An interesting approach to the Book of Mormon

[ParkerD]

In the Mormon concept of God, can God create or destroy “intelligences?”
Is there anything that God cannot (or did not) create or destroy?

And what does it mean for Jesus to be God’s “Only Begotten” Son? (Yes, it’s related to the other two questions, but I’ll explain after some answers)

Hi, Arandur,

Since God is truly omnipotent, then what He “can” do is anything. What He chooses to do may be different than what He can do, and since He chooses to send Satan and the fallen spirits to outer darkness in their final outcome for all eternity, then it sounds to me like He does not “destroy” intelligences, but lets them live forever with the eternal consequences of the choices they have made, including those fallen “angels” having rejected Christ and rejected any and all truth and light. He did not “create” intelligences from nothing, but organized them and created each spirit using an intelligence as the beginning “spark of life” or “spark of living energy” or whatever one chooses to call it.

As far as I have understood, the Only Begotten Son was “in the bosom of the Father” and became God’s Only Begotten Son by being begotten as a spirit from His intelligence, which was vastly superior in light, love, and affinity for truth, than all other intelligences, and the First Born Spirit by eons of time and the Only Begotten Son in the spirit world as well as on this earth. He was begotten in the flesh as the literal Son of God through the power of the Holy Ghost overshadowing Mary who conceived as a virgin and remained so until after His birth.

 

[Peter_John]

I am well aware of what most Mormons believe. I like to let them speak for themselves, though, which is why I’m waiting for ParkerD or others to respond.

In my experience, I’ve found that there’s majority Mormon belief, and then a broad variety of other viewpoints among them that differ vastly; these can make discussions with Mormons about their beliefs very…slippery, and hard to nail down. That’s why I’d like to hear answers to these questions from the current LDS participants to see what avenue we’d like to go down here.

In that case I will do you the courtesy of sitting out a few rounds.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Hi, Arandur,

.

As far as I have understood, the Only Begotten Son was “in the bosom of the Father” and became God’s Only Begotten Son by being begotten as a spirit from His intelligence, which was vastly superior in light, love, and affinity for truth, than all other intelligences, and the First Born Spirit by eons of time and the Only Begotten Son in the spirit world as well as on this earth. He was begotten in the flesh as the literal Son of God through the power of the Holy Ghost overshadowing Mary who conceived as a virgin and remained so until after His birth.

Are you saying the Son was begotten from the Fathers “intelligence”?

 

[ParkerD]

So you affirm that God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient?

I have no idea how you arrived at that completely erroneous conclusion about either my beliefs or about God.

You affirm that Satan is a self-existing entity

No, I didn’t. The intelligence that was created into the spirit that became Satan and that rebelled against God, existed before God created that spirit, but the words “self-existing” are completely incorrect. He was not “self-existing”.

predisposed to oppose God.

No–he is described as having been a “son of the morning” and a “light-bearer”. He is described as having had authority in the presence of God, and then he became Satan, rebellious, a fallen angel, who was cast down to earth and seeks to deceive and to blind men and to take them captive and keep them captive. He is allowed to do these things on this earth, by God, and that does not make God non-omnipotent–it means God has allowed this to happen for a loving purpose since everything God does is for loving purposes.

You state that were this not so God would be responsible for Satan’s rebellion.
Instead you say God organized Satan from a self-existant form into a higher form.
You affirm this makes God not responsible for Satan’s rebellion.

Not from a “self-existent” form–from an unorganized “spark of life” form. God gave the spirits that He created their free will choice–to seek truth and light, or not, to obey His will and His wisdom, or not.

However, if God knew that Satan was predisposed to rebellion he would be just as responsible for Satan’s rebellion by organizing him into a higher form as if he had created him in the first place. Therefore, you have to believe in a less than omniscient God.

No, I don’t. God certainly had foreknowledge about Satan’s rebellion, and His plan of salvation included the foreknowledge that Satan would rebel and that for this very reason the Savior and Redeemer would be needed by us in order to return to His presence. But this does not mean Satan’s rebellion was planned by God–it was foreseen by God through His omniscience, and the results of that rebellion were also foreseen and planned through a perfect plan and His perfect foreknowledge, including His knowing that by His side was His Divinely Perfect Only Begotten Son.

