Question on Genesis 3:16 Translation

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

I did find this…

curious how you would appraise it (obviously not an official source of doctrine just because it’s on this site):

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/topic/intelligence
 

Quote

Light or truth from God; also, an eternal, uncreated being capable of growth and progression. 1

 An 1833 revelation declared, “Man was also in the beginning with God[;] intelligence or the Light of truth was not created or made,” and it acts independently.

2

 The Book of Abraham, published by JS in 1842, explained that individual intelligences existed in the presence of God, the most intelligent of all, before the creation of the world.

3

 In 1844, JS taught that “intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle”—it has “no beginning or end” and there is “no creation about it”—and that the mind, or intelligence, can progress until it becomes like God.

4

Btw, is this an accurate depiction of early development of these ideas?

https://bycommonconsent.com/2009/04/15/tripartite-existentialism/

Edited November 13, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

So Ben, in your view is official church doctrine just silent about what we were before we were God’s spirit children (which is similar to my own position I am thinking, but not sure because I haven’t discussed this topic quite in this way before, trying to be more explicit on what is and isn’t said) or is it implying we were nonexistent as personalities, that God pulled together different elements to form a whole person and so is fully responsible for who we were in the beginning because he chose what elements to combine?

If so, this doesn’t seem to be much difference in terms of agency of men to creation out of nothing in terms of who is ultimately responsible for behavior (since God constructed our personality and the environment in which we evolved).***   I am wondering if it is accurate to say for this view the only sense humans can be described as pre-existing is in the same sense our physical bodies can be said to be preexisting before our conception, the atoms and molecules that currently make up our body or whatever these were in turn made of could be found somewhere in the universe.

***it seems like that is how it’s taught, moral agency is solely a gift from God

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/agency-and-accountability-study-guide?lang=eng

Edited November 13, 2025 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

If the language is figurative. The thing is that it isn't simply intelligence that is suggested it can act for itself here - but also truth. Here is the verse (30):

Quote

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.

So are we suggesting that truth also has agency? I think that it's a very messy proposition for us to suggest that it is literal for one and figurative for the other. If we look at the LDS teaching on Section 93, there is a lot of interesting things related to this discussion but nothing that would suggest that intelligence is a reference to some self-aware proto-spirit:

Quote

D&C 93:30. Absolute Truth Is Independent and Understood Only by the Spirit

...

“We learn about these absolute truths by being taught by the Spirit. These truths are ‘independent’ in their spiritual sphere and are to be discovered spiritually, though they may be confirmed by experience and intellect. (See D&C 93:30.) The great prophet Jacob said that ‘the Spirit speaketh the truth. … Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be.’ (Jacob 4:13.) We need to be taught in order to understand life and who we really are.

There's a lot of commentary there on this particular verse. In general, this "to act for itself" is never discussed as agency. But relevant to this discussion, the commentary on verse 33 is also interesting:

Quote

D&C 93:33. “Man Is Spirit. The Elements Are Eternal”

We are dual beings comprised of both a spirit and a physical body. These bodies together form the soul (see D&C 88:15; Notes and Commentary on D&C 88:15.) Death separates the body and the spirit temporarily, but the Resurrection connects them inseparably. The Resurrection paves the way for a “fulness of joy” (D&C 93:33).

What we don't have here is a discussion that man is intelligence. A little earlier, in the discussion on verse 29, there is a lot said about the word intelligence and its definition - and when we look up the sources, we can see where these ideas come from:

Quote

D&C 93:29. How Is the Word Intelligence Used?

Elder John A. Widtsoe noted that “intelligence as used by Latter-day Saints has two chief meanings. … First, a man who gathers knowledge and uses it in harmony with the plan of salvation is intelligent. He has intelligence. … Second, the word when preceded by the article an, or used in the plural as intelligences, means a person, or persons, usually in the spiritual estate. Just as we speak of a person or persons, we speak of an intelligence, or intelligences.” (Evidences and Reconciliations, 3:74; see also Abraham 3:22–23.)

