Earth: celestsial or telestial?

[Robert F. Smith]

Telestial à la H. Nibley, Works, XII:27-29,56: Gk telos "initiation" (Liddell & Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed., 1773), teleiomai "to be introduced into the mysteries" (p. 1772), teleiotes "person initiated into some degree or other of the mysteries, the completion of which = 'perfect'" (W. Jaeger, Paedeia, 1944, 3 vols.); cf. mysteries of the Kingdom (of Christians) = series of initiatory ordinances for achieving highest salvation, i.e. necessary ordinances taught confidentially by Christ to the Apostles during his post-resurrection 40-day ministry (Morton Smith, Secret Gospel, 1973, pp. 16-17,28,83,96,102-103,140-141).  cf. John W. Welch on teleios in his New Testament Word Studies, WEL-91 (FARMS, 1991), gathered from his series in the BYU Religious Studies Center Newsletter, 1988-1991; Welch cites Demosthenes, De Corona 259 (telousei "initiations" into the mysteries); B. Rigaux, "Révélation des mystères et perfection à Qumran et dans le Nouveau Testament," New Testament Studies, 4 (1957-58):248-252, notes three types of teleios: (1) two separate types of Christians, I Cor 2:6, (2) all believers perfect, Col 1:25-29, and (3) all believers becoming perfect, Eph 4:12-13.  The main temple of Demeter was the Telesterion at Eleusis, 14 miles from Athens, wherein the fertility rites known as the Eleusinian Mysteries were practiced each March and September.  The temple was first built about 1350 B.C. (Megaron B), in Mycenean times. 

Jane Harrison, "The Meaning of the Word Telery in Relation to the Social Origins of Greek Religion" (undated, unpublished essay, in Gilbert Murray Papers, GM 25, Bodleian Library, Oxford), says: "All the rites are, as M. Van Gennep has taught us, rites de passage,.." (re Arnold van Gennep, The Rites of Passage, trans. M. B. Vizedom & G. L. Caffee [Univ. of Chicago, 1960], from the 1909 Les rites de passage).  According to Harrison, "all the rites de passage have the same schema, birth, marriage, initiation, death, they are initiations: and true myth as opposed to legends have the schema," i.e., "entry, sanctification, exit," or "preliminal - liminal - post-liminal" (JEH Papers, ca. 1910, Newham College, Cambridge Univ.).  In his Hero With a Thousand Faces, Joseph Campbell saw this as "separation - initiation - return" (2nd ed., Bollingen Series 17 [Princeton, 1968], pp. 10, 30).  Robert Oden has more recently outlined the structure-in-common as (1) conflict, (2) disaster-death, (3) lamentation, and (4) rebirth (Bible Without Theology: The Theological Tradition and Alternatives to It, New Voices in Biblical Studies [Harper & Row, 1987], p. 65).  Cf. H. Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment (SLC: Deseret, 1975), pp. xii, 65.

In other words, this life is a ritual of initiation essential to our future.  We all agreed to it in the premortal council.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[bOObOO]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

You are correct in that I have the "potential" to "become" like him.  That's it.  I'm no God yet.   

When using the word God to refer to a particular kind of being, the kind we are which is also the same kind our Father is, we are though.  All of us who are this kind of being are God.  God is not only one person.  Anyone who is this kind of being is God.\

 

15 hours ago, pogi said:

Is a caterpillar a butterfly?  Nope, it only has potential to become one.  Same thing with God.  We have some changes that we need to go through first.  We are still caterpillars, so to speak.  Not butterfly's.  

Caterpillars and butterflies are the same kind of being, though.  Same thing with us and our Father.  We are not as perfect/complete as he is now but we have the potential to be because we are all the same kind of being.

15 hours ago, pogi said:

P.S. How do you know that the word "God" does not refer to an ordination/position/calling,

It may, and can.  Words often have more than one meaning and definition.

15 hours ago, pogi said:

instead of a type of being (which the some refer to as a "glorified man")?  In other words, all God's are men, but not all men are Gods.  

The problem I have with the first portion of your statement which I highlighted is that it conflicts with my knowledge that some "God's" (or I'd rather say persons who are God) are women rather than men.  In the second portion it's your use of the word "not".