Since you affirm God only has power to organize pre-existing matter and intelligence, then you do not believe that God has the power to create from nothing. This God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient.

No, I didn’t write “only has power…” He chooses that which He chooses to do, and does so in wisdom and with a plan. No Biblical scripture declares that He created “from nothing”. Being omnipotent, He could. Being also wise and good and loving, He does that which the Bible declares about “creation”. He is the ultimate Teacher and the ultimate Example, as the Son declared of Him; and the Son is also the Perfect Teacher and Perfect Example for us to follow.

 

[Peter_John]

So you affirm that God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient?

I have no idea how you arrived at that completely erroneous conclusion about either my beliefs or about God.

Well, starting with this …

Satan was not created from nothing by God,…

Which means he was created from something which God Himself did not create. In order to have total power over something one must create it completely. I have total power over the words I put in this post, because I create them. I have no power over the protocol of the forum, and therefore must work within limitations. Omnipotence means no limitiations

…and therefore God is not the author of Satan’s rebellion.

This suggests that something already a part of Satan, before God organized His intelligence, created Satan’s rebellion. Had God known about it and organized Satan’s intelligence anyway his responsibility for Satan’s rebellion is no less than had he created Satan from nothing. Being omnipotent, he could have removed the destructive part before elevating him – but that would counter free-agency, right? If that means he could not remove it, that means that God is bound by our free-agency from eternity, and He is not omnipotent. That cycles back to the omniscience argument again.

I think that anyone who thinks God created Satan from nothing and then says they somehow think God gave Satan free will choice and yet isn’t ultimately responsible if indeed He created Satan from nothing and placed every attribute of Satan’s personality and character traits into his spirit, then that particular “anyone” has chosen not to follow the trail to the source. If you pick up the end point, you have only to follow that end point to its beginning and figure out who started the beginning point in order to understand the end point.

This asserts that Satan’s intelligence in unorganized form already included the essence of his character, personality, and will before God did anything to “create” him. That makes him …

… a self-existing entity, predisposed to oppose God…

Traced to the source, by your own description, we find a neither omnipotent nor omniscient God, who advances a self-existent Satan to a position of greater power and influence.

Not from a “self-existent” form–from an unorganized “spark of life” form. God gave the spirits that He created their free will choice–to seek truth and light, or not, to obey His will and His wisdom, or not.

So now he is an intelligence with personality, character, and will, uncreated and eternal , but somehow not self-existent? This also asserts they did not have free-agency before their “organization”, so God was free to remove anything he did not like. The only way that makes him less responsible for Satan’s rebellion than creating him completely is if he either did not know it was there, or did not know how to remove it – eliminating both omniscience and omnipotence.

I trust you see the internal inconsistencies in your arguments. The eternal intelligences either had personality and character already, or they did not. They either had free will already or they did not. So which of these did Joseph Smith teach?

If God can only create from what already exists, what already exists limits Him. It also suggests there is something about what already exists that God does not know, as He cannot create it. This already questions His omniscience. Omnipotence means no limitations. Since sin is failure to trust in God, and one cannot completely trust a less than omnipotent God, believing in a God who can only create from what already exists already engenders sin.

 

[ParkerD]

Peter John,

I understand your point of view about Satan having been known as one who would rebel, although he had been a “son of the morning”–but what your post didn’t deal with was two important considerations:

1. God allows evil to exist because of the wise principle of “opposition in all things”, with which you may be at least somewhat familiar, and which I realize you may have rejected but makes complete sense to me. This means God could “see into the future” with regard to the intelligence, the “spark of life”, which he created into the spirit that became Satan, the rebellious and fallen angel–but that He did this because He knew that by the opposition that Satan would bring about, other spirits with great and good potential could grow by overcoming the opposition—and lo and behold, that is why we are here on this earth: to overcome that opposition begun and continued by Satan, the father of lies and of contention and rebellion.

Thus, we are in a position to grow by overcoming his opposition, and God had foreseen the opportunity this would entail for us of our growth, since we would not be perfect in our lives on earth as only Jesus, the supreme Only Begotten Son of God, would have the strength, light, intelligence, goodness, love, and love for truth to rise above every attempt by Satan and to be sinless, perfect, Wonderful, Counselor, the Prince of Peace.

