Pre-Adamites, Neanderthals and the Pre-Existence

[_Dr. Shades]

Poor Joe Smith can't get a break. Of course, as per Mopologists, these early humans had no soles.

That's only because shoes hadn't been invented yet. If the "Iceman" is a representative sample, the early humans in question probably wore moccasin-style footwear.

[_Quasimodo]

Poor Joe Smith can't get a break. Of course, as per Mopologists, these early humans had no soles.

That's only because shoes hadn't been invented yet. If the "Iceman" is a representative sample, the early humans in question probably wore moccasin-style footwear.

You got me! The dreaded 'Shades' spelling correction'.

It's also possible that ocean fishing hadn't been invented yet (or they were not very good at it).

[_Quasimodo]

I merely posit an hypothesis that puts LDS doctrine on the creation and Evolution Big Bang into harmony.

I tend to go with the notion that perhaps the spirits inhabiting homo sapiens prior to Adam were of a lesser variety. The OP counters, and not unreasonably so, that there must be spirit/temporal (assuming for the moment that the meaning of temporal is the traditional one even though doctrine on D&C 77:6 shows us it's not) counterparts in heaven and earth, and that such much be so similar as to be indistinguishable in a 'tangible' sense thus somehow bestowing upon them the right to be children of God in all actuality. I disagree with that last.

Furthermore, there is scriptural precedent for spirits of one species inhabiting the bodies of another, such as when Jesus cast out the devils into a herd of swine. In that case, the spirits of a greater species goes into the physical bodies a much lesser species and subsequently the heard drowns itself. In my hypothesis, a lesser species is going into a greater and physically indistinguishable species so it could merely be a case of not being able to use all the available tools which could explain why modern homo sapiens didn't develop civilization for more than a quarter of a million years.

The nice thing about my hypothesis is that it doesn't require God to have done anything we haven't heard of Him doing before, such as the spirit of one species into the physical body of another though that certainly would be a very weak argument against because if God exists, then we literally have a deus ex machina but only in the sense that we don't understand all the ways God operates, not because God can and must be able to do anything which we know is not true, God being limited by rules.

I don't know what the basis of the "mopologetic soulless preAdmite" accusation is, but I've never claimed that. LDS doctrine is that all living things have a spirit thus my hypothesis includes preAdmite homo sapiens with spirits which is part of the last step in our creation.

Of course besides the above, my hypothesis can handle some sort of "uplift" without new spirits being born or perhaps some other ideas as well.

I've noticed that whales don't bother to baptize humans, either. We are, of course, in the same family as all great apes, so apes do baptize apes. Some of us are more apish than others, but we are all bipedal and have no tails.

Actually, Evolution says that we and the apes have a common ancestor.

This is true, however Humans are classified in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes.

[_ajax18]

Of course besides the above, my hypothesis can handle some sort of "uplift" without new spirits being born or perhaps some other ideas as well.

Taking the scripture literally, will Neanderthals and all the other species that have existed and died out rise in the resurrection?

Doesn't the LDS Church still claim there was no death before the fall of Adam? Yet the evidence that things have lived and died for nearly a billion years seems overwhelming. How do you reconcile that?

[_Tobin]

Of course besides the above, my hypothesis can handle some sort of "uplift" without new spirits being born or perhaps some other ideas as well.

Taking the scripture literally, will Neanderthals and all the other species that have existed and died out rise in the resurrection?

No.

Doesn't the LDS Church still claim there was no death before the fall of Adam? Yet the evidence that things have lived and died for nearly a billion years seems overwhelming. How do you reconcile that?

Like all faiths, everyone has their own perspective. If you are committed to the truth, it seems rather obvious that this world has always had death and is based on evolution. That does not mean that Adam/Eve, who were engineered beings, were subject to death until they were corrupted. It is my view that the "no death" thing only applied to the Garden of Eden which was not part of this biosphere. Adam/Eve were placed in this biosphere after they left the garden.

[_schreech]

If you are committed to the truth, it seems rather obvious that this world has always had death and is based on evolution. That does not mean that Adam/Eve, who were engineered beings, were subject to death until they were corrupted. It is my view that the "no death" thing only applied to the Garden of Eden which was not part of this biosphere. Adam/Eve were placed in this biosphere after they left the garden.

Nice, were Pauly Shore and Steven Baldwin part the halucination that led to this "truth"?

[_ajax18]

So Tobin what living things are to be resurrected per LDS theology? Are all animals going to be resurrected? I thought the resurrection covered all living things?

[_Tobin]

So Tobin what living things are to be resurrected per LDS theology? Are all animals going to be resurrected? I thought the resurrection covered all living things?

No. That is a ridiculous concept. Is every piece of bacteria going to be resurrected and what would be the point of that? And if that were true, as I pointed out to Quasi, we would baptize apes and whales then.

[_bcspace]

Of course besides the above, my hypothesis can handle some sort of "uplift" without new spirits being born or perhaps some other ideas as well.

Taking the scripture literally, will Neanderthals and all the other species that have existed and died out rise in the resurrection?

I'm not aware of any scripture that addresses the problem. There could be resurrection for preAdamites and preAdamite species, there might not be. Wouldn't matter either way imho and neither would advance or detract from my hypothesis.

Doctrine on D&C 77:6 (D&C Institute Manual) refers to that time period in a sense that nothing we worry about today or during the various dispensations applies; it's a time when the earth is being prepared for the the habitation of men.

Doesn't the LDS Church still claim there was no death before the fall of Adam?

Yes. I claim the same in my hypothesis.

Yet the evidence that things have lived and died for nearly a billion years seems overwhelming. How do you reconcile that?

Everything happens exactly as science says it did. Same for LDS doctrine. PreAdamite homo sapiens are part of the creative period.

The creative period in which there is death and evolution comes before Adam. Recall that 2 Nephi 2:22 posits a state before creation was finished (the creative period) and does not apply the property of no death to that state. The property of no death is only applied to the finished state of creation in that verse. Then you have Adam and the state of no death. And then the Fall after which death and evolution proceeds apace.

What comes directly before the Fall? The Garden state of no death. So, as long as there is a state of no death directly before the Fall, then one's hypothesis of creation is well on the way to being in harmony with LDS doctrine.

The Abraham 4-5 version of creation is also friendly to evolution. The Gods waited until the elements obeyed.

I think the big unanswered question is whether or not the Garden was just a small locality or was it the whole earth? The doctrine seems to support both. For example, what were Adam and Eve cast out into? That would imply a local Garden. That is traditionally the avenue I take. However, each possibility solves a problem and creates another one. There are plausible answers for each.

[_Quasimodo]

No. That is a ridiculous concept. Is every piece of bacteria going to be resurrected and what would be the point of that? And if that were true, as I pointed out to Quasi, we would baptize apes and whales then.

I'm beginning to think that you have an uncomfortable prejudice against non-humans, Tobin. Aren't we all God's creatures?

Maybe humans are the only ones that require redemption. Every other creature gets a free pass for being without sin. Remember that it was just that human chick and her boy friend that ate the forbidden fruit.