Do pre-adamites help?

[_Moniker]

Oookay. What is the point of the pre-Adamites. Did I miss something?!

Where are the pre-Adamites mentioned in the Bible? Are pre-Adamites only mentioned in LDS theology? I'm fairly certain there's no mention of any human beings (or human like beings) before Adam & Eve in the KJV of the Bible!

Pre Adamites is a term for people existing on the earth prior to Adam and Eve. The question is can that square with LDS doctrine.

Right, I surmised that. :)

Is this purely a LDS theory? Is this just a BCSpace theory??? I've never heard of spiritless humans walking about before Adam & Eve in the garden of (Missouri) Eden.

The notion of preAdamites extends far beyond the LDS venue...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Adamite

They are part of my personal theory that evolution is not precluded by LDS doctrine

Ah! I should have googled!

Some antiMormons are aghast that some Mormons can possibly accept evolution. Some even take it for a hopeful sign that such will leave the Church over it.

I actually think that the more evolution is accepted the better. It's my understanding that learning about evolution did lead some of those you speak with on the boards out of the Church. I'm fairly certain this was an aspect of why Sethbag left.

I don't know. Why?

I suppose it works for you. I can't get my mind to mesh something that is seen as a myth within known scientific facts like you do. You're more creative than I am, that's for sure.

[_bcspace]

I actually think that the more evolution is accepted the better. It's my understanding that learning about evolution did lead some of those you speak with on the boards out of the Church. I'm fairly certain this was an aspect of why Sethbag left.

Then it was on a false basis (as so many of them sre) as LDS doctrine does not preclude evolution.

I suppose it works for you. I can't get my mind to mesh something that is seen as a myth within known scientific facts like you do. You're more creative than I am, that's for sure.

The Church teaches that science is good, so like the Morgbot you guys believe me to be, I comply. lol

[_Chap]

Why do you think it is unlikely that there are any descendants of pre-Adamites alive today?

Because I believe that we all who are alive today are descendants of Adam and Eve is almost (perhaps absolutely) mandated by doctrine. Perhaps you might have some intermarriage in there (a nod to some strange ideas about Genesis 6). But I prefer a cleaner explaination than that in the absence of details.

And roughly when do you think Adam and Eve lived?

I can handle something quite earlier than the standard 4004 BC date postulated. Perhaps something just before civilazation began to really take an upward swing, though that could be very subjective. How about as early as 6 - 10,000 BC? 20,000 BC? What do you like?

I have no problem with preAdamites speaking languages, living in settlements, or making some of the more complex tools.

I think you will find that your ideas involve you in a faith-based contradiction of a great deal of well-based science on the arrival of human beings in different parts of the world.

Given that the earliest cultures classifiable as 'civilisations' are found well after 10,000 BC (see for instance the entry on Sumer here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer), it seems that your Fall (with Adam and Eve) does not need to be put back earlier than 20,000 BC even if you demand 10,000 clear civilisation-free years after it. (I don't know how you intend to deal with the Biblical genealogies that link Adam to Abraham and others in not very many generations - that will be your problem for another time, no doubt). That dating will put you in the last Ice Age, but what the heck.

However, modern human (homo sapiens) migration all over the world started long, long before that, with a spread out of Africa around 100,000 years ago. There were human settlements in Australia by around 70,000 BC. Estimates vary - but all the dates are well before you seem to want to place Adam and Eve. See for instance the well-documented visual presentation at http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/.

There is simply no way, consistent with the evidence, for all these pre-existing human populations to have died out well after having arrived in their long-term locations and been replaced by descendants of Adam and Eve, wherever or whenever in the world this pair are imagined to have lived. Dates are always subject to change, of course - but not by as much as you need.

So you need a rethink of some kind. If you could believe in an Eden in Africa 100,000 years ago you might get away with it. But doesn't your Eden have to be in Missouri?

I am trying to see the sense in bcspace's subsequent reply to my post (look back to it, for what it is worth). This is difficult, since he replied by his usual method of putting in little interjections, such as 'No' or 'My position is perfectly consistent' instead of giving a coherent answer in continuous prose.

Now here is bcspace's position as per his post:

(a) He thinks that 'we all who are alive today are descendants of Adam and Eve' and that this position is 'almost (perhaps absolutely) mandated by doctrine'.
(b) When asked when Adam and Eve lived, he says it was sometime 'just before civilazation began to really take an upward swing', maybe 10,000 - 20,000 BC.

