Mcconkie On Intelligences

[inquiringmind]

I think the Encyclopedia of Mormonism has a very reasonable and balanced statement on the intelligence:

Partly why I think it is fair is that it leaves statements such as

as an open question. I, for example, strongly come down on the side that individual identity does not predate the formation of our spirit body and assert that a core component upon which my identity is fully contigent nonetheless has alwas existed (and will always exist) and predates the formation of my spirit body. This "core component" I call intelligent matter.

Still, I can in some abstract way conceptualize that others hold a different opinion about identity (don't think I'll ever "understand" it ).

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Marion G. Romney, and McConkie all seem to agree that there's some ambiguity here.

So is it fair to say that a past eternity of infinite individual entities is more a matter of speculation than LDS doctrine?

Could we all agree that there's no official doctrine that says that each of us has always existed as a conscious, individual entity?

Edited January 12, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Cobalt-70]

If the "stuff" of intelligence is light and truth, then, to me, it seems we are really not talking about anything material at all. (Grant me that "light" is not really referencing our common usage of 'light' as electromagnetic waves or photons). We seem to be in the realm of the metaphysical, which includes ideas, forms, or even laws.

My best take on an interpretation of intelligence, or light and truth, as used in D&C, is that it describes 'a correct understanding of principles as they really are'. So, we acquire light and truth as our understanding improves. And our understanding is not possible without intelligence.

The analogy which helps me visualize this is that of the coming artificial intelligence. For the scientist to pull this off, he/she will first need to understand perfectly the principles which enable a sentient creature to think, feel, remember, etc. At that point, there is nothing from stopping him/her from creating that creature, which (following the analogy), would be the equivalent of creating a 'spirit'. Thus, spirits are created from intelligence.

I agree that the book of Abraham seriously confuses this topic by the interchangeable use of the terms 'intelligences' and 'spirits'. I think the term 'spirit' would have been are more accurate term to use.

I don't think this is confusing the topic at all. I think that Joseph Smith, like other writers of his era, used the term intelligences as referring simply to intelligent beings, whether they be spirits or mortals. I don't think that Smith had in mind some metaphysical "intelligence matter," although he did believe that spirits were material.

To Smith, "intelligence" is the property that "intelligences" possess. It is the light and truth that comes to them as it is gnostically radiated through the universe. Intelligence is not created, but can be passed from superior beings like God to inferior beings like us. Although "man was also in the beginning with God" (D&C 93:29), this does not necessarily mean that Smith believed that "man" had very much intelligence in the beginning. It just means that what little intelligence these "intelligences" (spirits) had early on was augmented and magnified by the action of God, who stood among these lesser souls and organized them as his children, and then continually gave them further (uncreated) "light" and "knowledge."

[asbestosman]

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?

The D&C states that "Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." (see D&C 93:29).I'm not really sure why you think we'd eventually run out unless you assume that the amount must be finite.

(Note to Tarski: Here I am using intelligence in the Mormon-specific sense of spirit matter).

[mfbukowski]

This is conceptually incomprehensible to me given that intelligence just is a species of organization. Completely unorganized intelligence sounds like an oxymoron.

I am exploring the idea that intelligence is what makes organization possible. Some of the things Husserl says seems to imply this sort of thing- but of course he does not use this terminology- he speaks of the transcendental ego- which incidentally is not God. In some ways, it means the "self".

It is the pre-condition for anything to be sensible. And it sounds as if there is some reification here- but he specifically insists there is not.

The underlying idea is that for anything to be sensible there has to be someone to make "sense" of it. His ultimate goal is the unification of the subjective and objective through his phenomenology.

But this idea seems quite compatible with the LDS notion of "intelligence" being "light and truth" and pervading the universe.

http://plato.stanfor...ntries/husserl/

Edit:Quote text added.

This summary is close to right, but not exactly right on the money.

