I just finished reading the book Sapiens. What a trip! The author raised some ideas that I was familiar with, like religion was invented when the agriculture revolution (10,000 BCE) found larger groups of people living together. In groups of 50-100 or so, people knew everybody in the group, and could regulate the group. In larger groups, growing into the thousands, it was no longer possible to know everybody, and something was needed to make people behave. So “Imagined Orders” were created, be it religion, with a vengeful God that would punish your neighbor if he stole fruit from your hut, or a “government” with laws and a ruler to enforce them.
I don’t want to debate this part of his thesis in this post, and you can learn more about this idea here in the NPR podcast Hidden Brain.
What I’d like to discuss is the fact that we homo sapiens have been pretty much like we are today for between 30,000 and 70,000 years. During this same time, there were several other humans on the earth, Neanderthals (homo neanderthalensis), and Denisovans (homo denisovato) to name the more prominent ones. The Denisovans were here as late as 15,000 years ago.
This raised lots of questions in my mind with regard to the plan of salvation as taught in the Mormon church. The most obvious is where does Adam and Eve fit in here. Are they the parents of all humans, or just us Sapiens? Another question that came to me is where was God during the 68,000 years before he sent his Son to save us? What was he waiting for?
Are the Neanderthals and Denisovans children of God? Were they created in His/Her image? If they are, do they need temple work to be saved? If not, are they just animals (aren’t we all?). They have found Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in some Sapiens. Our ancestors bred with them, and had offspring! Do these offspring need the plan of salvation? Some of you reading this have this DNA.
I need a much bigger shelf after reading this book!
Wheat & Tares 
I don’t believe A&E were our first parents in a literal physical sense. Rather, they were the first humans to enter into a covenant with God. Adam was a prophet, first one that we know.
Or, is the Bible full of allegories, stories created by man to explain the world around them?
Could man have evolved before the time of Adam and progressed to the point that God “put his spirit” into Adam and so began our current race?
A more general question: Should we try to fit the 4.5 billion year natural history of Planet Earth and all life thereon into the LDS Plan of Salvation? Or should we try to fit the Plan into the long natural history of Earth? Or are the two accounts simply incommensurable, and cannot be made to fit together? Personally, I’d choose Door Number Two: start with the natural history of Earth, the long story of evolution, and the shorter story of human evolution as a baseline, then see where the Plan of Salvation fits or doesn’t into that picture. Others may approach things differently.
On the narrower issue raised in the OP, if “heaven” is some variation of an earthly paradise, we imagine it will have plants and animals as well as exalted humans. There are problems with that idea (carnivores need to eat, etc.) but Neanderthals and Denisovans and all the rest would either be the highest of the animals or the lowest of humans. Either way, they would be there. It doesn’t seem right to exclude them just because they went extinct a few millennia ago (possibly at the hands of our homo sapien ancestors). Which raises a question about other extinct creatures. Will there be representatives of T-rex and velociraptors there, too? Or does extinction cut you off from a place in earthly heaven?
The T-rex and Toronto Raptor will lie down together and eat avacado maki.
Sapiens broke my brain in the most wonderful way…. glad I am not the only one reading it and pondering big questions
You should read “Who We Are and How We Got Here” by David Reich for more about Sapiens’ past and their dissemination around the world.
So if God created man by the natural process of evolution, and if we are ultimately seeking to weld (seal) together every individual/family back through their predecessors, and most people outside of sub-Saharan Africa have either Neanderthal or Denisovan ancestry (or both), then where do we draw the line and stop with the sealings? If one person can be considered “human” (as we think of it – Homo sapiens) but one of their parents was a related species, does that parent get sealed to the individual and so on back through their lineage? And if God created us by evolution, a logical conclusion is that you would have to keep following the evolutionary path all the way back and seal each individual to their parents through that line’s entire evolutionary history. If at some point God designated a righteous individual/prophet as Adam, does Adam not get to have his parents sealed to him? And they to theirs? And so on?
