Intelligences Tabernacled with Spirits

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I have been asked to substitute EQ tomorrow. The talk is Elder Richard G. Scott's April 2010 Sunday Morning General Conference talk "He Lives! All Glory to His Name!"

In the second paragraph, I came across an interesting statement he made. Was it a mistake? Was it doctrine not taught? Does it make sense? I think it's an interesting concept, one I have had before, but that he succinctly (whether intentionally or not) sums it up.

What eternal purpose would have come from the Creation of the earth, where intelligences tabernacled with spirits would receive a body, if death were the end of existence and none would be resurrected?

[elguanteloko]

I have been asked to substitute EQ tomorrow. The talk is Elder Richard G. Scott's April 2010 Sunday Morning General Conference talk "He Lives! All Glory to His Name!"

In the second paragraph, I came across an interesting statement he made. Was it a mistake? Was it doctrine not taught? Does it make sense? I think it's an interesting concept, one I have had before, but that he succinctly (whether intentionally or not) sums it up.

As I learned it we are intelligences in a spiritual body in a physical body. From the "Guide to the Scriptures" in scriptures.lds.org:

The scriptures also may speak of intelligence as referring to the spirit element that existed before we were begotten as spirit children.

[cdowis]

What eternal purpose would have come from the Creation of the earth, where intelligences tabernacled with spirits would receive a body, if death were the end of existence and none would be resurrected?

This is standard LDS doctrine -- the progression from intelligence to spirit (tabernacle or body) to physical body. Then comes the resurrection.

Nothing here that is outside conventional doctrine.

[BCSpace]

This is standard LDS doctrine -- the progression from intelligence to spirit (tabernacle or body) to physical body. Then comes the resurrection.

Nothing here that is outside conventional doctrine.

Abraham 3:22-23 could certainly be interpreted that way, but that's canon. What's your doctrinal reference?

[Nofear]

Well, you've already given your elders quorum lesson but these are my thoughts:

A) Some component part of us has always existed.

B) God begat us -- organized for us a body of spirit matter.

C) Our body of spirit matter came and inhabited a body of physical matter.

It is frequently assumed that A) is spirit matter just as B) is. But, we have no theological imperative to do so. Until I have a good reason to assume otherwise, I'm assuming that A) is "intelligent matter" (and believe I have good reason to assume that it is not the same).

This in my view, our present state a tri-part condition: intelligent matter, spirit matter, and physical matter.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

This is standard LDS doctrine -- the progression from intelligence to spirit (tabernacle or body) to physical body. Then comes the resurrection.

Nothing here that is outside conventional doctrine.

Actually, it's not. I have umpteen quotes from Apostles and Prophets with opposing views, some a form of tripartite existence, others that "spirit is light is truth is intelligence" etc so spirit and intelligence are the same thing and we weren't really "born", but organized by our Father in Heaven, and the third (and most valid view) that we just don't know.

I found it interesting because the subject has not been broached by an apostle in conference for a long long time. I think he is right, but it is not canonized doctrine. As I said, I've heard it before, but he said it succinctly and completely nonchalant. I don't think he meant it to be anything other than common knowledge. But perhaps not, perhaps he was aware of the controversy and was subtly moving the church towards the right direction. Who knows. I'll find out in the next life if I think it even matters to ask (which I doubt I will).

And no, I didn't bring it up in the lesson. I focused on Elder Scott's completely overlooked challenge to everyone in conference to create a personal study plan on the atonement. I reference him talking about the "swelling tide of abomination" that we must be prepared to face, and that simply studying the scriptures on the atonement is not enough. It was one of the more powerful lessons I've ever given, very deep and impactful. At least, it's had a big impact on me.:-)

[cdowis]

Abraham 3:22-23 could certainly be interpreted that way, but that's canon. What's your doctrinal reference?

Huh? The scriptures are not a doctrinal reference? You brain somehow has put a wall between canon and a "doctrinal reference".

Amazing.

I'm afraid I am unable to help you there.

[cdowis]

Actually, it's not. I have umpteen quotes from Apostles and Prophets with opposing views, some a form of tripartite existence, others that "spirit is light is truth is intelligence" etc so spirit and intelligence are the same thing and we weren't really "born", but organized by our Father in Heaven, and the third (and most valid view) that we just don't know.