We know very little about the concept of intelligence. President Joseph Fielding Smith said: “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 or made. This intelligence combined with the spirit constitutes a spiritual identity or individual.” (Progress of Man, p. 11.)

Intelligences are spirits (referring back to Abraham). They are already organized. And intelligence is something eternal that becomes a part of man - when man is organized. But man (the personhood) doesn't exist as something we would identify as raw intelligence. And part of our understanding of this is the idea that intelligence changes - it grows or is reduced depending on our actions. The Widstoe quote is quite brief. He goes on to make this point more specific (and this feeds into the way that the Joseph Fielding Smith statements are usually read):

Quote

This remarkable statement [he has just quoted Abraham 3:21-23] uses the words intelligences, souls, spirits, and Abraham (a man not yet on earth) interchangeably. Thus has come the frequent use in the Church of the term intelligence, meaning usually a personage in the spirit world, who may come on earth. ... It is a basic belief of the Church that man lived as a personal being before he came on earth. He was a spirit child of God, begotten by God. His life as a spirit in the heavenly domain is often spoken of as the first estate of man. (pp. 74-75).

I want to reiterate that this is part of the challenge. This language is used interchangeably. We don't have an intelligence in Abraham 3 that is distinct from spirit. Widstoe does go on to discuss the idea of intelligence as a personal identity that is a precursor to the spirit. As he puts it: 

Quote

Many eminent and faithful students of the revealed latter-day gospel have been led by the statement in the above quoted paragraph from the Book of Abraham to consider the very beginning of man. This has led to an extension of the use of the term an intelligence. ... Under this concept, the eternal ego of man was, in some past age of the other world, dim to us, clothed with a spiritual body. That was man's spiritual birth and and his entrance into the spiritual world. Then later, on earth, if permitted to go there, he will receive a material body. (75-77)

This is the view that is being suggested here. It is interesting in some ways that this is a subject that is much better known to those of us who have been in the Church a very long time than to anyone who is young. The Church lesson manual could easily have included this sort of material in the discussion about Abraham 3 or D&C 130. But we don't get any of it because it has been excluded.

In the long run, I don't have any issues with people who speculate on this. I think in some ways, the questions are natural - precisely because our historical collection of statements are diverse and do not offer any sort of complete sense of what is going on. This whole idea of a potential pre-spirit entity leads to a very different understanding of Jeremiah 1 which ends up in a lot of discussions in early LDS literature of multiple mortal probations (a topic that also touches on Brigham Young's Adam-God theory). Included here is the idea that Outer Darkness is simply a place where man is broken back down into his eternal components, which are reused for another try. The challenge is that there is no authoritative version of any of this. Could it be accurate? Sure. Can we know if it is accurate? Not with what we currently have. And the Church seems to be distancing itself from these speculations. Perhaps this is because they aren't meaningful. Perhaps it is because it creates conflict with what is being taught. Perhaps it is because they were really dead-end theological speculations - ideas that could be drawn only from poor understanding of the text. I think it is the incompleteness and the otherness of things like this that tend to draw people in to them. They like to take these theories and build out entire cosmologies (just look at this thread). But if we cannot understand even the most basic parts of this stuff in an accurate way, the things we build on our inaccuracies are almost always going to be wrong. My beef is only with the presentation of these things as true doctrines of the LDS Church.

[the narrator]

57 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

My beef is only with the presentation of these things as true doctrines of the LDS Church.

Ben, I've enjoyed your comments and have largely agreed with them, but can you break down what you mean by "true doctrines of the LDS Church"? Are you referring to doctrines of the Church that are true (doctrines that accurately represent the actual state of things), or doctrines that are truly taught by the Church (doctrines that the Church officially teaches, regardless of whether or not they correctly represent the state of things)? Given your recognition that doctrines of the Church change and can contradict each other over time (at least I recall you recognizing this), I assume you mean the latter. If that is the case, is your concern primarily whether or not longview and others are accurately portraying official Church doctrine as it is taught today? If the you meant the former, then can you help me make sense of how you determine whether or not the doctrines are true?

[longview]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

14 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.

