Question on Genesis 3:16 Translation

[Benjamin McGuire]

8 hours ago, longview said:

I think you misread the last two phrases.

I think that part of the issue is that you seem to think of intelligences as some sort of individuals that have eternally existed.

We have this problem with terminology. The term intelligence is used in the early LDS Church (by Joseph Smith) as equivalent to spirit. When we get this in the Book of Abraham we see this problem. Abraham 3 tells us about the: "intelligences that were organized before the world was." But in the language we use today, we would state this as the "spirits that were created before the world was". Intelligence as we define it now (light and truth) is eternal, and it is potentially infinite, but it is not infinite in the sense that there are an infinite number of intelligences running around someplace, waiting to become spirits. Spirits are created in part using intelligence (this light and truth) and spirits gain glory as they accumulate intelligence (in this definition), and some spirits lose all of this intelligence (light and truth) ending up in outer darkness (which is another discussion). But we can have a finite number of spirit children without diminishing in any way the remaining intelligence - because intelligence isn't quantifiable in the same way. You bring a bunch of assumptions to this discussion that you don't articulate - and if the rest of us don't share those assumptions, questions like yours start to become problematic. Challenging the assumptions (as @Calm does here) makes questions about your last two phrases meaningless.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, longview said:

think you misread the last two phrases.

Just thinking about the likely implications of your interpretation if I understand your assumptions about intelligence correctly (infinite preexistent beings)….I don’t see how you avoid having an infinite number of intelligences waiting an infinite amount of time as simple intelligences for their chance to be chosen by God to move on with their progress.  Iow, there will be some intelligences that never get a chance to progress because their opportunity is always in the future.

[longview]

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that part of the issue is that you seem to think of intelligences as some sort of individuals that have eternally existed.

I absolutely DO believe that intelligences are "some sort of individuals that have eternally existed." I think your problem is muddling various definitions of intelligence. Distinctions need to be made between personhood (self-awareness, sentience) and attributes (having different levels of knowledge, wisdom, capabilities, powers, etc).

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

We have this problem with terminology. The term intelligence is used in the early LDS Church (by Joseph Smith) as equivalent to spirit.

This requires a more careful reading/study/pondering of various terminologies and abstractions. Need to avoid overlapping concepts and making clear distinctions.

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

When we get this in the Book of Abraham we see this problem. Abraham 3 tells us about the: "intelligences that were organized before the world was."

This reference can be restated as TRUE doctrine: intelligences were invited by Heavenly Parents to participate in the Plan of Happiness. Accordingly they became spirit children thus acquiring new and more powerful attributes in ADDITION to their previous capabilities and RETAINING their own self-awareness and memory. This was the First Estate. Before the Earth was created (organized) spiritually and physically.

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But in the language we use today, we would state this as the "spirits that were created before the world was".

Your problem is making the wrong difference between the words organized and created. This is similar to the doctrinal disputations among denominations and creeds that argued whether earth was created ex nihilo (out of nothing) or organized using existing materials (whether spiritual or physical).

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Intelligence as we define it now (light and truth) is eternal, and it is potentially infinite, but it is not infinite in the sense that there are an infinite number of intelligences running around someplace, waiting to become spirits.

You need to be careful with your definitions. You seem to imply that the "universe" is infinite but the number of intelligences (persons) is finite. This will cause the doctrine of Eternal Increase to come to a CRASHING halt at some point. Because the candidates from among the intelligences to take part in the next "First Estate" will be depleted.

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Spirits are created in part using intelligence (this light and truth) and spirits gain glory as they accumulate intelligence (in this definition),

In part? How do you mean? Again, you are confusing aspects of personhood and attributes. Re-read my points above for those distinctions.

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

and some spirits lose all of this intelligence (light and truth) ending up in outer darkness (which is another discussion).

My belief is that even among the sons of perdition, they still retain some of the "new" attributes they gained from the First Estate and/or the Second Estate. Thus having benefited in becoming more capable than their original self before entering the First Estate. Remember how God told Cain that he would "rule" over Lucifer? Because Cain will still gain an immortal physical body (in the resurrection of the "unjust") and Lucifer and his henchmen will only have their spirit bodies that they obtained in the First Estate.

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But we can have a finite number of spirit children without diminishing in any way the remaining intelligence -

No. This reflects your confusion of the mind.

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

because intelligence isn't quantifiable in the same way.

You cannot escape the doctrine of eternal increase.

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You bring a bunch of assumptions to this discussion that you don't articulate -

I am happy to discuss any of the assumptions you attribute to me. But I agree, I do NOT always articulate to perfection (another way of being complete).

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

and if the rest of us don't share those assumptions, questions like yours start to become problematic. Challenging the assumptions (as @Calm does here) makes questions about your last two phrases meaningless.

Just like in the Global Warming Hysteria, consensus does NOT guarantee proof.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Just thinking about the likely implications of your interpretation if I understand your assumptions about intelligence correctly (infinite preexistent beings)….I don’t see how you avoid having an infinite number of intelligences waiting an infinite amount of time as simple intelligences for their chance to be chosen by God to move on with their progress.  Iow, there will be some intelligences that never get a chance to progress because their opportunity is always in the future.

You make a great point. This could be called the Great Paradox. But I have a firm belief that our Heavenly Parents (plus all the generations of the Gods) will NOT be discouraged or be despairing. The work MUST go on. Because God's LOVE is never ending.

[Benjamin McGuire]

17 minutes ago, longview said:

I absolutely DO believe that intelligences are "some sort of individuals that have eternally existed." I think your problem is muddling various definitions of intelligence. Distinctions need to be made between personhood (self-awareness, sentience) and attributes (having different levels of knowledge, wisdom, capabilities, powers, etc).

Right - I knew that you believed this.

I don't. And I believe that authoritative LDS doctrine generally seems to support my view.