[bOObOO]

49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Telestial à la H. Nibley, Works, XII:27-29,56: Gk telos "initiation" (Liddell & Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed., 1773), teleiomai "to be introduced into the mysteries" (p. 1772), teleiotes "person initiated into some degree or other of the mysteries, the completion of which = 'perfect'" (W. Jaeger, Paedeia, 1944, 3 vols.); cf. mysteries of the Kingdom (of Christians) = series of initiatory ordinances for achieving highest salvation, i.e. necessary ordinances taught confidentially by Christ to the Apostles during his post-resurrection 40-day ministry (Morton Smith, Secret Gospel, 1973, pp. 16-17,28,83,96,102-103,140-141).  cf. John W. Welch on teleios in his New Testament Word Studies, WEL-91 (FARMS, 1991), gathered from his series in the BYU Religious Studies Center Newsletter, 1988-1991; Welch cites Demosthenes, De Corona 259 (telousei "initiations" into the mysteries); B. Rigaux, "Révélation des mystères et perfection à Qumran et dans le Nouveau Testament," New Testament Studies, 4 (1957-58):248-252, notes three types of teleios: (1) two separate types of Christians, I Cor 2:6, (2) all believers perfect, Col 1:25-29, and (3) all believers becoming perfect, Eph 4:12-13.  The main temple of Demeter was the Telesterion at Eleusis, 14 miles from Athens, wherein the fertility rites known as the Eleusinian Mysteries were practiced each March and September.  The temple was first built about 1350 B.C. (Megaron B), in Mycenean times. 

Jane Harrison, "The Meaning of the Word Telery in Relation to the Social Origins of Greek Religion" (undated, unpublished essay, in Gilbert Murray Papers, GM 25, Bodleian Library, Oxford), says: "All the rites are, as M. Van Gennep has taught us, rites de passage,.." (re Arnold van Gennep, The Rites of Passage, trans. M. B. Vizedom & G. L. Caffee [Univ. of Chicago, 1960], from the 1909 Les rites de passage).  According to Harrison, "all the rites de passage have the same schema, birth, marriage, initiation, death, they are initiations: and true myth as opposed to legends have the schema," i.e., "entry, sanctification, exit," or "preliminal - liminal - post-liminal" (JEH Papers, ca. 1910, Newham College, Cambridge Univ.).  In his Hero With a Thousand Faces, Joseph Campbell saw this as "separation - initiation - return" (2nd ed., Bollingen Series 17 [Princeton, 1968], pp. 10, 30).  Robert Oden has more recently outlined the structure-in-common as (1) conflict, (2) disaster-death, (3) lamentation, and (4) rebirth (Bible Without Theology: The Theological Tradition and Alternatives to It, New Voices in Biblical Studies [Harper & Row, 1987], p. 65).  Cf. H. Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment (SLC: Deseret, 1975), pp. xii, 65.

In other words, this life is a ritual of initiation essential to our future.  We all agreed to it in the premortal council.

So I suppose those who will still be telestial after the final judgement will be those who haven't advanced to the next stage of our progression.  They will still remain telestial as many are now, even if the planet they will live on will be nicer than this one.

Glory has to do with intelligence, so the more intelligence we gain or accept, the more glory we have or will have.  Many of us here on this planet have already received a portion of celestial glory, even though we may look like those with less glory.

And it is the priesthood of God that enables us to see and understand who and what God is as we exercise the power of godliness we now have to work with.

Edited August 11, 2021 by bOObOO

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

When using the word God to refer to a particular kind of being, the kind we are which is also the same kind our Father is, we are though.  All of us who are this kind of being are God.  God is not only one person.  Anyone who is this kind of being is God.\

The problem is that you are just making this stuff up.  

30 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Caterpillars and butterflies are the same kind of being, though.  Same thing with us and our Father.  We are not as perfect/complete as he is now but we have the potential to be because we are all the same kind of being.

Yes, they are the same kind of being, just and God and I are both men (that is the type we have in common), but I am no God; just as a caterpillar and butterfly are the same type of being, yet a caterpillar is no butterfly.   I am a man, the same as God - just not glorified as he is (which makes him a God).

32 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

The problem I have with the first portion of your statement which I highlighted is that it conflicts with my knowledge that some "God's" (or I'd rather say persons who are God) are women rather than men.  In the second portion it's your use of the word "not".

