I've never bought this belief of TSCC but it strictly starts the creation and life with homo sapiens Adam & Eve (i.e. no evolution). However, they completely ignore that thousands of bones, skulls, and skeletons have been found proving the existence of earlier human species (homo rudolfensis, homo habilis, homo erectus, homo egaster, neanderthals, etc etc) that scientifically proves homo sapiens aren't the only OR original 'human' species. YET, they STILL continue to argue and deny this, wtf? They might as well continue arguing that the world is flat!

I found this in an article about mormon doctrine and evolution...
~~Another recent science critic is President Boyd Packer, who stated: “Many Church members are entirely unaware that fundamental doctrines cannot co-exist with a belief that man evolved from lower forms of life”
UH YAH... THEREFORE, THE FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES MUST BE WRONG SINCE WE CAN SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE EARLY FORMS OF HUMANS EXISTED?

So, how does TSCC explain their belief that there were no early forms of humans, how do they explain the physical findings of these early species, & did the TSCC ever try to fit these early human species into their creation timeline? If so, where? If they don't, that right there proves they are not true. Am I making sense?

Anyways,
I'd love everyone's thoughts and knowledge of how the TSCC defend their beliefs against this evidence, because although not the thing that made me see TSCC was not true, it should have been haha

They explain it by agreeing that early forms of humanoid-looking creatures once existed but that humans did not evolve from them.
Have you actually seen such a humanoid creature evolve into a human?

Even without believing in evolution, they have some explaining to do, would you agree? How do they fit them into their life timeline since they are never mentioned in all that God created yet its clear they existed before the homo sapiens Adam & Eve? Everything I have read, the church basically ignores the existence of any other species prior to Adam.

Not only from remains, but from analysis of human and other primate DNA.

I know, right? haha, i'm just curious how the church dances around these issues because they avoid the argument so much. (which is smart since they will always lose.)

Just to clarify, I've known evolution exists, I was just saying that even if we humor their belief that we didn't evolve from apes, they still can't argue that we came from an earlier species of humans!

The more I think about all their crazy beliefs, the more I laugh.

Apes are just as evolved as we are.

Apes and Homo Sapiens both evolved from a common ancestor.

Not trying to nitpick or anything, just don't want to give creationists an opportunity to jump out and say, "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

Know what I mean?

Wow, that sounds like something my brother would say. He was the first one in the family to figure out the Church was full of crap. If I still believed in God, I would thank him every day for that guys genius.

kolobian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Apes and Homo Sapiens both evolved from a common
> ancestor.


Has it a name?

I think the name is "the missing link" because the common ancestor hasn't yet been discovered.

I think the reason anthropologists and archaeologists and other scientists of their ilk state that modern humans and modern apes evolved from a early non-human, non-ape ancestor is because there's a lot of evidence that's been found that supports that conclusion (i.e., lots of earlier ape and human ancestors that have common characteristics with each other) so it's reasonable to make the logical jump and conclude that there is a common ancestor even if said ancestor hasn't been found yet.

Remember, there probably weren't a lot of them and they weren't that well preserved being under all that clay and dirt, you know and it's a big Earth to look for the ancestor on.

Will you give it to me?

...Peter Pan Prior

In 1909 the First Presidency issued the official LDS position on the origin of man. It was re-printed in 2002.

http://lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

This statement in the article is important. "The word of the Lord declares that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race."

Here is what apologists are doing with it. They claim that "our race" means a cultural group from Adam and Eve and their descendants, while the evolved apes were people too, just a different cultural group.

See page 3 (21 in the text)
http://www.mormonfortress.com/evolution.pdf

"Therefore, Adam can be the “primal parent of our race” – or cultural group — without discarding the evolutionary model."

The apologists are using the pre-Adamite idea to try to bring religion and science into agreement.

Thanks for explaining. :) I wonder how long it took the church to come up with that answer. It's still an epic fail on TSCC's part cuz in all reality it still doesn't make sense but it was a great attempt. imo LOL

What the apologists are saying is that there were people in America before Adam and Eve, and that Noah's flood did not kill them because that is who Lehi's people mixed with later, causing the Jewish DNA to get diluted so much that it can't be found.

This approach makes it worse for Mormons. The Book of Mormon is supposed to be a history of the American Indians and written for them to know the great things that God did for them. Now that includes God sending his special people from another part of the world to mix with their evolved ape ancestors.