The LDS Church teaches that in early texts like the Book of Abraham, that when it refers to personal intelligences it means spirits:

Quote

and by ‘intelligences’ we are to understand personal ‘spirits’ (Abraham 3:22, 23);

The challenge here is that if I don't agree with your assumptions, then there isn't going to be much space for discussion on the rest of it. As I noted, if we believe that personhood comes with being created/organized into a spirit, then the number of persons can generally be considered to be finite.

25 minutes ago, longview said:

This requires a more careful reading/study/pondering of various terminologies and abstractions. Need to avoid overlapping concepts and making clear distinctions.

I see. So, since I don't agree with you, I should simply engage in more careful reading/studying/pondering until I do?

27 minutes ago, longview said:

This reference can be restated as TRUE doctrine: intelligences were invited by Heavenly Parents to participate in the Plan of Happiness. Accordingly they became spirit children thus acquiring new and more powerful attributes in ADDITION to their previous capabilities and RETAINING their own self-awareness and memory. This was the First Estate. Before the Earth was created (organized) spiritually and physically.

This is not TRUE doctrine as taught by the LDS Church.

28 minutes ago, longview said:

Your problem is making the wrong difference between the words organized and created. This is similar to the doctrinal disputations among denominations and creeds that argued whether earth was created ex nihilo (out of nothing) or organized using existing materials (whether spiritual or physical).

I am not making the wrong difference here. The challenge you have is that you are trying to create a distinction where none exists. The LDS Church uses the term 'creation' to discuss the beginning of our spiritual existence. I am perfectly fine sticking with their language.

46 minutes ago, longview said:

You need to be careful with your definitions. You seem to imply that the "universe" is infinite but the number of intelligences (persons) is finite. This will cause the doctrine of Eternal Increase to come to a CRASHING halt at some point. Because the candidates from among the intelligences to take part in the next "First Estate" will be depleted.

No. I am not implying that the "universe" is infinite. In fact I explicitly suggested that the universe was finite. What I am saying is that your definitions are wrong. There is no pool of "intelligences" that are candidates. There is only a pool of spirits (that have been created or organized - it really doesn't matter which term you use). And God continues to create.

48 minutes ago, longview said:

In part? How do you mean? Again, you are confusing aspects of personhood and attributes. Re-read my points above for those distinctions.

I keep telling you that I find your distinctions to be wrong. I will quote again from the LDS Church's material:

Quote

Each person on earth has a dual nature and is composed of a mortal, physical body born to earthly parents and of an eternal spirit created by our Heavenly Father in the premortal life. Our spirits were organized to receive knowledge and intelligence

We are created - and we are organized to receive intelligence. The intelligence that we receive is eternal. But just as we can receive intelligence, we can also lose it. The intelligence is not our personhood (as you seem to be suggesting). It is what gives us the potential for divinity. And only when we have enough of it can we progress further. It is in this sense that we could be arranged in the pre-existence by our intelligence, with God having a greater intelligence than the rest of us (as described in Abraham 3). To explain it in a different way, God doesn't take some personal intelligence and then give it a spiritual body - rather, he creates a spiritual person and gives it the capacity to receive intelligence.

Since I am trying to avoid speculation, I'll probably skip on the discussion of outer darkness for the moment. It gets mired down in the early discussions of multiple probations (and the early LDS interpretations of Jeremiah 18:1-10).

1 hour ago, longview said:

You cannot escape the doctrine of eternal increase.

Personally, I am not sure you understand it. Increase can be expressed in many different ways. You seem to be interpreting it to match your theory and not the other way around.

1 hour ago, longview said:

Just like in the Global Warming Hysteria, consensus does NOT guarantee proof.

Avoiding the whole reference, I want to point out the fact that the LDS Church is arbiter of what is authoritative or not. The problem here is that your theory doesn't fit well with that authoritative position. Now, the LDS Church could be wrong (they have been wrong before) - but - in this case, when the Church leadership has authorized statements that support the consensus, it is an entirely different situation.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, longview said:

But I have a firm belief that our Heavenly Parents (plus all the generations of the Gods) will NOT be discouraged or be despairing

Does this include those intelligences who never get to be part of the oneness of God but stay non progressing for eternity?

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Right - I knew that you believed this.

I don't. And I believe that authoritative LDS doctrine generally seems to support my view.

The LDS Church teaches that in early texts like the Book of Abraham, that when it refers to personal intelligences it means spirits:

The challenge here is that if I don't agree with your assumptions, then there isn't going to be much space for discussion on the rest of it. As I noted, if we believe that personhood comes with being created/organized into a spirit, then the number of persons can generally be considered to be finite.

I see. So, since I don't agree with you, I should simply engage in more careful reading/studying/pondering until I do?

This is not TRUE doctrine as taught by the LDS Church.

I am not making the wrong difference here. The challenge you have is that you are trying to create a distinction where none exists. The LDS Church uses the term 'creation' to discuss the beginning of our spiritual existence. I am perfectly fine sticking with their language.

No. I am not implying that the "universe" is infinite. In fact I explicitly suggested that the universe was finite. What I am saying is that your definitions are wrong. There is no pool of "intelligences" that are candidates. There is only a pool of spirits (that have been created or organized - it really doesn't matter which term you use). And God continues to create.

I keep telling you that I find your distinctions to be wrong. I will quote again from the LDS Church's material:

We are created - and we are organized to receive intelligence. The intelligence that we receive is eternal. But just as we can receive intelligence, we can also lose it. The intelligence is not our personhood (as you seem to be suggesting). It is what gives us the potential for divinity. And only when we have enough of it can we progress further. It is in this sense that we could be arranged in the pre-existence by our intelligence, with God having a greater intelligence than the rest of us (as described in Abraham 3). To explain it in a different way, God doesn't take some personal intelligence and then give it a spiritual body - rather, he creates a spiritual person and gives it the capacity to receive intelligence.