The word "man" or "men" as used in scripture ("good will to all men") and dictionaries is short for "mankind" and includes women too.  But I think you knew that. 

Quote

Man:

a human being of either sex; a person.

 

[bOObOO]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The problem is that you are just making this stuff up.  

LOL.  No, not really.  I just pay attention to how various people think and use words.

When I use the word God, who or what am I talking about and how would you know?  From my own experiences I have seen that various people refer to various things by the use of that word.

God, then, evidently, is a word that often refers to more than one person, and if more than one person then, apparently, there is something else that links those people together, such as them all being the same kind of being, or something in common.

I also know that our Lord has referred to many of us mortals as god or gods, and on more than one occasion.  And that he also referred to his Father as our Father in heaven, too, so if he is his Father and our Father too, then we must all be the same kind of being.

Back to basic biology again.  When a species reproduces what they reproduce is the same kind of being as those parents who reproduce themselves. 

So while you can claim that I am just making this stuff up, and believe what you say, I know for a fact that there is a lot of evidence that backs me up, as I have illustrated..

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Yes, they are the same kind of being, just and God and I are both men (that is the type we have in common), but I am no God; just as a caterpillar and butterfly are the same type of being, yet a caterpillar is no butterfly.   I am a man, the same as God - just not glorified as he is (which makes him a God).

The word "man" or "men" as used in scripture ("good will to all men") and dictionaries is short for "mankind" and includes women too.  But I think you knew that. 

 

You didn't use the word mankind before.  You said all God's are men.  Women are not men.  Deal with that fact.

Edited August 11, 2021 by bOObOO

[pogi]

53 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

...apparently, there is something else that links those people together, such as them all being the same kind of being, or something in common.

Yep, it is called being "human" that makes us all the same kind of being and gives us something in common. 

54 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Back to basic biology again.  When a species reproduces what they reproduce is the same kind of being as those parents who reproduce themselves. 

I agree.  Basic biology!  We are all human, that is the biological nomenclature, therefore God must be human if we are all the same kind of being.  If we are strictly keeping us to basic biology, that is what links us biologically - being human!  There is no God in "basic biology" nomenclature.  Sorry.  "God", biologically speaking, must therefore mean something else, like a position/calling/ordination etc. that is no necesarily biological. 

58 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

You didn't use the word mankind before.  You said all God's are men.  Women are not men.  Deal with that fact.

Yep, and it is still true that "men" also means "mankind" and includes women.  Deal with that fact. 

Quote

 

14 And my Father sent me that I might be ^alifted up upon the ^bcross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the ^ccross, that I might ^ddraw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be ^ejudged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

15 And for this cause have I been ^alifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their ^bworks.

 

I guess that doesn't include women?

Quote

Acts 17:34 (ESV) reads: “But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.” In the first sentence of this verse, the Greek word for “men” is translated “correctly.” But the following sentence names two of those “men”—Dionysius (a man) and Damaris (a woman). And we don’t have to depend on knowledge of whether Damaris is a man’s or a woman’s name, because Luke spells it out: “a woman named Damaris.” Various Bibles, including the egalitarian-leaning NRSV and the complementarian-leaning CSB don’t use the word “men” here because the text obviously isn’t referring to men only.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

So I suppose those who will still be telestial after the final judgement will be those who haven't advanced to the next stage of our progression.  They will still remain telestial as many are now, even if the planet they will live on will be nicer than this one.

Glory has to do with intelligence, so the more intelligence we gain or accept, the more glory we have or will have.  Many of us here on this planet have already received a portion of celestial glory, even though we may look like those with less glory.

And it is the priesthood of God that enables us to see and understand who and what God is as we exercise the power of godliness we now have to work with.

It boils down to learning how to groke.  When we are in the celestial room of an LDS temple, that is not the celestial glory.  It is only a ritual substitute for the real thing.  Being in a telestial state now has nothing to do with the telestial glory after the final judgment.  They are very separate, distinct states.

[bOObOO]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yep, it is called being "human" that makes us all the same kind of being and gives us something in common. 

So you would rather call our Father a human than use the word God to refer to all of us, him and his children?  I would rather call all of us God than call all of us human, but it is just a word, and probably not a big problem\ whatever we're called. 