8. The intersubjective constitution of objectivity

Even the objective spatio-temporal world, which represents a significant part of our everyday lifeworld, is constituted intersubjectively, says Husserl. (The same holds true for its spatio-temporal framework, consisting of objective time and space.) How so? Husserl starts (again, from a first-person viewpoint) from a “solipsistic” abstraction of the notion of a spatio-temporal object which differs from that notion in that it does not presuppose that any other subject can observe such an object from his (or her) own perspective. His question is what justifies us (i.e., each of us for him- or herself) in the assumption of an objective reality consisting of such objects, given only this “solipsistic” conception of a spatio-temporal thing (or event) as our starting point. On Husserl's view, “the crucial further step” in order to answer this question consists in disclosing the dimension that opens up when the epistemic justification, or “motivation”, of intersubjective experience, or empathy, is additionally taken into account and made explicit (Husserliana, vol. VII, p. 435).

Roughly, his argument goes as follows. In order for me to be able to put myself into someone else's shoes and simulate his (or her) perspective upon his surrounding spatio-temporal world, I cannot but assume that this world coincides with my own, at least to a large extent; although the aspects under which the other subject represents the world must be different, as they depend on his own egocentric viewpoint. Hence, I must presuppose that the spatio-temporal objects forming my own world exist independently of my subjective perspective and the particular experiences I perform; they must, in other words, be conceived of as part of an objective reality. This result fits in well with—in fact, it serves to explain—Husserl's view, already stressed in Ideas, that perceptual objects are “transcendent” in that at any given moment they display an inexhaustive number of unperceived (and largely even unexpected) features, only some of which will become manifest—will be intuitively presented—in the further course of observation.

However, according to Husserl this does not mean that the objective world thus constituted in intersubjective experience is to be regarded as completely independent of the aspects under which we represent the world. For on his view another condition for the possibility of intersubjective experience is precisely the assumption that by and large the other subject structures the world into objects in the same style I myself do. It is for this reason that Husserl can be said to adhere to a version of both “realism” and “idealism” at the same time.

Edited January 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[inquiringmind]

The D&C states that "Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." (see D&C 93:29).

And after quoting D&C 93:29, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism goes on to make the following observations

"Intelligence," as used here, is singular, and it is not clear from this passage if it refers to individual, conscious identity. As noted, Abraham referred to the spirit offspring of God as organized intelligences, apparently using the word "intelligences" to mean "spirits."

This would seem to agree with what Marion G. Romney said (italic's mine.)

"Through that birth process, self-existing intelligence (again singular) was organized into individual spirit beings" (plural.)

And with what McConkie said

Abraham used the name intelligences to apply to the spirit children of the Eternal Father. The intelligence (again singular) or spirit element became intelligences (plural) after the spirits were born as individual entities (Abr. 3:22-24).

(Again, Italic's mine.)

Notice that McConkie said that the singular "intelligence" became the plural "intelligences" AFTER spirits were born.

(It seems to me that he either expressed himself very badly here, or he saw individuality as a product of spirit-birth.)

I'm not really sure why you think we'd eventually run out unless you assume that the amount must be finite.

I find it difficult to believe in an infinite number of independent , self existent facts.

It's easier for me to think of Intelligence (the Light of Truth) as an aspect of a singular independent fact (God.)

And if this singular "Intelligence" is infinite, I can conceive of it being divided (or multiplied) into an infinite number of individual "intelligences" (because ""intelligence" would never run out.)

I started this topic heading because I'd like to know exactly what is and isn't official Church doctrine here.

Edited January 13, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Tarski]

I am exploring the idea that intelligence is what makes organization possible. Some of the things Husserl says seems to imply this sort of thing- but of course he does not use this terminology- he speaks of the transcendental ego- which incidentally is not God. In some ways, it means the "self". It is the pre-condition for anything to be sensible. And it sounds as if there is some reification here- but he specifically insists there is not. The underlying idea is that for anything to be sensible there has to be someone to make "sense" of it. His ultimate goal is the unification of the subjective and objective through his phenomenology. But this idea seems quite compatible with the LDS notion of "intelligence" being "light and truth" and pervading the universe. http://plato.stanfor...ntries/husserl/ Edit:Quote text added. This summary is close to right, but not exactly right on the money.