“This raised lots of questions in my mind”
You came to the right place, the home of the Super Speculator!
“where does Adam and Eve fit in here. Are they the parents of all humans, or just us Sapiens?”
For what its worth, I believe they are the archtypes, the man and woman God chose to represent the human race. They obtained an endowment, the very first endowment, of knowledge of God and salvation. Cain found a wife in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
“Another question that came to me is where was God during the 68,000 years before he sent his Son to save us?”
It’s a big universe. Presumably he was tending to another creation somewhere, and from time to time checks up on them (and us, from time to time).
“What was he waiting for?”
Ripening. Life on earth has to reach a point where an endowment will “stick” but don’t wait too long.
“Are the Neanderthals and Denisovans children of God?”
Probably not. They are still presumably his creations but it is unlikely, as with other animals, that they automatically will be resurrected. Some of them might be.
“Were they created in His/Her image?”
There is no indication of it; but no suggestion they are not.
“If they are, do they need temple work to be saved?”
Unlikely. The only things that need saving are those that fell, namely, the children of Adam and Eve. Animals obey the law of their creation and thus by definition are celestial.
“Do these offspring need the plan of salvation? Some of you reading this have this DNA.”
The offspring of Adam and Eve need salvation.
The only viable solution is to chuck the OT as history, and particularly as science. Consider it literature, some of it inspired.
Adam, Eve, Noah etc. are all allegorical characters. There was no Garden of Eden, Tower of Babel, Great Flood, Parting of the Red Sea, etc. Trying to force the OT into history and evolution is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
The NT gives us what we need to live by. It can stand on its own.
Sapiens is an inspiring book. Get’s one wondering about all God’s works in the long plan. I for one can’t square any bible stories with history, (Genesis 1-7 Adam/Eve, the Garden, Flood)
Sapiens and other sources tell us we carry the dna of other hominids. Thus, the whole story is messed up!! We shouldn’t try in any way to say, “oh god was doing this for such and such a purpose…” or “Adam and eve made covenant, etc…” Just be content to know what we know and stop trying to Mormonizd all the cool stuff that we keep learning about the distant past.
PS Roger, the NT is totallyand textually messed up, ie the 4 gospels. Can’t rely on it for any complete vision of who Christ is and for that matter who the historical Jesus was. And if anyone give me a thumbs down for this Jesus commet your not reading your scriptures enough.
Back onto sapiens and what gets me wondering. What was God doing 13 billion years ago? I mean that is a long long time to wait to make us the pinnacle of his creation. That is one heck of a long pre earth life.
I can see eventually an essay with “The Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that certain human species is a sign of divine disfavor or curse,”
Sapiens was a real eye opener for me. The longer I have mulled over some of the ideas it puts forward, the more it makes sense.
Vishnu asks “What was God doing 13 billion years ago?”
He was playing Scrabble. As a mere intelligence I had to rely on The Force to place my tiles. As the Book of Abraham explains, some played better than others and were made leaders in this lifetime as a consequence. That wasn’t a reward, by the way.
Vishnu, while you are certainly right about the NT, there is still enough there to inspire. A kinder, gentler God. Christ as a role model for rebellion and humanitarianism.
The God of the OT is very problematic. As is the timeline and description of events. To try and marry science to the OT is a losing proposition. Why try?
I loved the book Sapiens. I choose the path of least resistance (against science and scientific consensuses) when it comes to questions of human origins. Adam and Eve could have possibly existed, but I highly doubt that much of their story as described in Genesis really happened. They are likely mythical characters.
That said there were undoubtedly first humans. We had to come from somewhere. I guess we could consider those very first humans who gave rise to all of us Adam and Eve, right?