Your use of absolutes regarding church history is unsupportable. It undermines your credibility.

I read @Calm's link to bycommonconsent and found an interesting question in the comment section. He makes a good point:

'But doesn’t the plural use of the term “intelligences” in Abraham seem inconsistent with the idea of undifferentiated spirit element? The term “intelligences” is a strange way to refer to spirit unorganized.'

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

14 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.

But strangely enough, you stubbornly ignore President Joseph Fielding Smith's direct statement: "This intelligence combined with the spirit constitutes a spiritual identity or individual”. Terms "spiritual identity" and "individual" DOUBLES down on the personhood of sentient intelligences. ALL BEFORE the First Estate and the organization of spirit bodies.

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

Yet you continue to contradict Pres. Smith. Your historical references interpretations are mostly bogus.

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

Do you see the irony? You are using the plural form of intelligences. They are persons, self-aware, sentient and progressing.

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

You continue to disregard statements by prophets and scriptures that spirit children are indisputably "uncreated" meaning that their spirit bodies did NOT start having self-awareness in the First Estate. Preexisting intelligences came into the First Estate to gain spirit bodies. A glorious enhancement with marvelous attributes.

[the narrator]

31 minutes ago, longview said:

Preexisting intelligences came into the First Estate to gain spirit bodies.

What is a spirit body?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

So are we suggesting that truth also has agency? I think that it's a very messy proposition for us to suggest that it is literal for one and figurative for the other.

Good point.

Quote

We know, however, that there is something called intelligence which always existed. It is the real eternal part of man, which was not created or made. This intelligence combined with the spirit constitutes a spiritual identity or individual.”

Just percolating ides here, not pushing anything as truth or insight….

I think this comment can be interpreted as spirit and intelligence being equal, in the same category just as apples and oranges are fruit rather than intelligence being part of the make up of a spirit, if not all of the building elements….or something else like a process that allows the spirit to convert energy to action or still something else.

Perhaps intelligence for a spirit is similar in purpose (in scripture) to God’s breath on our physical tabernacles.  Intelligence added to our spirits made us living spirits.

Quote

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Quote

This is the view that is being suggested here. It is interesting in some ways that this is a subject that is much better known to those of us who have been in the Church a very long time than to anyone who is young. The Church lesson manual could easily have included this sort of material in the discussion about Abraham 3 or D&C 130. But we don't get any of it because it has been excluded.

This was originally taught though, right?, once upon a time in church manuals….or was it all word of mouth, added by teachers as “clarification” because that was how they were taught….because I am certain I was taught this in Primary, as in my intelligence had been clothed in a spirit, which was then clothed in a body like a hand is clothed in a glove (and this was the example used when I taught Primary in the 80’s for the spirit and physical body).  I can’t remember when I first learned and thoroughly accepted the idea of this three step process.  Only much later (30s, maybe 40s or even later did I learn some members interpreted scripture as two step as God organized our Spirits and/or adopted them as his children.

I had read some teachings that I interpreted meant intelligence was the building material for spirit, but I had just assumed that was a less common interpretation that for some reason didn’t want to see humans independent at all of God, wanted us to see God fully as our creator rather than a similar relationship to earthly parents (providing us with the ability to progress).

[Calm]

2 hours ago, longview said:

You are using the plural form of intelligences. They are persons, self-aware, sentient and progressing.

You seem to be skipping over his point:

Quote

This language is used interchangeably. We don't have an intelligence in Abraham 3 that is distinct from spirit. 

So intelligences=spirits in this verse, so they are persons, etc.

(hopefully I have this right and it will show I am actually understanding Ben’s comments and not pushing his words through my assumptions too hard)

Edited November 13, 2025 by Calm

[longview]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

What is a spirit body?