Since I am trying to avoid speculation, I'll probably skip on the discussion of outer darkness for the moment. It gets mired down in the early discussions of multiple probations (and the early LDS interpretations of Jeremiah 18:1-10).

Personally, I am not sure you understand it. Increase can be expressed in many different ways. You seem to be interpreting it to match your theory and not the other way around.

Avoiding the whole reference, I want to point out the fact that the LDS Church is arbiter of what is authoritative or not. The problem here is that your theory doesn't fit well with that authoritative position. Now, the LDS Church could be wrong (they have been wrong before) - but - in this case, when the Church leadership has authorized statements that support the consensus, it is an entirely different situation.

  One of the problems here is that you keep insisting that the Church has an authoritative position on the nature and origin of intelligences- but have yet to provide said statements. 

  Your speculations, until proven otherwise, are no more valid than the speculations of others that you have browbeat over seeming to try and present church doctrine in this area.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

  One of the problems here is that you keep insisting that the Church has an authoritative position on the nature and origin of intelligences- but have yet to provide said statements. 

  Your speculations, until proven otherwise, are no more valid than the speculations of others that you have browbeat over seeming to try and present church doctrine in this area.

Do you not consider this authoritative? (Serious question, not challenge)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-teacher-manual-2018/the-book-of-abraham/abraham-3-1-28?lang=eng

Edited November 12, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you not consider this authoritative? (Serious question, not challenge)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-teacher-manual-2018/the-book-of-abraham/abraham-3-1-28?lang=eng

I'm a little slow... You are going to have to point out to me which part you believe supports McGuire's ideas.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I'm a little slow... You are going to have to point out to me which part you believe supports McGuire's ideas.

The one he quoted….”intelligences” in scripture are actually referring to spirits.

”and by ‘intelligences’ we are to understand personal ‘spirits’ (Abraham 3:22, 23)”

Edited November 12, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

The one he quoted….”intelligences” in scripture are actually referring to spirits.

”and by ‘intelligences’ we are to understand personal ‘spirits’ (Abraham 3:22, 23)”

McGuire seems to imply, by my reading, and his objection to a previous post of mine, that we are not co-eternal beings with God- that our spirits were created and intelligence stuff (whatever that is) was stuffed inside wherein we became sentient beings with individual personalities.

I want to know where that is clearly taught.

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

One of the problems here is that you keep insisting that the Church has an authoritative position on the nature and origin of intelligences- but have yet to provide said statements. 

You are right. I have not provided a clear statement from the Church on the nature and origin of intelligences AS YOU DEFINE THEM. But the Church doesn't define them that way. I have pointed to statements published by the Church in regard to Abraham 3 that explain that what is being said about intelligences here in this forum by some people is clearly wrong. But, I'll put them up again:

Quote

To help students understand that the “intelligences” in Abraham 3:22–23 refer to spirit children of Heavenly Father, display the following statement by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and invite a student to read it aloud:

“God showed unto Abraham ‘the intelligences that were organized before the world was’; and by ‘intelligences’ we are to understand personal ‘spirits’ (Abraham 3:22, 23); nevertheless, we are expressly told that ‘Intelligence’ that is, ‘the light of truth was not created or made, neither indeed can be’ (Doc. & Cov. 93:29)” (“The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition from the First Presidency and the Twelve,” in James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [1971], 5:26).

And then in the same source, this:

Quote

Abraham 3:18–19. What Does it Mean to Be “More Intelligent”?

Speaking of the differences between spirits, President Joseph Fielding Smith said: “We know they were all innocent in the beginning; but the right of free agency which was given to them enabled some to outstrip others, and thus, through the eons of immortal existence, to become more intelligent, more faithful, for they were free to act for themselves, to think for themselves, to receive the truth or rebel against it” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie [1954], 1:59).

Here is another section:

Quote

“Mankind are organized of element designed to endure to all eternity; it never had a beginning and never can have an end. There never was a time when this matter, of which you and I are composed, was not in existence, and there never can be a time when it will pass out of existence; it cannot be annihilated.

“It is brought together, organized, and capacitated to receive knowledge and intelligence, to be enthroned in glory, to be made angels, Gods—beings who will hold control over the elements, and have power by their word to command the creation and redemption of worlds, or to extinguish suns by their breath, and disorganize worlds, hurling them back into their chaotic state. This is what you and I are created for” (Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe [1971], 48; see also D&C 93:29–33).

The matter that makes up the spirit of mankind is eternal. But this is not the intelligence - that matter is "capacitated to receive knowledge and intelligence". Whatever the source of our personhood is, it is not, in LDS doctrine, these self-aware intelligences, infinite in number, roaming around an infinite universe (perhaps not even roaming - just waiting) ... we don't have a full understanding of all of this - but reading Abraham 3 in a way that makes intelligences a proto-spirit is to understand the text in a very different way than the LDS Church has suggested is appropriate. Instead, what the LDS Church suggests is that there is this eternal spirit matter. And God organizes that matter in someway creating his spirit children. And God does this by organizing that matter in such a way that it is receptive to intelligence (the light and truth of God). As these spirits grow in intelligence, they gain limited agency. And then that limited agency is put on display during mortality. The soul that they start with is eternal and made of eternal matter, but in mortality, the physical body is not subject to these same conditions - a physical eternal body is given to these spirits only in the resurrection. Now was this spiritual matter before God organizes cognizant? Was it self-aware? Did it have agency? Could it accept or reject the organization of God? We have no idea - and anything that can be said about that is pure speculation. It is not speculation (according the statements above) that mankind does not exist until they are organized from that pre-existing matter as spirits. But to talk about the idea that our universe must be uncreated, must be infinite, and must contain an infinite amount of material intelligences (proto-persons) all waiting for their turn to be organized into a spirit body - this is decidedly not what the LDS Church teaches.