As for the questions about what God was doing so many tens of thousands or billions of years ago, this conveys the idea that God was not present then and was/is only mysteriously present at seemingly select and random times throughout history, and of course very present in the most minute details of a believing LDS person’s life, such as when they lose their car keys. Why view God as inherently supernatural, mysterious, and arbitrary and random? Why not view God as natural? Why not view God’s mysteries as understandable through the study of history and science, where there is always some element of mystery and the unknown, but with good doses of empirically established truths, such as the fact that earth is spherical and that the ancient Egyptian language is translatable because of the discovery of the Rosetta Stone. In other words, why not just view God as synonymous with nature rather than as some being whose characteristics seem to be rather regularly at odds with what has been discovered through scientific inquiry? Why not be more comfortable viewing the OT as mostly mythical, not with absolute certainty, but leaving room for possibility that evidence and/or a well-explained perspective using existing evidence could arise that would lend more credence to ideas that some of the OT’s accounts and characters actually existed and happened?
According to 23andme, I have 331 neanderthal variants in my DNA, which is more than 99% of other participants, so I feel a special kinship for my neanderthal ancestors. It’s amazing to me that we have the technology to know this about ourselves!
As far as Adam and Eve, for me that is clearly a Jewish mythology story akin to Greek and Roman mythologies. Just as it’s fascinating to learn about human origins, it’s equally fascinating for me to learn about the history of the development of the pentateuch as well as the history of god and religion.
But there is zero percent chance that all of humanity descended from a common set of parents as recently as 6000 BCE. By that time, there were already humans living on every continent and had been since at least 15,000 BCE. Even if we go back further, we can theoretically trace a mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam to around 300,000 years ago. But that still doesn’t mean a single set of parents. Population geneticists estimate that the human population was never less than 1,000 as we developed and evolved from our ancestors out of Africa and certainly never just two individuals.
The Adam and Eve myth becomes even more ridiculous when we impose the unique LDS spin that Adam and Eve lived in Missouri before the early patriarchs somehow found their way to Canaan. Whether in Missouri or mesopotamia, the Genesis story somehow conveniently forgets to mention that there were already thriving civilizations present all over the world at the time.
Well said DoubtingTom. Embrace our inner neanderthal.
Thanks Roger Hansen, I need to correct myself. Though OT and NT both have major issues they are both the finger pointing to God. OT revels archetypal aspects of human nature. The details of the stories reveal what it is to be human. The NT reveals to me what it is to a spiritual human. Gospel of John is possibly the most beautiful spiritually transforming text on earth. Jesus in John’s gospel shows us a higher unity, a contentedness to life and love. How to find the Ground of Being and being. And where would I be with out Paul? Something amazing happened on the road to Damascus. I want to believe God revealed Himself to Paul there and I search the scriptures to find where Paul shows how God can reveal Himself to me now!
I’ve seen many similar posts in the past and they’re always fascinating. I’ve always loved and excelled in science, but I do think people are sometimes too quick to put too much faith in it, or to ignore some of the anachronisms (although I can’t completely blame them when I’m more than willing to put certain faith questions “on the shelf” until I wait for a satisfactory answer). On the flip side, I think many LDS and Christian apologists lack imagination when it comes to ways in which the OT can be reconciled with science. I generally go more literal with regards to the OT, but my “literal” is often interpreted differently from others in ways that might be more conducive to science.
In general, I think any being that exudes the same intelligence as Adam and Eve is deserving of salvation, including exaltation, but it’s easy for me to say as I consider these all derivatives of Adam and Eve.
As someone who considers himself LDS first, a student of science second (mostly one and the same), but full of imagination in both areas, there are a few questions I’d like to ask an audience of promoters of exclusive science mixed with LDS or Christian creationists.
What is a Day in the OT. A literal day, 1000 years, or an age (like “The day of the dinosaurs”)? I personally go with the latter.
There is some evidence of fossilized human prints among dinosaur prints. How is this explained?
We know the Earth “groaned” at the death of the Savior? Could it have groaned on the atomic or subatomic level? Maybe enough to change the half life of isotopes? Could something similar have happened with the flood?
Can many of the miracles of the OT be explained by natural phenomena? If so, does it make them any less miraculous if God is aware or a part of the process?
Those are just few questions I wish many more would be willing to ask.