Husserl's student Heidegger does a good job of politely undoing Husserl in his "Basic Problems of Phenomenology" which is much more accessible and educational than his B&T.

Husserl's project is a failed project according to most. He clearly succumbed to what Sellar's called the Myth of the Given.

It turns out that here are numerous reasons to come to the conclusion the his "epoche" is just impossible.

Worse yet, many people seem to implicitly interpret Husserl in such a way that his philosophy is a sort of introspectionism (the latter being even more definitely misguided?). Husserl denied he was doing such.

But anyway, Husserl thought he had made phenomenology a science.

My question is, what are the results of this science after all these years.

Where are any tested results from any modern version of phenomenology or any supposed "first person science".

What have we been able to build, or do, or go, as a result? (Pragmatism!)

Seems that we have nothing but confusion.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2041-6962.1976.tb01276.x/abstract

[asbestosman]

I find it difficult to believe in an infinite number of independent , self existent facts.

Why? Also, why do they have to be independent, and what do you mean by self-existent facts?

I started this topic heading because I'd like to know exactly what is and isn't official Church doctrine here.

I don't think much of it is official church doctrine. We have what the D&C states and what the Book of Abraham states. While perhaps not official doctrine, I agree with McConkie who says Abraham is apparently using the term intelligences to refer to spirits (Abraham 3:23 uses the term spirits for what was previously referred to as intelligences). However, I have heard people look at the Abraham scripture as referring to pre-spirit existence.

We do teach that God is literally the Father of our spirits. I was always pretty sure it was official doctrine that before we existed as spirits we existed as intelligences, but now I'm not as sure. The best evidence I could find was D&C 93, but I suppose that passage isn't particularly clear.

[Nominee]

Intelligence has several meanings, three of which are: (1) It is the light of truth which gives life and light to all things in the universe. It has always existed. (2) The word intelligences may also refer to spirit children of God. (3) The scriptures also may speak of intelligence as referring to the spirit element that existed before we were begotten as spirit children.

Official church doctrine can be found here .

Edited January 13, 2012 by Nominee

[inquiringmind]

Intelligence has several meanings, three of which are: (1) It is the light of truth which gives life and light to all things in the universe. It has always existed. (2) The word intelligences may also refer to spirit children of God. (3) The scriptures also may speak of intelligence as referring to the spirit element that existed before we were begotten as spirit children.

Official church doctrine can be found here .

Thank you.

[Tarski]

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

Where in the scriptures can I find a reference to "spirit element"? What do you take that to be?

By the way, it seems that none of your three definitions resembles the ordinary english language definitions and even less the clarified notion in cognitive science. Once again, these Mormon-speak definitions seem mystical (in the pejoritive sense), uninformative and appear to reify or hypostatize an abstraction.

One could learn more about intelligence from a few pages of any one of Douglas Hofstadter's books than all the church literature combined.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Tarski

[Nominee]

Where in the scriptures can I find a reference to "spirit element"? What do you take that to be?

By the way, it seems that none of your three definitions resembles the ordinary english language definitions and even less the clarified notion in cognitive science. Once again, these Mormon-speak definitions seem mystical (in the pejoritive sense), uninformative and appear to reify or hypostatize an abstraction.

One could learn more about intelligence from a few pages of any one of Douglas Hofstadter's books than all the church literature combined.

Well, it is not my way to criticize those who disagree with me but I will say that I find the church doctrine to be exceptionally scientific ~so much so that at times I long for the mystical you speak of. It is all science ~that is the way God works.

Who brought up spirit elements? You have it in quotes so I don't know if this is what you are asking for but there is this. There is element, it is matter. And there is spirit, it becomes one with element ~giving you a man in the flesh, a living soul. Doesn't sound complicated to me. Here is a biblical reference to help you understand.

