The Origin of the Human

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Hi LITD...

Just because Adam and Even were the first humans in a spiritual sense, it does not follow that they were the first in the most strict biological sense. This question is just a variation on asking how LDS can reconcile the story of Adam and Eve with the existence of pre-Adamites. The answer to that question should suffice here as well.

Would you care to elaborate on this?

I'm not following you on this...

Do you embrace the idea that humana have been around for a very long time and originated in Africa? That our ancestors were all of dark skin?

How do you see Adam and Eve as the first human beings and when do you think they arrive on the scene?

~dancer~

I'm saying the "Out of Africa" theory of human origins is no more a problem to the LDS faith than the existence of any human beings that pre-date or co-exist with Adam and Eve. Since many LDS are able to reconcile that, how they do so should help answer this question too. I alluded to that answer by pointing out that one can distinguish between a human in a full spiritual sense and a human in a related biological sense.

[_Who Knows]

I'm saying the "Out of Africa" theory of human origins is no more a problem to the LDS faith than the existence of any human beings that pre-date or co-exist with Adam and Eve. Since many LDS are able to reconcile that, how they do so should help answer this question too. I alluded to that answer by pointing out that one can distinguish between a human in a full spiritual sense and a human in a related biological sense.

So would pre-adam humans not have to be baptized/endowed for the dead? In fact, since they didn't have spirits, they're not going anywhere after this life?

[_truth dancer]

Hi LitD...

I'm saying the "Out of Africa" theory of human origins is no more a problem to the LDS faith than the existence of any human beings that pre-date or co-exist with Adam and Eve. Since many LDS are able to reconcile that, how they do so should help answer this question too. I alluded to that answer by pointing out that one can distinguish between a human in a full spiritual sense and a human in a related biological sense.

I understand this but I'm wondering...

How do YOU reconcile the LDS beliefs of Adam and Eve with the reality of the origin of humankind?

What is the difference between a human in a "full spiritual sense" and a human in a "related biological sense?"

How does reality fit in with the Bible/temple/teachings of prophets, that A&E were the first folks on Earth, who lived in Missouri, who brought death into the world? Who ate of the apple and fell from the presence of God, etc. etc. etc.

I'm sorry but I am unclear on this...

~dancer~

[_Sethbag]

Just because Adam and Even were the first humans in a spiritual sense, it does not follow that they were the first in the most strict biological sense. This question is just a variation on asking how LDS can reconcile the story of Adam and Eve with the existence of pre-Adamites. The answer to that question should suffice here as well.

You're making it up as you go along. Where does it say that Adam and Eve's being the first humans was only in the spiritual sense? What words are you having to liberally redefine in order to take that away from the story?

Was man found on the earth? No, man was not found on the earth. So they made Adam. But Adam was alone, so they created Eve to be an helpmeet for Adam.

Why will you call her Eve? Because she is the mother of all living.

What would have happened if Adam had never fallen? They would have remained alone, unable to bear children, since they were incapable of reproduction up until the Fall.

How do you reconcile these basic LDS concepts from the Adam and Eve story with the notion that they were just two out of potentially millions of existing homo sapiens at the time, and are merely "spiritually" our first parents? And how do you account for the potentially millions of other homo sapiens that you allow to have existed before Adam and Eve, and their offspring after Adam and Eve came along? Did these continue to be non-human homo sapiens without the proper human spirits, because they were not offspring of Adam and Eve? How about people today who could, if we had enough information, trace their ancestry back through these "non-human humans" and not Adam and Eve? At what point did they, despite not being descended from Adam and Eve, start receiving spirits? Or are they still in that "spiritually different but biologically the same" category today?

[_moksha]

I'm saying the "Out of Africa" theory of human origins is no more a problem to the LDS faith than the existence of any human beings that pre-date or co-exist with Adam and Eve. Since many LDS are able to reconcile that, how they do so should help answer this question too. I alluded to that answer by pointing out that one can distinguish between a human in a full spiritual sense and a human in a related biological sense.

I think I understand: The spiritual and the biological aspects to a Human are indeed different. However, you are not saying that we have to fall back on a convoluted explanation, of there being humans prior to there being humans with spirituality, are you? I do not mean to make fun of this position, but this poses many glaring questions about making humans in this manner. It is much easier to conceive of the Creation Story as an allegory instead of trying to cobble it together with science and creating something ill suited to science and unnecessary for religion.

[_Livingstone22]

Hi LITD...