You are welcome to demonstrate otherwise ...

Edited November 12, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[ZealouslyStriving]

Finite vs. Infinite?

The question brings to mind a quote in a Doctrine and Covenants manual I found a couple of months back that threw me for a loop and meant to post as a discussion here:

Orson Pratt (Journal of Discourses 17:331-332)

The Lord wanted to represent these kingdoms so that we could understand what he desired to impart, and he gave it as a parable, in order to assist our weak comprehensions to understand something about Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and others of the various worlds that he has formed. Says the interrogator—"I do not comprehend this idea of the Lord's withdrawing from one and going to another." In order to comprehend this let us come back to our own globe. Do we not expect that the Lord will, by and by, come and visit us and stay a little while, about a thousand years. Yes, and then we shall be made glad with the joy of the countenance of our Lord. He will be among us, and will be our King, and he will reign as a King of kings and Lord of lords. He will have a throne in Zion, and another in the Temple at Jerusalem, and he will have with him the twelve disciples who were with him during his ministry at Jerusalem; and they will eat and drink with him at his table; and all the people of this globe who are counted worthy to be called Zion, the pure in heart, will be made glad by the countenance of their Lord for a thousand years, during which the earth will rest. Then what? He withdraws. What for? To fulfill other purposes; for he has other worlds or creations and other sons and daughters, perhaps just as good as those dwelling on this planet, and they, as well as we, will be visited, and they will be made glad with the countenance of their Lord. Thus he will go, in the time and in the season thereof, from kingdom to kingdom or from world to world, causing the pure in heart, the Zion that is taken from these creations, to rejoice in his presence.

But there is another thing I want you to understand. This will not be kept up to all eternity, it is merely a preparation for something still greater. And what is that? By and by, when each of these creations has fulfilled the measure and bounds set and the times given for its continuance in a temporal state, it and its inhabitants who are worthy will be made celestial and glorified together. Then, from that time henceforth and forever, there will be no intervening veil between God and his people who are sanctified and glorified, and he will not be under the necessity of withdrawing from one to go and visit another, because they will all be in his presence."

** To me this seems to indicate that Pratt believed that all this mortality testing was not an infinite thing, but the the "worlds without end" is more of a "we cannot comprehend how vaste" thing that does eventually run it's course and everything eventually ends up in the eternal realms and no other earths will be needed.

But maybe I'm reading too much into certain words or phrases.

Thoughts? **

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

** To me this seems to indicate that Pratt believed that all this mortality testing was not an infinite thing, but the the "worlds without end" is more of a "we cannot comprehend how vaste" thing that does eventually run it's course and everything eventually ends up in the eternal realms and no other earths will be needed.

But maybe I'm reading too much into certain words or phrases.

Thoughts? **

Orson Pratt also said this:

Quote

He has created worlds without number, that is they cannot be numbered by us; millions on millions have been discovered by the aid of glasses, but those are only a beginning of the immensity of the worlds in existence; and he has made them to be inhabited by his own offspring, or own children, his own sons and daughters, intelligent beings designed to be brought up and eventually to be made like him.  (JOD, Vol 19). 

While Pratt was known to speculate a lot (his The Seer was formally disavowed by Church leadership), I think that Orson Pratt believed that our known universe was God the Father's creation. Each of the stars that you could see (either with our own sight or using telescopes) was, he believed, circled by planets that were made to be inhabited by God's children. I think that were he around today, he would claim the same thing, although he might recognize that not every star necessarily has inhabitable planets (or he might speculate that some of those planets would have children of God whose physical forms were better adapted to the conditions in which they found themselves). I think in this sense, it is possible to understand Pratt's view of God's creative period - as having a beginning and an end in the creation that we participate in. Is he right? I think that it is hard to escape the logic that he uses (and that Joseph Smith and others use) that the universe as we know it is simply to vast in terms of being a creative act to only have its purpose in us as humanity on our planet earth. So I'm open to this.

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You are right. I have not provided a clear statement from the Church on the nature and origin of intelligences AS YOU DEFINE THEM. But the Church doesn't define them that way. I have pointed to statements published by the Church in regard to Abraham 3 that explain that what is being said about intelligences here in this forum by some people is clearly wrong. But, I'll put them up again:

And then in the same source, this:

Here is another section:

The matter that makes up the spirit of mankind is eternal. But this is not the intelligence - that matter is "capacitated to receive knowledge and intelligence". Whatever the source of our personhood is, it is not, in LDS doctrine, these self-aware intelligences, infinite in number, roaming around an infinite universe (perhaps not even roaming - just waiting) ... we don't have a full understanding of all of this - but reading Abraham 3 in a way that makes intelligences a proto-spirit is to understand the text in a very different way than the LDS Church has suggested is appropriate. Instead, what the LDS Church suggests is that there is this eternal spirit matter. And God organizes that matter in someway creating his spirit children. And God does this by organizing that matter in such a way that it is receptive to intelligence (the light and truth of God). As these spirits grow in intelligence, they gain limited agency. And then that limited agency is put on display during mortality. The soul that they start with is eternal and made of eternal matter, but in mortality, the physical body is not subject to these same conditions - a physical eternal body is given to these spirits only in the resurrection. Now was this spiritual matter before God organizes cognizant? Was it self-aware? Did it have agency? Could it accept or reject the organization of God? We have no idea - and anything that can be said about that is pure speculation. It is not speculation (according the statements above) that mankind does not exist until they are organized from that pre-existing matter as spirits. But to talk about the idea that our universe must be uncreated, must be infinite, and must contain an infinite amount of material intelligences (proto-persons) all waiting for their turn to be organized into a spirit body - this is decidedly not what the LDS Church teaches.

You are welcome to demonstrate otherwise ...