I am not trying to offend you with this information. I am not aware of whether your issues are with LDS or with God. You said the "Mormon-speak definitions seem mystical..." so clearly you have an issue with LDS Christians but do you struggle with the way "God formed man of the dust...and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;" making man a living soul?

Edited January 13, 2012 by Nominee

[asbestosman]

Where in the scriptures can I find a reference to "spirit element"? What do you take that to be?

I understand that to refer to "spirit matter" --something you've brought up many times (that Mormonism is far more material in philosophy than atheists). See D&C 131:7-8.

One could learn more about intelligence from a few pages of any one of Douglas Hofstadter's books than all the church literature combined.

One could lean more about the gospel from a few pages of the scriptures than all the science literature combined. Different books, different purposes. The LDS scriptures about intelligence aren't given to instruct us in science. They are given to help us develop faith, hope, and charity.

[Nofear]

Could we all agree that there's no official doctrine that says that each of us has always existed as a conscious, individual entity?

Agreed, there's no official doctrine. All we can say is that some critical component to our individual identity has always existed. The end.

Now, if one adopts some paradigms about reality (e.g. the universe is realist as opposed to a simulated reality or compatibilism vs. libertarianism) then additional non-trivial constraints about the nature of "intelligence" come into play.

[Nofear]

Who brought up spirit elements?

You did. "The scriptures also may speak of intelligence as referring to the spirit element..." (post #59)

And, despite Tarski being the unbelieving nay-sayer that he is, he is nonetheless correct in calling you out for referring to our "intelligences" as "spirit element". The scriptures never do that. It is a common assumption for Mormons to equate intelligent matter with spirit matter, but it is an assumption nonetheless*.

* Disclaimer: Given certain philosophical paradigms that I adopt I argue that intelligent matter and spirit matter can't be the same substance. In other extra-canonical frameworks, I can see scenarios where the two substances are equated.

[thesometimesaint]

Tarski:

I really don't know what JS thought light and truth are. But I doubt it had anything to do with physical matter. Kinda like mathmatics. No one has ever seen an number, a mental construct. What we do see is numerals, the physical representation of those numbers.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58756.html

[Nominee]

You did. "The scriptures also may speak of intelligence as referring to the spirit element..." (post #59)

And, despite Tarski being the unbelieving nay-sayer that he is, he is nonetheless correct in calling you out for referring to our "intelligences" as "spirit element". The scriptures never do that. It is a common assumption for Mormons to equate intelligent matter with spirit matter, but it is an assumption nonetheless*.

* Disclaimer: Given certain philosophical paradigms that I adopt I argue that intelligent matter and spirit matter can't be the same substance. In other extra-canonical frameworks, I can see scenarios where the two substances are equated.

Oh. Thank you. The definitions from this post:

Intelligence has several meanings, three of which are: (1) It is the light of truth which gives life and light to all things in the universe. It has always existed. (2) The word intelligences may also refer to spirit children of God. (3) The scriptures also may speak of intelligence as referring to the spirit element that existed before we were begotten as spirit children.

Official church doctrine can be found here .

were copied and pasted from lds.org to provide official church doctrine only. That's why I added the "here" link for anyone to follow.

It was an attempt to respond to this request:

I started this topic heading because I'd like to know exactly what is and isn't official Church doctrine here.

I purposely left out any personal input so that what I was giving was pure official church doctrine. The downside to copy and paste is that one does not always recall every word they pasted.

[mfbukowski]

Husserl's student Heidegger does a good job of politely undoing Husserl in his "Basic Problems of Phenomenology" which is much more accessible and educational than his B&T.

Husserl's project is a failed project according to most. He clearly succumbed to what Sellar's called the Myth of the Given.

It turns out that here are numerous reasons to come to the conclusion the his "epoche" is just impossible.

Worse yet, many people seem to implicitly interpret Husserl in such a way that his philosophy is a sort of introspectionism (the latter being even more definitely misguided?). Husserl denied he was doing such.