Now this position implies as a minimum that somehow or other Adam and Eve have to be in the direct line of ascent of all human beings on earth, and (if we go for bcspace's 'cleaner explanation') at a maximum that we have no other ancestors than Adam and Eve.

But as I pointed out, his position is just impossible in terms of the history of human populations. Suppose we let him put Adam and Eve back as far as 20,000 BC so that they lived over 10,000 years before the remotest signs of anything other than hunter-gatherers. By that time there were significant human populations all over the Old World, and in North America (homo sapiens began to spread out of Africa around 100,000 BC)

To make bcspace's maximum 'cleaner' view work, we need an extinction of the WHOLE of the world human population around 20, 000 BC, apart from wherever Adam and Eve lived, followed by a repopulation by 'Adamites' who quckly migrate from Eden (wherever that is). That is a flat contradiction to the well-established archeological record. (It probably won't work in terms of genetic diversity either, but let's leave that to one side)

To make bcspace's minimum view work, the descendants of Adam have to leave their centre and spread over the whole world, far, far more quickly than is remotely likely given previous human migrations, and get their genes into every single human population from Africa to Australia and America. Given that Australia, for instance, was populated by people who had walked over a land bridge that was later covered by sea, this is deeply implausible.

So bcspace's view simply takes no account of facts (OK bcspace, I'll do your answer for you "Yes it does." Very effective response ...)

Looking back at his answer to my post, I can find no signs that bcspace has a way of countering my objections, despite his one-liners.

He does not apparently deny that human populations were spread all over the world well before his 'Adam and Eve' date:

I've always understood that. The creative process was finished when God determined the time was right and that may have included the existence, for several hundred thousand years even, of homo sapiens.

But his only answer to the point that this makes his theory that 'we are all post-Adamites' impossible, is to make interjections such as:

How so? What have I said that was contradictory?

I only need a broad enough theory to take it all into account and I believe I have done so. I have not pinned down the emergence of a civilization. What civilization postFall homo sapiens began with can be quite subjective without being contradictory.

I leave it to others to judge whether bcspace's views on 'spirit children' are worth discussing. But his views on who we are descended from are based on simply ignoring the facts. This time it isn't just a question of redefining 'creation' into a special bcspace meaning, but of refusing to acknowledge that things just couldn't have happened the way he says they did.

If bcspace disagrees, I challenge him to make a post that does not consist of one-line interjections, but uses continuous prose to set out a view of when homo sapiens populated the world (with references to evidence, please), when he thinks Adam and Eve lived , and then explains how we can all be descendants of that original pair, either in whole or in part.

I doubt he will be able to do that.

[Anonymous]

I actually think that the more evolution is accepted the better. It's my understanding that learning about evolution did lead some of those you speak with on the boards out of the Church. I'm fairly certain this was an aspect of why Sethbag left.

It did play a role in my apostasy. The role it played was opening my eyes to the fact that the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators could be so totally and completely wrong in things they said. I didn't apostatize just because of this though. The evolution and Noah's Ark issues merely opened my eyes enough to the be able to recognize, eventually, the church is manmade and simply isn't true. If it weren't for this recognition overall, I wouldn't have apostatized just because of evolution.

BCSpace argues that evolution does not contradict LDS doctrine. It does. What it does not do, is contradict BCSpace's own private version of LDS doctrine, complete with his very own ideosyncratic definitions of words and readings of scripture.

I know that LDS people can believe in evolution. I've met plenty who do. What I have not met, however, is someone who does so and actually reconciles evolution with LDS doctrine. The majority of LDS people that I know who believe in evolution don't bother to try, they just say things like "well I know the church is true, so somehow it gets reconciled, and I guess God will tell us how when we die." or some such. They completely sidestep the issue.

Evolution is contradicted by the LDS doctrine that there was no death, nor procreation on Earth until after the Fall of Adam. This is iron-clad LDS doctrine that is impossible to weasle out of, though who knows, make a doctrine weasle-proof and, as BCSpace proves, they'll just invent a better weasle. BCSpace tries to get out of this problem by pointing to wording in 2Nephi2:22, a scripture which serves as one of the basis for the LDS doctrine that there would be no procreation nor death until after the Fall.

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.

Note that the state in which things must have remained is the state in which they were "after they were created". BCSpace's claimed loophole is this word "after". He claims that there was a creative period which was in effect before things "were created", and that this creative period was no over until God said so, and only when God said so had things "been created". So, as long as God had not said that the creation was over, all the millions and millions of years of things dying had all occurred before anything "had been created", and so it doesn't count.