There are at least four stages of existence:

1. Intelligences - sentient beings that have never been created/organized (uncreated, have no beginnings, co-eternal with God) appearance unknown prior to the First Estate
2. Spirit Children of Heavenly Parents - The First Estate - spirit bodies formed in the image of God (human appearance) - Intelligences are given these to inhabit and acquire greater attributes
3. Mortality - The Second Estate - physical bodies formed in the womb of humans - spirit children enter into earthly babies to inhabit (Brigham Young called it the quickening) - these bodies are referred to in the scriptures as tabernacles of clay
4. Resurrection - there is a probationary state in the spirit world where spirit children go after earthly death of the physical body - after making resolution and repentance and various other preparations, spirit children are again given physical bodies "not a hair shall be lost" in an uncorrupted glorified state (referred to in the scriptures as the Three Degrees of Glory)

[longview]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

5 hours ago, longview said:

You are using the plural form of intelligences. They are persons, self-aware, sentient and progressing.

You seem to be skipping over his point:

No. This is the fulcrum of the debate.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

This language is used interchangeably. We don't have an intelligence in Abraham 3 that is distinct from spirit. 

So intelligences=spirits in this verse, so they are persons, etc.

(hopefully I have this right and it will show I am actually understanding Ben’s comments and not pushing his words through my assumptions too hard)

McGuire is insisting that the "self-awareness" began in the First Estate with the creation of spirit bodies. He has NOT explained away the implications of the plural form of intelligences. The plural form strongly assert the individuality of each self-aware intelligence (in this context referring to personhood, not attributes). See Abr 3:21 "for I (God) rule ... over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen." God interacted with all those INDIVIDUALS (like a man talking with people).

Those intelligences in whatever form they were in, can NOT have a beginning of self-awareness or sentience at ANY finite point. When Heavenly Parents formed the spirit bodies in the First Estate, those bodies had NO self-awareness. The only way to animate the spirit bodies is to insert pre-existing self-aware intelligences (that never had a beginning of self-awareness) into those spirit bodies. Those spirit bodies had a definite beginning point BUT were simply shells. This is a similar process to spirit children acquiring physical bodies in mortality, the Second Estate.

Edited November 14, 2025 by longview

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

He has NOT explained away the implications of the plural form of intelligences

How is it not explained away by saying it is interchangeable, meaning talking about the same thing as “spirits”?  Like saying water is hot or water has the temperature of 125 degrees Fahrenheit?

At least that is how I am reading him, he is saying Abraham is  not referring to the element or whatever you want to call it of intelligence here, that thing that is similar to truth, but rather it is being used in the sense it is the same as spirit (being).  There the only thing implied is what would be implied by the plural form of spirit or “spirits”.

I may be missing your point…or Ben’s for that matter, but if so perhaps where I am missing it can be pinpointed by the (for me at least) clarification that follows of both discussions, first Ben’s and then Longview’s.
 

Quote

18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, 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.

19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

20 The Lord thy God sent his angel to deliver thee from the hands of the priest of Elkenah.

21 I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to declare unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen.

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

Ben’s discussion as I understand it….

It doesn’t make sense to use the plural form in the first use of “intelligence”, “more intelligent” to make that plural (as in more intelligents); this usage is for an attribute.  And it’s an attribute of a spirit as it’s comparing two spirits, not something else called an intelligence at this point.

The second use is a variation, “intelligence” and not “intelligent”, so is describing beings.  The debate appears to be if it is describing the ones previously called spirits or a different set, possibly new beings or what longview claims, the spirits mentioned but in some previous form.  But the context is not a flashback to before they were spirits.  It’s in the same time period as when they are called spirits.  They are referred to spirits and intelligences in the same context, looks like interchangeable to me.

God says he “dwell[s] in the midst of them all“ (the “them all” being “they all” previously labeled spirit” and then adds  “in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen”.  What Abraham saw was previously referred to as spirits (I am assuming here with the use of “hast seen” that God didn’t just refer to spirits as he talked about which was “more intelligent”, but was giving visual examples like he had of the Sun, etc.).  If you disagree with this analysis that spirit and intelligence(s) are used for the same being at the same time period, where is the earlier reference to a pre spirit being, someone who is not yet a spirit?

If the “intelligences” are who God was telling Abraham about and not some new variation, they were the beings in the state he earlier labels as a spirit.

