Question on Genesis 3:16 Translation

[longview]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

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.

My next step is to examine the brain capacity of the Bee Hummingbird with the help of chatGPT:

Quote

what is the smallest bird brain? what do scientists figure are the minimum requirements for that bird's brain to carry out all the complexities and instinctive rituals for survival? The number of neurons? Or could the spiritual component that interfaces with its brain provide greater attributes?

Below is a scientifically grounded answer, followed by a theologically compatible perspective that respects LDS views about spirit/intelligence without making doctrinal claims.

---

Smallest Bird Brain (Scientifically Known)

The smallest bird brains belong to the bee hummingbirds (Mellisuga helenae), the smallest birds in the world.

Brain Size

• Brain mass: ~0.01 grams (about the size of a grain of rice)

• Body mass: ~2.0 grams

• Brain-to-body ratio: comparatively high for its tiny size

Number of Neurons

Modern neuroanatomical studies show:

• Small songbirds (zebra finch, canary, chickadee) have ~200–400 million neurons in the brain

• Hummingbirds have fewer—estimated at several tens of millions, not precisely measured but likely 20–40 million neurons

Despite the small number, hummingbirds perform:

• Complex 3D navigational mapping

• Rapid learning of flower locations

• Memory for thousands of feeding sites

• Sophisticated courtship rituals

• Precise flight control (hovering, backwards flight)

• Territorial strategy and aggression patterns

This demonstrates that many bird species can support high cognitive ability with surprisingly small brain volumes, largely because:

• Avian neurons are smaller, denser, and faster-processing than mammalian neurons.

• Birds have a different brain architecture (pallium organization) that is extremely computationally efficient.

---

Minimum Requirements for Complex Instincts?

From a scientific perspective, the “minimum requirement” appears to be:

1. Number of Neurons

At least a few tens of millions of neurons are required to support:

• Sensory processing

• Motor coordination

• Memory circuits

• Behavioral routines

• Spatial navigation

2. Structural Specialization

Even tiny bird brains have:

• Hyperpallium (similar to our cortex in function)

• Cerebellum for precision flight

• Hippocampal structures for spatial memory

• Nucleus in charge of song-learning in some species

3. Genetic & developmental “pre-wiring”

A massive portion of bird behavior (migration, nesting, courtship) is governed by:

• Genetically encoded neural circuits

• Hormonal cycles

• Environmental triggers (day length, temperature)

Scientifically, these are seen as instinctive behavioral programs built into the nervous system.

---

Is There Something “Beyond” Neurons? (Theology-Compatible View)

Science restricts itself to material processes. It does not address or deny any spiritual component.

Within LDS theology, several ideas are relevant—none of which contradict the scientific description, but extend it:

1. Intelligence or spirit as the “real” agent

Joseph Smith taught that intelligence or spirit matter is the source of:

• Agency

• Identity

• Perception

• Life force

The body (including the brain) is a vehicle, not the origin of consciousness.

2. “Spirit in the likeness of the body” (D&C 77; 131)

A bird spirit would have:

• Organization

• Form

• Instinct

• Purpose

Thus the spiritual organization provides identity and drive, while the physical brain provides mechanism and interface.

3. Brigham Young and others emphasized that spirit and body work together

The spirit:

• Receives impressions

• Encodes identity

• Uses the physical brain as a tool

The brain:

• Provides sensory access

• Executes behavior

• Coordinates biological function

4. LDS thought allows for deeper instinct than neurons alone

Under such a model:

• The spirit could carry eternal characteristics of order or instinct

• The physical brain forms connections guided in part by this spiritual template

So while the minimum neural architecture is necessary for earthly function, it is not the ultimate origin of life or instinct in an LDS worldview.

---

Synthesis

Scientifically

The smallest bird brain capable of sustaining complex life belongs to the bee hummingbird, with tens of millions of neurons arranged in an ultra-efficient architecture.

Theologically (LDS-compatible)

Neurons facilitate behavior, but do not exhaust the explanation of life, identity, or instinct.
A spirit/intelligence—eternal, organized, and inherently capable—might interface with the neural hardware to manifest the behaviors we observe in living creatures.

This allows:

• Full respect for science

• Full compatibility with LDS teachings

• No doctrinal overreach

Discuss how LDS thinkers like Nibley, Talmage, Pratt, or Widtsoe approached animal intelligence.

Below is a clean, sourced, and LDS-thought–centered expansion on how major Latter-day Saint thinkers—Hugh Nibley, James E. Talmage, Orson Pratt, John A. Widtsoe, and others—approached animal intelligence, instinct, spirit, and the relationship between physical brain and spiritual organization.

I’ve kept it strictly within what these figures actually taught (or clearly implied), avoiding speculation beyond their framework.