The pre-Adamite theory was and is still used with racism.

The best part is, you would have been excommunicated for teaching any of that in the 1990s, now it is accepted church doctrine.

I remember the subject of pre-Adamites came up in my mission, and the Church came out full force to let us know in no uncertain terms that it was a false doctrine.

dreamed up decades ago.

michaelm (not logged in) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is what apologists are doing with it.

> "Therefore, Adam can be the “primal parent of
> our race” – or cultural group — without
> discarding the evolutionary model."
>
> The apologists are using the pre-Adamite idea to
> try to bring religion and science into agreement.

Yes, and they completely diss scriptures like 2NE 2:22.
" 22 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. 23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. "

We didn't evolve from apes. We ARE apes. Deal with it !

Yes! Primates all! Humans are apes, deal with it.

HAHA! You guys are right with me! Too funny.

I guess it sucks when you realize that you spent your entire life trying to make sense of the LDS beliefs but they never do AND then feel relief instantly when it only takes you 5 minutes of looking at the FACTS to make all your questions of those beliefs make sense...? You finally see everything for what it really is :)

Boyd K. Packer is appallingly intolerant. I'm sure his drivel is even hard for other GAs to sit still for.

“Many Church members are entirely unaware that fundamental doctrines cannot co-exist with a belief that man evolved from lower forms of life”

OK then the message to me is be an orthodox believer or get out. Just like GBH saying it's all true or it's nothing, and JRH saying that if you don't believe in the BoM literally you're decieved.
They are xenophobic midgets, afraid of the very diversity they pretend to welcome. They say come-ye-all but they only mean it if you adopt the same literal dogma as they do.

Common ancestor, not the same thing.

Our common ancestor was an ape. Not a chimp or a gorilla of today, but it's quite clear the common ancestor must have been an ape.

Known human and hominid fossils get more chimp-like the further back you go. Our common ancestor was probably very similar to a chimp.

Chimps have occupied a fairly stable niche all this time. Little changed for them in the 10 million years or so since they were isolated from us. We, on the other hand, were subjected to a changing niche and evolved accordingly.

I have no problem saying we evolved from earlier apes. We did.

I think that church doctrine is locked between a rock and a hard place, and The Holy Most-High Brethren cannot extricate themselves from the stupidity of it. Because of the all-important temple endowment ritual, Mormons are made to insist that Adam and Eve existed and were the literal parents of "our race," whatever the hell that means. To say now that Adam and Eve were merely allegorical is to yank the foundation out from under the endowment ceremony. And this is one belief so fundamentally perpetuated that they cannot for a minute change tack on this and say that Adam and Eve where just a "model" (or something similar) for man's creation, something around which we can form an image of God's creating man. Nope, it's gotta be literal, no exceptions. They're stuck. And because Mormons also teach things like paleontology, it makes it very hard for a lot of people to resolve.

As an aside, for the sake of the religious argument that frightens so many, it's pretty important to point out that man did not descend from apes, but that we are only one of many bipedal primates to have evolved in various primate off-shoots. I think it just helps them to understand that modern humans didn't "evolve" from apes, but belong to their greater family.

Maybe that is why they keep making changes to the temple ceremony. They are hoping to slowly write out Adam and Eve without anyone noticing.

I also remember that the temple ceremony is supposed to represent the entire "true history" of the world. This always struck me as strange since they stopped at the Adam and Eve tale. I think it was only the first of several intended parts, but JS never finished it. You know, that way like Scientologist, you would have to keep paying money (tithes), and keep on returning to get all the secret teachings.

If anyone watched my two boys running around playing/fighting and then watched two teenage apes doing the same thing you would definitely realize they belong to the same 'greater family' haha!

mothermayeye Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> So, how does TSCC explain their belief that there
> were no early forms of humans, how do they explain
> the physical findings of these early species, &
> did the TSCC ever try to fit these early human
> species into their creation timeline?

It's easy. They don't explain anything. They never do.

As our deacon quorum president told us - "the earth was created from elements already in existence. elements were taken from other worlds that had already gone through their time of existence and that is where all the older bones come from." Our question to him, "how come they find complete skeletal remains then? If the material was taken from numerous worlds?" His answer, "to test the faith of members. he can do whatever he wants." And the last question he did not answer, "If a world is celestialized, isn't is just turned from the form it is now to the celestial cold and crystal form? How would there be material left to create a new world?" And moving along................