But, magically, once God said the creation was over, everything still in existence at that moment "had been created", and so all of that stuff must have remained forever, had Adam not sinned. Of course, he just hand-waves off all of the problems presented by the existence of millions of f*****g and dying pre-Adamite homo sapiens all around the world. At the instant the "creative period" had ended and things then "had been created", none of them, according to LDS doctrine, could have died or procreated, from that point on until the Fall. This creates some obvious problems. But hey, all that goes away with enough hand-waving and smoke and mirrors.

And, truly, this theory is dead in the water anyway, because 99.9999% of things that have ever lived and died on Earth had already done so by any reasonable Biblical timeline for Adam and Eve. The only way BCSpace gets out of a jam doctrinally is to pronounce that 99.9999% of all things that ever lived and died on Earth were never actually created. "All things that were created" therefore excludes almost everything that ever existed. So much for a clear meaning of the words "all things", eh? And what sense does it make to say that thousands of generations of homo sapiens that lived, screwed, had the next generation of homo sapiens, and died had never been "created"? It doesn't, except in BCSpace's mind, because he's relying on his own little ideosyncratic definition of the word "created".

Using any reasonable understanding of the meanings of the English words "all things", and "created", BCSpace's pet loophole is simply dead in the water. Only using custom-crafted definitions to those words which he qualifies in every way necessary to preclude conflict between evolution and LDS theology, can his loophole possible make any sense at all.

BCSpace, I know you don't want to admit this, but your theory is dead. You cannot get away, in any reasonable discussion or argument with other speakers of the English language, with inserting qualifies into the Book of Mormon text in order to make the words "all things" and "created" have the meanings that your theory requires. In a religious discussion about the Creation, all things have to have been created. The scriptures make no allowance for uncreated things and creatures and people and whatnot. In a religious discussion about the Creation, "all things" cannot be understood to exclude 99.9999% of the things that ever were. You don't get away with this. You claim you've been refining your theory for years, but it's time to go back to the drawing board, because you lose this one.

ps: even if one manages to argue that LDS theology is not in opposition to evolution, the fact remains that evolution does remain opposed by the utterances of many past Apostles and Prophets of the church. And it is this fact, along with the Noah's Ark story, which opened the chinks in the armor surrounding my faith that were just barely wide enough for me to be able to consider seriously whether the church might not also be wrong about some other things. So yes, evolution played a part in my apostasy.

[_Black Moclips]

What about the specific question - "Is man found upon the earth?" Reply, "No, man is not found upon the earth?"

Should the response have been qualified - "Well, not man as us gods understand it. Homo Sapien are on the earth, but not man."

[_Chap]

What about the specific question - "Is man found upon the earth?" Reply, "No, man is not found upon the earth?"

Should the response have been qualified - "Well, not man as us gods understand it. Homo Sapien are on the earth, but not man."

They were just speaking as deities.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I actually think that the more evolution is accepted the better. It's my understanding that learning about evolution did lead some of those you speak with on the boards out of the Church. I'm fairly certain this was an aspect of why Sethbag left.

Then it was on a false basis (as so many of them sre) as LDS doctrine does not preclude evolution.

There's really no false basis for leaving the church, just as there's no false basis for joining the church. Freedom of religion leaves it up to the individual.

[_Moniker]

Sethbag, that response really summed up for me the issues with LDS theology and evolution that I wasn't fully aware of.

But, magically, once God said the creation was over, everything still in existence at that moment "had been created", and so all of that stuff must have remained forever, had Adam not sinned. Of course, he just hand-waves off all of the problems presented by the existence of millions of f*cking and dying pre-Adamite homo sapiens all around the world. At the instant the "creative period" had ended and things then "had been created", none of them, according to LDS doctrine, could have died or procreated, from that point on until the Fall. This creates some obvious problems. But hey, all that goes away with enough hand-waving and smoke and mirrors.

And, truly, this theory is dead in the water anyway, because 99.9999% of things that have ever lived and died on Earth had already done so by any reasonable Biblical timeline for Adam and Eve. The only way BCSpace gets out of a jam doctrinally is to pronounce that 99.9999% of all things that ever lived and died on Earth were never actually created. "All things that were created" therefore excludes almost everything that ever existed. So much for a clear meaning of the words "all things", eh? And what sense does it make to say that thousands of generations of homo sapiens that lived, screwed, had the next generation of homo sapiens, and died had never been "created"? It doesn't, except in BCSpace's mind, because he's relying on his own little ideosyncratic definition of the word "created".

