Mcconkie On Intelligences

[inquiringmind]

I've always had a problem with the concept of uncreated intelligences, but I found these quotes (on the FairMormon site) from Bruce R. McConkie interesting.

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 387

"Intelligence or spirit element became intelligences after the spirits were born as individual [spirit] entities."

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 750

"Our spirit bodies had their beginning in pre-existence when we were born as the spirit children of God our Father. Through that birth process spirit element was organized into intelligent entities."

http://www.fairwiki....elestial_sex%22

I think Joseph said that intelligence (or the light of truth) is part of God, and what McConkie says here makes some sense to me.

It would also answer a question I've been thinking of.

If uncreated intelligences were necessary to create spirit children, and if God's purpose is to exalt men and women so that they become gods, create their own worlds, and populate them with their own spirit children, it would seem that they'd eventually run out of uncreated intelligences.

But if intelligence (an eternal part of God and His children) becomes "intelligences" only after spirits are born as individual entities, there's no problem.

Any thoughts?

Edited January 3, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Cobalt-70]

I've always had a problem with the concept of uncreated intelligences, but I found these quotes (on the FairMormon site) from Bruce R. McConkie interesting.

http://www.fairwiki....elestial_sex%22

I think Joseph said that intelligence (or the light of truth) is part of God, and what McConkie says here makes some sense to me.

It would also answer a question I've been thinking of.

If uncreated intelligences were necessary to create spirit children, and if God's purpose is to exalt men and women so that they become gods, create their own worlds, and populate them with their own spirit children, it would seem that they'd eventually run out of uncreated intelligences.

But if intelligence (an eternal part of God and His children) becomes "intelligences" only after spirits are born as individual entities, there's no problem.

Any thoughts?

I don't necessarily agree with your premise. McConkie's view is a remnant of the Adam-God doctrine invented by Brigham Young, which said that God and his wife were the literal parents, through sexual intercourse, of both the spirits and bodies of humanity. But that view is not the same as what was taught by Joseph Smith. D&C 93:29 says, "Man was also in the beginning with God." It doesn't say that the merely elements that made up man were in the beginning with God. In his King Follett sermon, he also said, "Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it." Here, Smith clearly states that it is the spirit (i.e., the "intelligence") that was in the beginning with God. I know that the "spirit babies" theory is now standard Mormon theology, but that wasn't always the case, and I'm not sure if Joseph Smith did not have the better theory.

[JAHS]

As far as I can tell the term "intellegence" has had two interpretations:

1. as the literal spirit children of Heavenly Parents and

2. as individual entities existing prior to their spirit birth.

Elder 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. 10, 1936).

Spencer W. Kimball wrote, "Our spirit matter was eternal and co-existent with God, but it was organized into spirit bodies by our Heavenly Father" (The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 5, 1969)

From all I have read about the subject, I tend to believe we existed as intelligences before we became spirits. But exactly how our intelligences were "organized" into spirit bodies is unknown. I would have to assume that for this universe all available "intelligences" were organized into spirit bodies, so there would be no "running out" of intelligences. For future universes there must be intelligences waiting to become spirit children for new gods of those future universes?

[Tarski]

I've always had a problem with the concept of uncreated intelligences, but I found these quotes (on the FairMormon site) from Bruce R. McConkie interesting.

http://www.fairwiki....elestial_sex%22

I think Joseph said that intelligence (or the light of truth) is part of God, and what McConkie says here makes some sense to me.

It would also answer a question I've been thinking of.

If uncreated intelligences were necessary to create spirit children, and if God's purpose is to exalt men and women so that they become gods, create their own worlds, and populate them with their own spirit children, it would seem that they'd eventually run out of uncreated intelligences.

But if intelligence (an eternal part of God and His children) becomes "intelligences" only after spirits are born as individual entities, there's no problem.

Any thoughts?

This kind of talk used to thrill me when I was about 14.

Now I think this kind of pseudo-materialistic hypostatizing of "intelligence" is incoherent and without content.

It would be as if someone were to think they could pour the story out of a book into a jar and store it in the refrigerator.