But without God’s hand in the creation of the spirit body of that fallen angel, there was only a “spark” of existence and I don’t call that “self-existence” because it has no possibility of either growth or of choosing to rebel–it was in a static condition or an embryonic condition.

1. God only allowed Satan to do what he has done, because God had the divine plan of salvation that included knowing He had the Son Whom He would be able to send to earth to be our redeemer, knowing we would sin but that if we followed the Savior we could overcome our tendencies to sin, and grow just as the apostles grew toward becoming more loving, more tender, more faithful, and more Christ-like.

All this is explained quite well in the Book of Mormon, in many chapters but especially in 2 Nephi 2 and 9, and Alma 41 and 42.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I have no idea how you arrived at that completely erroneous conclusion about either my beliefs or about God.

No, I didn’t. The intelligence that was created into the spirit that became Satan and that rebelled against God, existed before God created that spirit, but the words “self-existing” are completely incorrect. He was not “self-existing”.

If the intelligence existed before being acted upon by God then how is it not “self-existing”. It would have continued to exist in it’s unchanged state if God had left it alone, leaving the “intelligence” self-existing.

And I don’t think “created into” is standard usage of the word create, no one says the steel was created into rebar.

And you have not answered on the “Only Begotten” question. Are you saying that the Son was begotten from the Fathers intelligence?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Peter John,

But without God’s hand in the creation of the spirit body of that fallen angel, there was only a “spark” of existence and I don’t call that “self-existence” because it has no possibility of either growth or of choosing to rebel–it was in a static condition or an embryonic condition.

How did God get out of that static embryonic state?

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

I understand your point of view about Satan having been known as one who would rebel, although he had been a “son of the morning”–but what your post didn’t deal with was two important considerations:

1. God allows evil to exist because of the wise principle of “opposition in all things”, with which you may be at least somewhat familiar, and which I realize you may have rejected but makes complete sense to me. This means God could “see into the future” with regard to the intelligence, the “spark of life”, which he created into the spirit that became Satan, the rebellious and fallen angel–but that He did this because He knew that by the opposition that Satan would bring about, other spirits with great and good potential could grow by overcoming the opposition—and lo and behold, that is why we are here on this earth: to overcome that opposition begun and continued by Satan, the father of lies and of contention and rebellion.

Thus, we are in a position to grow by overcoming his opposition, and God had foreseen the opportunity this would entail for us of our growth, since we would not be perfect in our lives on earth as only Jesus, the supreme Only Begotten Son of God, would have the strength, light, intelligence, goodness, love, and love for truth to rise above every attempt by Satan and to be sinless, perfect, Wonderful, Counselor, the Prince of Peace.

But without God’s hand in the creation of the spirit body of that fallen angel, there was only a “spark” of existence and I don’t call that “self-existence” because it has no possibility of either growth or of choosing to rebel–it was in a static condition or an embryonic condition.

1. God only allowed Satan to do what he has done, because God had the divine plan of salvation that included knowing He had the Son Whom He would be able to send to earth to be our redeemer, knowing we would sin but that if we followed the Savior we could overcome our tendencies to sin, and grow just as the apostles grew toward becoming more loving, more tender, more faithful, and more Christ-like.

All this is explained quite well in the Book of Mormon, in many chapters but especially in 2 Nephi 2 and 9, and Alma 41 and 42.

Your post is completely unresponsive to anything I wrote. The best I can figure you are attempting to introduce certain themes into this issue, which I agree are pertinent to the overall thread, but have no bearing on what I posted.

Almost everything in your current post refers to the Adversary in what you would call the “organized” state of his intelligence as a Spirit child of God in the pre-mortal life, as you perceive it. Everything I wrote had to do with demonstrating how your description of his state, and the state of everyone else, before being organized into Spirits is antithetical to the omniscience and the omnipotence of God, but if you wish to leave that where I ended, fine with me.

We can move back to the Book of Mormon, and the theme of this thread, which began with the approach that Joseph Smith may have had a limited mission of delivering the Book of Mormon to the World. So, even before we address the references you cite, we should probably consider what indicates the Book of Mormon’s legitimacy or lack of it.