In the end, I think there will be some surprises with how we may have interpreted religious doctrine, even more surprises with what we lacked in scientific knowledge, but mostly, I think we’ll be surprised at just how well to two mesh together once the truth of all things is revealed.
“There is some evidence of fossilized human prints among dinosaur prints. How is this explained?”
I’m sorry, but I can’t just let this stand. There is NO evidence that paleontologists hypothesize are fossilized human prints among dinosaur prints. The geologic record shows non-avian dinosaurs went extinct 60 million years before the appearance of humans. There have, however, been claims by creationists that fossil human prints exist in the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas. On this Glen Kuban writes at his website titled “The Paluxy Dinosaur/”Man Track” Controversy”:
“The Taylor Site: This was Paluxy site most often claimed to contain human tracks, beginning with Stanley Taylor’s research and film in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s (Taylor, 1973), and continuing with other claims throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s. However, the most thorough analyses indicate that the alleged human tracks here are elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks–made by dinosaurs that, at least at times, impressed their soles and heels as they walked (Kuban, 1986a, 1986b; Hastings, 1988)). When the digit marks of such tracks are subdued by one or more factors (infilling, mud-collapse, or erosion), they often superficially resemble giant human prints.”
Kuban also addresses a number of other alleged human/dinosaur fossils at his website. Kuban concluded:
“Although genuine dinosaur tracks are abundant in Texas, claims of human tracks have not withstood close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been largely abandoned even by most creationists. Alleged Paluxy “man tracks” involve a variety of spurious phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of unknown origin, and a few loose carvings.”
Interestingly, Kuban’s bio states he started his research “leaning towards strict creationism.” The evidence led him to modify his view:
“I no longer regard strict creationism as scientifically or Biblically sound. The more I study the scientific evidence, the clearer it is to me that the earth has had a long and complex history. I believe an old earth is compatible with a careful and thoughtful understanding of the Bible, and supported by extensive and compelling scientific evidence.”
Dave C,
Are you really sorry? If so, there’s no need to be. 😉
What you cite I have no problem with or even accepting it’s just a dinosaur. My point in stating the question was not to get into specifics but to cite inconsistencies and point out that I don’t think it wise to take all or nothing approaches to either evolutionary science or strict creationism. The quotations you cite only further that point for me. And even though that question was probably a poor example, there are others in which I still await a satisfactory response.
Again, I love science, but too often I think it arrogantly states “This is what we know to be true” when it’s really stating “This is what we know to be true . . . until we learn differently.” Rarely does a month go by when I don’t read some article that doesn’t contain the phrase “Scientist were once certain . . .” or something else along those lines. I think it would be foolhardy to believe geological and evolutionary science are immune to this.
For what it’s worth, I think there’s often an equivalent arrogance among Gospel believers in which a belief for someone becomes so rigidly structured that it no longer is open to any further light and knowledge that science and the Spirit might be willing to give it.
Eli writes “Rarely does a month go by when I don’t read some article that doesn’t contain the phrase “Scientist were once certain…”
The realm of uncertainty shrinks. It is likely that scientists no longer question the existence of gravity, but might still wrestle with its exact cause and consequence. Geology is well established and perhaps more appreciated in the western United States where strata is often exposed for public inspection and appreciation of the significance of it.
Newtonian physics still works for everything that moves significantly slower than the speed of light. Actions still have an opposite and equal reaction.
In my lifetime has gradually come an acceptance that dinosaurs fared poorly in the K-T discontinuity caused by an asteroid collision with Earth. It still isn’t certain but is becoming widely accepted.
These things would be just a hobby for some BUT knowing the impact that one asteroid had on the future of the Earth, the possibility of another one is pretty scary and maybe there’s something scientists can do about it. Besides hoping God will stop it (or cause it). I’ll certainly pray for it not to happen, but let’s send some missiles anyway.
I second “Who We Are and How We Got Here” by David Reich, and also recommend “A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: The Human Story Retold Through Our Genes” by Adam Rutherford
If one goes back further in time, I love “Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body” by Neil Shubin. For those who are more visual, PBS did a series.