---

Animal Intelligence in LDS Thought

1. Hugh Nibley

Nibley consistently rejected the idea that animals are “mere automatons.”
He insisted they have:

• Spirits

• Agency appropriate to their sphere

• Awareness and perception beyond human understanding

• Instruction from pre-mortal experience

Key Themes From Nibley

a. Animals act from more than instinct
Nibley argued that so-called “instinct” is too complex to reduce to blind neural programming. He saw animal behavior as:

“perfectly adapted, perfectly coordinated actions carried out with a sureness beyond human capability.”

He frequently suggested that animals:

• obey divine law more faithfully than humans

• retain harmony between spirit and body better than humans

• possess “knowledge inherited from pre-mortal realms”

b. Spirit and body coordination
Nibley tied the astounding precision of animals—migration, navigation, sacrificial behavior, fidelity—to the spirit-body interface, not merely neurons.

---

2. James E. Talmage

In Jesus the Christ and The Articles of Faith, Talmage made several clear doctrinal points:

a. Animals possess spirits

Talmage states plainly:

• All living things have spirits created before the world.

• These spirits correspond to their physical bodies (“each after its kind”).

b. Instinct reflects pre-mortal endowment

Talmage taught that the remarkable abilities of animals are:

• partly spirit-derived intelligence

• expressed through the body “according to its capacity”

This means a bee hummingbird or a bee itself:

• has limited neural hardware

• but its spirit carries eternal identity, order, and inclination

c. Obedience and harmony

Talmage notes that animals obey divine order more consistently than humans, fulfilling the measure of their creation with exactness. Their minds operate in concert with the divine laws embedded in their spiritual nature.

---

3. Orson Pratt

Orson Pratt offered some of the most detailed early LDS philosophical reflections on spirit and intelligence.

a. Every spirit is composed of “living, thinking particles”

This is one of Pratt's most significant ideas:

• The spirit itself is a thinking, perceiving, acting organism.

• Its intelligence is inherent, not produced by the mortal brain.

b. The physical brain is an instrument of expression

Pratt explained that:

• The spirit has its own faculties

• The brain is a temporary tool allowing expression in mortality

• Differences in animal brains merely limit their outward range, not the origin of their intelligence

Meaning:
A tiny bird with a tiny brain is not limited in spiritual intelligence—only in the elaborateness of physical expression.

c. Instinct = spirit memory

Pratt taught that what humans call “instinct” is often:

“knowledge gained in the pre-mortal state.”

Thus migration patterns, nesting behavior, mating displays, and territorial strategies:

• may be spirit habits learned long before mortality

• re-expressed through physical pathways

---

4. John A. Widtsoe

Widtsoe integrated science with LDS theology more explicitly than most Apostles.

a. Animals learn, remember, and choose

Widtsoe emphasized:

• genuine learning in animals

• moral growth appropriate to their sphere

• spiritual individuality

b. Instinct is spiritual intelligence

He saw instinctive behaviors as:

• “intelligence expressed through a limited body”

• “spirit identity working through earthly conditions”

c. Brain complexity is not the source of intelligence

For Widtsoe:

• intelligence is eternal

• the brain merely channels it

• differing brain sizes produce different capacities, not intelligence itself

---

5. Other LDS figures (Joseph Fielding Smith, Brigham Young)

Joseph Fielding Smith

• All animals have spirits

• Animals will be resurrected

• Their intelligence is real, not automaton-like

Brigham Young

• The spirit forms the body

• The spiritual template is the true organizational basis

• Life is fundamentally spiritual, not biochemical

---

Synthesis: What LDS Thinkers Would Say About the Smallest Bird Brain

If you asked Nibley, Pratt, or Talmage:

“How can a bird with 20–40 million neurons perform miraculous navigation and instinctive complexity?”

Their likely unified response:

1. The spirit is the primary seat of intelligence, not the physical brain.

2. The brain is a translator, not the originator, of thought or instinct.

3. A bird's astonishing abilities arise from:

   • eternal identity

   • spiritual memory

   • pre-mortal endowment

   • divine law working through physical structures

4. Neurons set output limits, not intelligence limits.

5. The harmony of animal behavior reflects:

“the spirit acting through its natural organization without rebellion”
(a theme common to both Nibley and Talmage)

 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, longview said:

My next step is to examine the brain capacity of the Bee Hummingbird with the help of chatGPT

Do you see this ChatGPT comment as an authoritative or academic analysis?  Am wondering how you weight contributions from Chat.

[the narrator]

11 minutes ago, longview said:

My next step is to examine the brain capacity of the Bee Hummingbird with the help of chatGP

Please explain the point of that.

But before that can you please answer some of the questions I asked earlier so that I can understand what you mean by those words?

Edited November 14, 2025 by the narrator

[longview]

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you see this ChatGPT comment as an authoritative or academic analysis?  Am wondering how you weight contributions from Chat.

You are justified in having concerns. I actually did see some errors in this one but it was not too serious so that we can all gain from pondering new perspectives.

[longview]

57 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Please explain the point of that.

But before that can you please answer some of the questions I asked earlier so that I can understand what you mean by those words?

Many of your questions are TOO needle-focused for my taste. So I am sharing my thoughts by walking you thru basic steps in a progressive manner.