Intelligence just isn't that kind of thing. It is a capacity (or complex of behavioral capacities) that supervenes on the operation and material organization of a nervous system (putting questions of artificial intelligence to the side).

[Cobalt-70]

From all I have read about the subject, I tend to believe we existed as intelligences before we became spirits. But exactly how our intelligences were "organized" into spirit bodies is unknown. I would have to assume that for this universe all available "intelligences" were organized into spirit bodies, so there would be no "running out" of intelligences. For future universes there must be intelligences waiting to become spirit children for new gods of those future universes?

According to Joseph Smith's theology, which is admittedly perhaps no longer orthodox, "intelligence" and "spirit" are synonymous. An "intelligence" is a spirit, and God stood among the the many lesser, but co-eternal spirits, and organized them as a body of his children. The idea that the "organization" referred to in Abraham 3:22 consisted of God having intercourse with his wife, so that later she would expel a spirit baby through her birth canal, was invented by Brigham Young as part of the Adam-God doctrine, with the role of God played by Adam, and the role of his wife played by Eve. But the most straightforward reading of Abraham 3:22--and the one that is consistent with Smith's non-canonized teachings--is that this "organization" is the organization of leaders referred to in the next verse, Abraham 3:23.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[lachrymolotov]

Doctrinally, is spirit material in nature?

[dtorge26]

Perhaps there is a hybrid approach to McConkie/Young and Smith's views:

The principles of intelligence have always existed (they are not created). Spirits are created by God using principles of intelligence, and only spirits have individual identities.

If the principles of intelligence have always existed, then it does make sense that Man has always existed, and that Man could be in the beginning with God.

[JAHS]

According to Joseph Smith's theology, which is admittedly perhaps no longer orthodox, "intelligence" and "spirit" are synonymous. An "intelligence" is a spirit, and God stood among the the many lesser, but co-eternal spirits, and organized them as a body of his children. The idea that the "organization" referred to in Abraham 3:22 consisted of God having intercourse with his wife, so that later she would expel a spirit baby through her birth canal, was invented by Brigham Young as part of the Adam-God doctrine, with the role of God played by Adam, and the role of his wife played by Eve. But the most straightforward reading of Abraham 3:22--and the one that is consistent with Smith's non-canonized teachings--is that this "organization" is the organization of leaders referred to in the next verse, Abraham 3:23.

Abraham 3: 22-23

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the aintelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the bnoble 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 achosen before thou wast born.

Where it says "he stood among those that were spirits", to me implies that there were some intelligences that were not spirits yet.

I agree that in the literature from the early church leaders there are instances where the terms spirit and intelligence seem to be refrering to the same thing.

Edited January 3, 2012 by JAHS

[Grundelwalken]

Abraham 3: 22-23

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the aintelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the bnoble 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 achosen before thou wast born.

Where it says "he stood among those that were spirits", to me implies that there were some intelligences that were not spirits yet.

I agree that in the literature from the early church leaders there are instances where the terms spirit and intelligence seem to be refrering to the same thing.

I am inclined to agree with this premise. We have always existed as intelligences but only with the help of God the Father did we take on the Spirit Body that gave us access to the next step in our development. When we had reached another point, we were offered the chance to receive a physical body and play here on Earth. I do not know what an intelligence looks like but it is a separate and individual being and will be forever (D&C 93:29. MW

[inquiringmind]

As far as I can tell the term "intellegence" has had two interpretations:

1. as the literal spirit children of Heavenly Parents and

2. as individual entities existing prior to their spirit birth.

Elder 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. 10, 1936).

Spencer W. Kimball wrote, "Our spirit matter was eternal and co-existent with God, but it was organized into spirit bodies by our Heavenly Father" (The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 5, 1969)...

I noticed Elder Smith said "intelligence" (singular) has always existed, and that this intelligence (again singular), when combined with the spirit "constitutes a spiritual identity or individual."

Doesn't the implication seem to be that the singular quality of ""intelligence" gives rise to the multiple individual "intelligences"?

And isn't that what McConkie was suggesting?

I've also noticed that Moses 4:3 says that God gave man his agency.

