Intelligences Organized

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

"[God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be."
— Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:122.

From that same discourse: "We bear the image of our earthly parents in their fallen state, but by obedience to the gospel of salvation, and the renovating influences of the Holy Ghost, and the holy resurrection, we shall put on the image of the heavenly, in beauty, glory, power and goodness. Jesus Christ was so like His Father that on one occasion in answer to a request, "Show us the Father," He said, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." The strongest testimony that can be borne to the minds of men is the testimony of the Father concerning the Son, and the testimony of the Son concerning the Father, by the power of the revelations of the Spirit, which every man who is born of woman possesses more or less, and which, if mankind would listen to it, would lead them to the knowledge of God, and ultimately, assisted by the ordinances of the gospel, into His presence."

This tells me that any indeterminate gender, gender confusion and gender nomenclature we can come up to describe what we observe in the flesh will be rectified into the parental norms exemplified by our heavenly parents.

[ksfisher]

23 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Still not clear enough for some people,  apparently. 

Or is it that some people just don't believe it?

I think that the reason it's not clear enough is because it is not the doctrine of the church.  Yes, Brigham Young taught it.  But since then I'm not aware of any other prophets teaching this as doctrine.  It is not currently being taught by those whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators.  I believe that it was speculation on the part of Brigham Young.

Gender is and has been taught to be of an eternal nature.  We believe that God created male and female.  However the process by which God created his spirit children has not been revealed.

Edited June 13, 2016 by ksfisher

[Eek!]

 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You seem to have hardly scratched the surface of an understanding of biological gender (and hardly the "whole truth" about how gender is).

I'm not a biologist, Imo I went into enough detail to make my point.  If in your opinion I failed to make it, then going deeper into biology isn't going to help.

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

And the Proclamation is not biological science, it is a compilation of eternal principles describing why gender is.

I embrace the eternal principle that there are correspondences between biological gender and the gender of spirits, to the extent that I believe these correspondences may well include even unusual physical genders.  

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

"[God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be."
— Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:122.

 

Maybe the organizing of intelligences is a euphemism for heavenly sex, but I'm not convinced that it is. 

51 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I would say that when any person learns that a spirit is born/ created as either a male or a female by a resurrected Father and a resurrected Mother then that person has learned how baby spirit boys and baby spirit girls are created and what that child's gender is.

I don't know whether or not it's the same process.  I believe there are correspondences, but I do not believe those correspondences necessarily include the same bodily actions. 

51 minutes ago, Ahab said:

And I think the main reason some of us don't know this about some people right now is because some of us see only the tabernacle of a spirit without seeing the spirit inside the tabernacle. 

"On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur.  L'essentiel est invisible aux yeux."  - Le Petit Prince

"One only sees clearly with the heart.  The essential is invisible to the eyes." 

Edited June 13, 2016 by Eek!

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, Eek! said:

 

I'm not a biologist, Imo I went into enough detail to make my point.  If in your opinion I failed to make it, then going deeper into biology isn't going to help.

I embrace the eternal principle that there are correspondences between biological gender and the gender of spirits, to the extent that I believe these correspondences may well include even unusual physical genders.

If your point is to state what you believe given your present knowledge of the two subjects, justifying it with what you don’t know but which might be, wonderful! That is a sign unto you to learn more about the subjects!

[Ahab]

24 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think that the reason it's not clear enough is because it is not the doctrine of the church.  Yes, Brigham Young taught it.  But since then I'm not aware of any other prophets teaching this as doctrine.  It is not currently being taught by those whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators.  I believe that it was speculation on the part of Brigham Young.

Gender is and has been taught to be of an eternal nature.  We believe that God created male and female.  However the process by which God created his spirit children has not been revealed.

It has been revealed clearly enough to me.

The only thing I need to know any of our Lord's doctrine is the testimony of the Spirit bearing record to me.  And yet some people act as if I should be primarily concerned with whether or not some teaching is "official Church doctrine".