I can read it and sort of understand what he's doing in his mind -- yet, it just seems so convoluted and difficult. I see that many Christians (of all stripes) make evolution work with their religion, and yet, they dismiss Adam & Eve and other literal aspects of the Bible. It's difficult for me to understand how they're reconciled or why even in the LDS Church there is a need to reconcile them.

[_Sethbag]

What about the specific question - "Is man found upon the earth?" Reply, "No, man is not found upon the earth?"

Should the response have been qualified - "Well, not man as us gods understand it. Homo Sapien are on the earth, but not man."

We need to ask our Gods to be a little more explicit and clear, don't we? It should have gone something like this:

Elohim: "Is man found upon the Earth?"

Jehova: "don't you mean humankind? I mean, there's woman too, not just man."

Elohim: "yeah, ok, is humankind found upon the Earth?"

Jehova: "what do you mean, humankind with God-child spirits, or humankind without?"

Elohim: "obviously I'm not talking about the animal humans - I mean the God-child-spirit-containing humans!"

Jehova: "oh, well in that case, no. None of the millions of humans roaming the Earth have your spirit children dwelling inside of them."

Jehova: "and one more thing. I noticed you used the word "eretz" in your question. Just for the record, were you asking whether humankind with God-child-spirts were found anywhere on the entire planet, or just in the local area around Missouri/I mean Eden?"

Elohim: "hmm, good question. I suppose I meant the entire Planet."

Jehova: "perhaps it would be good to say so next time, you know, just to avoid possibly confusing your prophets later on down the road."

Elohim: "ok, well I'll take that under advisement. Back to the original question, are we through with the Creative Period yet? Can we start sending my spirit children down to all the new human babies about to be born?"

Jehova: "actually, not yet. Uggg and Mugga are in the act of copulating right now, as are about thirty thousand other humans. We need to find a moment in time where nowhere, on the entire planet Earth, are any non-God-child humans, nor any other animals for that matter, are having sex, in the act of dying, or getting sick, etc."

Elohim: "why?"

Jehova: "well, as soon as we declare the Creative Period over, all of those things become impossible, but if they're actually in the act of doing them when the word goes out, they'll be in the act of doing something impossible, and their heads might explode trying to figure out what's happening to them."

Elohim: "ok, makes sense I guess. Well, let me know..."

a little later....

Jehova: "Elohim, get ready, and, one sec, wait, wait, NOW!"

Elohim: "..."

Jehova: "Elohim?"

Elohim: "what, did you say something?"

Jehova: "well yeah, I gave you the signal to end Creation and begin the Paradisaical Period of the Earth, where nothing was reproducing, nothing was dying, etc."

Elohim: "Oh, I'm sorry, I was "talking" with Ginger, wife #931, if you know what I mean..."

Jehova: "you mean "know" in the Biblical sense?"

Elohim: "um, yeah, well no matter, let me know when another window of opportunity comes up."

Jehova: "sheesh, ok, well this isn't exactly easy you know, with billions of living, dying, sexually-reproducing creatures on Earth, finding an instant where nothing of that sort is actually occurring is pretty tough."

Elohim: "sorry."

Jehova: "it's all good."

Jehova: "Elohim, are you there? Another window is coming up."

Elohim: "Hmm, what? Oh, yeah, cool. Just say the word."

Jehova: "Ok, your on in 5, 4, 3, (two fingers, one finger, Jehova points at him)"

Elohim: "IT IS FINISHED! CREATION IS OVER! HEY YOU THERE. YEAH, YOU! STOP THAT!"

Elohim: "LET THE GOD-CHILD-SPIRIT EMIGRATION TO EARTH BEGIN!"

Jehova: "Um, Michael, I mean Adam, that's your cue, bro."

Jehova: "Peter, James, John, are you guys ready? I'm going to need you to go down there soon and visit with the man Adam."

Peter: "We will go down."
James: "We will go down."
John: "We will go down."

And the rest, as they say, is history. Or some subset of history, since we now know that what happened next is only the last couple of pages in a book that's been in the works for 4.5 billion years...

[_cinepro]

What about the specific question - "Is man found upon the earth?" Reply, "No, man is not found upon the earth?"

Should the response have been qualified - "Well, not man as us gods understand it. Homo Sapien are on the earth, but not man."

They were just speaking as deities.

A deity is only a deity when acting as such?