Isn't agency part of being an individual, and f it is a gift from God, doesn't that imply that we didn't always exist as individuals?

Also, Abraham 3:22 speaks of "the intelligences that were organized before the world was."

Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't say they existed (as plural entities) before they were organized.

Edited January 3, 2012 by inquiringmind

[katherine the great]

This kind of talk used to thrill me when I was about 14.

Now I think this kind of pseudo-materialistic hypostatizing of "intelligence" is incoherent and without content.

How immature of us fifty year olds who still think it is interesting...

[Cobalt-70]

Doctrinally, is spirit material in nature?

According to Joseph Smith circa 1843, yes. See D&C 131:7, reflecting the gist of a casual aside that Smith made to a Methodist preacher.

[JAHS]

A few more interesting quotes on this subject:

Joseph Smith

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

Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it." (HC 6:311.)

B.H. Roberts

"The difference, then, between "spirits" and "intelligencies," as here used, is this: Spirits are uncreated intelligencies inhabiting spiritual bodies; while "intelligencies," pure and simple, are intelligent entities, but unembodied in either spirit bodies or bodies of flesh and bone. They are uncreated, self-existent entities, possessed of "self-consciousness," and "other-consciousness"—they are conscious of the "me" and the "not me"; they possess powers of discrimination, (without which the term "intelligence" would be a solecism) they discern between the evil and the good; between the "good" and "the better." They possess "will" or "freedom,"—within certain limits at least 3—the power to determine upon a given course of conduct, as against any other course of conduct. This intelligence "can think his own thoughts, act wisely or foolishly, do right or wrong." To accredit an "intelligence" with fewer or less important powers than these, would be to discredit him as an "intelligence" altogether." (Seventy's Course in Theology, vol. 2 by B. H. Roberts)

[Cobalt-70]

Abraham 3: 22-23

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the aintelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the bnoble 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 achosen before thou wast born.

Where it says "he stood among those that were spirits", to me implies that there were some intelligences that were not spirits yet.

I agree that in the literature from the early church leaders there are instances where the terms spirit and intelligence seem to be refrering to the same thing.

I don't think so. It is just repetition, perhaps of a poetic/chiastic nature like you often see in the Book of Mormon. Verse 23 already says that God was standing in the midst of "these souls"--i.e., the organization of intelligences. Then he said that he "stood among those that were spirits." I don't think it makes sense to interpret this as God "standing" twice. He stood just once, and it was among the intelligences/spirits. In verse 21, moreover, God repeated it yet a third time by saying, "I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen." Moreover, this use of the term "intelligences" was common in writings contemporary with Smith.

That this is a poetic structure referring to a single "standing" can be illustrated if you format it as follows:

And God saw these souls that they were good,

and he stood in the midst of them [the intelligences],

and he said: These I will make my rulers;

for he stood among those that were spirits

and he saw that they were good....

Edited January 3, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[mfbukowski]

This kind of talk used to thrill me when I was about 14.

Now I think this kind of pseudo-materialistic hypostatizing of "intelligence" is incoherent and without content.

It would be as if someone were to think they could pour the story out of a book into a jar and store it in the refrigerator.

Intelligence just isn't that kind of thing. It is a capacity (or complex of behavioral capacities) that supervenes on the operation and material organization of a nervous system (putting questions of artificial intelligence to the side).

You got that theology out of the dictionary didn't you?

All you did is assert a definition. Sorry, I don't buy it.

[mfbukowski]

I am inclined to agree with this premise. We have always existed as intelligences but only with the help of God the Father did we take on the Spirit Body that gave us access to the next step in our development. When we had reached another point, we were offered the chance to receive a physical body and play here on Earth. I do not know what an intelligence looks like but it is a separate and individual being and will be forever (D&C 93:29. MW

Agree.

If we were "organized" as individuals at a point in time, then we are not "eternal" are we? If there is a before and after then we are already in a time reference- so it can't be true, IF we are eternal, that we were not "we" "before" we were spirit children.

[mfbukowski]

How immature of us fifty year olds who still think it is interesting...