It's kinda funny hearing about how some people think I should think.

[Eek!]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

If your point is to state what you believe given your present knowledge of the two subjects, justifying it with what you don’t know but which might be, wonderful! That is a sign unto you to learn more about the subjects!

 

Characterizing my arguments in a negative light and speaking to me condescendingly are not the same as disproving what I said. 

If you really wish to argue about arguing, then I'll let you have the last word. 

Edited June 13, 2016 by Eek!

[Eek!]

23 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The only thing I need to know any of our Lord's doctrine is the testimony of the Spirit bearing record to me.  And yet some people act as if I should be primarily concerned with whether or not some teaching is "official Church doctrine".

^THIS!^

Not that I necessarily accept Ahab's views on the topic in question, because just like him I would need to have the Spirit bear record to me of it, and that hasn't happened yet. 

But Ahab has the process down right, and he is giving the voice of the Spirit its proper priority.  There is a reason why the first thing they do after you've been baptized is, sit you down and give you the Gift of the Holy Ghost. 

Edited June 13, 2016 by Eek!

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, Eek! said:

...I would need to have the Spirit bear record to me of it, and that hasn't happened yet. 

Then let me set you up for it.  Are you ready?

1. You are literally a child of our Father in heaven.  Really.  Not just a figure of speech. 

2. Your spirit was created by our Father and your Mother in heaven.  And they can do that because they are both resurrected and they are both intelligent enough to know how to do it.  And because one of them is male and the other of them is female.

3. Someday you will be a resurrected man and, if you live worthy of the blessing, you will also have a resurrected woman as your wife, being just like our Father and your Mother in heaven, in that way. 

4. Then we'll see if you are both intelligent enough to know how to create a spirit baby.

Hint: It won't be "necessary" for you to do it the old-fashioned way, like you may have done it down here, but you will still be able to do it that way if you both want to.  The key requirement is that you combine something from her and something from you which will have the effect of the 2 of you, as one, reproducing yourselves.

[Eek!]

12 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Then let me set you up for it.  Are you ready?

1. You are literally a child of our Father in heaven.  Really.  Not just a figure of speech. 

2. Your spirit was created by our Father and your Mother in heaven.  And they can do that because they are both resurrected and they are both intelligent enough to know how to do it.  And because one of them is male and the other of them is female.

3. Someday you will be a resurrected man and, if you live worthy of the blessing, you will also have a resurrected woman as your wife, being just like our Father and your Mother in heaven, in that way. 

4. Then we'll see if you are both intelligent enough to know how to create a spirit baby.

Hint: It won't be "necessary" for you to do it the old-fashioned way, like you may have done it down here, but you will still be able to do it that way if you both want to.  The key requirement is that you combine something from her and something from you which will have the effect of the 2 of you, as one, reproducing yourselves.

I totally got what I'd call "confirmation" when reading your last line, the one I bolded.  WOW.  "You combine something from her and something from you..."   I didn't "get that" before.  Thank you!

I'm going to have to re-draw my roadmap, because that is beautiful, and I don't think anyone who understood it would want to miss out on it. 

Edited June 13, 2016 by Eek!

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, Eek! said:

I don't think anyone who understood it would want to miss out on it. 

Well, as amazing as it is, some people who understand it are actually repulsed by the idea of our Father and Mother doing that with each other.

As if there MUST be a better way to do it.

Reminding me of prebuscent children who think it is gross and icky and a sure-fire way to get a bunch of cooties.

Ah, oh well.  Not something the faint of heart really want to know about, I guess. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Eek! said:

Characterizing my arguments in a negative light and speaking to me condescendingly are not the same as disproving what I said. 

If you really wish to argue about arguing, then I'll let you have the last word. 