But anyway, Husserl thought he had made phenomenology a science.

My question is, what are the results of this science after all these years.

Where are any tested results from any modern version of phenomenology or any supposed "first person science".

What have we been able to build, or do, or go, as a result? (Pragmatism!)

Seems that we have nothing but confusion.

http://onlinelibrary...1276.x/abstract

I'm a little surprised at this post.

So you agree with Sellars then?

[Nofear]

While the Church publishes The Guide to the Scriptures it is not canonized doctrine but commentary on it. It really holds no more authority than say, for example, the footnotes. Obviously, in my opinion, this* is one case where the author/editors mis-stepped inasmuch as the statement isn't directly corroborated by the scriptures themselves.

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

[ERMD]

All this talk about philosphers just makes me think of this:

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable,

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table,

David Hume could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel,

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the turning of the wrist,

Socrates himself was permanently pi**ed...

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, with half a pint of shandy was particularly ill,

Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day,

Aristotle, Aristotle was a beggar for the bottle, Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And Rene Descartes was a drunken f**t, "I drink therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;

A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pi**ed.

Edited January 13, 2012 by ERMD

[Cobalt-70]

Husserl's student Heidegger does a good job of politely undoing Husserl in his "Basic Problems of Phenomenology" which is much more accessible and educational than his B&T.

And then, much later, Jacques Derrida showed, in multiple essays, how Husserl's philosophy profoundly undermines itself. But any modernist philosophical framework upon which you might try to construct "intelligence" is going to have the same problem. Rather than trying to build Mormonism into Husserlian modernism, I think it's better to just situate Smith's writings within their historical context: as examples of early American gnosticism.

[Cobalt-70]

Intelligence has several meanings, three of which are: (1) It is the light of truth which gives life and light to all things in the universe. It has always existed. (2) The word intelligences may also refer to spirit children of God. (3) The scriptures also may speak of intelligence as referring to the spirit element that existed before we were begotten as spirit children.

Official church doctrine can be found here .

I wouldn't say that the "Guide to the Scriptures" is official LDS doctrine. The church publishes a lot of information that is not intended to be official doctrine, such as CES manuals, etc. The church certainly has official positions on political, procedural, and other matters, but I think that on matters of doctrine, the church does not like to make official pronouncements, because official pronouncements have a tendency to change over the decades, and they don't want the church's doctrine to appear to be doing that (even though it does that anyway). Also, for very practical reasons, church leaders and missionaries want to be able to say "we don't have an official doctrine on that" when asked questions such as "was God once a man?," even though every Mormon child knows the correct answer to that question.

I think that the church intends that "official" doctrine is only to be found either in the canon or in rare official church publications that purport to proclaim official doctrine. As far as I know, the church's only arguably "official" stab at theology (other than the now-rescinded Lectures on Faith) is in a First Presidency statement in 1916, soon after what we know as modern Mormon theology was first created by Talmage, Widtsoe, and Roberts. This statement can be found here: http://www.schoolofabraham.com/fatherandson.htm.

All it says is that the "intelligences" referred to in Abraham were personal spirits, but that "intelligence" cannot be created. It also says that the Father, which the writers identified with the temple god "Elohim," was the "literal" father of spirits, and that spirits can be "born" to eternal parents. Basically, it strongly implies the "spirit babies" doctrine that most Mormons now believe in (that the Heavenly Mother actually gets pregnant, goes into labor, and gives literal birth to spirit babies). The "spirit babies" doctrine was thus one of the few elements of Brigham Young's Adam-God doctrine that apparently survived the First Presidency statement of 1916. The 1916 statement appears to suggest that only "intelligence" (as a principle) was co-eternal with God, but not "intelligences" themselves.

