Feminism is Satanic

Actually, that's not really an over-the-top clickbait title, although the series that I'm linking to here doesn't make that case specifically. I'll quote a bit of a sample from each, but follow the link to read the entire article series.

I was a bit frustrated during General Conference at Sister Bingham's talk. While the answers she gives were entirely correct, it's clear that she gave them under a background assumption of women being oppressed by men. That is absurd. It's a lie. It's likely not her lie, but it's one that she believes.

Martin van Creveld's essay on Feminism, in five parts. After reading this, go check out the books Men On Strike and The War on Boys.

And... if you are male, or have sons, be very careful (and advise your sons to be very careful) in getting married. It is a much more perilous venture than it ever has been in the past. That doesn't mean that we should shrink in fear and embrace bachelorhood, only that one must be much more careful than in the past, because it is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid stumbling upon unrepentant, narcissistic, entitled bratty little princesses who are unpleasant and miserable and will destroy you out of spite and envy. There is no fair play. There is no justice for those so targeted. The only recourse is to avoid being targeted in the first place, and that means strict adherence to the law of chastity for boys, extreme care during dating and courtship to not end up in even innocent situations that can be interpreted as compromising in the future, and especially, extreme care when picking someone to seriously date and marry so as not to end up with a shrieking harpy who will make you miserable. Sadly, many elements in our culture encourage girls to become exactly that, although luckily, many elements in our Church culture mitigate the damage.

And also, luckily for boys, the numbers are on their side. They can afford to be picky and absolutely cannot afford not to in our current climate.

I. Introduction

"Want to know what the strangest thing about modern feminism is? Not the derogatory things many feminists say about other women. Not the foolishness of many of the claims its proponents keep on making, e.g that men designed the famous qwerty keyboard specifically to make the lives of female secretaries hard. Nor the fact that it often comes at the cost of women’s health and welfare, as when they try to compete with men in fields where the latter’s greater physical force and resistance to dirt gives them a clear advantage; thereby inviting injury and shortening their own lives. Nor the truly nauseating combination of aggression and self-pity which has become its trademark. But the fact that so many men tolerate it, abet it, and even help push it forward."

II. The Road to Herland

"Feminist bloodhounds and their weak-kneed, self-hating male supporters have constructed a monstrous propaganda machine, trained it straight at men, and made them pay heavily for the gratuitous concessions their great-grandfathers made. Day by day, tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of them are being penalized for offenses they did not commit and which, even a few years ago, not even the victims themselves would have considered offenses at all. They are prosecuted, put on trial, convicted, and incarcerated and/or fined. So much so that, as used to be the case and sometimes remains the case in Muslim societies, even looking at a woman in the 'wrong' way can be considered sexual harassment. And so much so that defending the accused in court has almost become a crime in itself; which is one reason why so many lawyers who specialize in doing so are themselves female. As to the alleged victims, so mentally retarded are some of them that they take years, decades even, to understand that whatever was done to them; or which they thought was done to them; or which (in at least one famous case) they dreamt had been done to them; or which others told them had been done to them; did indeed constitute rape, or abuse, or harassment, or whatever."

III. Into the Breach

 

"In some armies, these problems and others like them have long brought about a situation where male personnel are more afraid of their female colleagues than of the enemy. And no wonder: the U.S military e.g has more sexual assault response coordinators (SARCs) than it does recruiters. In my experience this fear has even spread to retired male officers; they are worried that walls may have ears. Responses to the problem vary. With Vice President Mike Pence providing the example, in- and out of the military a growing number of men refuse to be alone with any woman other than their wives, thus opening the door to complaints about discrimination. Many others will not meet with female co-workers unless a third person is present, thereby opening the door to even more complaints, this time about the violation of privacy.

"Through all this, one thing remains clear. Should those in charge gird their loins and decide that enough is enough, then both in the military and in the civilian world a great many working women could be dispensed with fairly quickly and sent home. The place they occupied until 1965 or so; and which, to the mind of many men and such women as consider their children too precious to be raised by strangers, they should never have left to begin with."

IV. Brave New World

This one was weird. I'm not quoting any section of it, it seems like a tangent that I'm not quite sure what to make of.