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree.  Basic biology!  We are all human, that is the biological nomenclature, therefore God must be human if we are all the same kind of being.  If we are strictly keeping us to basic biology, that is what links us biologically - being human!  There is no God in "basic biology" nomenclature.  Sorry.  "God", biologically speaking, must therefore mean something else, like a position/calling/ordination etc. that is no necesarily biological. 

I am someone who is and has been trying to focus on the divinity in all of us, and using the word God to do that seems to me like a good way to do that.  People who use the word human to refer to us don't usually mention that aspect of us, so I do.

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yep, and it is still true that "men" also means "mankind" and includes women.  Deal with that fact. 

I guess that doesn't include women?

 

Just a matter of trying to be specific by using specific words to refer to specific ideas.  I'm fine with all of us thinking we are all the same kind of being as our Father in heaven, whether Father or Son or Daughter or Mother, using the word Human or God.

[bOObOO]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It boils down to learning how to groke.  When we are in the celestial room of an LDS temple, that is not the celestial glory.  It is only a ritual substitute for the real thing.  Being in a telestial state now has nothing to do with the telestial glory after the final judgment.  They are very separate, distinct states.

intelligence = glory.  I wasn't talking about being in a particular room.  We receive celestial glory, I believe, by accepting celestial-level intelligence.  Joseph Smith was a prophet of God type thing.  He really was.  Accepting that intelligence qualifies as accepting celestial-level intelligence, a portion of celestial; glory. It has nothing to do with where we are, what room we are in or what planet we are on.  The more celestial-level intelligence we receive and accept the more celestial glory we have.  Whether right here right now or somewhere else later.  It all has to do with what we will and will not accept.

edited to add:  well, being in a particular room may have something to do with receiving celestial-level intelligence/glory, like why we would be in an endowment room in a temple, but that is a bit beyond the specific point I was making.

Edited August 11, 2021 by bOObOO

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

So you would rather call our Father a human than use the word God to refer to all of us, him and his children?  I would rather call all of us God than call all of us human, but it is just a word, and probably not a big problem\ whatever we're called. 

I am someone who is and has been trying to focus on the divinity in all of us, and using the word God to do that seems to me like a good way to do that.  People who use the word human to refer to us don't usually mention that aspect of us, so I do.

Just a matter of trying to be specific by using specific words to refer to specific ideas.  I'm fine with all of us thinking we are all the same kind of being as our Father in heaven, whether Father or Son or Daughter or Mother, using the word Human or God.

Ok.

Yes I prefer to think of God as a glorified "human", rather than thinking of us as "God's".  The beauty of that is that when we realize that God too is a human, then it elevates the human species and potential - giving us all hope and aspirations to fulfill our full potential which is inherent in humankind, without resorting to self-aggrandizing notions of Godhood - which tends to sound...kooky, delusional, and narcissistic (even if that is not what you were intending - that is how it comes off).  The truth that we are all children of God (a glorified human) and that we all have potential to be like him is enough to inspire me and recognize the direct link with divinity within.  It elevates humanism to a whole new sphere.  

[bOObOO]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Ok.

Yes I prefer to think of God as a glorified "human", rather than thinking of us as "God's".  The beauty of that is that when we realize that God too is a human, then it elevates the human species and potential - giving us all hope and aspirations to fulfill our full potential which is inherent in humankind, without resorting to self-aggrandizing notions of Godhood - which tends to sound...kooky, delusional, and narcissistic (even if that is not what you were intending - that is how it comes off).  The truth that we are all children of God (a glorified human) and that we all have potential to be like him is enough to inspire me and recognize the direct link with divinity within.  It elevates humanism to a whole new sphere.  

Some say and would say that, yes, okay, while calling our Father (God) human elevates humanism to a whole new sphere, a higher sphere, it also comes off as making our Father less than what he is (God).  That it's a 2 way street, a double-edged sword.

And getting an idea of what our Father is like based on how we (humans) are and have been while on this planet doesn't seem to me like a good way to understand how great and grand he is.  He is way better than all but 1 who has lived on this planet.

Reminds me of this song, with me thinking he is a heck of a lot better than most of us:  

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

Some say and would say that, yes, okay, while calling our Father (God) human elevates humanism to a whole new sphere, a higher sphere, it also comes off as making our Father less than what he is (God).  That it's a 2 way street, a double-edged sword.

That is why I like to emphasize that he is a glorified, perfected, and/or exalted human.  That is in no way shape or form demeaning of our God.  It is true. 