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, longview said:

Many of your questions are TOO needle-focused for my taste. So I am sharing my thoughts by walking you thru basic steps in a progressive manner.

It’s not basic if the words are not defined. It’s shallow. 
 

It’s not a progressive development either.  That would be starting out from a solid, well defined position and building on that.

When you don’t define words, you re asking people to guess what you mean.  This is mostly acceptable when all are familiar with words and the words are not representing complex ideas.  However, if they do represent complex ideas or ideas that are undeveloped or widely vary among individuals or groups, this is problematic.

You may have a strong sense of what a word means for you.  Assuming others share the same understanding as well when complexity and uncertainty over meanings increase is foolish and leads to miscommunication.

Edited November 14, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, longview said:

You are justified in having concerns. I actually did see some errors in this one but it was not too serious so that we can all gain from pondering new perspectives.

So you see AI as equivalent to some random guy on the internet offering different ideas? (Don’t have an issue with that, just curious)

I use ChatGPT too, so not criticizing any use.  I would never give it much weight though without doublechecking links to be sure they say what it claims they say (which they often don’t, it tells me all the time someone said something when it’s just extrapolated from my question or whatever it does) as well as having prior knowledge to be familiar enough with biases out there that might get imported into its programming.

I find it out of place in a serious discussion though a random opinion is called for.  Its use often comes across like someone is trying to appear educated when they don’t have a clue or are too lazy to do the work themselves.  Better not to contribute, imo. (Saying this as I just used it to research a response to Pyreaux in a topic I was clueless on, but I did admit to being clueless and rather than an analysis, I was looking for examples of behavior I suspected were out there…and they were…allegedly).

I find it useful as a research tool getting me started with links and using it when I am too lazy or unable to do the work myself but feel the need to respond quickly or just want to throw something on the page to show I registered their comments and was thinking about it…and I realize using AI to show I am thinking about something is the opposite of what I should do.

Edited November 14, 2025 by Calm

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, the narrator said:

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?

Hmmm. Interesting idea, but it seems like the blind men trying to describe an elephant again.

Imagine a four year old girl being told that her mommy is going to have a baby brother or sister, and then she observes mommy's tummy getting bigger and bigger until mommy goes to the hospital and brings home a new baby. Does the little girl have the first clue how that baby got into mommy's tummy? I hope the hell not, but here we are, far less conscious in comparison to our heavenly parents than the little girl is compared to her parents, and we're coming up with utterly ridiculous ideas as to how the spirit baby got into Heaven Mother's tummy. I know you're being facetious, but come on...

We don't have an inkling of a vanishing of a thought about what kind of process is involved here. If you've read the Ender's Game series written by Orson Scott Card, the author posits a process whereby a pre-existing aiúa (or soul) automatically enters the brain (or brain analog in the case of the network ansible entity called Jane) once the brain becomes capable of housing it. That's probably a load of hogwash, too, but it's better hogwash than yours. 🙂 

I'm going to go out on a limb and tell about an experience I had many years ago. 

In the event, we were in the third hour of a ward conference, my wife and I were sitting way in the back in the cultural hall overflow (because we got there late-ish). The second counselor in the stake presidency was addressing the adults of the ward about some topic, I've since forgotten which, when I suddenly got the distinct impression that he was going to call me up to offer my thoughts on it. I didn't think about it at the time, but in hindsight I have to say that this was highly unusual for him; I had known him for over twenty years and when he had been in leadership positions, including as our ward bishop I had never seen him ever do anything of the sort like that. Whatever, and I'm always up for jumping in when asked, so I started marshalling some thoughts about the topic he had been discussing so that I didn't end up standing up there going "Duh...."  

And then nothing happened. He didn't call on anyone. I'll admit to some disappointment, since I actually enjoy contributing like that in meetings (usually). I shrugged mentally and figured it must have been my overactive imagination. After the meeting I chanced to meet him in the hallway, and we got into a brief conversation during which he told me that during his talk he had considered calling on me to offer my thoughts on the subject, but decided to spare me! He seemed embarrassed when I told him that I had got the message and was getting ready to follow through, so he should have called on me! 

Now, I ask you, was it ESP, or was it the Holy Ghost? Was my brain tuned into his brain, was it something entirely out of body? 

And in a similar vein I offer the following, which is just 6 minutes long that I extracted from a talk by Dan Peterson at a FAIR Conference. Whatcha think, boss?

 

[longview]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I find it useful as a research tool getting me started with links and using it when I am too lazy or unable to do the work myself but feel the need to respond quickly or just want to throw something on the page to show I registered their comments and was thinking about it…and I realize using AI to show I am thinking about something is the opposite of what I should do.

I used it for illustrative purposes. I was letting @the narrator know of the wonders of nature. Such as the amazingly small size of the brain of the Bee Hummingbird (size of a grain of rice) but very capable of doing complex things with many wonderful attributes. This was in line with the discussion on the spirit body taking possession of "clay tabernacles."