To Longview’s discussion:  I can see this following phrase as ambiguous:  “the intelligences that were organized before the world was”.  This could be read to mean intelligences that were organized into spirits before the world was” meaning first they were intelligences and then got made/organized into spirits, but the problem here is God also says “over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning”…..which seems directly connected to where God is talking before about spirits since God hasn’t talked about any other state of existence prior to saying this.  There is no separate context that makes the use of “spirit” a Part A of the conversation and “intelligences” a Part B.  It is all a discussion about one sort of type of being where God is highest among them, that are first called by God spirits and then called intelligences, just as one might first use “men” and then “males” and mean the same beings in the same state of being.  Interchangeable use then, not two different subjects even if “intelligent” is first used as an attribute for spirit.  Male can be used as an attribute though it would have come across as repetitive in the past, male men, where now it could be understood as those who socially identify as men and who are biologically male).

So it seems to me imo to mean ‘the intelligences, or in other words, the spirits that were all more or less intelligent than each other and all less intelligent than I am, that were organized before the world was’ rather than the alternative ‘intelligences that were organized into spirits before the world was’.

 Seems like this is similar to saying “I am more American than you are” and then “we are Americans”, the first use is discussing an attribute and it makes no sense to they are more Americans than you are” even if talking about a plurality, the second is a group of beings.  Or back to the male example…’He is more male than the other guy’, meaning more masculine vs “they are males”.

Usage changes over time, just as “males” and “men” were once interchangeable, they are not now.  It appears once in LDS teachings, spirit and intelligence were interchangeable, but new ideas got attached to the word “intelligence” and so it means something else, something else that can distort how scripture gets interpreted now if once assumes the current definition was also in use by Joseph.

Edited November 14, 2025 by Calm

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, longview said:

No. This is the fulcrum of the debate.

McGuire is insisting that the "self-awareness" began in the First Estate with the creation of spirit bodies. He has NOT explained away the implications of the plural form of intelligences. The plural form strongly assert the individuality of each self-aware intelligence (in this context referring to personhood, not attributes). See Abr 3:21 "for I (God) rule ... over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen." God interacted with all those INDIVIDUALS (like a man talking with people).

Those intelligences in whatever form they were in, can NOT have a beginning of self-awareness or sentience at ANY finite point. When Heavenly Parents formed the spirit bodies in the First Estate, those bodies had NO self-awareness. The only way to animate the spirit bodies is to insert pre-existing self-aware intelligences (that never had a beginning of self-awareness) into those spirit bodies. Those spirit bodies had a definite beginning point BUT were simply shells. This is a similar process to spirit children acquiring physical bodies in mortality, the Second Estate.

Excellent! The King Follett Discourse obliterates the “no individual personhood prior the first estate” narrative. The only way to escape the clearly stated revelatory disclosures of the King Follett Discourse is to simply ignore them. But even if one puts the King Follett Discourse aside, Doctrine and Covenants 93 also testifies that mankind, the intelligence that dwells within both the spirit bodies and flesh and blood bodies of each man and woman, had no beginning and will have no end. This is the beautiful “one eternal round” concept presented in the King Follett Discourse! Further, Doctrine and Covenants 93 testifies that not only is the intelligence of man eternal, without a beginning or end, but that each man always was a man from all eternity, regardless of the particular realm he or she presently inhabits. In other words, we didn’t start as intelligences that later became men, but we always were men of a race that had no beginning. Just as it is with God we are eternal, having no beginning and no end.

23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;

and… 

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.

Verse 30 reveals that truth and intelligence do not exist as amalgamated “oceans” of spiritual energy in which there is no place for individuality. Rather, uncreated truth and intelligence are spiritual oceans composed of of individual intelligences who are endowed, through the infinite and eternal atonement, to be able to think and act for themselves, and if this were not so nothing could exist. Why? Because agency is the fundamental building block of existence, and without all things (even individual atoms and subatomic particles) having the ability to think and act for themselves existence would be devoid of meaning. When the Lord turned water into wine, the atoms joyfully obeyed his command.