This is an apologetic forum, not a Sunday School class. Just a suggestion, don't get mixed up over the terms spirit, light and intelligence when it comes to the pre-existence. You need to learn how to separate out different concepts even though they use the same words. Don't confuse, for example, the Holy Spirit, Light of Christ, and the governing power of the universe with individual intelligences and spirit bodies.

It can be confusing if you are not careful. Basically trust Elder Scott that he knows what he is talking about, and try to humble yourself and become teachable.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

cdowis: I am not confused in the slightest. I am quite aware of the differences between spirit and Spirit and Holy Spirit and Spirit of Christ and etc. etc. My point, repeated for a third time, is that other Apostles have said something different. Again, I

agree

with Elder Scott. I have no idea why you implied I have a Sunday School understanding of these items (if that even means anything). I have been participating here since the year 2000, am a pundit, read and write biblical Hebrew, etc. etc. etc. To say I need to humble myself and trust Elder Scott (which I do) when other Apostles have stated differently while expressly addressing the matter, implies you did not fully catch what I was saying.

Thank you however for participating in the discussion.

[Jason]

I think he was saying that other apostles have not in fact contradicted Elder Scott's points - and that when they seem to they were using different meanings for intelligence, light, truth, etc.

As cdowis points out, the same words are used for different concepts in different contexts.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Possible Jason that is what cdowis meant. However, it is clearly not what was being addressed in other quotes. I'll see if I can dig them out of my notes tomorrow or Wednesday.

[daz2]

Elder McConkie was one who opposed the tri-partite theory, at least to the extent it implies that prior to spirit "birth" we were individual intelligences with agency.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism states:

"While the revelations leave no doubt as to the existence of intelligent matter prior to its being organized as spirits, speculation sometimes arises regarding the nature of premortal existence and whether there was individual identity and consciousness prior to birth as a spirit. Some hold that the terms "intelligence" and "intelligences" have reference to a form of prespirit conscious self-existence, which included individual identity, variety, and agency (so reasoned B. H. Roberts, pp. 401-423). Others maintain that while these characteristics, attributes, and conditions are eternal, they essentially came together for each individual at the spirit birth."

[Nofear]

Elder McConkie was one who opposed the tri-partite theory, at least to the extent it implies that prior to spirit "birth" we were individual intelligences with agency.

I would maintain that anything which extends to the infinite past and is uncreate is also simple (meaning that it has no parts and is indivisible). I can think of no way for a fundamental, simple object to engage in behavior we'd call "intelligent". Intelligent behavior requires at least some information regarding the present and the past. But, a simple entity, being simple, is incapable of storing past information (i.e. it has no memory). For such an simple, uncreate agent to make "intelligent" behavior, it would somehow have to access externally stored information -- which I suggest is precisely what our spirit body does for the object. That is, I believe that our fundamental core (seat of consciousness if you will) has always existed but that it only became "intelligent" when it was bound to a spirit body. So, in this sense I agree with Elder McConkie.

But my materialist/physicalist leanings have me say that our uncreate, simple, core component of identity is material. But my libertarian belief in free will demands that this material have indeterministic capability. I have no reason to extend indeterminism to every particle of the spirit matter that constitutes my spirit body and so I posit a third type of matter -- intelligent matter to serve that role. But this matter would only be conscious/intelligent when coupled with a machine (i.e. body) to gather and store information.

[BCSpace]

Abraham 3:22-23 could certainly be interpreted that way, but that's canon. What's your doctrinal reference?

Huh? The scriptures are not a doctrinal reference? You brain somehow has put a wall between canon and a "doctrinal reference".

Amazing.

I'm afraid I am unable to help you there.

Church itself so distinguishes as it says the doctrine resides in canon. Take John 3:5 for example. What distinguishes the interpretations that it's talking about physical birth and a spiritual birth (evangelicalism) or water baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost (LDS)? Doctrine.

So I ask again, what doctrinal references, if any, exist for the notion that the body spirit is the tabernacle for intelligence? If none exist, I personally have no problem with the original interpretation. I am simply wondering if any of the prophets have given interpretation under the auspices of the Church (publication by the Church).

[BCSpace]

Okay, I'll do it myself. In a manual published by the Church, there seems to be a little unsurety though the tendency is definitely towards cdowis' assumption of doctrine:

Abraham 3:18

[Ahab]

I have been asked to substitute EQ tomorrow. The talk is Elder Richard G. Scott's April 2010 Sunday Morning General Conference talk "He Lives! All Glory to His Name!"