In his King Follett Discourse, the Prophet Joseph Smith appears to contradict the idea that men and women weren’t always intelligent, self-aware free agents who had no beginning and will have no end. It would be most interesting if you could focus on each of the following bolded passages and demonstrate how you are able to square the Prophet’s teachings with your idea “that mankind does not exist until they are organized from that pre-existing matter as spirits?”

We say that God Himself is a self-existing being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. (Refers to the Bible.) How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says, “God made man out of the earth and put into him Adam’s spirit, and so became a living body.”

THE MIND OR THE INTELLIGENCE WHICH MAN POSSESSES IS CO-EQUAL [co-eternal] WITH GOD HIMSELF. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season: their spirits which existed with God have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were; and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth.

I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The INTELLIGENCE of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven.

I want to reason more on the spirit of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit of man—on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man—the immortal part, because it had no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the housetops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.

Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement. (King Follett Discourse)

Edited November 13, 2025 by teddyaware

[longview]

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

6 hours ago, longview said:

This reference can be restated as TRUE doctrine: intelligences were invited by Heavenly Parents to participate in the Plan of Happiness. Accordingly they became spirit children thus acquiring new and more powerful attributes in ADDITION to their previous capabilities and RETAINING their own self-awareness and memory. This was the First Estate. Before the Earth was created (organized) spiritually and physically.

This is not TRUE doctrine as taught by the LDS Church.

6 hours ago, longview said:

Your problem is making the wrong difference between the words organized and created. This is similar to the doctrinal disputations among denominations and creeds that argued whether earth was created ex nihilo (out of nothing) or organized using existing materials (whether spiritual or physical).

I am not making the wrong difference here. The challenge you have is that you are trying to create a distinction where none exists. The LDS Church uses the term 'creation' to discuss the beginning of our spiritual existence. I am perfectly fine sticking with their language.

6 hours ago, longview said:

You need to be careful with your definitions. You seem to imply that the "universe" is infinite but the number of intelligences (persons) is finite. This will cause the doctrine of Eternal Increase to come to a CRASHING halt at some point. Because the candidates from among the intelligences to take part in the next "First Estate" will be depleted.

No. I am not implying that the "universe" is infinite. In fact I explicitly suggested that the universe was finite. What I am saying is that your definitions are wrong. There is no pool of "intelligences" that are candidates. There is only a pool of spirits (that have been created or organized - it really doesn't matter which term you use). And God continues to create.

6 hours ago, longview said:

In part? How do you mean? Again, you are confusing aspects of personhood and attributes. Re-read my points above for those distinctions.

I keep telling you that I find your distinctions to be wrong. I will quote again from the LDS Church's material:

Quote

Each person on earth has a dual nature and is composed of a mortal, physical body born to earthly parents and of an eternal spirit created by our Heavenly Father in the premortal life. Our spirits were organized to receive knowledge and intelligence

We are created - and we are organized to receive intelligence. The intelligence that we receive is eternal. But just as we can receive intelligence, we can also lose it. The intelligence is not our personhood (as you seem to be suggesting). It is what gives us the potential for divinity. And only when we have enough of it can we progress further. It is in this sense that we could be arranged in the pre-existence by our intelligence, with God having a greater intelligence than the rest of us (as described in Abraham 3). To explain it in a different way, God doesn't take some personal intelligence and then give it a spiritual body - rather, he creates a spiritual person and gives it the capacity to receive intelligence.

You are seriously wrong to insist that a spirit gained his self-awareness in the First Estate. Read carefully Abraham 3:18 ...if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

This absolutely proves the self-awareness of intelligences BEFORE the First Estate. Also, there is a wonderful transformation of the person transitioning into the First Estate.

[let’s roll]

Are there 10, 20 or 1,000 angels dancing on the head of that pin?  Wait, is that a pin or a thumbtack?  Just trying to cool the temperature a bit.  Carry on everyone, you all seem to be intrigued by the dialogue.

[Benjamin McGuire]

11 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In his King Follett Discourse

The King Follett Discourse is not considered an authoritative source of doctrine. We should start with this. 

11 hours ago, teddyaware said:

the Prophet Joseph Smith appears to contradict the idea that men and women weren’t always intelligent, self-aware free agents who had no beginning and will have no end.

You have this backwards. The current formal explanation provided by the LDS Church contradicts this understanding of Joseph Smith's views given in the King Follett Discourse. In the question of orthodoxy, the current views of the Church always trump past views - especially those given as opinions. We need to remember this principle. The LDS Church has provided a current (orthodox) understanding of the sermon:

Quote

In the sermon, Joseph taught about divine nature and eternal progression. He countered the long-standing theological tradition that treated God as wholly different than humanity. He explained that “if men do not comprehend the character of God they do not comprehend themselves.” He taught that God “was once as one of us” and that “all the spirits that God ever sent into the world” were “susceptible of enlargement,” having the capacity to become like God in the eternities. Joseph also taught that a core part of each person is coeternal with God, comparing this divine core to a ring, without beginning or end.

This view does not contradict what I have written. But the LDS Church does not endorse anything similar to what you are mentioning. Now, I am going to repeat something that you put forward:

Quote

THE MIND OR THE INTELLIGENCE WHICH MAN POSSESSES IS CO-EQUAL [co-eternal] WITH GOD HIMSELF.