The problem is that the even excising Adam-God, the "spirit babies" doctrine of 1916 is not even close to the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith, and usually you would interpret the scriptures revealed by Joseph Smith by reference to how Smith himself understood those scriptures. Joseph Smith never taught that spirits were born. Rather, he believed that spirits were co-eternal with God, not just as an abstract principle, but as human agents and spirits. For example, in his King Follett sermon, he stated, "Is it logical to say that a spirit is immortal and yet have a beginning?...ut it does not have a beginning or end....God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existence principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. The first principles of man are self-existent with God." And then he spoke of how God "found himself in the midst of spirits" who were less intelligent than he, so he sent them into the world to advance in knowledge, so that he could raise them to his own level. To Joseph Smith, God was the Father because he was the higher intelligence who saw fit to gather us and raise us to his own level, not because he impregnated a Heavenly Mother, as was taught by Brigham Young and is strongly implied by the 1916 statement.

The other problem with the official 1916 statement is that it is now almost a century old, and it is unclear whether it still functions as a statement of official LDS doctrine. I haven't seen any modern church authorities reference it recently.

[Nominee]

I wouldn't say that the "Guide to the Scriptures" is official LDS doctrine. The church publishes a lot of information that is not intended to be official doctrine, such as CES manuals, etc. The church certainly has official positions on political, procedural, and other matters, but I think that on matters of doctrine, the church does not like to make official pronouncements, because official pronouncements have a tendency to change over the decades, and they don't want the church's doctrine to appear to be doing that (even though it does that anyway). Also, for very practical reasons, church leaders and missionaries want to be able to say "we don't have an official doctrine on that" when asked questions such as "was God once a man?," even though every Mormon child knows the correct answer to that question.

I think that the church intends that "official" doctrine is only to be found either in the canon or in rare official church publications that purport to proclaim official doctrine. As far as I know, the church's only arguably "official" stab at theology (other than the now-rescinded Lectures on Faith) is in a First Presidency statement in 1916, soon after what we know as modern Mormon theology was first created by Talmage, Widtsoe, and Roberts. This statement can be found here: http://www.schoolofa...atherandson.htm.

All it says is that the "intelligences" referred to in Abraham were personal spirits, but that "intelligence" cannot be created. It also says that the Father, which the writers identified with the temple god "Elohim," was the "literal" father of spirits, and that spirits can be "born" to eternal parents. Basically, it strongly implies the "spirit babies" doctrine that most Mormons now believe in (that the Heavenly Mother actually gets pregnant, goes into labor, and gives literal birth to spirit babies). The "spirit babies" doctrine was thus one of the few elements of Brigham Young's Adam-God doctrine that apparently survived the First Presidency statement of 1916. The 1916 statement appears to suggest that only "intelligence" (as a principle) was co-eternal with God, but not "intelligences" themselves.

The problem is that the even excising Adam-God, the "spirit babies" doctrine of 1916 is not even close to the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith, and usually you would interpret the scriptures revealed by Joseph Smith by reference to how Smith himself understood those scriptures. Joseph Smith never taught that spirits were born. Rather, he believed that spirits were co-eternal with God, not just as an abstract principle, but as human agents and spirits. For example, in his King Follett sermon, he stated, "Is it logical to say that a spirit is immortal and yet have a beginning?...but it does not have a beginning or end....God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existence principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. The first principles of man are self-existent with God." And then he spoke of how God "found himself in the midst of spirits" who were less intelligent than he, so he sent them into the world to advance in knowledge, so that he could raise them to his own level. To Joseph Smith, God was the Father because he was the higher intelligence who saw fit to gather us and raise us to his own level, not because he impregnated a Heavenly Mother, as was taught by Brigham Young and is strongly implied by the 1916 statement.

The other problem with the official 1916 statement is that it is now almost a century old, and it is unclear whether it still functions as a statement of official LDS doctrine. I haven't seen any modern church authorities reference it recently.