4 hours ago, Calm said:

It’s not a progressive development either.  That would be starting out from a solid, well defined position and building on that.

I believe it is. I was following up on the spirit/body enhancements and providing additional evidence of spiritual "self-awareness" with marvelous new layers of attributes.

[The_Monk]

On 11/8/2025 at 7:26 PM, bluebell said:

Calling all bible scholars!

Genesis 3:16 says in part that Adam would rule over Eve.  

In an article for the Ensign in 2013 Valerie M. Hudson (Professor of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University) and Richard B. Miller "Professor of Family Life at Brigham Young University" stated about this verse:

“Genesis 3:16 states that Adam is to ‘rule over’ Eve, but this doesn’t make Adam a dictator. … Over in ‘rule over’ uses the Hebrew bet, which means ruling ‘with,’ not ruling ‘over.’ …

Can anyone confirm that statement about the Hebrew word they claim is being used, and what it means?

I wrote about this here. Even had an email exchange with Hudson, who dismissed my argument. 
 

https://faithpromotingrumor.com/2007/08/08/playing-fast-and-loose/

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, The_Monk said:

Hudson, who dismissed my argument.

That is unfortunate.  On what grounds?

[the narrator]

On 11/14/2025 at 5:46 PM, longview said:

I used it for illustrative purposes. I was letting @the narrator know of the wonders of nature. Such as the amazingly small size of the brain of the Bee Hummingbird (size of a grain of rice) but very capable of doing complex things with many wonderful attributes.

So you appeal to small brains being able to do tremendous things as evidence that larger human brains need spirits? I am so confused.

This conversation would benefit from you explaining what you mean by the words you are using. I'm starting to suspect though that maybe you are realizing that you've just been repeating religious slogans in a catechistic manner without actually knowing what you are saying (which I think is the case for most Latter-day Saints).

Edited November 16, 2025 by the narrator

[longview]

8 hours ago, the narrator said:

So you appeal to small brains being able to do tremendous things as evidence that larger human brains need spirits? I am so confused.

That the spiritual being with its self-awareness and amazing capacity and marvelous attributes enables the physical body to perform so much better than its corresponding brain neurons would suggest. Don't you think?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, longview said:

That the spiritual being with its self-awareness and amazing capacity and marvelous attributes enables the physical body to perform so much better than its corresponding brain neurons would suggest. Don't you think?

So you are suggesting that it is impossible that the bee hummingbird could function as it does if there was no spirit adding to its brain function….and the evidence is its functioning?

I believe that’s circular reasoning, a logic fallacy.

Did you ask AI if a spirit was required because it seems to present the idea that even that small brain is sufficient enough not because it functions, but because of identified physical structures…as in sufficient numbers of neurons; efficient, specialized brain structures; and preprogramming so flexible thought, which would have to be able to explore possibilities is not necessary? Sounds like it’s pretty plug and play, not much circuitry needing to be dedicated to learning.

Quote

• Avian neurons are smaller, denser, and faster-processing than mammalian neurons.

• Birds have a different brain architecture (pallium organization) that is extremely computationally efficient.

---

Minimum Requirements for Complex Instincts?

From a scientific perspective, the “minimum requirement” appears to be:

1. Number of Neurons

At least a few tens of millions of neurons are required to support:

• Sensory processing

• Motor coordination

• Memory circuits

• Behavioral routines

• Spatial navigation

2. Structural Specialization

Even tiny bird brains have:

• Hyperpallium (similar to our cortex in function)

• Cerebellum for precision flight

• Hippocampal structures for spatial memory

• Nucleus in charge of song-learning in some species

3. Genetic & developmental “pre-wiring”

A massive portion of bird behavior (migration, nesting, courtship) is governed by:

• Genetically encoded neural circuits

• Hormonal cycles

• Environmental triggers (day length, temperature)

 

Edited November 17, 2025 by Calm

[the narrator]

12 hours ago, longview said:

That the spiritual being with its self-awareness and amazing capacity and marvelous attributes enables the physical body to perform so much better than its corresponding brain neurons would suggest. Don't you think?

No. And you've offered zero reason to think so. To the contrary, you've just shown that even the smallest of brains are capable of amazing things.

This conversation would be much better if you could first answer the questions I asked earlier so I can understand what you mean by the words you are using.

[longview]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

So you are suggesting that it is impossible that the bee hummingbird could function as it does if there was no spirit adding to its brain function….and the evidence is its functioning?

I believe that’s circular reasoning, a logic fallacy.

I did not use the word impossible. I can break this down into parts:

1. sufficient number of brain neurons for foraging for food, fighting for survival, seeking shelter, finding a mate for reproduction, "automatic" body/organ functions, etc
2. how many  more neurons does it take a creature to plan and prioritize any of the above activities?
3. how much more massive the brain does it take for having "self-awareness" and expressing "feelings"?