In the second paragraph, I came across an interesting statement he made. Was it a mistake? Was it doctrine not taught? Does it make sense? I think it's an interesting concept, one I have had before, but that he succinctly (whether intentionally or not) sums it up.

What eternal purpose would have come from the Creation of the earth, where intelligences tabernacled with spirits would receive a body, if death were the end of existence and none would be resurrected?

I recommend focusing on what he said without focusing on what you highlighted in bold, first, and then while trying to figure out how that bold part fits in.

Like this:

What eternal purpose would have come from the Creation of the earth if death were the end of existence and none would be resurrected?

Before we came here, we were intelligences (or beings of varying degrees of intelligence) tabernacled with spirits (or spirit bodies) who would later receive a body (like that of our Father), at least if we were faithful to that first estate and this second estate.

[cdowis]

cdowis: I am not confused in the slightest. I am quite aware of the differences between spirit and Spirit and Holy Spirit and Spirit of Christ and etc. etc. My point, repeated for a third time, is that other Apostles have said something different.

Instead of repeating yourself three times, this is a formal request for CFR.

Give us the text and let's see if we agree with you. Your references should be found on lds.org, since this is to be compared with a formal speech in General Conference. No "Mormon Doctrine", etc.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

cdowis, are you alright? Where the heck did all of your attitude come from. You jumped into this thread in an degrading manner towards me, ignored the point of the thread, just issued a CFR when I had already said I would look for them and try to get them tomorrow or Wednesday, and ignored that BCSpace technically already posted quotes with slightly differing views on the topic.

Unfortunately, I work 60-80 hours a week right now in property management. I don't have the time to just pop out references nor do I have those in my office. You'r restriction to conference talks is ridiculous, as my point was that there were opposing views, but I will see what I can do. For the life of me, I cannot understand your at first belittling posts and now accusatory posts that disregard the gist of everything I have said. I have enjoyed your posts for years and years, but I ask that you 1) attempt to have a better attitude or 2) leave this thread alone.

I used to post non-stop. Then I became busy. I can rarely venture here for more than five minutes every few days. The thread was because I thought it was an interesting and succinct statement I agreed with, but which I had heard opposing views. It was for interesting discussion, not for high and mightiness on mine or anyone else's part.

[cdowis]

Take your time.

[cinepro]

So, do intelligences have a gender?

[Ahab]

So, do intelligences have a gender?

Some do, and some don't, depending on which intelligences you're referring to.

I don't know the technical term(s) for members of intelligent species which are neither male nor female, and are instead some sort of unisex variety. I just know they exist.

[USU78]

I don't know the technical term(s) for members of intelligent species which are neither male nor female, and are instead some sort of unisex variety.

French?

[cdowis]

cdowis, are you alright? Where the heck did all of your attitude come from. You jumped into this thread in an degrading manner towards me, ignored the point of the thread, just issued a CFR when I had already said I would look for them and try to get them tomorrow or Wednesday, and ignored that BCSpace technically already posted quotes with slightly differing views on the topic.

Unfortunately, I work 60-80 hours a week right now in property management. I don't have the time to just pop out references nor do I have those in my office. You'r restriction to conference talks is ridiculous, as my point was that there were opposing views, but I will see what I can do. For the life of me, I cannot understand your at first belittling posts and now accusatory posts that disregard the gist of everything I have said. I have enjoyed your posts for years and years, but I ask that you 1) attempt to have a better attitude or 2) leave this thread alone.

I used to post non-stop. Then I became busy. I can rarely venture here for more than five minutes every few days. The thread was because I thought it was an interesting and succinct statement I agreed with, but which I had heard opposing views. It was for interesting discussion, not for high and mightiness on mine or anyone else's part.

Still waiting.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Very busy right now, but I just grabbed a quote, not the ones I am looking for, but that hints at the confusion. It might be the weekend before I can dig through my files.

The spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist in eternity... The Father called all spirits before him at the creation of man and organized them.

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, ed. by Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1938, p. 158.

Note how Joseph says the "spirit of man", not in any way that separates it from intelligence/intelligences, but as man's individual spirit being "from eternity to eternity." He does not in any way indicate he is talking about general spirit matter, general intelligence, etc. He is referring to individual "being".

Combine this with Doctrine and Covenants 93:29:

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

So which was it, Intelligence in the beginning, not spirit, or both, or they are the same. But in the case of this scripture, it seems to be referring to general intelligence, not individual intelligence. It doesn't mention that intelligences were individual before being "born" as spirits, but makes it sound like a higher form of general spirit matter. If were to assume it was speaking of individual intelligence was in the beginning, then again, is it also the "spirit of man" Joseph referred to, or are they different co-eternal individual identities that later merged in a birthing process?