The challenge that you have is that intelligence here (or mind) is something that we don't start with. We accumulate it. The Church teaches that our spirits were "brought together, organized, and capacitated to receive knowledge and intelligence". And that this intelligence that we receive is eternal with God Himself. Now, you might notice that the LDS Church does not, in its article that I posted, reference the composite text of the King Follett Discourse. It references the individual accounts. So, for the Clayton version, we get this - and you can see that this isn't as straight forward as you seem to be suggesting:

 

Quote

The word create came from the word Barau— dont mean so— it means to organize— same as a man would use to build a ship— hence we infer that God had materials to organize from— chaos— chaotic matter— element had an existence from the time he had. The pure pure principles of element are principles that never can be destroyed— they may be organized— and reorganized— but not destroyed. It is as[so]ciated with the subject in question the resurrection of the dead Another subject— the soul— the mind of man— they say God created it in the beginning— the idea lessens man in my estimation. Dont believe the doctrine— know better—God told me so. Make a man appear a fool before he gets through if he dont believe it.

We say that God was selfexistent— who told you so? its correct enough but how did it get into your heads— who told you that man did not exist upon the same principle (— refer to the bible) dont say so in the old Hebrew— God made man out of the earth and put into him his spirit and then it became a living body. The mind of man— the intelligent part is coequal with God himself I know that my testimony is true. hence when I talk to these mourners what have they lost—they are only separated from their bodies for a short season. but their spirit existed coequal with God and they now exist in a place where he they converse together as much as we do on the earth. Is it logic to say that a spirit is immortal and yet have a beginning because if a spirit have a beginning it will have an end— good logic— illustrated by his ring. All the fools learned & wise men that comes and tells that man has a beginning proves that he must have an end. and if that doctrine is true then the doctrine of annihilation is true. But if I am right then I might be bold to say that God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all. He could not create himself— Intelligence exists upon a selfexistent principle— is a spirit from age to age & no creation about it— All the spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement— That God himself— find himself in the midst of spirit and glory— because he was greater saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself.

Now perhaps this is right. Perhaps there is no spiritual creation - all of us were spirits, and God the Father somehow became God through the accumulation of intelligence - and then invented this plan of creation to help the other spirits gain intelligence and so evolve to become like Him. Perhaps this is what Joseph Smith meant in all of this - that we all became spirits at the same time that God the Father did (or that we always were) - however, this is not what the LDS Church teaches today. And let's also be clear - Joseph Smith is speculating here. And I am not sure that I agree with his underlying interpretive principle - that something that has a beginning must always have an end. If nothing else, our understanding of science has taught us that this isn't so. When a molecule absorbs energy, its electrons jump to higher energy levels. Eventually, that electron orbit decays, and falls back - and when that happens, the energy that is released creates a photon. And that photon can travel forever (only ending when it collides with something and gets absorbed as energy). We have some sense of this because our best telescopes have captured photons that have been traveling for more than 13 billion years. Now perhaps, you can say, it is all a closed system. That energy existed before it became a photon - it simply changes form - and perhaps you would be right. But my point I think remains. We can easily conceive of something that has a distinct beginning and doesn't have a predetermined end. Joseph Smith is careful though. He does point out that this is his own speculation. The "But if I am right" is, I think, still an open question. And the LDS Church today does not view this idea that mankind's spirits have existed co-eternally with God's spirit. The LDS Church teaches that we are in some way created (or organized) by God. The matter from which our spirit is organized may be eternal (much like Joseph's discussion of creation), but God the Father does something to organize that matter to create the spirit that we are.

So ... I think that we should leave the King Follett Discourse in the realm of speculation and privilege what the Church recognizes over it.

Edited November 13, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[Benjamin McGuire]

34 minutes ago, longview said:

ou are seriously wrong to insist that a spirit gained his self-awareness in the First Estate. Read carefully Abraham 3:18 ...if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

This absolutely proves the self-awareness of intelligences BEFORE the First Estate. Also, there is a wonderful transformation of the person transitioning into the First Estate.

You should read the explanation of Abraham 3 as published by the LDS Church. You are welcome to disagree with the leaders of the Church. But I am taking their position, not my own. And their position explains what the text in Abraham 3:18 means - and it does so explicitly:

Quote

To help students understand that the “intelligences” ... display the following statement by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and invite a student to read it aloud:

“God showed unto Abraham ‘the intelligences that were organized before the world was’; and by ‘intelligences’ we are to understand personal ‘spirits’ (Abraham 3:22, 23); nevertheless, we are expressly told that ‘Intelligence’ that is, ‘the light of truth was not created or made, neither indeed can be’ (Doc. & Cov. 93:29)” (“The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition from the First Presidency and the Twelve,” in James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [1971], 5:26).

...

Abraham 3:18–19. What Does it Mean to Be “More Intelligent”?

Speaking of the differences between spirits, President Joseph Fielding Smith said: “We know they were all innocent in the beginning; but the right of free agency which was given to them enabled some to outstrip others, and thus, through the eons of immortal existence, to become more intelligent, more faithful, for they were free to act for themselves, to think for themselves, to receive the truth or rebel against it” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie [1954], 1:59).

Spirits have intelligence - they aren't intelligence. And because it is something that they obtain through their actions, it means that some can have more than others. But this text in Abraham does not do what you say it does. And your interpretation is not consistent with LDS theology or doctrine. It is not until the pre-existence (which occurs after the spirits are organized from pre-existing matter) that they begin to acquire intelligence. And this acquisition of intelligence in the pre-existence is what differentiates one spirit from another in the vision that Abraham sees.

[longview]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Does this include those intelligences who never get to be part of the oneness of God but stay non progressing for eternity?

I have no further insights into this seeming Great Paradox. But I am sure that God is NOT distressed and He has a plan. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. We have NO idea how the universe is structured. His mathematics is mind-blowing.