We know that animals are self-aware and DO display feelings and loyalty for their human care-givers. Dogs are known to have deep feelings of sorrow at the passing of their masters and even lie on the grave. My contention is that NO amount of neurons can account for any creatures' self-awareness. The brain by necessity has to interface with a sentient spirit component.

I had a fascinating experience many years ago when my children bought home a hamster and a ferret. One child placed the ferret in front of the hamster. The hamster fell back with wide-eyed fear and horror. It was shaking and after about 5 seconds it let out a scream of abject despair. (no worry, the ferret did not attack). This to me is overwhelming evidence of the hamster's feelings and self-awareness. Nothing "circular" about that!

I had a 30 year career in building and maintaining complex business systems. So I naturally have a great awareness of the requirements of computer modules and programming. The DNA strands are powerful evidence of the "MIND of the designer" with its cellular machinery so astonishing that more evolutionists are conceding that "random" developments cannot account for the complex to arise from the simple. The philosopher Stephen Meyer has made many excellent presentations for intelligent design.

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Did you ask AI if a spirit was required because it seems to present the idea that even that small brain is sufficient enough not because it functions, but because of identified physical structures…as in sufficient numbers of neurons; efficient, specialized brain structures; and preprogramming so flexible thought, which would have to be able to explore possibilities is not necessary? Sounds like it’s pretty plug and play, not much circuitry needing to be dedicated to learning.

Yes I did. Please reference my last 3 postings of AI. One brought in the LDS church perspectives even though I did NOT ask it to. It seems it remembers my previous questions from weeks past involving the church.

7 hours ago, the narrator said:

No. And you've offered zero reason to think so. To the contrary, you've just shown that even the smallest of brains are capable of amazing things.

They are amazing. However, there is a MASSIVE "gulf" between physical attributes and the inexplicable "uncreated" self-awareness.

7 hours ago, the narrator said:

This conversation would be much better if you could first answer the questions I asked earlier so I can understand what you mean by the words you are using.

I am not interested in "straining at a gnat." Some of your questions are TOO atomistic for my taste.

Edited November 17, 2025 by longview

[the narrator]

4 minutes ago, longview said:

They are amazing. However, there is a MASSIVE "gulf" between physical attributes and the inexplicable "uncreated" self-awareness.

Because you said so? What is the "gulf"--especially a MASSIVE one? What does the spirit offer a hummingbird (or human) that it's brain cannot?

5 minutes ago, longview said:

I am not interested in "straining at a gnat." Some of your questions are TOO atomistic for my taste.

This isn't straining at a gnat. It's asking for a description of what you mean by the words. Rather than a gnat, I'm straining for an ostrich here, but I'm just getting air.

As I've been saying, you seem to be making it clear that you have just been repeating slogans your whole life without asking what sense or meaning those slogans have, and you're definitely not offering any evidence to the contrary.

[the narrator]

11 minutes ago, longview said:

My contention is that NO amount of neurons can account for any creatures' self-awareness. The brain has to interface with the sentient spirit component.

Since we're apparently playing God here and creating reality through our words, my contention is that you owe me $50.

Quote

It seems it remembers my previous questions from weeks past.

Is this evidence that ChatGPT has a spirit?

Edited November 17, 2025 by the narrator

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, longview said:

My contention is that NO amount of neurons can account for any creatures' self-awareness. The brain by necessity has to interface with a sentient spirit component.

So an expression of faith rather than you trying to prove anything here?

(this is my position, so I may be projecting)

Edited November 18, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

I'm straining for an ostrich here

I would say an elephant.  Definitions are the foundation of complex discussions, but are too often ignored as if unnecessary because we act as if we can mind read each other or ‘of course, everyone understands the words like I do’ because of assuming that everyone responds to the same stimuli in the same way…which is false.

There’s this FB dad who shares conversations with his kids he feels lost in and then he shares how he finally figures out what they are talking about because he follows the connection they made.

They took their 3? year old to the zoo for the first time and the kid was entranced, went up to each enclosure and said “peekaboo”…for every animal.  Dad couldn’t figure out why until it dawned on him that the kid thought they were talking to the animals.  Doublechecked with the kid.  Yep, the giraffe, the monkeys, the bears, etc all say peekaboo according to the kid.  Somehow the kid thought all the animals’ language was “peekaboo”, instead of the more typical “moo, baa, la la la”….

Later that night (possibly in the middle of his sleep, could be mixing it up with another such story) it struck him like a bolt.  They have a lift the flap board book the dad used to read to the kid over and over where the animals are playing peekaboo.  So the kid assumed that was all the animals say.  The kid made connections not intended by the author or the dad when reading to them.

My kid would hold hands for awhile because he thought his hands would pop off if we pulled too hard just like a toy he had.

These mistaken interpretations are easy to uncover.  More subtle ones, the nuances, complex ideas…those too often go undiscovered unless one really makes an effort to define one’s words.

Edited November 18, 2025 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 11/13/2025 at 12:06 PM, the narrator said:

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?

I'm sorry about the delay.