You're such a kid! Some of us are a bit north of that.

[mfbukowski]

A few more interesting quotes on this subject:

Joseph Smith

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

Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it." (HC 6:311.)

B.H. Roberts

"The difference, then, between "spirits" and "intelligencies," as here used, is this: Spirits are uncreated intelligencies inhabiting spiritual bodies; while "intelligencies," pure and simple, are intelligent entities, but unembodied in either spirit bodies or bodies of flesh and bone. They are uncreated, self-existent entities, possessed of "self-consciousness," and "other-consciousness"—they are conscious of the "me" and the "not me"; they possess powers of discrimination, (without which the term "intelligence" would be a solecism) they discern between the evil and the good; between the "good" and "the better." They possess "will" or "freedom,"—within certain limits at least 3—the power to determine upon a given course of conduct, as against any other course of conduct. This intelligence "can think his own thoughts, act wisely or foolishly, do right or wrong." To accredit an "intelligence" with fewer or less important powers than these, would be to discredit him as an "intelligence" altogether." (Seventy's Course in Theology, vol. 2 by B. H. Roberts)

I agree totally with BH.

I think agency is what defines us as individuals. "We" are literally the choices we have made, and are defined by our histories.

[Cobalt-70]

I noticed Elder Smith said "intelligence" (singular) has always existed, and that this intelligence (again singular), when combined with the spirit "constitutes a spiritual identity or individual."

Doesn't the implication seem to be that the singular quality of ""intelligence" gives rise to the multiple individual "intelligences"?

And isn't that what McConkie was suggesting?

I've also noticed that Moses 4:3 says that God gave man his agency.

Isn't agency part of being an individual, and f it is a gift from God, doesn't that imply that we didn't always exist as individuals?

Also, Abraham 3:22 speaks of "the intelligences that were organized before the world was."

Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't say they existed (as plural entities) before they were organized.

I agree, and that is one of the reasons why I don't think an "intelligence as a principle" theory is compatible with the current LDS canon. Smith used the term "intelligences" the same way that Thomas D1ck and other thinkers of Smith's era used the term, and it always was synonymous with "souls" or "intelligent beings."

That's not to say that Smith didn't also consider "intelligence" to be a principle, as per D&C 93. But in D&C 93, "intelligence" is synonymous with the spirit of humanity. In two parallel verses, the revelation says, first, "Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth" (v. 23), and then later, "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be" (v. 29). Thus, spirit and intelligence are treated in parallel verses as synonymous, and both spirit and intelligence were in the beginning with God.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[CV75]

I'll throw this out because it responds to various elements of various posts, and I'm trying to tie it back to the OP:

Three considerations that help me in thinking about organizing intelligence, intelligences and spirits are: 1) that they are organized collectively as well as individually; 2) since in their final, perfect state they exist as “One,” they must have been a collective of sorts before their individualization that necessitated the Atonement; 3) since collective organization precedes the individualization that requires the next collective organization, Atonement is necessary for each advancing step.

Perhaps Abraham 3:22 refers to a collective as well as an individual organization of intelligence and the following verses reflect eternal principles of collective organization that were practiced in prior estates and applications: D&C 51:2, 15; 78:11; 88:119.

As a collective, the three terms (intelligence, intelligences and spirits) may refer to the same thing in different estates. Perhaps uncreated intelligences begin to be called spirits once they are organized into a dispensational unit of pre-mortal readiness to receive a body (man is spirit D&C 93). Perhaps the terms are relative and the spirit of mortal man looks upon the pre-mortal spirit as an intelligence or as a collective of intelligences, and the spirits of resurrected immortal persons look upon mortality as an exercise of intelligence (individual and collective), not spirit. So we advance from being organized as one with God as intelligences to one with God as spirits to one with God as resurrected beings. The more we look back, the more we realize we were all in the same boat after all, just as we will be when we become One with God. The correct use of agency determines how far we can see back and ahead (D&C 93:24).