[longview]

32 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You should read the explanation of Abraham 3 as published by the LDS Church. You are welcome to disagree with the leaders of the Church. But I am taking their position, not my own. And their position explains what the text in Abraham 3:18 means - and it does so explicitly:

You are twisting their words. They actually make dual use of the term intelligence, both the personhood and the attributes. The lesson manual linked by @Calm make frequent use of intelligences to refer to their personhoods. And it also make frequent use of the words intelligent and intelligence to refer to ACQUIRED attributes. From the lesson:

Quote

Caution: As already noted, the intelligences mentioned in Abraham 3:22–23 refer to spirits. Inasmuch as questions arise concerning the nature and origin of “intelligence,” it is imperative for the gospel teacher to consider the following statement by President Joseph Fielding Smith: “Some of our writers have endeavored to explain what an intelligence is, but to do so is futile, for we have never been given any insight into this matter beyond what the Lord has fragmentarily revealed. We know, however, that there is something called intelligence which always existed. It is the real eternal part of man, which was not created nor made. This intelligence combined with the spirit constitutes a spiritual identity or individual” (Answers to Gospel Questions, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. [1963], 4:127).

32 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Spirits have intelligence - they aren't intelligence. And because it is something that they obtain through their actions, it means that some can have more than others. But this text in Abraham does not do what you say it does. And your interpretation is not consistent with LDS theology or doctrine. It is not until the pre-existence (which occurs after the spirits are organized from pre-existing matter) that they begin to acquire intelligence. And this acquisition of intelligence in the pre-existence is what differentiates one spirit from another in the vision that Abraham sees.

You are directly contradicting the teachings of the church. You keep failing to maintain careful distinctions between personhood and attributes. Pay attention to the context. It changes within the same paragraph and even within the same sentence. But it is clear to the careful reader to make unambiguous distinctions between personhood and attributes. President Joseph Fielding Smith teaches that intelligence (personhood the REAL eternal part of man) was combined with the spirit (the spirit body provided by Heavenly Parents as a wondrous attribute). Just as the spirit child of God has obtained a wondrous mortal physical body. A tremendous blessing all around!

[teddyaware]

9 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The King Follett Discourse is not considered an authoritative source of doctrine. We should start with this. 

You have this backwards. The current formal explanation provided by the LDS Church contradicts this understanding of Joseph Smith's views given in the King Follett Discourse. In the question of orthodoxy, the current views of the Church always trump past views - especially those given as opinions. We need to remember this principle. The LDS Church has provided a current (orthodox) understanding of the sermon:

This view does not contradict what I have written. But the LDS Church does not endorse anything similar to what you are mentioning. Now, I am going to repeat something that you put forward:

The challenge that you have is that intelligence here (or mind) is something that we don't start with. We accumulate it. The Church teaches that our spirits were "brought together, organized, and capacitated to receive knowledge and intelligence". And that this intelligence that we receive is eternal with God Himself. Now, you might notice that the LDS Church does not, in its article that I posted, reference the composite text of the King Follett Discourse. It references the individual accounts. So, for the Clayton version, we get this - and you can see that this isn't as straight forward as you seem to be suggesting:

 

Now perhaps this is right. Perhaps there is no spiritual creation - all of us were spirits, and God the Father somehow became God through the accumulation of intelligence - and then invented this plan of creation to help the other spirits gain intelligence and so evolve to become like Him. Perhaps this is what Joseph Smith meant in all of this - that we all became spirits at the same time that God the Father did (or that we always were) - however, this is not what the LDS Church teaches today. And let's also be clear - Joseph Smith is speculating here. And I am not sure that I agree with his underlying interpretive principle - that something that has a beginning must always have an end. If nothing else, our understanding of science has taught us that this isn't so. When a molecule absorbs energy, its electrons jump to higher energy levels. Eventually, that electron orbit decays, and falls back - and when that happens, the energy that is released creates a photon. And that photon can travel forever (only ending when it collides with something and gets absorbed as energy). We have some sense of this because our best telescopes have captured photons that have been traveling for more than 13 billion years. Now perhaps, you can say, it is all a closed system. That energy existed before it became a photon - it simply changes form - and perhaps you would be right. But my point I think remains. We can easily conceive of something that has a distinct beginning and doesn't have a predetermined end. Joseph Smith is careful though. He does point out that this is his own speculation. The "But if I am right" is, I think, still an open question. And the LDS Church today does not view this idea that mankind's spirits have existed co-eternally with God's spirit. The LDS Church teaches that we are in some way created (or organized) by God. The matter from which our spirit is organized may be eternal (much like Joseph's discussion of creation), but God the Father does something to organize that matter to create the spirit that we are.

So ... I think that we should leave the King Follett Discourse in the realm of speculation and privilege what the Church recognizes over

The theological concepts set forth in the King Follett Discourse are elaborations of the same doctrinal principles the prophet set forth in Doctrine and Covenants 93.

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. (Doctrine and Covenants 93)

Verse 29 predates by 11 years the assertion made in the King Follett Discourse that “the intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end.” It appears that man in his native primeval state is composed of a combination of pure spiritual light and truth. This helps to explain that one of the reasons why God is able to justly punish men for sin is because when they choose to transgress his holy laws they are acting in direct defiance against who and what they really are at the core of their being.

Verse 30 goes on to make the astonishing assertion that rather than being a catalogue of lifeless abstract ideas, uncreated eternal truth is comprised of self-aware independent entities that are able to think and act for themselves; the same holds true for uncreated intelligence. Eternal truth and intelligence are both spiritually alive and self-aware, and if this weren’t the case nothing could exist. These profound revelation's lead me to believe that Max Planck was on to something when he postulated that all things that exist are self aware and to some extent intelligent.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

elaborations

Do you believe our doctrine to be revelation and scripture based alone or includes filling in gaps of that exist in our revealed knowledge through reasoning?  I am asking because the choice of “elaborate” suggests you see the Discourse as adding details that weren’t present in the scripture.  Joseph does not appear to me to be claiming this is revealed knowledge, but reasoned. 

Quote

the process of developing or presenting a theory, policy, or system in further detail

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

9 hours ago, longview said:

You are twisting their words. They actually make dual use of the term intelligence, both the personhood and the attributes.