V. Conclusion

Another good read on the same subject:  https://theamericancitadel.com/2020/03/09/women-then-and-now/

"Before the advent of Marxist-inspired feminism, women were treated like queens and womanhood was highly cherished. It is one of the great feminist myths that before feminism women were chattel; mere property of oppressive men. Feminists deride their ancestors by calling them 'domestic servants' or 'doormats.' What Marxist-minded women see as 'oppression,' however, was authentic Liberty. The stark reality is that women in the past were freer, happier, and more powerful than their modern counterparts."

Pre-Adamites revisited

I thought I'd rework my pre-Adamite article from a couple of years or so back, and use it as the transcript of a podcast or YouTube discussion. I also want to edit and add a bit to the original text, but rather than simply modify the existing post, which has sunk pretty far down the list over time, I thought I'd go ahead and rework it as a new post; even though most of the text is the same as before. Quite possibly, as happened to me, you see the very term and scratch your head.  Huh?  What in the world is a pre-Adamite person and where in the world did such an idea come from?  This is actually somewhat curious, however, as the question was once a big one that many members of the Church seemed to be concerned about, and it even prompted an official statement from the First Presidency to the General Authorities of the Church.  This question is also inextricably tied up with the question of evolution, so I'll have to address that somewhat too.  Pre-Adamites isn't a concept that originated with members of the Church; actually, Christian, Islamic and Jewish traditions address them going pretty far back. The early Christians simply dismissed the concept out of hand, but even in doing so, they affirm that the concept existed and people had speculated on their existance. Later on, they seemed to own the possibility that they may have existed more explicitly. Before we really begin, let's establish some context.

First off, as James Talmage said, there is no conflict between science and religion when both are clearly understood; if there is apparent conflict, it is due to our own incomplete and imperfect understanding of one or the other (or even both.)  That said, there are limitations to both sets of knowledge with regards to this particular question.  It is not useful or helpful to be overly dogmatic on what we think we know, when in reality we have to be very careful that just because we think we know something, we may in fact not. For instance, everyone is taught the theory of evolution in school, and most people believe that because we are taught it with confidence and everyone else learns it too, that the theory is unassailable and unchallenged, other than by young Earth creationists, who are themselves often written off as crackpots. This is not true at all; there are, in fact, and always have been, serious scientific challenges to the theory of evolution. But few know of them. So, being dogmatic that the theory of evolution is well established and unassailable science may be easy for many people to be, but it is built on a foundation that is pure sand. I'll get to that more later. The same is often true for scriptural and doctrinal interpretations. For example, the Masoretic Text, which is the basis for all of our modern English Bibles (and I believe the rest of the Bibles of the European languages, for that matter) is the source of the Ussher chronology. However, the Masoretic Text features some alterations made to the chronology and the ages of the descendants of Noah down to Abraham; changes that the Greek Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and Flavius Josephus all do not show. They agree on a different, longer chronology for those generations. It is clear that it is the Masoretic Text which has been altered. Why? The most likely explanation is that it was something that the Jewish rabbis could use to "disprove" the authority of Jesus  (although their disproof was based on deliberately lying and altering their own records). I've seen smug, arrogant and angry-sounding rabbis on Youtube and elsewhere ranting on this very issue even still today, which lends credence to the motive. But what does this mean? It suggests that the chronology that Young Earth creationists use is probably too short by well over 600 years. But what about D&C 77 you may say? Doesn't that prove the Ussher chronology, or at least the portion of it that follows the Fall of Adam? Not really. In fact, D&C 77 demonstrates that there are all kinds of symbolic features of the revealed truth, and taking all of it literally and in the same context that we perceive it is probably a bad idea. In Church study manuals about the creation that say plainly that "day" as given in the scriptures according to the account of creation is not to be taken in context to refer to "24 hours"; are we to assume that the periods of 1,000 years referred to in Revelations and alluded to in D&C 77 are literal? I don't know. D&C 77 is a brief explanation of what Revelations says; it doesn't necessarily add literalness to everything that Revelations said if Revelations didn't mean it literally, except in the verses where it specifically says something to that effect. I'm not saying that I know anything at all about the age of the earth or the span from Adam to now with confidence, but I am saying that it pays to not be too dogmatic about things that you want to believe but that we don't in fact know. As Gordon B. Hinckley said, "None of us ... knows enough. The learning process is an endless process. We must read, we must observe, we must assimilate, and we must ponder that to which we expose our minds. I believe in evolution, not organic evolution, as it is called, but in the evolution of the mind, the heart, and the soul of man. I believe in improvement. I believe in growth."

