When Adam and Eve Were Created, Were "Others" in the Land?

[_Ray A]

Notice how well m theory dovetails with LDS doctrine and science.

We always notice that, BC. You should be the Prophet.

[_bcspace]

I kind of imagined it as two "non-spirit" homo-sapiens (or Spirit version .9) having children who grew to maturity, and then were "called" by God to become Adam and Eve when they were teenagers or adults.

Sure, though I typically imagine them being placed in the garden as infants.

It would be at that time that their spirits were upgraded from version .9 to version 1.0,

I think of them being born with a spirit child of God from the start.

and they would be placed in the Garden and God would explain everything to them. I suppose their memories would have to be erased so they wouldn't long for their parents and friends outside the Garden. Unless I'm mistaken, this was all shown in the old Temple movie, but was removed for time constraints.

Of course, all those .9 spirit people would continue living and dying outside the Garden, so I'm not sure what would happen to them after the fall.

I think those homo sapiens with "animal" spirits would've had to die out. This is not implausible at all. It may even be that they couldn't compete with the homo sapiens with the more intelligent spirits.

Maybe God exterminated them as "works-in-progress" to give Adam and Eve a clean slate.

There is precedent.

But then we might expect to see some evidence of that in the fossil record, and we have created more logistical problems.

How would you detect the changing of the type of spirit inhabiting the body in the fossil record?

[_bcspace]

I've never read Nibley's opinion on this.

Well it's what the OP was all about. And since you didn't read it, it's pretty much the same as yours.

I was responding to this portion of the OP....

So now I present the opportunity for those who believe the idea once promulgated by some noted Mormon apologists, that there were "pre-Adamites", to offer a reasoned defence of this idea.

There does not appear to be a requirement to respond directly to Nibley's opinion.

[_Ray A]

There does not appear to be a requirement to respond directly to Nibley's opinion.

It would help to read Nibley's opinion, since that was what the OP was about. But as "luck" would have it, both you and Nibley give almost identical grounds for believing in "pre-Adamites".

[_bcspace]

It would help to read Nibley's opinion, since that was what the OP was about. But as "luck" would have it, both you and Nibley give almost identical grounds for believing in "pre-Adamites".

Does he give 2 Nephi 2:22?

Interestingly, ETB said something to the effect that the Book of Mormon was good for combating false doctrines (and he lists some) such as evolution. BRM later made the same statement about the Book of Mormon combating evolutionary theory but added the caveat... "that denies the Fall". I don't deny the Fall.

[_Ray A]

Does he give 2 Nephi 2:22?

Interestingly, ETB said something to the effect that the Book of Mormon was good for combating false doctrines (and he lists some) such as evolution. BRM later made the same statement about the Book of Mormon combating evolutionary theory but added the caveat... "that denies the Fall". I don't deny the Fall.

So ETB sees the Book of Mormon as "combatting evolution", but you accept it. Steve Benson's recollections about this indicate that his grandfather was lenient to his (Steve's) views about evolution, but as far as I know never accepted it.

Nibley does not directly address 2 Ne. 2:22, as far as I can see, but what you need to address is how "immortal beings" can evolve from mortal pre-homo sapiens. I take it you believe that the first true homo sapiens were immortal? Then "fell"? Nibley writes about this "evolution", but I don't think he addresses the point you make, that is, how can previously mortal beings become immortal through "evolution"? Though he hints at it.

This is what Nibley wrote:

Adam becomes Adam, a hominid becomes a man, when he starts keeping a record. What kind of record? A record of his ancestors—the family line that sets him off from all other creatures. Such records begin very early, to judge by the fabulous genealogic knowledge of the Australian aborigines (A. P. Elkin) or the most "primiitive" Africans (L. Frobenius). Even written records go back to ages lost in the mists of time—the Azilian pebbles, the marking of arrows, and the identity of individuals in their relationships with each other.48 Whether former speculation about life on other worlds is now to be upgraded to life from other worlds remains to be seen, but Adam is wonderful enough without that. That gap between the record keeper and all the other creatures we know anything about is so unimaginably enormous and yet so neat and abrupt that we can only be dealing with another sort of being, a quantum leap from one world to another. Here is something not derivative from anything that has gone before on the local scene, even though they all share the same atoms. (emphasis added)

When the hominid becomes a man, why would he be immortal? How would he become immortal, and live for nearly 1,000 years?