My general concern is the recognition that the LDS Church has issues authoritative material (with the imprimatur of the Church) in which it defines LDS doctrine/theology.

As with any religious organization, more recent statements take precedence over older material.

The caveat to that might be the fact that Mormonism holds its authoritative material in a hierarchy of sorts. However, I would also say that this hierarchy is flexible through an interpretive mechanism. Canon is higher than just about anything. But, since canon has to be interpreted, interpretation tends to redefine canon at the top of the hierarchy. Interpretations change from time to time.

The problem that has been occurring here in this forum is that we have a lot of speculative ideas being presented as doctrine. Consider the thread about Moses 7 where @teddyaware made this comment:

On 10/10/2025 at 1:45 PM, teddyaware said:

Doctrine and Covenants 93 makes it perfectly clear that all intelligences, no matter how advanced in knowledge or rudimentary they might be, have agency. The inherent agency and preservation of the agency of all intelligences is so indispensably important that there is no point to existence unless intelligences have agency. A question: What would be the point of God creating humanoid automatons who can’t think and decide for themselves? The fact that God allowed fallen Lucifer and the tree of the knowledge to be and exist in Eden prior to fall bespeaks to the importance of the inviolability of agency in the mind of God. The following verse plainly reveals that without the agency of all intelligences there would have been no rational reason for the creation. After reading and digesting this post, there should be no reason for you to continue asking the same question about agency…

Here we have an assertion that D&C 93 speaks of intelligences (as proto-spirits) being individual persons, having agency, and so on. This isn't LDS doctrine. It occurs in no official doctrinal source. It is contradicted in current LDS material (with the Church's imprimatur) which insists that intelligence here is just another word for spirit. It doesn't represent some proto-spirit. This isn't limited to Teddy. Others are taking up this point as well - but this isn't LDS doctrine. It is a well known line of LDS speculation - although I would suggest that it is better known to those of us that are older because the LDS Church has been excluding this idea and putting in information that contradicts this idea much more frequently in recent years. Marineland asked (in that thread that I quoted Teddy from) whether or not intelligences had agency. It is clear (at least to me) that this is not a question that is answered in any authoritative LDS source. Instead, we generally get appeals to the KFD, to the JoD, and other LDS sources where citations are cherry picked and where this selective use of historical quotes is used to create a narrative that doesn't really represent the context of those speeches but the context that occurs in the first half of the 20th century when these kinds of speculations were frequent. Part of what I mean by that is also the fact that much of these speculations resulted in early LDS ideas that Teddy and the others would not accept. The idea that since intelligence (in this sense) is uncreated, that when someone fails in their mortal probation, that their spiritual body is allowed to decay back into that pre-existing intelligence, from whence it is chosen again, and given a new spirit body and repeats the process (until it gets it right). The issue is that we have (as an LDS community) created a lot of speculations over time - and lots of them have been rejected. This idea of pre-existent self-willed, intelligences that would become spirits is one of these speculations that seems to have been rejected. It is understandable why someone like @marineland would have these questions given what the Church actually teaches compared to what is being explained here.

So, I generally let the Church determine what is official doctrine. I do this by citing current material published by the LDS Church - material that has gone through the correlation process, which they give the Church's imprimatur to. The rest is interesting - from the perspective of historical context. I think that it is important, for example, to understand how Joseph Smith uses the word "intelligence" in Abraham and in D&C 93. That historical context is quite different from what is suggested in these threads. But, if we are discussing the doctrine of the Church today, and we privilege our interpretations of the past over the current publications, we are going to present something that isn't actually a doctrinal position of the Church today.

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 11/13/2025 at 2:11 PM, longview said:

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

It is supportable. I have every expectation that my understanding of the Church history is better than yours. And I believe that I have at least some credentials to back that up.

On 11/13/2025 at 2:11 PM, longview said:

'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.'

No. It is widely believed that this use of "intelligences" in Abraham is a word that is synonymous with our word "spirits" today. In other words, in Abraham (which is still considered part of the formative period of our theology of the pre-existence). It isn't referring to an unorganized spirit - but to organized spirits. And of those organized spirits that Abraham is shown, the spirits all have different levels of light and truth (or glory or intelligence or whatever adjective you want to use). But they are still spirits. This is not a view of something prior to that spiritual estate - it is a view of the pre-existent spirit world where Abraham is being shown the spirit children of God. I think you are reading my use of these terms backwards. The Book of Abraham doesn't refer to intelligence in any pre-spirit creation context. There is no "unorganized intelligence" in Abraham (and it would be potentially undifferentiated intelligence at that).

On 11/13/2025 at 2:11 PM, longview said:

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.

I have a few points to make.

First, I am not ignoring it. I am arguing that President Joseph Fielding Smith is not making the claim that intelligence is the source of spiritual identity or individual. Spiritual identity or individual begins only when intelligence is combined with spirit. What this statement does not provide is the claim that there is an individual and identity that exists as intelligence that, when combined with spirit, become a spiritual identity. Second, Joseph Fielding Smith doesn't ever claim that this is all occurring before the First Estate. He actually repeats this idea of what man is several times in that section of his book (which I admit might be hard to read if you are just using what gets frequently quoted):

From the same section, where he starts by quoting the Book of Abraham:

Quote

And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth; And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. Abraham declares:

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; 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.