The individual is created when he recognizes himself as a distinct part of a collective of other individuals, which can only occur when such a unit is organized. The co-eternal aspect of this is that neither the individual nor the collective can exist without each other. The verses I mentioned above and the Pearl of Great Price creation accounts indicate that sometimes God brings about this organization through graceful interference, and sometimes He oversees intelligences to organize along the principle they have learned from Him.

Materially, individuals and collectives never run out because “all there is that has agency” is different forms of the same eternal thing with the attendant attributes of never ending and never beginning.

[BCSpace]

This kind of talk used to thrill me when I was about 14.

You make it sound like a matter of spiritual or intellectual immaturity when you bandy ages about like that in logical fallaciousness. I think it could be more a matter of some people haven't strayed from the Gospel teachings and some have.

Now I think this kind of pseudo-materialistic hypostatizing of "intelligence" is incoherent and without content.

It would be as if someone were to think they could pour the story out of a book into a jar and store it in the refrigerator.

Intelligence just isn't that kind of thing. It is a capacity (or complex of behavioral capacities) that supervenes on the operation and material organization of a nervous system (putting questions of artificial intelligence to the side).

It could also be a name for a container or a cluster that hasn't had homo sapiens properties applied to it yet.

[Tarski]

How immature of us fifty year olds who still think it is interesting...

The topic of intelligence is indeed very interesting. The point was simply that at one point in my life the statements McConkie makes about intelligence seemed deep and full of meaning. So while the topic of intelligence is interesting, I simply claim that upon close inspection McConkie's statements don't really say much or explain anything after all.

But, there remains the real possibility that I can be convinced otherwise. Can you perhaps sell me on the explanatory power (or even the conceptual coherence of) this kind of talk?

"Intelligence or spirit element became intelligences after the spirits were born as individual [spirit] entities."

How can I connect this notion of intelligence (as some kind of amorphous ghost stuff) with intelligence as something brains do? Take something simple like the intelligence it takes to avoid a predator by hiding behind a bush.

I have another, seemingly unrelated, question for you. Suppose that I tell you I had a boring book that I placed on top of a very interesting book. Suppose further that I claim that some interest leaked from one to the other and that the first book was now a little bit interesting. Can you explain exactly why you are sure this is nonsense? What if I insist that it is very intuitive and that your way of looking at the notion of interestingness is incomprehensible to me and seems to overlook real nature of pure interestingness. How frustrated would you be if after hearing your explanations on the issue, I were to accuse you of denying the very reality of "interestingness"?

[Tarski]

It could also be a name for a container or a cluster that hasn't had homo sapiens properties applied to it yet.

??

Kind of like a sphere that someone forgot to add the property of roundness to?

Seriously, what do you mean when you say that "properties are applied"?

Do things first exist and then later get properties added on as some kind of afterthought?

You make it sound like a matter of spiritual or intellectual immaturity when you bandy ages about like that in logical fallaciousness. I think it could be more a matter of some people haven't strayed from the Gospel teachings and some have.

Well, in fact I think it is true that unquestioning fidelity to the idea that McConkie (and before him Joseph Smith) simply must have been saying something true and important could have, and for a while did, cause in me a sort of arrested intellectual development. But I am catching up.

In fact, when I was about 16 I knew a young man of age about 17 or 18 that tried to straighten my thinking out on things like this. I couldn't open my mind to his good sense because I instinctively sensed that there was a corollary in the offing. Namely, that some religious authorities I had been raised with didn't know what they were talking about. This guy was quite the nerd--a bit of an odd ball-- and was the target of much ridicule and teasing -especially from me. I now realize he was very bright and had the enviable and precocious ability to be skeptical of what the adults around him (religious leaders) were telling him even when the adults used the rhetorical weapon of supposed sacredness (a real conversation stopper).

So you are right. It isn't a matter of age. That wasn't really my angle anyway and I can certainly make my arguments in the abstract without reference to biographical details.

I don't need to convince everyone in the room so to speak. I will be happy if just one person thinks about these ideas a little harder and a little more carefully.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Tarski

[Grundelwalken]

You're such a kid! Some of us are a bit north of that.

Is that true north or north west?

[mfbukowski]

Is that true north or north west?

Well being Polish and being white on top, it must be the North Pole.