[bOObOO]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is why I like to emphasize that he is a glorified, perfected, and/or exalted human.  That is in no way shape or form demeaning of our God.  It is true. 

I agree that it is true.  I wonder why our missionary tracts don't focus more on that point.  God is one of us.  Not a slob like one of us, but still one of us.  And we are one of what he is, too, even though we are not as good or perfect at being what we are as he is.

[Nofear]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In other words, this life is a ritual of initiation essential to our future.  We all agreed to it in the premortal council.

I appreciate this perspective. Admittedly I often am quite willing to disregard ancient thinking unless it conforms to my extant thinking on things, but ocassionaly something gives me pause for thought. This is such. Thank you.

Though, if the term is accurately descriptive, it does suggest a kingdom hopping paradigm. A controversial subject discussed on this board before.

[Nofear]

If the earth is obedient to a celestial law (and I believe the scriptures on that), I wonder what a planet (or star, etc.) that does *not* obey celestial law looks like? I personally don't subscribe to the literal anthropomorphism of the earth and as such one can ask is it even possible for non-free agency objects to not obey a celestial law. If so, it makes trite the decleration. If not, the question of celestial law non-compliant astronomical objects a curious (even if ultimately unimportant right now) question.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

I appreciate this perspective. Admittedly I often am quite willing to disregard ancient thinking unless it conforms to my extant thinking on things, but ocassionaly something gives me pause for thought. This is such. Thank you.

Though, if the term is accurately descriptive, it does suggest a kingdom hopping paradigm. A controversial subject discussed on this board before.

Is "kingdom hopping" like serial reiigiosity?  Membership in the religion of the month club?

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

If the earth is obedient to a celestial law (and I believe the scriptures on that), I wonder what a planet (or star, etc.) that does *not* obey celestial law looks like? I personally don't subscribe to the literal anthropomorphism of the earth and as such one can ask is it even possible for non-free agency objects to not obey a celestial law. If so, it makes trite the decleration. If not, the question of celestial law non-compliant astronomical objects a curious (even if ultimately unimportant right now) question.

We may want to ask whether quantum entanglement proves that Einstein was right about everything being predetermined.  No free agency.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, bOObOO said:

intelligence = glory.  I wasn't talking about being in a particular room.  We receive celestial glory, I believe, by accepting celestial-level intelligence.  Joseph Smith was a prophet of God type thing.  He really was.  Accepting that intelligence qualifies as accepting celestial-level intelligence, a portion of celestial; glory. It has nothing to do with where we are, what room we are in or what planet we are on.  The more celestial-level intelligence we receive and accept the more celestial glory we have.  Whether right here right now or somewhere else later.  It all has to do with what we will and will not accept.

edited to add:  well, being in a particular room may have something to do with receiving celestial-level intelligence/glory, like why we would be in an endowment room in a temple, but that is a bit beyond the specific point I was making.

Intelligence is not glory, and it is not IQ.

Joseph Smith said during his 1844 King Follett Funeral Oration:

Quote

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, 353-354, as reported in Times & Seasons.

D&C 93:29 has intelligence as an uncreate “light of truth.”  Indeed, “the glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth” (D&C 93:36), and that is Joseph Smith in 1833.

Abraham 3:18 Gnolaum “eternal” (intelligences), is the equivalent of Phanes, "the Shining One," and of Chronos, "Endless Time" = Persian Zurvan-Akarana “Infinite Time & Space” (Avesta).

[OGHoosier]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We may want to ask whether quantum entanglement proves that Einstein was right about everything being predetermined.  No free agency.

I'm inclined to think the opposite, that quantum indeterminacy undermines Einstein's ideas about the universe. 

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

D&C 93:29 has intelligence as an uncreated “light of truth.”  Indeed, “the glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth” (D&C 93:36), and that is Joseph Smith in 1833.

Would that be akin to sense-awareness or first-person experience?

[Robert F. Smith]

30 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I'm inclined to think the opposite, that quantum indeterminacy undermines Einstein's ideas about the universe. 

In order to explain the quantum eraser phenomena, one might opt for full determinism in the universe.

30 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Would that be akin to sense-awareness or first-person experience?

More like entelechy or nous.

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In order to explain the quantum eraser phenomena, one might opt for full determinism in the universe.