Intelligence Not Created. The Latter - day Saints believe that man is a spirit clothed with a tabernacle of flesh and bones, the intelligent part of which was never created or made, but existed eternally. This belief is based upon a revelation given to the Church, May 6, 1833, at Kirtland, Ohio. In this revelation the Lord declared:

Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. * * For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; and when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy. 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. Man The Offspring of God. The spirit of man, then, is a combination of the intelligence and the spirit which is an entity begotten of God.

Man is not an intelligence wrapped in a spiritual body. Man is a spirit. And here, despite all of the efforts made to try and differentiate between intelligence as some self-aware personal entity and intelligence as the light of truth (the glory of God), President Joseph Fielding Smith pulls them back together. It is this intelligence (the light of truth) that is eternal and not created. They are not, in Joseph Fielding Smith's understanding, separate ideas. It is this eternal light and truth that is introduced into the spirit bodies of men that gives them the capacity for eternal progression.

Second point - Joseph Fielding Smith published this material almost a decade before becoming the President of the LDS Church.

Third point - Joseph Fielding Smith's material has never been recognized as authoritative. It was not published withe the imprimatur of the LDS Church. 

All of these points challenge your assertion that you are somehow representing "President Joseph Fielding Smith's direct statement" accurately.

On 11/13/2025 at 2:11 PM, longview said:

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

Yet, it seems to me that you are contradicting Pres. Smith here. I think that my historical interpretations are much closer to the historical reality.

On 11/13/2025 at 2:11 PM, longview said:

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

No, I don't. I am using the term "intelligences" as it was historically used - interchangeably with what we now exclusively call spirits. Spirits are persons, self-aware, sentient and progressing.

You can keep arguing until you are blue in the face - but there is nothing in authoritative LDS sources which makes the claims that you are making. You are repeating a historically popular speculation, but it is nothing more than speculation, and current LDS teachings are distancing the Church's theology from that speculation.

[ZealouslyStriving]

22 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I have every expectation that my understanding of the Church history is better than yours. And I believe that I have at least some credentials to back that up

@Calm

The above is what I was referring to in our former conversation from a few days ago concerning scholarly arrogance.

I can't take such pomposity seriously.

🤷🏻‍♂️

[marineland]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

So, I generally let the Church determine what is official doctrine. I do this by citing current material published by the LDS Church - material that has gone through the correlation process, which they give the Church's imprimatur to. The rest is interesting - from the perspective of historical context. I think that it is important, for example, to understand how Joseph Smith uses the word "intelligence" in Abraham and in D&C 93. That historical context is quite different from what is suggested in these threads. But, if we are discussing the doctrine of the Church today, and we privilege our interpretations of the past over the current publications, we are going to present something that isn't actually a doctrinal position of the Church today.

One could make the same claim for the church in the past - which went through its
own correlation process in publications and General Conference talks.

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 11/13/2025 at 4:37 PM, Calm said:

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).

It was taught. There is a section of B.H. Roberts' book New Witness for God which refers to this. It was included in the Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association manual (YMMIA 2:390–91) - it was challenged and later publications dropped this on theological grounds. There is a fascinating history here. In an editorial in the May 1906 Improvement Era, the editors promised that B.H. Roberts would be publishing an article soon on the immortality of the soul. It didn't happen. We understand why from the historical record. A.L. McDermott had written to James Talmage about his concerns over the YMMIA manual material. Elder Tamage had added some additional concerns and sent both along to President Joseph F. Smith. Additionally there were concerns discussed about a book on the subject by L.A.Wilson. Wilson took the whole thing a different way - but in some ways dealt with the similar issues raised on this thread. Wilson argued that if intelligence represented individuals, then of necessity there must be only a finite number of individuals possible. In 1907, B.H. Roberts published his article ("The Immortality of Man") in the Improvement Era, but included a statement that this article was his own opinion:

Quote

Undoubtedly, if the Lord has anything further just now to reveal to the Church upon that or any other subject, it will, of course, be revealed through the person referred to in the above quotation, the President of the Church. My purpose in mentioning the foregoing remark at this point is that I may correct any idea that may be entertained by anyone, and in howsoever slight degree, that what I have written, or what I shall now write, on this or any other subject, is given out as the doctrine of the Church. I am in no way deluded with the idea that my writings are setting forth in any authoritative way the doctrines of the Church. What I have written, what I shall write, are my views of the doctrine of the Church; and it is of value as instruction in, and exposition of, the truth, only in so far as it is in harmony with what God has deemed wise to reveal on the various subjects treated.

And in that article, he raises the 6 major objections to the theory that has already been expressed:

1 - That the pre-existence of the spirit is considered to be co-eternal with God.