Science does not give us an acceptable answer to the creation, and religion has not attempted to answer definitively with any level of detail what exactly encompassed the creation, and I think any attempts to wring a detailed history of the world by literally reading the Genesis account of the creation and the Ussher chronology are wrong-headed from the get-go.  The answer from God appears to be some form of "that is not important to your salvation, so details have not been revealed" and along those lines, the Church has declined to offer any doctrinal clarification or establish any doctrine with regards to the details of the creation beyond that which is in the scriptures and taught in the temple. Also, since those sources stand in (occasionally, apparent) contrast with science, it means that it becomes a means whereby to try the faith of Man. As long ago as Brigham Young, he referred to the possibility of an older earth, of course; "In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular ... whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant."

So that's the answer from doctrine. Evolution, on the other hand, is a bit more tricky from a scientific perspective, as I alluded to earlier.  Sure, there is a strong, decades-long scientific tradition of the model of evolution being the explanation given for the peopling (and inhabiting by both plants and animals, for that matter) of the earth.  However... things are not as simple as they seem.

A few interesting examples: the credibility of the scientific industry overall has undergone a rather withering fire for anyone who's been paying attention to it.  Although I could discuss this at length, to do so, I'd need to dig out a lot of sources that I've read but not really kept track of; rather, let me point you merely to a summary here, and an even more scathing one in the book reviewed here.  And here's one specifically regarding evolution itself.

But maybe that's getting a little ahead of ourselves.  Despite its ascendancy, evolution as a model suffers from a number of crippling flaws, notably:

• The second law of thermodynamics states that natural systems become more chaotic over time, not more structured and organized.  Evolution posits the opposite. There is no system on Earth where anything is known to become more organized naturally rather than less without the hand of a higher intelligence to make it so, with the possible exception of rocks that form crystals. The collapsing of clouds of gas and dust into stars and planetary systems is another possible exception from astronomy; but again, that involves a creative hand as well.
• Few scientists understand the statistics involved with the model of evolution.  While they hand wave away the unlikeliness of evolution by saying that clearly it did happen, in reality, no rational mathematical model can possibly give us the complexity we see over the time frame that we see.  That mathematics would require an order of magnitude (or more) more time for evolution to have produced the result that we see today.
• This is even worse with the abiotic genesis of life from some "primordial soup."  There is no satisfactory scientific explanation for the genesis of life from not-life organic elements.  And again; the statistical odds of not-life becoming life is astronomically more difficult than most scientists realize or admit. It is, and honest evolutionary biologists will admit this, a just-so story. They have no understanding of how they propose that it happened, they just say that since it did, there must be an explanation that maybe someday they will disover.
• Hybrid species in the fossil record are rare and unconvincing, except in a very macro, big picture way.  As an example; Archaeopterix lithographica was often held out as a transition between dinosaurs and birds; however, it's also clearly too derived in a number of characteristics to be ancestral to later birds.  It is therefore a "close cousin" of a completely unknown and unconfirmed ancestor to birds.  This kind of ghost transition fossil story is commonplace; the actual transition fossil is almost uniformly unknown.  There's even a modification to the theory of evolution proposed by Stephen J. Gould a few decades ago that purports to explain why there is no clear fossil evidence for evolution: punctuated equilibrium.  All of this merely says that there is no significant "hard evidence" of evolution in the fossil record. The theory can exist without any evidence, because it's been modified to explain why there isn't any. QED.
• Experiments have been conducted with fruit flies, bombarded with mutagens to supposedly replicate the effect of millions of years of evolution.  None of these has ever produced anything like a new species.
• In fact, the very notion that mutation is beneficial and can result in speciation, especially prompted by vacant ecological niches, is a just-so story that has never been observed or explained satisfactorily.  And it trips over its own feet to some degree; mutation isn't caused by ecological vacancies, so what exactly prompts rabid speciation and diversification when ecological vacancies exist is not explained at all. Again, there's a hand wavy explanation that perhaps all of this mutation and potential speciation is happening all around us all of the time, but the speciation doesn't actually happen without vacant ecological niches for creatures with beneficial mutations to exploit. This is, again, a very convenient just-so story that is backed by no evidence or even a convincing proposal.
• The complexity of various organs, such as the vertebrate eye, or a bird's wing, which have hundreds of working parts that all interact together to fulfill a single function, has no explanation.  There are hand wavy attempts to suggest that "half a wing" or a "partial eye" confers some evolutionary benefit, thus prompting transitional features to exist, but these are just-so stories.  The reality is that these complex structures have to have been designed in coordinated fashion in order to even exist.  This is, again, a failure of most scientists to truly understand statistics and probability; c.f. the just-story which is actually statistically impossible of millions of monkey and millions of typewriters and Shakespeare.
• The same is true for intracellular enzyme interactions, or for that matter, other complex symbiotic interrelationships.
• Biological models, as referred to in the link above, are continually debunked by genetics, requiring tweaks to the theory of evolution until it is a hopelessly complex model that rests on an unproven foundation, and is therefore very unlikely to actually end up being true.