One might. If I'm not mistaken, the de Broglie-Bohm school opts for such, but other schools are not so eager. One commenter even holds forth that delayed-choice eraser experiments actually make the case for free will.

I confess that physics is far from my expertise at this point, so I might be prone to some embarrassing mistakes. 

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

More like entelechy or nous.

Fair enough. What do you think of the Thomistic account of mind and body, in which the nous is the immaterial aspect of the soul?

[bOObOO]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Intelligence is not glory, and it is not IQ.

Joseph Smith said during his 1844 King Follett Funeral Oration:

 

 

 

D&C 93:29 has intelligence as an uncreate “light of truth.”  Indeed, “the glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth” (D&C 93:36), and that is Joseph Smith in 1833.

Abraham 3:18 Gnolaum “eternal” (intelligences), is the equivalent of Phanes, "the Shining One," and of Chronos, "Endless Time" = Persian Zurvan-Akarana “Infinite Time & Space” (Avesta).

 

You have the same words and yet you do not see what I see.  What is light and truth, to your mind?  Break it down.  What is light?  What is truth? 

Light is what enables us to see and understand...things, things that are true, or were true, or will be.  Truth is what is or was or will be.  Reality, as it is or was or will be.  And there is nothing else in existence but what is, and was, and will be.  

The glory of God is intelligence, so to God, glory is intelligence.  And intelligence can be graded or classified by order or degree of intelligence,  By the degree to which someone or some creature is able to see what is or was or will be. 

God is more intelligent than all other kinds or orders of beings, and in his own order our Father is supreme.  It is not possible for anyone or anything to see more than he is able to see.  At most all we can do is become as intelligent as he is and will always be.

[Robert F. Smith]

21 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

You have the same words and yet you do not see what I see.  What is light and truth, to your mind?  Break it down.  What is light?  What is truth? 

Light is what enables us to see and understand...things, things that are true, or were true, or will be.  Truth is what is or was or will be.  Reality, as it is or was or will be.  And there is nothing else in existence but what is, and was, and will be.  

The glory of God is intelligence, so to God, glory is intelligence.  And intelligence can be graded or classified by order or degree of intelligence,  By the degree to which someone or some creature is able to see what is or was or will be. 

God is more intelligent than all other kinds or orders of beings, and in his own order our Father is supreme.  It is not possible for anyone or anything to see more than he is able to see.  At most all we can do is become as intelligent as he is and will always be.

To say that "The glory of God is intelligence" does not mean that glory = intellegence.  It simply means that intelligence gives God glory.  That has nothing to do with IQ or degree of understanding.  Intelligence is an uncreated substance which is immortal, and all of us have it as the very basis or our existence.  It has no beginning and it has no end.  It is eternal.  You are confusing the everyday meaning of "intellegence" as IQ with this special theological concept.  Those are two very different meanings, and the Brethren have emphasized that difference:

Joseph Fielding Smith said:

Quote

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.

 

Harold B. Lee said:

Quote

A spirit, Abraham says, is an organized intelligence. This is the first beginning we have in our understanding of what a spirit is. It is an organized intelligence that lived as a spirit before this world was.  The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, 28.

There is something that is not created or made. The scriptures called it "intelligence," which at a certain stage in the pre-existence was organized into a "spirit."  The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, 74.

Edited August 12, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

.......................

Fair enough. What do you think of the Thomistic account of mind and body, in which the nous is the immaterial aspect of the soul?

Sounds promising, and in line with the thinking of Orson Pratt on immaterialism.

[bOObOO]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

To say that "The glory of God is intelligence" does not mean that glory = intellegence.  It simply means that intelligence gives God glory.  That has nothing to do with IQ or degree of understanding.  Intelligence is an uncreated substance which is immortal, and all of us have it as the very basis or our existence.  It has no beginning and it has no end.  It is eternal.  You are confusing the everyday meaning of "intellegence" as IQ with this special theological concept.  Those are two very different meanings, and the Brethren have emphasized that difference:

Joseph Fielding Smith said:

 

Harold B. Lee said:

I think we understand each other now, on this issue, and I see no need or benefit to continue this discussion now.

[Metis_LDS]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds promising, and in line with the thinking of Orson Pratt on immaterialism.

Robert it is not the same around here without you.