I am not trying to disprove anything you've said, only employing active listening. And challenging some of it for better justification. I am sorry that it comes across as condescending. I've taken the tenor of our conversation to be a continuation of my remark from Friday, "Here’s where I’m going to get a little weird (it’s Friday!)," where you asked me if I am aware that there are more than two genders, and introduced what I took to be a friendly challenge of what I wrote. You used "we" a lot so I tried to steer our dialog in the direction of speaking only for yourself when characterizing who doesn't have a complete picture. At any rate, don't you agree with the offending comment in principle? I follow it myself.

[mfbukowski]

On 6/10/2016 at 9:41 PM, Eek! said:

"So either you agree with the atheists that lack of scientific evidence disproves religion"

Nope, I'm not saying that.

"or you say that science and religion have nothing to do with each other and so science cannot disprove religion."

Nope, I'm not saying that either.  I think the day may come when they have quite a bit to do with each other, both being quests for truth, but that day is probably a long ways off. 

I aspire to believe in true principles regardless of where they come from.  For instance there is a fundamental correspondence between the scientific method and Alma 32, even if some of the details differ.  I believe in the principle of testing something out for yourself, and trying your best to make it a fair test, as a valid way of seeking truth whether about the physical or the non-physical.  The alternative is often "take someone else's word for it", which is perfectly fine too if you have good reason to believe that your source is a reliable authority on the subject. 

I believe the principle of "gathering and organizing the lesser to form the greater, which can transcend the sum of its parts" can be applicable to spiritual creation (intelligences being organized into spirits), physical creation as described by religious text (the word "created" in the first verse of Genesis could also be translated as "organized", according to my Jewish mother), and physical creation as observed by science (energy vibrations or "strings" organizing into quarks which organize into subatomic particles which organize into atoms which organize into molecules including long-string amino acids which organize into living cells which organize into multi-cell life forms). 

I'm not saying that all principles which are true in one milieu have a correspondence in the other, but some do, and those instances can offer insights. 

I don't see that either the one or the other of your proposed statements inevitably follows.  If you do, please tell me which one; I don't have a background in philosophy so you may be seeing something that I don't see. 

Thanks!

 

Yes it is based in philosophy

How do you ever know the "truth" if you have nothing to compare it to, to know it IS the truth?

Does statement x correspond to the truth?  The only way you can know that is if you FIRST know the truth and then compare x to it, to see how well it compares!

But you cannot know that.

The correspondence theory of truth is no longer seen as reliable.

Quote

 

Either the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers some accompanying theory of the world, or he or she does not.

If no theory of the world is offered, the argument is so vague as to be useless or even unintelligible: truth would then be supposed to be correspondence to some undefined, unknown or ineffable world. It is difficult to see how a candidate truth could be more certain than the world we are to judge its degree of correspondence against.

On the other hand, as soon as the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers a theory of the world, he or she is operating in some specific ontological or scientific theory, which stands in need of justification. But the only way to support the truth of this theory of the world that is allowed by the correspondence theory of truth is correspondence to the real world. Hence the argument is circular.[7]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth#Vagueness_or_circularity

One cannot escape the APPEARANCE of the world to see what it is "really" like.  

Another way of saying it is that human experience defines the world- as humans experience it.  That is a statement as obvious as "A=A"- a tautology.

So in my view, the truth is what "works" for a given need or from a given perspective, as shown in Alma 32.  The truth in Alma 32 is not about science- in a religious sphere, Alma says that "truth" of religfion is what is "sweet" to us.  The gospel is true because it works in our lives, not because it "corresponds to reality"  This is a different kind of truth than scientific truth.  Quantum mechanics is not "true" because believing in it makes our lives sweeter.  It is a theory that works.

THAT is what it has in common with what Alma teaches, so that can be called  a"pragmatic" theory of truth, not the "correspondence" theory of truth.

Science requires objective evidence- that means evidence we can see and feel and AGREE UPON.  

One may pray and get a testimony, and another not get a testimony.

When you boil water, everyone everywhere can agree on what temperature it boils at.  