While it isn't really my purpose in this post to debunk the theory of evolution by natural selection (TENS for short), it is important for this post that I point out and establish, at least at a very high level, that TENS is very poor science, and if it weren't for inertia and politics within the scientific community, it almost certainly would have been discarded decades ago, and we'd either be talking about a new standard model, or at least be in search of one. As noted in the points above, the "theory" is plagued by a multitude of stacked just-so stories and vague hand waves rather than a solid foundation of actual, observable facts. The reality is that we are desperately in need of a new model that better explains the data that we have, because evolution doesn't do so. To the best of my knowledge, nobody in mainstream science is working on this, although critics from within the scientific community, like David Berlinski and Michael Behe are popping up. Young earth creationism doesn't offer us a workable model either, which is the other obvious alternative in the public sphere, so we do not have a model that actually fits the data well currently, unless it lurks out there in the fringe realm of pseudo-science or para-doctrinal speculation.  Many of the prophets and apostles in this dispensation have alluded to this fact, and it does, in fact, seem likely that few of them who have made any statements on it have actually believed in young earth creationism or evolution as formulated specifically either one.

One day, the edifice protecting evolution from sufficient criticism to bring the model down will break through the political forces aligned to stop such criticism from gaining steam and some alternative, whatever it may be, will be presented.  Then again, maybe it won't happen until further light and knowledge is revealed to Man.  TENS has evolved into the counter-argument against religion; an atheistic, secular humanist dogma.  As I said, neither the "standard" religious model of young earth creationism nor the atheist natural selection model are realistic or believable, and both are contradicted by a wide variety of evidence, but the presence of the model of evolution has been a very effective tool for Satan in leading people astray from their faith because of the weaknesses in young earth creationism, and the suppression of details about the weaknesses of evolution.  As I said earlier, and as Bro. Talmage said decades ago, there is no conflict between science and religion when both are properly understood.  However, neither are properly understood today; science gives us a visibly unworkable model with no alternatives, and religion declines to answer the question in any detail at present (although curiously, there are ways in which using time dilation observed by theoretical physics can actually—believe it or not—salvage and reconcile the Bible narrative with observed scientific observations about age.  But that doesn't take away from the fact that the creation narrative that we have is incredibly light on details, and almost certainly deliberately so on the part of God, or Moses, or both.)  For now, what is required is faith that more details on the how will be forthcoming at some future date, possibly in the Millennium, or in our life to come as we learn and grow more following the Resurrection.  From D&C 101: 32 Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things— 33 Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof— 34 Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven. From the Religion 301 manual (an Institute, or BYU class): How was the earth created? The Lord has not yet revealed how the earth was created. All we know is that it was created by God.  (That quote from D&C 101 will apply quite well to all kinds of mysteries in astronomy and astrophysics that also are clumsily patched up with a secular, areligious scientific dogma, but that's a discussion for another time...)