Ad then there’s the film by Herzog, “Cave of Forgotten Dreams”
So I view Adam and Eve as allegorical, that we are all brothers and sisters. When it comes to proclaiming who is family, we open our eyes and look.
Michael 2 writes “The realm of uncertainty shrinks.”
I wholeheartedly agree. However, can anyone actually be certain as to the size of that realm? I won’t feel confident in applying some form of measurement until I’m an exalted being. I think it would be unwise to do otherwise.
“I’ll certainly pray for it not to happen, but let’s send some missiles anyway.”
I’m not sure how me stating all or nothing approaches were unwise somehow gave the impression that APPLYING science was somehow a bad idea as well. I would send the missiles too.
Eli, science is mostly tentative. Technically everything can be questioned. That is the wonderful thing about it. However, there are propositions so well established that most experts and sometimes the wider public accept them as true. For instance, the earth is spherical. That proposition is so well-evidenced that we can build our entire infrastructure around it.
Contrast this with religion that tends to hold a set of objectively unverifiable truth claims far beyond question and appeals to authority and revelation to back these truth claims.
That science is continually coming up with new explanations that challenge old ones is a strength, not a flaw. Holding onto age-old beliefs in spite of counterevidence is more often than not a sign of stubbornness, closed-mindedness, and weakness.
I am sorry if I have/am derailing things.
John W,
I think you too are actually furthering my point. I agree that accepting new explanations of science is a strength, not a weakness. I think the weakness lies in not recognizing the strength. This goes both ways. Someone may have difficulty accepting science that goes against their religious beliefs. Someone else may have difficulty in accepting science that goes against their current notions of science (and may actually back someone’s religious belief). Even worse, someone might not even recognize any possibility that science is even capable of presenting new understanding in certain areas. Yes, some things are nearly set in stone. I just think we need to be cautious for loose rubble that may have gone unnoticed.
Your sentiment on religious view is a frustration that affects both believer and non-believer. It’s easy to share scientific evidence with another but there’s no guarantee that someone will be in a position to feel and receive pure intelligence from the Holy Ghost the way his or her associate has. That experience exists between them only.
An Orthodox Jewish MIT Physicist wrote one amazing book (and a few others). He did a mathematical equation that shows how the earth’s age of 13 billion years fit into the days of creation in Genesis. He wrote it to counter the books the new atheists have written. Go to Amazon and look up “The Science of God” by Gerald L. Schroeder,
Read the many intelligent reviews and comments made from scholars. This is a scholarly book not so much religious. It’s looking at the science and he gives his own ideas for the pre-Adam hominids and their souls, etc.
Everyone should read it because it shows how science and religion are compatible. It’s quite remarkable.
Roger Hansen,
Science is an open-ended, iterative inquiry. As our knowledge of human (and pre-human) history stands now, there is *plenty* of room for gardens, towers, floods, and parting seas (if those ideas are understood naturally, as opposed to supernaturally – which is quite easy). It may be that as we learn more, we will rule out some of those events, but we are nowhere near doing so now. To borrow your metaphor, our scientific knowledge is not a “round hole”: it’s a dark chasm around which we’ve managed to draw just a few edges. As the OP points out, we know almost nothing about what may be our closest historical relative (the Denisovans), thought they existed in virtually the same geologic instant in which we now live. We have three molars and three bone fragments – almost nothing. We are making rapid progress, but we’re nowhere near to drawing a comprehensive picture.
To say otherwise creates a caricature of science that the anti-scientific community will be thrilled to exploit (to science’s detriment). Please be careful if you value scientific knowledge, as you seem to do.
We sang Adam-Ondi-Ahman the other day in Church. It seemed so off to me. I actually talked to my Bishop about it and he said it and he said I didn’t need to believe, but they were still going to preach it. As more and more people grow up learning about evolution, more and more people are going to see the Adam and Eve story as purely symbolic.