Edited November 14, 2025 by teddyaware

[Calm]

On 11/12/2025 at 7:02 PM, longview said:

You are seriously wrong to insist that a spirit gained his self-awareness in the First Estate.

Is there anything in scripture that requires “intelligent” to be referring to “self awareness” and not some other aspect of what we think of as the mind?  Maybe making intelligence include self-awareness is adding complications where it doesn’t actually exist.  Did Joseph ever describe the organization into an “intelligence” or “a spirit” in terms of the beginning of self awareness?

longview (and zealous and teddy iirc), could you accept “an intelligence” as identical in meaning in scripture to “a spirit” if the idea of some sort of pre-existent self awareness being existed before being organized into a spirit was not seen as contradictory or controversial, but a possibility, if speculative, iow, something that we now incorrectly and confusingly call “an intelligence” because it means something different than how Joseph used the term.

Ben, does your reading of official church doctrine prevent the possibility of prior to being organized into a spirit, there was a self aware, self existent though very limited being we might see as human or protohuman?  Not as official doctrine, but reasonable speculation?

Edited November 14, 2025 by Calm

[the narrator]

4 hours ago, longview said:

sentient beings

What is a sentient being that lacks a brain? In what way is it sentient?

4 hours ago, longview said:

appearance unknown

Unknown or incapable? Can something that cannot refract light have an "appearance"? What would it mean for it to "appear"?

4 hours ago, longview said:

Spirit Children of Heavenly Parents

What does it mean to be a spirit child of Heavenly Parents? Are you saying that embodied beings had sexual intercourse and produced non-embodied beings? If not, then what do you mean? If so, then how does a biological process produce non-biological things? Is the Heavenly Mother[s] giving birth to these one at a time? Or does it look something like this? Would you be open to the possibility of heavenly parents producing spirit babies by shooting spirit laser beams from their eyes into a pool of spiritual ectoplasm, which they stir with spirit spoons until it's thick and then shape into little human-like forms before baking them in a spirit oven like spirit gingerbread people?

4 hours ago, longview said:

spirit bodies

Again, what is a spirit body?

4 hours ago, longview said:

Intelligences are given these to inhabit

So like a ghost in a ghost in a shell? What does it mean for an "intelligence" to "inhabit" a "spirit body"?

Basically, I see you lots of words, but it doesn't seem like you've given any thought to what these words actually mean. 

Edited November 14, 2025 by the narrator

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Or does it look something like this?

My mom appealed to the image of a termite queen eternally and infinitely pregnant (yes, it was a joke…she wasn’t impressed by how most described the eternal fate of exalted women).

Edited November 14, 2025 by Calm

[longview]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

Basically, I see you lots of words, but it doesn't seem like you've given any thought to what these words actually mean.

Lets start with the basics:

Think of a baby forming in the belly of the mother after conception. Ask yourself if that baby has everything it needs to grow up to be an adult. If it does, then its brain is sufficient to deal with the challenges of life. But if the brain is NOT sophisticated enough, then it requires a spirit component to interface with the brain to be more effective.

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Is there anything in scripture that requires “intelligent” to be referring to “self awareness” and not some other aspect of what we think of as the mind?  Maybe making intelligence include self-awareness is adding complications where it doesn’t actually exist.  Did Joseph ever describe the organization into an “intelligence” or “a spirit” in terms of the beginning of self awareness?

longview (and zealous and teddy iirc), could you accept “an intelligence” as identical in meaning in scripture to “a spirit” if the idea of some sort of pre-existent self awareness being existed before being organized into a spirit was not seen as contradictory or controversial, but a possibility, if speculative, iow, something that we now incorrectly and confusingly call “an intelligence” because it means something different than how Joseph used the term.

Ben, does your reading of official church doctrine prevent the possibility of prior to being organized into a spirit, there was a self aware, self existent though very limited being we might see as human or protohuman?  Not as official doctrine, but reasonable speculation?

  If you review my comments, I have never not been open to an Oster-like understanding of the sameness of intelligence and spirit. 