Nor is my purpose to present an alternative model.  I personally favor a model that has many of the "noble and great ones" involved in the creation, as described in Abraham 3 as a learning and training exercise, to prepare the world for the coming of Man, and that the various stages of life as seen in the fossil record are more like the model years of a car, advancing as we worked through different systems as part of that plan, than what is described in TENS.  But that's merely my own speculative pet theory and without a greater understanding of what the purpose of such an activity may be, it's hard to pin it down as only one of many potential models that could fit the available data.  But we shall indeed see.  As Bruce R. McConkie once wrote (and with the caveat that McConkie wrote a lot of stuff that was clearly merely his opinion, learned though it was); emphasis mine: When, during the Millennium, the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon is translated, it will give an account of life in the premortal existence; of the creation of all things; of the Fall and the Atonement and the Second Coming; of temple ordinances, in their fullness; of the ministry and mission of translated beings; of life in the spirit world, in both paradise and hell; of the kingdoms of glory to be inhabited by resurrected beings; and many such like things. As of now, the world is not ready to receive these truths. For one thing, these added doctrines will completely destroy the whole theory of organic evolution as it is now almost universally taught in the halls of academia. For another, they will set forth an entirely different concept and time frame of the creation, both of this earth and all forms of life and of the sidereal heavens themselves, than is postulated in all the theories of men. And sadly, there are those who, if forced to make a choice at this time, would select Darwin over Deity.

Some of the speculation of pre-Adamites came about a hundred or more years ago as Charles Darwin's TENS theory was really percolating into academic culture, culminating in 1925 with the Scopes trial, at which point the Church even issued a revised statement to complement an earlier statement that they had issued in 1909. In particular with regards to the age of human and hominid fossils, and the very existence of "early man" in general that seemed to contradict the Adam and Eve narrative, members of the Church were looking for a way to reconcile science and religion.  B.H. Roberts prepared a document, at the First Presidency's direction as a study manual for Melchizedek Priesthood holders, which referred to pre-Adamites in an off-hand way in one lesson. This prompted a discussion among the General Authorities about the text, and prompted a statement from the Church, as well as a letter to the Desert News on the topic by the President Smith himself. The statements assert that evolution is not a doctrine of the Gospel, but also assert that not evolution is also not a doctrine of the Gospel. Given the many weaknesses of TENS, it's possible that this whole controversy of the past is somewhat mitigated or even moot. However, to accept young earth creationism it would also require that one believe that the half-life of Carbon-14 and radiocarbon dating is flawed science; a more difficult premise to accept, as I know of no challenges of any significance to the rationale of radiocarbon dating.  So what exactly is the idea of pre-Adamites, and what happened to the idea that it's kind of dropped out of the consciousness of the membership of the Church?

Obviously, science still teaches us that the longevity of the human race is a good deal longer than as described in Scripture, and it is plausible that science is correct on this matter.  According to research, anatomically modern humans have existed since about 200,000 years ago, out of a diverse selection of anatomically non-modern, or archaic human groups such as Neanderthals, Heidelburgians, Denisovans, Ergasters and Antecesors, etc. which in turn go back a million or more years. Even more primitive models; guys like Homo erectus and Homo habilis go back almost 3 million years, before which their ancestors were supposed to have been the bipedal savanna-dwelling chimpanzee-like Australopithecus.  Now granted; you need to get into the details on a lot of this research.  What is presented to us as a done deal with complete drawings of skeletons of unambiguous interpretation is often quite far from that in reality. While nothing as grotesquely false as the Piltdown Man hoax is evident, I firmly believe that without the underlying context of TENS, the data that we have on these so-called early humans could and would be interpreted very differently than they are today.  A few fragments of bone does not a convincing primitive ape-like proto-men make unless your model requires primitive ape-like proto-men, after all, and very few of these specimens are known from more than a few fragments of bone.  Most of the skulls that you see pictures of are reconstructions based on a bit of braincase attached to some brow ridges, a separate find of some jaw bones from a similar locale that is referred to the same species, and the rest is filled in via comparative anatomy.  There's a joke physical anthropologists, archaeologists and paleontologists make that you could fit all of the pre-Modern human remains that we have today in a single shoe box, and still have room for the shoes.  That's an exaggeration, but it's funny because of the underlying truth behind it.  But even if you disregard the entire reconstruction of primitive, ape-like species like Homo habilis, you still have anatomically modern humans that extend an order of magnitude earlier than Adam could possibly have been extended.  It is very difficult to envision even an unliteral reading of the Scriptural account that has Adam and Eve running around 200,000 years ago.  And yet we have skeletons that date that old, and no compelling rationale to challenge the veracity of the dating. And as archaeogenetic genome sequencing has started to become a thing, we even have proposals that Europeans and Asians have a non-trivial (albeit small) percentage of their DNA which is inherited from Neanderthal and Denisovan archaic human groups. Again; I'm not here to tell you that these proposals are or are not true, merely that the data which led to the proposals are out there, and I'm not aware of any challenges to the data or its conclusions either one from the field of science.