2 - The problem that exists over why we are all so far behind God in our progress if we have all existed for the same time frame

3 - This one is interesting enough relevant to the discussion here that it's worth repeating (so we can see that none of these discussions is really new): "Third, the Manual doctrine of immortality must lead to the idea that the number of intelligences that could eventually become human beings, must be limited, that is, all that can ever come into existence as human beings already exist, and have always existed, and when they have all concluded (if they have not already done so) to progress by obeying law, then there will be an end to creation; to the works (new works) of God." What makes this interesting is that if you take the other side of this, that there are infinite intelligences, then we have an opposite problem where some intelligences never gain a spiritual body.

4 - Roberts recognizes that this idea creates a problem for the widely taught belief that our progression had a starting point in the past, even if it continues through an eternity in the future.

5 - (It's hard to paraphrase this one): "Fifth, 'in order to verify the claim that the hymn, ‘O My Father’ was inspired (and I have often heard this statement made by those in responsible positions in the Church), we must understand that, as in the formation of the human body, in the creation of the spirit, the union of the life of two individuals of (in certain respects) opposite or complementary qualifications (sex) is absolutely necessary. If an individual cannot be produced without the union of two other separate individuals, I do not see how we can deny the beginning of the begotten individual. If we believe in the eternal increase that the faithful are promised, we can hardly accept the theory that the spiritual children promised are already existent, and independent of our salvation as they would, in justice, have to be.'"

6 - "Sixth, it is tentatively suggested as a counter theory to the Manual theory, by the objectors quoted above, 'that the life of the parent is imparted to the offspring, and that while it is still a part of the same life or spirit of the parent, and as such did not have a beginning at the time of birth, yet as a separate individual it did have a beginning at the time of birth or conception.” This is thought to be a solution of spirit existence “both reasonable, and more in accordance with the apparent, plain meaning of many passages both of ancient and modern scripture.'"

B.H. Roberts also published his view in 1910 in the 4th year of the Seventy's manual which he wrote, along with another Article in the Improvement Era. However, that is generally the end. In 1911, when he went to publish another article, it was opposed by President Penrose (First Presidency) and it was only allowed to be published with the material on eternal self-existent entities removed. In 1914, the First Presidency stopped the publication of a priesthood manual written by Elder John Widstoe for material on the same topic. A less dogmatic version was eventually allowed to be printed in his book A Rational Theology. 

In 1918, President Charles Penrose concluded a talk he was giving with this statement:

Quote

Now don’t confound, as some of our brethren have done, the expression “intelligences,” referring to individual spirits, and that intelligence that is an attribute of those spirits, “that never was created, neither indeed can be.” What is that uncreated intelligence? Why it is “the light of truth... It always existed and always will persist. . . Intelligences . . . had a beginning when they were born of God as the sons or daughters of God

In the same time frame, Elder James Talmage started to get involved in the discussion. In a Liahona article (7/16/1918), he described the four stages of man as a (1) a disembodied state, (2) an embodied state, (3) a disembodied state, and (4) an embodied state. That first state, he argued was when 
The Spirit lived as an organized intelligence before it became the embodied child of human parents".

More recently, in a letter from Elder McConkie to Walter Home, he wrote (1974):

Quote

I do know that this matter has arisen perhaps six or eight times in the years that I have been here and have been involved in reading and approving priesthood and auxiliary lessons. In each of these instances, the matter was ordered deleted from the lesson. In each case it was expressly stated that we have no knowledge of any existence earlier than our existence as the spirit children of God. The views in this field were described as pure speculation. President Joseph Fielding Smith personally, on more than one occasion, directed this material not be published and said that he did not believe it, and of course . . . I do not believe it either.

Clarifying his view, he wrote this in Mormon Doctrine:

Quote

Intelligence or spirit element became intelligences after the spirits were born as individual entities. Use of this name designates both the primal element from which the spirit offspring were created and also their inherited capacity to grow in grace . . .

At any rate, there is a brief window when it shows up in lesson manuals (the first decade of the twentieth century) primarily as expressed by B.H. Roberts and John Widstoe. But in the century plus since then, it has been carefully kept out. And while there is some ambiguity that could be read into the early sources, the LDS Church's position currently does not recognize this speculation. (It doesn't say that it couldn't have happened - it just continues to argue that the ambiguity is not strong enough to warrant such an interpretation and has instead chosen to only represent what they see as being on stronger theological footing).

There is no question that this speculation has been popular in the Church and has had proponents in the leadership. I personally think that we (as a Church) lose something in that we now hide these disagreements among the leadership. If this had been a more open discussion (much like the questions of evolution and pre-Adamites and all that) then there would be far less difficulty with this sort of thing. We would all recognize that there was speculation and that the Church was authorizing one particular narrative over another. Further, the Church's position here has been more of a 'we will allow it to die away on its own' sort of thing - and I think that in a convert Church where the speculation is effectively suppressed in authoritative contexts, it will eventually succeed.