   |
| The Temporal Creation of Man |
|
|
The basic position of the church dates to a First Presidency Message in the Improvement Era of November, 1909. It is a long discussion of the scriptural background to the creation of man. With relation to the general theory of hominid evolution, it states: It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was "the first man of all men" (Moses 1:34), and we are therefor in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; and whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our heavenly Father (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund, quoted in Messages of the First Presidency, 4:205). In that same article: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. By His almighty power He organized the earth, and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist co-eternally with Himself (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund, quoted in Messages of the First Presidency, 4:206). In 1925, the next Presidency issued a "Mormon" View of Evolution" which was significantly shorter, but expressed the same clear sentiment, even echoing the words of the 1909 statement: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. By his Almighty power God organized the earth, and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist co-eternally with himself. Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so that undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivens, Charles W. Nibley, in Messages of the First Presidency, 4:244, excerpted). These statements brook no argument. Those who sustain the prophets, ancient and modern, mustalso sustain these statements. For those who have studied the anthropology of hominid development in the intervening years, however, there may yet be questions of reconciliation of the two worlds of thought left unresolved. It is true that theories of hominid evolution are the "theories of man" as indicated in the 1909 statement, but there is much in those theories which is as indisputable as the pronouncements of the Lord's prophets. What is there in the "theories of men" that is indisputable? Among many others, the best example is the existence of a race of hominids called the Neanderthals. Though no longer thought to be lineal ancestors of Homo Sapiens, Homo Neanderthalis was nevertheless a reality. There is no argument which can sweep the remains of Homo Neanderthalis from the scientific consciousness. There are known and significant differences between Homo Neanderthalis and Homo Sapiens. Nevertheless, Neanderthal man was not only a tool user, but anthropologists have found the remains of a Neanderthal grave, accompanied with burial offerings. Those offerings indicate that the Neanderthal were sufficiently advanced to have a belief in an afterlife, to have religion. While not as spectacular in their development, nor as common as Neanderthal, many other hominid remains have been discovered which clearly created associated sets of hominids, or beings which have characteristics similar to "man", but are yet different. Being found in older strata, they support a linear change in the physical form of a branch of living thing which is called a hominid. How can the adamant and correct pronouncements of both the anthropologists and the prophets be reconciled? Only by the examination of the nature of the "man" each proclaims to define. For the anthropologist, "man" is a physiological being, currently undergoing evolutionary changes as the result of improved diet and medicine. Modern man is larger and taller than our ancestors of only a few centuries ago. Few who have ever seen the wedding gown on display in the Lion House could dispute the fact that the person who wore that dress would be uncommonly small in the modern world. For the prophets, the definition of "man" is intricately linked to God, and to God's purposes. It is God's definition of "man" that must be understood, because it is God's definition of "man" that the prophets proclaim. God never speaks of "man" as a mere corporeal entity. It is not the physical body that defines "man", but the combination of spirit child of God with a temporal body. If it is God's work to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39, italics added), then that purpose can only occur with those spirit children of God who inhabit these bodies, and who have the potential to become as God is. If we are "man", that is, children of God in a mortal body, what was Neanderthal "man"? On this point there is no revealed explanation. We may assume from the statements of the prophets regarding man as being made in the "image" of God, that the eternal definition of "man" applies uniquely to Homo Sapiens, and not to Homo Neanderthalis. In an eternal sense, Homo Neanderthalis may be hominid in body, but is not spiritually classified as "man". The best way I know to understand the relationship of the various hominids to "Man" as God defines him, is to return to the Lord's discussion with Abraham on the nature of eternal reality. As discussed earlier, the Lord takes great pains to show Abraham that all existence is inherently unique, and hierarchical. Over and over, Abraham is shown the "two things" and that one is greater than the other (Abraham 3:16-19). God is an organizer, an exalter. While the scriptures necessarily dwell on the things which are important to Man, it is clear that God has other creations. This earth, and all in it, is part of the process whereby God has organized eternally existing matter into higher forms. Knowing that there were eternally existing Intelligences, and that they were all unique, and existed in a nearly infinite hierarchy, it is not difficult to comprehend the logic of the nature of creation. All creation is organized to become the measure of its creation based upon the nature of its eternally existing unique Intelligence. Based upon the innate capability of the eternally existing Intelligence, God exalted it to the highest of its capacity. Clearly some of the eternally existing Intelligences were sufficiently capable of progression to become as God is. These latter became the spirit children of God. This much we know from the scriptures. However, the scriptures exist for the benefit of "man", which God defines as capable of becoming as He is. Does this describe all Intelligences? In an infinite hierarchy, some Intelligences must have been organized into plants, others into the lower animals. However, there must have been Intelligence worthy of exaltation past the dumb animals, but still not capable of becoming as God is. Although they could not become what is eternally defined as Man, they were yet sufficiently capable of a highly organized existence. Their exaltation to the greatest of their capacity exceeded that of the dumb animals, but was less than that of the Intelligences which were organized into the spirit children of God. I propose that it was these which became the various living hominids. Does this require that anyone believe or disbelieve in the theories of hominid evolution? No. It merely states that to God, the definition of the "first man" is a spiritual and not a physical definition. Regardless of where the body of the "first man" came from, it was the infusion into that body of a spirit child of God that created the "first man". Whether the first Homo Sapiens body housed the first spirit child of God, or whether the "first man" occurred at a point in time when the Homo Sapiens physical type was already in existence is a parlor debate. The critical issue, for God and the prophets, is that Man is defined as a spirit child of God, capable of exaltation. That fact is essential to our understanding of ourselves, and that spiritual definition renders irrelevant discussions of the origin of the physical body. |
||
| by Brant Gardner. Copyright 1998 |
The second issue
of conflict between scripture and science lies in the various interpretations of the origin of man. Science has
embraced the general principles of the theory of Evolution, although the specifics of hominid evolution have and
will continue to be altered with new evidence and interpretations of evidence. On this subject, the church has
been unambiguous.
|
|
 |