In addition to that, here's a small roundup of some quotations from The Brethren:

• In a Memorandum from the First Presidency to the General Authorities (mentioned above) issued in April 1931, it says: Both parties [i.e., Elders Joseph Fielding Smith and B. H. Roberts] make the scripture and the statements of men who have been prominent in the affairs of the Church the basis of their contention; neither has produced definite proof in support of his views... Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored Gospel to the people of the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church. We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion to which reference is here made, but on the contrary are certain that it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree namely, that presidents Joseph F. Smith, John Winder and Anthon Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race." 
• Elder James Talmage wrote, of the same discussion: Involved in this question is that of the beginning of life upon the earth, and as to whether there was death either of animal or plant before the fall of Adam, on which proposition Elder Smith was very pronounced in denial and Elder Roberts equally forceful in the affirmative. As to whether Pre-Adamite races existed upon the earth there has been much discussion among some of our people of late. The decision reached by the First Presidency, and announced to this morning's assembly, was in answer to a specific question that obviously the doctrine of the existence of races of human beings upon the earth prior to the fall of Adam was not a doctrine of the Church; and, further, that the conception embodied in the belief of many to the effect that there were no such Pre-Adamite races, and that there was no death upon the earth prior to Adam's fall is likewise declared to be no doctrine of the Church. I think the decision of the First Presidency is a wise one in the premises. This is one of the many things upon which we cannot preach with assurance and dogmatic assertions on either side are likely to do harm rather than good. 
• Hugh Nibley, in an article titled "Before Adam" wrote, among other things: Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God's affection or even a right to exaltation—for our scriptures allow them such. Nor am I overly concerned as to just when they might have lived, for their world is not our world. They have all gone away long before our people ever appeared. God assigned them their proper times and functions, as he has given me mine—a full-time job that admonishes me to remember his words to the overly eager Moses: "For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me." (Moses 1:31.) It is Adam as my own parent who concerns me. When he walks onto the stage, then and only then the play begins. 

This opens the door to the possibility of pre-Adamite men, given those quotes and the archaeological record.  But that of course answers nothing of what in the world they are doing spiritually and where they fit into the Plan of Salvation.  Here's a few other Scriptures and quotes that some have used to build up (admittedly very speculative) concepts about pre-Adamites and where they may fit:

• D&C 45:54: And then shall the heathen nations be redeemed, and they that knew no law shall have part in the first resurrection; and it shall be tolerable for them.
• There are also many who believe that the term "replenish" in the phrase "multiply and replenish the earth" is to be taken literally; i.e., the earth needs to be refilled as it was emptied from a former full state.  Elder Orson Hyde said in the Journal of Discourses: The world was peopled before the days of Adam, as much so as it was before the days of Noah. It was said that Noah became the father of a new world, but it was the same old world still, and will continue to be (in the future), though it may pass through many changes.

If any such pre-Adamites existed, then there are a few potential outcomes that I'm aware of, with little to recommend any of them other than speculation. 