We could have a video or go back to the crucifixion in a time machine and witness it (let's pretend).  What is the objective evidence that all can see and verify?  The objective evidence is a man on a cross, mutilated, and dying.  Everyone on  earth who saw that as a witness could agree on that much

But was this person the savior of the world, the Son of God and the Redeemer who died for YOUR sins and MINE?

No scientific evidence can prove that spiritual belief!  That proposition can only tested in our own hearts.

So which of these "correspond to reality"?   What IS "reality"?  Is it only what we can see and that which everyone agrees with?

Atheists like Dawkins actually say there is no God - that God is an illusion. Why?   Because there is no objective evidence everyone can see and measure and agree upon.

Dawkins still subscribes to the "correspondence theory of truth"- the idea that reality is what can be seen and felt and measured.  THAT IS what science is today.

You are asserting that science may change- but it has not.  

So today, science is not in a position to give ANY objective evidence for God because to do so VIOLATES its very assumptions that nothing which cannot  be see or measured exists.  It ASSUMES that such things do not exist, period, end of story.

D&C 93:30 says that truth operates in specific "spheres".  Science and religion are in separate spheres and so are the truths found in each.

But yes, what unifies them is Alma 32!  The truth is what "works" to achieve a specific end.  Religion seeks to change lives and to be "sweet", to give one peace and a sense of purpose in life, and so it "works" in that sphere

Science seeks to allow us to do and make things like computers and space vehicles, and it works wonderfully for that.

But finding purpose in your life is not at all like making a space vehicle.  If we do not understand that, you end up like Dawkins.

 

[The Nehor]

This thread just keeps taking strange turns.

[HappyJackWagon]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

"[God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be."
— Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:122.

 

That's a good quote. Thanks for sharing.

I don't believe it though. I chalk that up to another Brighamism based on his own understanding, time and culture.

How does that kind of creation square with organization of existing intelligences?

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't believe it though. I chalk that up to another Brighamism based on his own understanding, time and culture.

Well, you can use that excuse to ignore anything any prophet ever says that you don't like.  Makes every part, practice, and doctrine of the gospel optional.

Quote

How does that kind of creation square with organization of existing intelligences?

I don't think we know.
1. I think sometimes "intelligences" was used to describe us prior to our spirit birth (which I agree with Brigham on).

•  D&C 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.
   
• Is it logical to say 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. . . . Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle.  (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp.353-354)  - note Joseph here clearly distinguishes between the intelligence of a spirit and the spirit itself.
   
• Joseph Fielding Smith - 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 nor made. This intelligence combined with the spirit constitutes a spiritual identity or individual.  (Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:127)
  If the Lord declares that intelligence, something which we do not fully understand, was co-eternal with him and always existed, there is no argument that we can or should present to contradict it. Why he cannot create intelligence is simply because intelligence, like time and space, always existed, and therefore did not have to be created. However, intelligences spoken of in the Book of Abraham were created, for these are spirit children of God, begotten sons.  (Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:125)

2. And I think sometimes "intelligences" was used to describe God's spirit children as he organized us in the council in heaven.  (See below):

• Abraham 3:22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
  23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

• Lady, whence comest thou?  Thine origin?  What art thou doing here?  Whither art thou going, and what is thy destiny?  Declare unto me if thou hast understanding.  Knowest thou not that thou art a spark of Deity, struck from the fire of His eternal blaze, and brought forth in the midst of eternal burning?
  Knowest thou not that eternities ago thy spirit, pure and holy, dwelt in thy Heavenly Father’s bosom, and in His presence, and with thy mother, one of the queens of heaven, surrounded by thy brother and sister spirits in the spirit world, among the Gods?  That as thy spirit beheld the scenes transpiring there, and thou grewest in intelligence, thou sawest worlds upon worlds organized and peopled with thy kindred spirits who took upon them tabernacles, died, were resurrected, and received their exaltation on the redeemed worlds they once dwelt upon.  Thou being willing and anxious to imitate them, waiting and desirous to obtain a body, a resurrection and exaltation also, and having obtained permission, madest a covenant with one of thy kindred spirits to be thy guardian angel while in mortality, also with two others, male and female spirits, that thou wouldst come and take a tabernacle through their lineage, and become one of their offspring.  You also chose a kindred spirit whom you loved in the spirit world to be your head, stay, husband and protector on the earth and to exalt you in eternal worlds.  All these were arranged, likewise the spirits that should tabernacle through your lineage.  Leaving thy father and mother’s bosom and all thy kindred spirits thou camest to earth, took a tabernacle, and imitated the deeds of those who had been exalted before you.
  - President John Taylor