No, they aren't. They are dealing with the problem that occurred because Joseph Smith used the term spirit and intelligence (at least in this sense) anonymously early on. That is, Joseph Smith never envisioned some sort of intelligence as a personhood that exists apart from the spirit. 

9 hours ago, longview said:

You are directly contradicting the teachings of the church. You keep failing to maintain careful distinctions between personhood and attributes. Pay attention to the context. It changes within the same paragraph and even within the same sentence. But it is clear to the careful reader to make unambiguous distinctions between personhood and attributes. President Joseph Fielding Smith teaches that intelligence (personhood the REAL eternal part of man) was combined with the spirit (the spirit body provided by Heavenly Parents as a wondrous attribute). Just as the spirit child of God has obtained a wondrous mortal physical body. A tremendous blessing all around!

I am not contradicting the teachings of the Church - you are misunderstanding them. Nowhere does the Church create this distinction between personhood and attributes that you are presenting here. If they did, we wouldn't even need to have this discussion. In fact, we don't even see this word "personhood" used in these discussions from the Church. You want to have two kinds of intelligences - one that is some sort of person that preexists the spiritual creation, and one that is an attribute of spirits. But the Church doesn't make such a distinction. What the Church suggests is that intelligence means spirits in certain early texts, and in the current understanding, it means an attribute. But there is no discussion of personhood prior to the creation of spirits in LDS theology. The church never discusses this sort of thing - because there is no basis for it in the accepted authoritative historical record. You are also misreading Joseph Fielding Smith. After all, speaking of this passage in Abraham 3, President Smith suggests that over the history of our existence as spirits, some were able to become "more intelligent" than others. This is a specific reference to how we could have Moses say "Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was;" and refer to the spirits before the creation of the mortal world. Spirits are "organized" in LDS doctrine. Not intelligences. You seem to be reading Abraham with the idea that the intelligences were organized into spirits rather than the intelligences were the spirits that had been organized from eternal matter, and which had gained that intelligence as they developed in the ages of the pre-existence before the work of mortal creation began. Your idea that the spirit body is merely an attribute isn't LDS doctrine. But you are welcome to point to something that says that it is in some clear fashion. I don't mind being corrected here.

[Benjamin McGuire]

8 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The theological concepts set forth in the King Follett Discourse are elaborations of the same doctrinal principles the prophet set forth in Doctrine and Covenants 93.

But they don't supercede the D&C 93 - and in fact, any interpretation of D&C 93 which the Church puts forward would be considered to be more authoritative in every way than any interpretation of the King Follett Discourse.

But here is the much bigger problem for you (and the others here). If we are forced to fall back on the King Follett Discourse as a way to explain or define our theological speculations rather than on some current content endorsed by the Church, we can assume with certainty that our speculations are not orthodox but are at best heterodox.

8 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

You should look at this. There is nothing here that claims that Intelligence is equivalent to man. If intelligence is "the light of truth" then the claim is being made that truth is eternal - it is not made, it is not created, and it cannot be made or created. If man was in the beginning with God (and remember that in general terms, the "in the beginning" is a reference to Genesis 1:1 and Moses 2:1 - we could suggest that it also refers to Abraham, but the Book of Abraham wouldn't be produced for years yet). And then this:

8 hours ago, teddyaware said:

All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

Here again, intelligence is equated with truth - not with some sort of personhood. 

8 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Verse 29 predates by 11 years the assertion made in the King Follett Discourse that “the intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end.” It appears that man in his native primeval state is composed of a combination of pure spiritual light and truth. This helps to explain that one of the reasons why God is able to justly punish men for sin is because when they choose to transgress his holy laws they are acting in direct defiance against who and what they really are at the core of their being.

On two levels, we have a problem with this reading. The first is that there still in no basis for this in LDS theology. In fact, LDS scripture says (2 Nephi 2) that sin only occurs when there is no law: "if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness." Further, the Book of Mormon teaches that for many there simply is no law. And those without law cannot sin. The law must be external to us. And so sin isn't "acting in direct defiance against who and what they really are at the core of their being". Moroni 8:22 - "For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law." If the law is something that is at the core of our being, this makes no sense. What does make sense is to understand that as we accumulate or grow in intelligence (in light and truth), our understanding of the law grows and our capacity for sin increases. Which, I think, is a better description of LDS theology than the one you put forward here. You seem to also be missing the idea that "intelligence" as the "light of truth" also has no beginning and it doesn't have an end - but what is fascinating to me is that we can find discussions contemporary with the King Follett Discourse that discuss how spirits can lose their intelligence (and this leads to a lot of early speculations on outer darkness and multiple mortal probations - all of which is also not a part of orthodox LDS theology). And while you suggest here that man in his native primeval state is composed of a combination of purse spiritual light and truth, this doesn't actually fit with what the LDS Church teaches - that our spiritual body was organized from eternal matter so that it could become a vessel that would hold intelligence (eternal light and truth) and that as it gathered more and more of this, it would progress towards the divinity of our Father in Heaven. All of this present interpretation of the Church accounts for these details in scripture - but does so in a way quite different than what is being suggested here.

I have a final important thought. It is fairly easy to find references on the LDS Church's website (in their authorized content) that backs up my contention. Not just in scriptural passages, but in the commentary associated with it. There is nothing on the LDS Church's website that discusses this idea as commentary on scripture - that before the spiritual creation there was something that each of us was - an intelligence - with a set of attributes. There is no set of attributes assigned to these intelligences. We have discussions about "the spirit realm" but we don't have a single reference to an "intelligence realm". And all of this makes it a lot harder to swallow the idea that this is in fact the true doctrine of the Church, hidden away, available only to those who have properly studied it out. I'm not buying it.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Here again, intelligence is equated with truth - not with some sort of personhood. 

How can something not be a being and yet act for itself?  That sounds like having agency.