1. (The most conciliatory to the modern scientific paradigm) Adam and Eve were the father and mother of the lineage of people who received the first dispensation of the gospel; starting the Gospel history of the world, and as such are the father and mother (in a spiritual and figurative sense) of all men, but not necessarily in a genetic or literal sense. In this scenario,Adam as the Father of our race does not mean that he's the father genetically, but spiritually, i.e., there was no dispensation of the Gospel on the Earth until the Gospel was revealed to Adam after his Fall and expulsion from isolation in Eden.  This could, conceivably mean that there were other people on the Earth at the time of Adam and before, but that lacking the Gospel, History, as they say, starts with Adam and the revelation of the Gospel to him.  In this scenario, being the posterity of Adam could just as well mean that our ancestors received the Gospel from him as that they were born of him. The presence of Adam and Eve alone at the head of the family tree of all humanity is not to be taken too literally in this interpretation.  Although I do not favor or agree with this interpretation, there are at least some traditions that support it; Adam and Eve are mentioned in the Pearl of Great Price (and in other sources) as interacting with other people who remain unnamed.  I presume that they are meant to be their own offspring  There are also persistent (apocryphal if not actually outright mythological) references to a first wife of Adam's: Lilith, although that seems to be a kind of Mesopotamian ghost story that got adopted into Jewish and some early Christian philosophies during the Middle Ages, mostly.  Even the statement above from the Presidency to the Brethren leaves open this possibility; it states that Adam is the primal parent of our race, not the sole parent of our race.  In general, I don't support or agree with this position myself, but I can, by squinting really hard, see how it could maybe fit in with what we know.  Certainly it seems that most the Brethren have never really believed it, but many Christian scholars outside of our faith believe in something like this.  (Many others see the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall as symbolic rather than literal, and many even in the Church believe this, although I believe that this is not in harmony with what we know of Gospel doctrine.)
   
   As an aside, a similar argument can be made about the Flood and its effects on the human family. I've long had some cognitive dissonance about both the time frame of the peopling of the Earth following the Flood as well as the fact that clearly the genealogies following Noah seem to only give ancestors for nations of the eastern Mediterranean and Middle East that the Israelites would have been familiar with. Any proposal linking peoples of Northern Europe, the Orient or sub-Saharan Africa to any of Noah's sons is hand wavy at best. Does that mean that some of them were there all along and weathered the Flood? I dunno. I make no attempt to answer that, merely point out that I have cognitive dissonance about what we think we know, and note that possibly we don't actually know details that maybe some of us think we know.
2. There was a theory that I haven't heard much about, but which apparently was earlier somewhat popular, that a large number of people in the War in Heaven were reluctant, or afraid of the mortal trials, and entered into some kind of "plea bargain" or negotiated state where they would inherit only a Terrestrial (at best) glory but would live outside of the dispensations of the Gospel and not be subject to Celestial law.  Although prior to hearing about this notion, I had assumed statements like Joseph Smith's reference to "the heathen of ages that never had hope," in Times and Seasons to refer to merely conventional heathens who died without ever hearing of the Gospel, some have seen statements like this as evidence for this plan, as is the verse from D&C section 54 noted earlier.  If a terrestrial eternity was "tolerable" to these heathen nations, could they have bargained for just such a plan rather than being tried according to a fuller, celestial law?  If so, it certainly makes sense for them to have lived before Adam's time, because Adam was given the celestial law, as were his descendants and the whole earth from his time until the end was subject to that mandate; even those who lived during the Apostasy or in cultures where they never heard of Christ will be taught the gospel in the spirit world and have the chance to accept it and thus gain the benefits of a celestial exaltation.
   
   Although I don't see any reason to say that this notion can't be true, neither do I see any reason to suspect that it is.  Every statement used to support it can equally be made to support another interpretation that does not involve pre-Adamic peoples that merely were apostate, not in some putative negotiated, plea-bargain spiritual status.  The only things that recommend it are the fact that it does, at least, offer an explanation for human skeletons found by archaeologists that are almost certainly way too old to post-date Adam and Eve, and hey, at least it's a really interesting just-so story.
3. Orson Hyde and some other Brethren in earlier days of the Church seemed to believe in entire Dispensations of the Gospel that were born, came to fruition, and were finished prior to the Dispensation of Adam; i.e., Adam and Eve are the parents of our cycle, but that earlier cycles of humanity may well have existed on the Earth, lived their lives, had the Gospel, come to fruition, etc. and been then cleared to make way for our cycle once they were done.  The quote given above from Hugh Nibley seems to be concurrent with this belief as well.
   