• In thy holy habitation,

  Did my spirit once reside?

  In my first primeval childhood

  Was I nurtured near thy side?
  -----

  For a wise and glorious purpose
  Thou hast placed me here on earth
  And withheld the recollection
  Of my former friends and birth;
  - O My Father by Eliza R. Snow

[HappyJackWagon]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't think we know.
1. I think sometimes "intelligences" was used to describe us prior to our spirit birth (which I agree with Brigham on).

•  D&C 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.
   
• Is it logical to say 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. . . . Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle.  (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp.353-354)  - note Joseph here clearly distinguishes between the intelligence of a spirit and the spirit itself.
   
• Joseph Fielding Smith - 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 nor made. This intelligence combined with the spirit constitutes a spiritual identity or individual.  (Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:127)
  If the Lord declares that intelligence, something which we do not fully understand, was co-eternal with him and always existed, there is no argument that we can or should present to contradict it. Why he cannot create intelligence is simply because intelligence, like time and space, always existed, and therefore did not have to be created. However, intelligences spoken of in the Book of Abraham were created, for these are spirit children of God, begotten sons.  (Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:125)

2. And I think sometimes "intelligences" was used to describe God's spirit children as he organized us in the council in heaven.  (See below):

• Abraham 3:22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
  23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

• Lady, whence comest thou?  Thine origin?  What art thou doing here?  Whither art thou going, and what is thy destiny?  Declare unto me if thou hast understanding.  Knowest thou not that thou art a spark of Deity, struck from the fire of His eternal blaze, and brought forth in the midst of eternal burning?
  Knowest thou not that eternities ago thy spirit, pure and holy, dwelt in thy Heavenly Father’s bosom, and in His presence, and with thy mother, one of the queens of heaven, surrounded by thy brother and sister spirits in the spirit world, among the Gods?  That as thy spirit beheld the scenes transpiring there, and thou grewest in intelligence, thou sawest worlds upon worlds organized and peopled with thy kindred spirits who took upon them tabernacles, died, were resurrected, and received their exaltation on the redeemed worlds they once dwelt upon.  Thou being willing and anxious to imitate them, waiting and desirous to obtain a body, a resurrection and exaltation also, and having obtained permission, madest a covenant with one of thy kindred spirits to be thy guardian angel while in mortality, also with two others, male and female spirits, that thou wouldst come and take a tabernacle through their lineage, and become one of their offspring.  You also chose a kindred spirit whom you loved in the spirit world to be your head, stay, husband and protector on the earth and to exalt you in eternal worlds.  All these were arranged, likewise the spirits that should tabernacle through your lineage.  Leaving thy father and mother’s bosom and all thy kindred spirits thou camest to earth, took a tabernacle, and imitated the deeds of those who had been exalted before you.
  - President John Taylor

• In thy holy habitation,

  Did my spirit once reside?

  In my first primeval childhood

  Was I nurtured near thy side?
  -----

  For a wise and glorious purpose
  Thou hast placed me here on earth
  And withheld the recollection
  Of my former friends and birth;
  - O My Father by Eliza R. Snow

Great response! Thanks.

Quote

Well, you can use that excuse to ignore anything any prophet ever says that you don't like.  Makes every part, practice, and doctrine of the gospel optional.

Good thinking. I agree. It is up to each one of us to decide for ourselves and not simply accept everything we are told.

[Robert F. Smith]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG1JpC5jels .