I would say that the scriptures are official church doctrine though, wouldn't you? And if someone requests it then ~what better to direct them than a "Guide to the Scriptures" which sites each related scripture so that further organized study can be done independently? It encourages each of us to study the scriptures where we can, with the Holy Spirit, rather than rely to heavily on the opinions of us cyber-folk answering each other's questions. Still, I haven't found anything on lds.org that the church does disagree with, have you? It is one of many ways the church offers to assist us in our discovery.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Nominee

[Nofear]

All it says is that the "intelligences" referred to in Abraham were personal spirits, but that "intelligence" cannot be created. It also says that the Father, which the writers identified with the temple god "Elohim," was the "literal" father of spirits, and that spirits can be "born" to eternal parents. Basically, it strongly implies the "spirit babies" doctrine that most Mormons now believe in (that the Heavenly Mother actually gets pregnant, goes into labor, and gives literal birth to spirit babies). The "spirit babies" doctrine was thus one of the few elements of Brigham Young's Adam-God doctrine that apparently survived the First Presidency statement of 1916. The 1916 statement appears to suggest that only "intelligence" (as a principle) was co-eternal with God, but not "intelligences" themselves.

The problem is that the even excising Adam-God, the "spirit babies" doctrine of 1916 is not even close to the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith, and usually you would interpret the scriptures revealed by Joseph Smith by reference to how Smith himself understood those scriptures. Joseph Smith never taught that spirits were born. Rather, he believed that spirits were co-eternal with God, not just as an abstract principle, but as human agents and spirits. For example, in his King Follett sermon, he stated, "Is it logical to say that a spirit is immortal and yet have a beginning?...ut it does not have a beginning or end....God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existence principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. The first principles of man are self-existent with God." And then he spoke of how God "found himself in the midst of spirits" who were less intelligent than he, so he sent them into the world to advance in knowledge, so that he could raise them to his own level. To Joseph Smith, God was the Father because he was the higher intelligence who saw fit to gather us and raise us to his own level, not because he impregnated a Heavenly Mother, as was taught by Brigham Young and is strongly implied by the 1916 statement.

The other problem with the official 1916 statement is that it is now almost a century old, and it is unclear whether it still functions as a statement of official LDS doctrine. I haven't seen any modern church authorities reference it recently.

The position that our spirit bodies are begotten/created/formed by heavenly parents has been repeatedly taught by all modern-day prophets and affermed in The Family: A Proclamation to the World. The process is unknown and "spirit babies" is perhaps a misnomer.

Consequently, I (and Joseph Fielding Smith and everybody else I've discussed the matter with) interpret Joseph Smith's comments in the King Follett discourse about "spirits" being immortal and self-existent as referring to the self-same uncreate intelligences referred to elsewhere by Joseph's revelations and the "intelligences" referred to by Abraham as being "spirits". Linguistic precision was not a strong suit of the early brethren, included Joseph Smith.

[mfbukowski]

And then, much later, Jacques Derrida showed, in multiple essays, how Husserl's philosophy profoundly undermines itself. But any modernist philosophical framework upon which you might try to construct "intelligence" is going to have the same problem. Rather than trying to build Mormonism into Husserlian modernism, I think it's better to just situate Smith's writings within their historical context: as examples of early American gnosticism.

No one's trying to do that.

Do you agree with Derrida generally? Here it appears you do. Critcs tend to disagree with those they criticize. I think we have an example or two of that here on this board. Whether or not one's argument "undermines" another tends to be a tad debatable.

Husserl's philosophy as a whole has been very influential, even though many disagree with parts of it.

[Cobalt-70]

I would say that the scriptures are official church doctrine though, wouldn't you? And if someone requests it then ~what better to direct them than a "Guide to the Scriptures" which sites each related scripture so that further organized study can be done independently? It encourages each of us to study the scriptures where we can, with the Holy Spirit, rather than rely to heavily on the opinions of us cyber-folk answering each other's questions. Still, I haven't found anything on lds.org that the church does disagree with, have you? It is one of many ways the church offers to assist us in our discovery.

The scriptures are official church doctrine yes. But "Guide to the Scriptures" is not the scriptures--hence its name. Otherwise, it would have been called "Guide to Myself."