and) bone of his bone” (Journal of Discourses 11:122; 9:283, OCT 1859).

Other prophets don't seem to hold this theory.  

The two bold statements contradict each other. The only thing I can think of that will make this true I refuse to write because of the sacred nature. 

Adam our great-great-great-cont. grandfather served Heavenly Father and The Lord so that is what I'll do. I really don't care if sasquatch roamed the Earth before we took over dominion. It was not mentioned in the sacred writings nor in any holy practice we currently employ. Other topics I may entertain but I have reached my fill with this discussion and ideas proposed so far. 

Edited by Overwatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think these two ideas can both be true, and reconciled as follows:

Upon the Fall, all creation was destroyed and was subsequently revived following purely natural laws since Adam and Eve, having been given dominion from the beginning, chose those laws to operate over the laws of Eden by eating the forbidding fruit.

Adam and Eve were “taken up” to where they came from until billions of years later, the natural physical laws resulted in an appropriate time and condition on this Earth for them to begin the seven-seal covenant history.

This allows other human beings (some of whom we identify as species other than sapiens, and subspecies of these other species and sapiens) to arise upon the Earth through alternate means than being the literal offspring of Adam and Eve. The scriptures only describe our genealogy from Adam and Eve, but even those others who are not their offspring can conceivably be sealed up under the universal atonement of Jesus Christ.

In this reconciliation, I prefer to refer to these other ancient people as non-Adamites who can be adopted into the same human family. They are not pre-Adamites because he has no dependence upon them for his appearing upon the Earth. Their intermingling with the children of Adam shows that they are still children of God, just a different mortal manifestation of the Fall than we are.

Interesting thoughts.

9 hours ago, Scott said:

Joseph F Smith said that Adam was born of a woman.  I don't know if that fits either category unless #1 implies that people outside the garden gave birth to Adam before he was placed in the garden?   Or the birth took place in the garden?  Or somewhere outside earth?   I admit that don't know what he meant.

Here is the exact quote:

Adam, our earthly parent, was also born of woman into this world, the same as Jesus and you and I.

One thing for sure is that there is more than one theory presented by previous leaders of the Church and that they may or may not agree with each other.  

In addition to the idea quoted above (#1), he said at other times that Adam and Eve's human parents were from another planet:

Mankind are here because they are offspring of parents (Adam and Eve) who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species, and they (were) commanded to multiply and replenish the earth…(God) created man as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that (was), or that ever will be…We are flesh of (God’s) flesh, (and) bone of his bone” (Journal of Discourses 11:122; 9:283, OCT 1859).

Other prophets don't seem to hold this theory.  

 

Actually, other prophets held this theory and the one you stated there with JFS seems to be from the theory lineage of Lorenzo Snow (who was of the theory  lineage of it from Brigham Young though some say Lorenzo Snow proposed this and other idea FAR before Brigham Young actually proposed them publically).

To understand it, you first must understand that as per the Scriptures there are TWO physical sons of the Father.  There is the ONLY Begotten who is the Lord and our Savior.  He was begotten of the Father and a MORTAL woman who was named Eve.  Thus, he also the ONLY MORTAL (or at least half Mortal) son of the Father.  The OTHER, it is implied, was originally IMMORTAL and became Mortal due to the fall.  This son was...

Luke 3:38

Quote

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.”      
 

Everyone in this Genealogy is being expressed as the LITERAL son of their father, born of their father's seed and if we looked at the DNA, the literal son of their father.

Now if Adam was the literal son of his Father as the others were sons of their Fathers, than it means that Adam would have his origins in a different world other than the Earth, as his literal Father was NOT of Earth, but another planet (and perhaps even another plane of existence or dimension of being). 

As he would have been born of IMMORTAL parents instead of Mortal (and who knows how, thus, he would have been born of them, perhaps he was also created with the DNA stuff of his parents?  I do not know, thus he may not have been begotten even there?) he was Immortal.

On the otherhand, his genealogical brother (literally a brother of his under this understanding) would be the ONLY BEGOTTEN on this earth and in this plane of existence/plane of Mortality.  He was the ONLY Begotten of the race of Mortal Men.

On the otherhand, and seems to directly contradict it to a degree...