  McGuire rejected the idea that I posited that we are all of the same species as God, thus gods, and we are here to prove whether we will live worthy to continue to grow in our godhood (gain more power and intelligence). 

  I currently reject his idea that at some point we were non-sentient beings with some sort of individualism. I believe we are co-eternal with God, and have existed as long as He has existed- eternally.

 

Edited November 14, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

Pulling out what I consider as key points of Ben’s

Quote

Given this, Spirits are created in a process that adds something (our spirits) to intelligence. Our post creation existence (including mortality) is a process of our increasing the intelligence (the light and knowledge of God). Our expectation is that God went through a similar process. And if intelligence is the glory of God, then exaltation is our being given that same glory (the same intelligence) that God has.

Quote

 

  On 11/11/2025 at 10:50 AM,  longview said:

Do you agree that each "intelligence" has self-awareness and has no beginning or ending (co-eternal with God)? Do you believe that there are infinite numbers of intelligences? How else will the Plan of Happiness continue with endless generations, unending Eternal Rounds?

Expand  

How would I know ... on any of these questions. These are not things on which we have authoritative statements. 

 

Quote

 

I think that there is a great deal that is unknown (and probably - at least in our current context - unknowable).

Quote

And if God is responsible for the creation of our universe, then He is responsible for all of it. There may be other universes that have been created. But, we have nothing to do with them - and at this point in time, we have no way of proving or disproving their existence. 

“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.”

To me Ben is not saying we weren’t this or that, he is saying it’s unknown.

Saying he doesn’t believe someone’s conclusion doesn’t have to mean one believes the opposite.

Edited November 14, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Saying he doesn’t believe someone’s conclusion doesn’t have to mean one believes the opposite.

And that's fine. The issue is that he treats ideas with borderline contempt and attempts to show that there is no way in God's green earth an idea he disagrees with is even possible according to "authoritative" sources. So, he may not believe the opposite, but he certainly doesn't believe the idea has any merit whatsoever.

Edited November 14, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

11 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

And that's fine. The issue is that he treats ideas with borderline contempt and attempts to show that there is no way in God's green earth an idea he disagrees with is even possible according to "authoritative" sources. So, he may not believe the opposite, but he certainly doesn't believe the idea has any merit whatsoever.

I wonder if you see longview and teddy’s comments in the same way.

I see three posters that are quite confident in their interpretations (and more than three to be blunt and just in case anyone is wondering, I include myself here when it comes to a few certain core beliefs that I do not see as speculation, but essential, but being a female of my age I learned quite young the necessity of diplomacy).

Edited November 14, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wonder if you see longview and teddy’s comments in the same way.

I see three posters that are quite confident in their interpretations (and more to be blunt and just in case anyone is wondering, I include myself here when it comes to a few certain core beliefs that I do not see as speculation, but essential, but being a female of my age I learned quite young the necessity of diplomacy).

Teddy can come off a little brash, I admit.

Longview is confident in his opinions, but more diplomatic.

But there is an air of scholarly arrogance in McGuire's posts that totally rubs me the wrong way.

[the narrator]

12 hours ago, longview said:

Ask yourself if that baby has everything it needs to grow up to be an adult.

It doesn't on its own. Two key and unique aspects of human evolution are our bipedalism and larger brain (and thus superior intellect) relative to the rest of our body. A consequence of both is that our pelvic bones are relatively smaller than most other animals and our skulls much larger. This requires human babies to be born prematurely compared to most other mammals; otherwise our developing skulls would prevent us from passing through the pelvic bone. Thankfully, in tandem with our evolutionary development, humans also developed a genetic disposition to not only care for our young for longer compared to our primate relatives but to also live in societies and, importantly, to care for our grandchildren (which makes sense--a person who is genetic inclined to love and care not only for their children but also their grandchildren are more likely to see their genes continue on).

So, in short, no, a baby does not have everything it needs to grow to be an adult. It also requires parents, a family, and a society to aid them.

Our brains our sufficiently capable of doing the rest, and any retort that you offer has to be able to explain what a spirit provides that a brain is not capable of.