Just because Adam and Even were the first humans in a spiritual sense, it does not follow that they were the first in the most strict biological sense. This question is just a variation on asking how LDS can reconcile the story of Adam and Eve with the existence of pre-Adamites. The answer to that question should suffice here as well.

Would you care to elaborate on this?

I'm not following you on this...

Do you embrace the idea that humana have been around for a very long time and originated in Africa? That our ancestors were all of dark skin?

How do you see Adam and Eve as the first human beings and when do you think they arrive on the scene?

~dancer~

I'm saying the "Out of Africa" theory of human origins is no more a problem to the LDS faith than the existence of any human beings that pre-date or co-exist with Adam and Eve. Since many LDS are able to reconcile that, how they do so should help answer this question too. I alluded to that answer by pointing out that one can distinguish between a human in a full spiritual sense and a human in a related biological sense.

I made a comment the other day in one of my classes in that philosophy (analytical human thought and religion) started when man became developed enough to realize his own mortality. The current, most accepted scientific claims of evolutionary process says that Ardipethecus ramidus, Austrolopithecus anamenicus, Austrolopithecus afarensis ("Lucy"), Austrolopithecus robustus, Homo habalis ("Homo" meaning "man," who was advanced enough to make tools and control fire), Homo ergaster, Neandratal, Homo sapian, etc were all early hominid mammals who have been discovered in Africa, Europe, and Asia--developing at progressively sooner times, these were all related (assumably through a common ancestor--the same which possibly connects us today to apes). But of all the species I just listed, the Homo sapiens are the only ones who survived to today, and they were also the most intellectually developed. Although Neandratals are evidenced to be smart enough to have had cultural practices, they were inferior still to the Homo sapiens (some of whom lived at the same time). As I understand, Homo sapiens and Neandratal bones are found in the Middle East, for they lived there at the same time (about 100,000-60,000 years ago). The earliest Homo sapiens sapiens (sapiens twice is not a typo--these are modern day humans) remains were found in Africa--living 150,000 years ago. So we see, species of early human-related beings that came "out of Africa" were not necessarily smart enough to be put on par with the traditional understanding of "Adam and Eve," and therefore we may think that these are the beings who could be called "pre-Adamites"--while the first humans smart enough to communicate with God, have a moral concious, and follow commandments may have come after other Homo sapiens, Neandratals, etc were first present on the Earth. So the first "man" could have been a descendant of other hominid beings (other Homos), present in the middle east (I don't really believe the Mousouri thing), fair-skinned (having evolved from darker Africans from nearer the Equator), and in a garden paradise at 6000 BCE (though doubtful so recent)--falling into a state of "sin" because this is the point in time where humans became developed enough to be morally responsible (like when some consider a person turns 8 or 18 to become morally culpable and sinful)--we can't really say that monkeys or dogs are morally responsible--or moral at all--although (it is theorized) they also have the same common ancestor we do.

The problem with the story in Genesis is that it fails to mention who Cain and Seth (the only descendents mentioned who bore Adam and Eve's grandchildren) married. Traditionally, it is assumed that Cain and Seth married their sisters (Adam and Eve's possible unmentioned children)...which would create problems with God's later law prohibiting incest. Alternatively, they married other women who were from different decent (other pre-Adamites).

[_Livingstone22]

Just because Adam and Even were the first humans in a spiritual sense, it does not follow that they were the first in the most strict biological sense. This question is just a variation on asking how LDS can reconcile the story of Adam and Eve with the existence of pre-Adamites. The answer to that question should suffice here as well.

You're making it up as you go along. Where does it say that Adam and Eve's being the first humans was only in the spiritual sense? What words are you having to liberally redefine in order to take that away from the story?

Was man found on the earth? No, man was not found on the earth. So they made Adam. But Adam was alone, so they created Eve to be an helpmeet for Adam.

Why will you call her Eve? Because she is the mother of all living.

What would have happened if Adam had never fallen? They would have remained alone, unable to bear children, since they were incapable of reproduction up until the Fall.

How do you reconcile these basic LDS concepts from the Adam and Eve story with the notion that they were just two out of potentially millions of existing homo sapiens at the time, and are merely "spiritually" our first parents? And how do you account for the potentially millions of other homo sapiens that you allow to have existed before Adam and Eve, and their offspring after Adam and Eve came along? Did these continue to be non-human homo sapiens without the proper human spirits, because they were not offspring of Adam and Eve? How about people today who could, if we had enough information, trace their ancestry back through these "non-human humans" and not Adam and Eve? At what point did they, despite not being descended from Adam and Eve, start receiving spirits? Or are they still in that "spiritually different but biologically the same" category today?