We have it stated TWICE in the Pearl of Great Price and once in Genesis that Adam was created from the dust of the Earth, and at least once in the Pearl of Great Price that the Lord breathed the breathe of life into him which seems to counter what is stated above, BUT, because we do not know the details of how this was actually done...

????

Who Knows.

However, it is this theory that I think JFS would have been talking about.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is going on?  Some answer the question with "Nothing".  Which is not an answer at all but rather a display of ignorance. 

I will give my personal understanding - something some will think is theory.

First - When G-d reveals to man his Plan of Salvation - he begins by instructing us in what is called "creation".  I believe we should understand this creation to mean the beginning of the covenant of G-d to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.  Some religious thinkers would rather think that this is a literal description of the origins of the universe.  The problem is that the two notions are not one in the same thing but rather two very different and completely separate things.   Anyone that attempts to map the two as the same thing have failed miserably.   Even though the official declaration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that the church does not support any notion, idea or statement that attempts to resolve or claim that revelations surrounding the Creation have anything what-so-ever to do with the origins of our universe - including our solar system and the things here that are the products of the evolution of elementary matter or what in science we called "elements".

A few post have projected that the main problem is resolving what all things physical has to do with the spirits of those beings that dwelt with G-d and then come to earth in the physical presents of what is man - that we are.  The plan of salvation is not trying to explain the origins of the universe - rather G-d is explaining to us that before we were born - a lot was going on to prepare us for our mortal journey.  And everything that we were and did before we were born was of "spiritual" nature.  I would suggest something at this point to the reader.  I see no reason to conclude that "time" is measured the same for that which is spiritual as that which is physical.  Not just the duration of time but the very sequence of time as well.   Even if there is some correlation I see no evidence for or any way we could gain enough evidence to even conclude or prove such a matter.  Therefore - all claims are really just ignorant guesses.

Periodically there are posters that claim to know things that I do not believe they know.  I have asked questions - that they refuse to answer but rather create misdirection for any meaningful discussion.  And so it is impossible to have a discussion with someone that has a paradigm that does not allow them to even think in terms that are outside their paradigm.  Never-the-less when such make preposterous statements that they cannot support - I will from time to time explorer their logical process - not their conclusion but their logical process to arrive at their conclusion.  In such a situation I have never encountered that they have either studied all the empirical evidence and logically concluded or that they have studied all the empirical evidence and asked G-d to make the answer known to them and that G-d revealed the answer that is as sure to them as it is that Jesus is the Christ.  Hopefully others will see the spiritual paradox in thinking that G-d reveals such sure revelation that is not a witness of Christ but rather speculations that when properly pursued will testify of Christ and the plan of salvation rather than the origins of the universe and the evolution of matter and life that in all this universe - we find evidence only on this tiny and obscure planet.   

Were there pre-Adam creatures? - not really Adam is actually the intelligent being what was Michael - that was one of the beings of the creation that is the beginning of the plan of salvation that preceded any beings or creatures of earth or even before rain was caused to fall upon the earth.

 

The Traveler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2018 at 3:43 PM, BJ64 said:

Given the fact that there exists upon this earth the remains of pre-humans where do you think they fit in the scheme of things?

According to chapter 3 of the Book of Moses, there could have been no pre-Adamites because Adam was the very first being of flesh and bone to exist on this earth, at least insofar as this creation is concerned (i.e. the creation of which we are now a part). Moses 3 makes it clear that the creation of the plants, animals and men spoken of in Moses 2, and in Genesis 1, is a spiritual creation, not the physical/temporal creation of plants, animals and men. Therefore, if the creation narrative in the Book of Moses can be relied upon, the so-called evidence for organic evolution found in the earth’s fossil record must pertain to another creation that preexisted and is not a part of the creation spoken of in Genesis 1-2 and Moses 2-3. It causes one to wonder if the fossil record from another creation was deliberately left here on this earth by the Lord in order to test the faith of men to determine if they will trust in the arm of flesh (evolutionary science) or in the revelations of God.

As one can see from the following passages from Moses 3, it’s exceedingly difficult to read and understand the plain meaning of the words and then somehow twist them to imagine that Adam wasn’t the first being of flesh and bone to exist in this earthly creation of which we are a part...

And I, God, blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it I had rested from all my work which I, God, had created and made.

And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth,

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word. (Moses 3)

Edited by Jersey Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share