[_bcspace]

So ETB sees the Book of Mormon as "combatting evolution", but you accept it.

Actually published in the Ensign, but so was BRM's mitigating statement about it later. So according to LDS doctrine, there is no problem with accepting evolution as long as you accept LDS doctrine (such as the Fall).

Steve Benson's recollections about this indicate that his grandfather was lenient to his (Steve's) views about evolution, but as far as I know never accepted it.

He comes from the older generation (confused with the non existent chapel Mormon hypothesis) who fill in the gaps differently.

Nibley does not directly address 2 Ne. 2:22, as far as I can see,

As far as I know, I'm the first one who's noticed this out.

but what you need to address is how "immortal beings" can evolve from mortal pre-homo sapiens.

Not sure I understand here.

I take it you believe that the first true homo sapiens were immortal?

No. In my explaination, they were mortal but inhabited by spirits that were not spirit children of God. In other words, they were little different from say, dolphins.

Then "fell"? Nibley writes about this "evolution", but I don't think he addresses the point you make, that is, how can previously mortal beings become immortal through "evolution"? Though he hints at it.

I don't think or claim evolutionary processes as we know them have anything to do with becomming immortal. To me, homo sapiens evolved just as science describes. When the time was right, God placed two of them into a different state (a state of no death) to await the outcome of their choices (the Fall).

[_Ray A]

He comes from the older generation (confused with the non existent chapel Mormon hypothesis) who fill in the gaps differently.

Why would his personal beliefs conflict with his "prophetic understanding"? Does this not greatly mitigate his "prophetic understanding"? Why, for example, would you be more privy to a "better understanding" than a prophet?

Nibley does not directly address 2 Ne. 2:22, as far as I can see,

As far as I know, I'm the first one who's noticed this out.

What happened to the "prophets, seers and revelators"?

but what you need to address is how "immortal beings" can evolve from mortal pre-homo sapiens.

Not sure I understand here.

If Adam was originally created immortal, until he ate the forbidden fruit, how could an immortal being evolve from mortal beings? How does a "quantum leap" (as per Nibley) become not just genetically evolved - but immortal?

I don't think or claim evolutionary processes as we know them have anything to do with becomming immortal. To me, homo sapiens evolved just as science describes. When the time was right, God placed two of them into a different state (a state of no death) to await the outcome of their choices (the Fall).

How did the state of "no death" arise from millions of years of death? In this evolutionary chain, a species "evolved" which death could not claim, until "the fall"? Mormon doctrine is that if Adam had not partaken of the fruit, he would have "lived forever".

How do you square this with evolutionary birth and death? All species die, and humans are no exception. And none have ever been immortal, or created immortal, as Genesis and the Book of Mormon suggests.

[_bcspace]

Why would his personal beliefs conflict with his "prophetic understanding"? Does this not greatly mitigate his "prophetic understanding"? Why, for example, would you be more privy to a "better understanding" than a prophet?

What exactly was his prophetic understanding?

As far as I know, I'm the first one who's noticed this out.

What happened to the "prophets, seers and revelators"?

What happened to just plain eating right?
D&C 89:18-19

If Adam was originally created immortal, until he ate the forbidden fruit, how could an immortal being evolve from mortal beings? How does a "quantum leap" (as per Nibley) become not just genetically evolved - but immortal?

2 Nephi 2:22 says he was placed into that condition, not created that way.

How did the state of "no death" arise from millions of years of death?

"A wizard did it!" - Lucy Lawless

In this evolutionary chain, a species "evolved" which death could not claim, until "the fall"? Mormon doctrine is that if Adam had not partaken of the fruit, he would have "lived forever".

Who said evolution had anything to do with it?

And none have ever been immortal, or created immortal, as Genesis and the Book of Mormon suggests.

How do you know this?

[_cinepro]

Nibley does not directly address 2 Ne. 2:22, as far as I can see,

As far as I know, I'm the first one who's noticed this out.

With all due respect, this should raise a huge red-flag for you. At the very least, it explains why no one else takes your "stretched" interpretation of that verse seriously.

I'm glad you have been able to find peace with the Adam and Eve story. But as far as I can tell, your theory is just as bad as not believing the story at all.