You must remember that (if the flood story is literally true), the earth's population went through a bottleneck effect, and all of us on the earth today are related to whomever was on the ark. If it was just Noah and his family (Noah and his family being a decendant of Adam and Eve), then we are all still decendents of Eve....but that brings the same problem of incest, so I don't know.

[_JAK]

Just because Adam and Even were the first humans in a spiritual sense, it does not follow that they were the first in the most strict biological sense. This question is just a variation on asking how LDS can reconcile the story of Adam and Eve with the existence of pre-Adamites. The answer to that question should suffice here as well.

Hi ALTD,

A Light in the Darkness stated:
Just because Adam and Even were the first humans in a spiritual sense, it does not follow that they were the first in the most strict biological sense. This question is just a variation on asking how LDS can reconcile the story of Adam and Eve with the existence of pre-Adamites. The answer to that question should suffice here as well.

Not a shred of evidence supports spiritual mythologies. And the process of evolution is over tens of thousands of years. So, even if a “spiritual sense” could be established, pinning it to two people among all the evolving humanoids would be impossible.

Ancient biblical stories constructed and perpetuated as explanation are unreliable and false when confronted with what we humans collectively can know today about the evolution of life forms on the planet.

Second, religious myths have never taken on intellectually honest reconciliation of conflicting doctrines. In the absence of genuine information, stories (myths) emerged as explanation. Almost no one thousands of years ago could read or write. Literacy was for the very few. Even today with 6 billion people on the earth, high levels of literacy are not enjoyed by the majority of them.

So, even today, but more so in ancient times, literacy was confined to fewer rather than a greater number of people (total human population).

JAK

[_truth dancer]

Hi Livingstone...

You must remember that (if the flood story is literally true), the earth's population went through a bottleneck effect, and all of us on the earth today are related to whomever was on the ark. If it was just Noah and his family (Noah and his family being a decendant of Adam and Eve), then we are all still decendents of Eve....but that brings the same problem of incest, so I don't know.

First, the Noachian flood story is myth and I'm pretty sure most apologists would acknowledge this.

More importantly, while your account of early humans is larely correct, it doesn't really speak to how LDS fit the A&E story into reality.

Or maybe I'm just not understanding... (smile).

We have clear evidence of self awareness and consciousness prior to six thousand years ago... clearly predating the Semite Tribal Nomads. Neolithic communties absolutely consisted of conscious human beings. and we see evidence of self awareness dating back at least 40 thousand years... (evidenced by burial grounds, jewelry making, etc). The fabulous cave paintings at Lascaux date from around 32,000 years ago... were these painters not human?

Be that as it may, I'm still unclear how folks fit the A&E story into real life.... Were the pre-Adamites not humans? Or not spiritual beings? Or from a different planet? Or were A&E from a different planet? Was death here prior to six thousand years ago? (Of course it was, but from an apologist view... smile). Do apologists understand that the first humans were indeed African's with dark skin? Were Adam and Eve from a different line of DNA that didn't originate in Africa?

I have heard nothing of this topic from leaders of the church who as far as I know, still hold to the literal interpretation.

~dancer~

[_Sethbag]

You must remember that (if the flood story is literally true), the earth's population went through a bottleneck effect, and all of us on the earth today are related to whomever was on the ark. If it was just Noah and his family (Noah and his family being a decendant of Adam and Eve), then we are all still decendents of Eve....but that brings the same problem of incest, so I don't know.

Yeah, if the global flood weren't pure mythology, you might be right. But it is, so you're not. There is no human bottleneck at any time in the last few thousand years. Whatever bottlenecks may have occurred in the past as the very first homo sapiens struggled for survival, migrated, broke into separate populations, etc. happened many tens of thousands of years before the Biblical timeframe.

As I've brought up in the other recent threads, it's believed that the Aborigines of Australia made it to that continent over 40,000 years ago. Putting Adam and Eve at some time in the last, say 10,000 years means that the Aborigines missed being Adam's descendants by over 30,000 years.

I like what Moksha said. All this shoe-horning of evolution and the natural history of this world as we so far understand it into LDS doctrine and teachings about the Creation just results in something that simply doesn't work in science, and is unnecessary on the religious side. Of course, I think the religious side is simply untrue, mythology perpetuated and evolved from ancient days to the present, but no more "real" or "true" than the Superman comics.

Think of it this way. Trying to explain how Adam and Eve, and their Fall from the Garden of Eden, work scientifically, is like Trekkies writing books explaining how warp drives, phasers, transporters, and plasma torpedos work using the language of actual science.