Edited November 14, 2025 by the narrator

[the narrator]

12 hours ago, longview said:

Lets start with the basics:

I was really hoping you could answer my questions though.

[Stargazer]

On 11/12/2025 at 12:05 PM, 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.

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.

It does seem that we are as blind men discussing what we feel with our hands while touching an elephant.

Descartes once puzzled over the nature of his own existence, from which resulted the expression "Cogito, ergo sum." (I think, therefore I am). But this leads to the question, "Why does anything exist?" Is it all "just there"? Where does the universe come from, and where do I come from?

In his last book (posthumously published) physicist Stephen Hawking opined "I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science." Of course this flies in the face of the Law of Conservation of Mass, which states that for any system which is closed to all incoming and outgoing transfers of matter, the mass of the system must remain constant over time. This implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, contra Hawking.

If you want to blow your mind, read D&C 93:1-40 with an open heart and mind. Sometimes when reading it I get a feeling like I just jumped out of spaceship and am falling into an infinitely deep hole. Trying to comprehend it with my limited mind is a bootless exercise. But it is nevertheless a glorious experience trying to imagine what it all means. Consider these verses out of Section 93:

21 And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn;
23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

The physicists are still arguing with each other about whether the Big Bang occurred or not. Was there a beginning to all this, or was Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory right that it has always existed? If the BB is fact, where did all the matter and energy come from if as D&C 93:29 says, intelligence cannot  be created or made? And if Hoyle was right, how can the Lord say that He was there in the beginning with the Father, if there was no beginning? I must conclude that there is something beyond the universe, and something beyond the beginning. 

Hawking concluded that there is no creator God. He wrote:

"As we travel back in time towards the moment of the Big Bang, the universe gets smaller and smaller and smaller, until it finally comes to a point where the whole universe is a space so small that it is in effect a single infinitesimally small, infinitesimally dense black hole. And just as with modern-day black holes, floating around in space, the laws of nature dictate something quite extraordinary. They tell us that here too time itself must come to a stop. You can’t get to a time before the Big Bang because there was no time before the Big Bang. We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

Of course, Hawking's argument falls apart because it presents an absurdity, that of the creator creating Himself with His universe. Therefore, He exists outside the universe, and can see it all from the beginning to the end, as if it were all one to Him. 

Like I said, blind men describing an elephant.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

But there is an air of scholarly arrogance in McGuire's posts that totally rubs me the wrong way.

It may be expectations and experience. My husband being a professor, I have known a lot of professors and academics.   Ben’s comments mostly read as confidence in the content and his knowledge to me as I would expect in a college class lecture while teddy and longview come off as arrogant quite a lot because I think of conversations with them more like talking to someone at church or in a SS class and feeling I am getting lectured…which I don’t see as appropriate from someone who has no stewardship for this purpose.  I admit I value academic analysis in these conversations usually more than I value personal opinions that I have no way of knowing were inspired or misguided (unless the Spirit gets involved).  Part of that is because academic training teaches us (or should) to look critically at our own ideas and test them against not only what is already known, but others’ analyses.  It’s much harder to tell if personal opinions have been similarly tested or just based on untested, unstudied first impressions.  Bias is a problem for both, but my experience is without training to recognize bias in ourselves, more have a problem restraining it and accepting its presence in their own ideas.  Thus they talk of plain or obvious or face value meanings that aren’t actually plain or obvious or face value, but loaded with baggage.  And that reads as pretty massive arrogance to me.

It takes some work for me to try and adjust my gut reaction to that type of perceived arrogance and I am not always successful.

I should add that if an academic starts lecturing on a subject that they do not show they have studied in depth as they would their field or they also begin to talk of obvious readings, etc, I can easily switch to viewing them more like I view Sunday School lecturers and other amateurs/hobbyists while if an amateur shows an in depth familiarity with discussion surrounding a topic, I can switch into viewing them as more academic as I have a number of posters here over the years, though I will still reserve some skepticism if I am not familiar enough with the topic to tell if they are aware of the baggage surrounding it and take that into account or not.

Edited November 14, 2025 by Calm