Going back to Elder Scott's quote:

where intelligences tabernacled with spirits would receive a body

It seems he is saying that the intelligences were individual and many. I would assume he means from the beginning, and that he is not implying that all intelligence was just a homogeneous mass. But if he were to be saying that the general intelligence became individual when placed into spirit tabernacles, then was Joseph wrong when he said that our spirits were in the beginning or were two individual eternal entities combined into one greater entity?

Let's go back to Joseph:

The mind or intelligence which man possesses is co-equal (co-eternal) with God himself... I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have an end. This is good logic... There never was a time when there were not spirits, for they are co-equal (co eternal) with our Father in heaven... Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existant principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it.

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, ed. by Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1938, p. 352-354

Of the "a spirit from age to age" part, Apostle B.H. Roberts points out in his editorial that Joseph said "A spirit from age to age" -

"not 'spirit from age to age'; but 'a spirit,' that is, an entity, a person, an individual."

It is thus abundantly clear that there was from the beginning with Joseph at the very least some internal contradiction or confusion over individual spirit and individual intelligence, or taken to its greatest he intended us to believe they were both individual entities from the beginning (which I do not believe is the point he is trying to make). He certainly does not take pains to say that there are two spirits of man, so it would be conjecture to imply that the individual intelligence of man in the beginning was called the spirit of man, and that a later tabernacle of spirit was called the spirit of man. You would then have to say that the "spirit of man" is a general label for man at any stage in his development (which I can certainly accept).

So, which is it? Individual intelligence, or individual spirits? B.H. Roberts himself went back and forth interchanging words. While I only have my Joseph smith quotes and such on the topic handy (the apostles are buried on an external hard drive and need my note-taking program re-installed to read), it should be clear that the interchangeability of the words has the possibility to lead to confusion, and thus it should be no surprise that in off-hand comments by apostles through the ages might accidentally say something that would be, if analyzed contrary to Elder Scott's comment. Joseph himself certainly had some confusion in the way he said it (though likely not in what he meant, as him seeing these things in vision helps to overcome the limits of language to our understanding).

To re-iterate: I agree with Elder Scott's view. Cdowis agrees with his view. I am fairly certain Bro. Joseph agrees with his view. Joseph (and B.H. Roberts) however used words interchangeably as if they were the same thing, when I posit they are not. Indeed, I believe that "intelligences tabernacled with spirits would receive a body" is good doctrine, even if sometimes confusion over the inter-use of words has led some apostles to make comments that may stand in slight contradiction, implying that individual spirit and intelligence are the same thing, as it appears Joseph himself did on occasion.

I'll see this weekend if I can find my apostle quotes and get access to them. I may have to pay for the note-taking program again to access them, in which case, it may have to wait.

[Ahab]

Note how Joseph says the "spirit of man", not in any way that separates it from intelligence/intelligences, but as man's individual spirit being "from eternity to eternity." He does not in any way indicate he is talking about general spirit matter, general intelligence, etc. He is referring to individual "being".

I'll go into this one with you a little bit, to try to share my understanding with you.

Note what Joseph actually said, which I will repeat here:

The spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist in eternity... The Father called all spirits before him at the creation of man and organized them.

Now note the differences between what you think Joseph meant and what I will say he meant now:

When Joseph was referring to the spirit of man, he was referring to the spirit within each man, which Joseph said was never created, and by that I understand him to be saying that spirit wasn't created from out of nothing. The spirit of each man was put inside of each man who has it, however, and in that sense that spirit has been organized and categorized, with some men given certain assignments and responsibilites apart from other men who have either that same spirit or same type of spirit.

Now, I ask you, what type of spirit does each man have inside of him? Or more to the point, where did that spirit come from?

It is the spirit of God that is inside of each man, or each man's body of flesh, and that spirit came from God who has existed forever, with God understood to be a reference to a specific kind of being who can continually perpetuate himself/herself/itself, as that kind of being.

Thus, contrary to popular opinion in this world, life doesn't begin at conception. Life continues as each kind of being reproduces itself, however that kind of being reproduces, and we (all men and women and boys and girls) are the literal children of God, with each of us having that same spirit that dwells within our Father in heaven, or his body of flesh.