   The reasons for this idea to be attractive are, again, it explains the existence of archaeological finds and radiocarbon dates associated with them, and at least a few of the early Brethren seemed to believe it.  And as Bro. Nibley said, our Scriptures allow for the possibility; by which I presume he means that they don't say anything that would contradict it, although they also say nothing that would support it either.
4. Before leaving off theories entirely, here's another idea that some in the Church believe.  They apply this more to dinosaurs and other extinct life-forms and whatnot than to old people skeletons, but the concept is the same: i.e., that the matter used to create the Earth may have been leftover from some other earth and that fossils and other finds that seem to predate the Biblical record seem to do so because they existed earlier on another earth, not on ours.  There are several reasons, I believe, to reject this idea:
1. The creation of the earth, as best understood by science, is not a cold creation.  The accretion of material would have generated a great deal of heat and pressure and any such relics from whatever former earth that they are the detritus of would have been destroyed as part of the process of the formation of our earth. Fossils can't exist surrounded by magma.
2. We are given to understand from multiple sources that the spiritual fate of the world is to be perfected and "resurrected" to a degree of glory itself, not merely the people who lived on it (see D&C 88:17–20; 130:8–11; 77:1; 29:23–25; 43:32).  If this is true, it doesn't make sense that the "bones" of one earth would be used to make another, since those other earths presumably have the same fate as ours; i.e, to receive their own celestial glory and be perfected; not to be torn apart and recycled.
3. This would be true of the actual fossils and skeletons as well; if the world on which they lived had its Dispensation and came to its fullness of times, thus freeing its matter up to be used to make our earth, why haven't those creatures or men who lived on it been resurrected themselves? And if they have been resurrected, why are their remains still hanging around?
   
   You can possibly twist this into a salvageable theory by positing that the Judgement Day of our world and our Dispensation is actually the Judgement day of all worlds and all Dispensations, and therefore all of those resurrections and celestial glories are yet to have happened.  All in all, I think this theory requires too much special pleading... although honestly, I suppose all of these theories require special pleading.

That's really kind of the takeaway, though—as interesting as all of this is, there really isn't any reason to believe any of it.  The only reason I can think of to even entertain these ideas are 1) they're curious and interesting at least, if nothing else, and 2) if you need some kind of rationalization or justification in your mind to accept the apparent contradiction of what we think we know about archaeology and what we think we know about Gospel doctrine. Finally, you can add 3) it was obviously a preoccupation of some degree to some of the earlier Brethren of the Church, which means that it's not just some wild, crackpot idea, but something that our elders took seriously, which at least implies that we might, if we're so curious, do so as well.

Personally, I don't require any such justification, and I'm comfortable suggesting that there are a number of things that I don't know or understand, but will in the fullness of times.  So for me, I don't really take any of these theories seriously, or believe in any of them... although I will point out that I also can't see any reason to suggest that they can't be true; just that I don't see any reason to suggest that they should be true either. All in all, I find them merely an interesting historical footnote; a folk belief, if you will, that briefly had a heyday before the Brethren decided specifically to no longer address it and it faded away as an important question to the membership of the Church. Not to say that the question of evolution vs creationism and how that all works out isn't still a question that occupies the thoughts of many members of the Church, which is related, but specifics of pre-Adamites has faded, and few are even familiar with the term today. This has evolved, no pun intended, into more a question of how literally to take the account of the creation, the Fall, Adam and Eve, the Flood, etc. in terms of its time frame and its scale; i.e., localized vs. global. The more literal minded become a specifically LDS flavored version of young earth creationists, and the less literal minded become science apologists who dismiss much of what the doctrine says and focus their attention on other doctrines instead where there aren't any contradictions. Most in the Church simply don't know enough to have an informed opinion; either because as I've noted, actually none of us knows enough to have a truly informed opinion, or because they aren't even informed as to the state of the science and the doctrine, and so just don't worry about it.

For people like me who are curious by nature and who do try and stay as informed as is reasonably possible on topics that interest me, it's actually gratifying and interesting to know that actually nobody, claims that they may make notwithstanding, really can say any more authoritatively than I can myself, what the real answers are barring a revelation from God Himself. It's also gratifying to know that the foundations of those who make very strident claims with a lot of confidence aren't really as secure as they think they are in their opinions. It becomes an issue where I'm comfortable saying that I have my doubts and issues about any proposed just-so story meant to explain the creation of the earth and its peopling, but that because of my curiosity, it'll be one of the first questions I ask when I get the opportunity after this life to talk to someone who knows more about it than me, and in the meantime, I'll carry forward with faith that although there is no answer that I can see clearly now, one will be forthcoming someday. And in the meantime, I don't need it anyway.