It's a comon view among theistic evolutionists. Many Catholics have it, as well. It has the advantage of not being scientifically detectable, so science can take no opinion on it, as long as you do not ascribe specific behaviors to the possesion of such a spirit/power(s). The trouble only arises when you assume behaviors such as planning, abstraction, etc. are tied to the possession of this spirit/power(s).
An insightful, excellent point. Anyone who is perfectly dogmatic about the Bible's history of mankind gets rolled up into the 4000 BC year idea along with the 7 "day" creation week. Anyone who believes in an absolute omnipotent God who can literally create the whole universe with a single verbal command shouldn't need to think about the details of the process, and many don't.
Although Mormons have made an effort in the past century to present their beliefs in less stark contrasts with other Christians, the fact remains that Mormons don't necessarily believe either the 7 day "creation" or the 4000 BC
date for Adam and Eve's expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Or that the whole universe began with Genesis 1:1.
While the compound inconsistencies which logically arise with accepting these notions can be discussed with eloquence and logic, I rather think it falls short of good sense to apply logic to legends or cultural traditions which reflect more on man's imperfect comprehension of God and Universe. It's like applying the strictest, latest scientific enquiry to Alice in Wonderland, or nursury rhymes like how "the cow jumped over the moon." Seriously, some of you guys ought to be as mad at your moms for telling you there is a Santa Claus as you're mad at religions for simplistic versions of how the universe began. Filipinos, for example, tell the story of "Malakas at Maganda" and another of a half-horse, half man named Tik Balong similar in some respects to Greek mythology, and there is even one legend held by a mystic sect about how great historical people like Jose Rizal and Magellan appear to believers who go deep enough into a cave in a particular volcanic mountain. But nobody really cares enough to subject these beliefs to line-by-line scientific discussion, and there are few filipinos strung out on deep-seated angst about how nursury teachers lied to them in telling the stories.
Mormons, however, elude the necessity of actually believing that no living things could have spirits prior to God's breathing the spirit into Adam, if they wish, by remembering that Joseph Smith once speculated that all living things, even trees, have their own orders of "spirit", and that God Himself has a body like ours, and a spirit, and lived a life like ours in some prior world, and that living things were brought here from other worlds, during the so-called "creation" days of the Bible. Speculations such as this, set in the context of concepts like continuing "revelation" and the Biblical assertion that God teaches man "line upon line, precept upon precept" in an effort to close the stated gap between God's thoughts and man's thoughts . . . . ." For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are God's thoughts higher than man's thoughts.". . . . . the Mormons, if they just don't fall into the same little logical traps, should readily understand that our present levels of understanding, even scriptural accounts of creation, beg for improvement.
The faith does not depend critically upon the scripture written by Moses, or anyone else. The only point where the faith stands or falls is on the one point of whether God actually exists, and can be approached by any human effort to understand, and most importantly upon the "reality" of a God who responds in any way to our search. Or who in some way has acted in such a way we could discover something worthy of belief.
It will always be an open question that begs for human liberty, and should lead us to see the need to respect others.