 

[Peter_John]

But without God’s hand in the creation of the spirit body of that fallen angel, there was only a “spark” of existence and I don’t call that “self-existence” because it has no possibility of either growth or of choosing to rebel–it was in a static condition or an embryonic condition…

Even if that spark is there, God did not create it, and hence is not omnipotent. Since when did not being able to grow mean non-existence? A piece of plastic cannot grow. Does that mean it doesn’t exist?

In your theology those of us assigned to the two lower kingdoms of glory in our final judgement will not be able to progress or have increae after a certain point – for all eternity. Does that mean we will cease to exist when we can grow no more?

So what if one is but the tiniest spark of life? “A person’s a person, no matter how small.” Dr. Seuss, “Horton Hears a Who”

Also, you do not accurately express Joseph Smith’s teachings about the initial nature of all unorganized intelligences. Some , he teaches, are greater than others to begin with, and part of what gives God his status is being greater than all the rest of them put together.

 

[Peter_John]

The intelligence that was created into the spirit that became Satan and that rebelled against God, existed before God created that spirit, but the words “self-existing” are completely incorrect. He was not “self-existing”.

In order for this statement to be true that intelligence had to be created by someone or something other than God. Is that what you are saying? See, if it exists before God acts upon it, but is not self-existent, it had to come from somewhere. Are you saying that someone or something else was engaged in creation before God began creating, or at the same time?

 

[JeanMichel]

Peter John,

I understand your point of view about Satan having been known as one who would rebel, although he had been a “son of the morning”–but what your post didn’t deal with was two important considerations:

1. God allows evil to exist because of the wise principle of “opposition in all things”, with which you may be at least somewhat familiar, and which I realize you may have rejected but makes complete sense to me. This means God could “see into the future” with regard to the intelligence, the “spark of life”, which he created into the spirit that became Satan, the rebellious and fallen angel–but that He did this because He knew that by the opposition that Satan would bring about, other spirits with great and good potential could grow by overcoming the opposition—and lo and behold, that is why we are here on this earth: to overcome that opposition begun and continued by Satan, the father of lies and of contention and rebellion.

Thus, we are in a position to grow by overcoming his opposition, and God had foreseen the opportunity this would entail for us of our growth, since we would not be perfect in our lives on earth as only Jesus, the supreme Only Begotten Son of God, would have the strength, light, intelligence, goodness, love, and love for truth to rise above every attempt by Satan and to be sinless, perfect, Wonderful, Counselor, the Prince of Peace.

But without God’s hand in the creation of the spirit body of that fallen angel, there was only a “spark” of existence and I don’t call that “self-existence” because it has no possibility of either growth or of choosing to rebel–it was in a static condition or an embryonic condition.

1. God only allowed Satan to do what he has done, because God had the divine plan of salvation that included knowing He had the Son Whom He would be able to send to earth to be our redeemer, knowing we would sin but that if we followed the Savior we could overcome our tendencies to sin, and grow just as the apostles grew toward becoming more loving, more tender, more faithful, and more Christ-like.

All this is explained quite well in the Book of Mormon, in many chapters but especially in 2 Nephi 2 and 9, and Alma 41 and 42.

Parker, within Mormonism how much is known about “Intelligences”? Has any of your prophets explained them or defined them? I guess it could be like the doctrine of the Trinity where no one understands it (because it is impossible to understand God), but it is a truth that we accept and learn.

Why do you think God reveals truths to your prophets, but does not really explain their value or importance?

Do you personally think that Intelligences have a concept of “self” or are they more evolved? Also, when God says that he is the Alpha and the Omega/First and Last, what do you think he means?

 

[ParkerD]

If the intelligence existed before being acted upon by God then how is it not “self-existing”. It would have continued to exist in it’s unchanged state if God had left it alone, leaving the “intelligence” self-existing.

And I don’t think “created into” is standard usage of the word create, no one says the steel was created into rebar.

And you have not answered on the “Only Begotten” question. Are you saying that the Son was begotten from the Fathers intelligence?

Zaffiroborant,

The intelligence that existed that was organized into the spirit that “became Satan” “would have continued to exist in it’s original unchanged state”, yes. But it would not have been identified as “Satan” at that earlier point in eternal time. I guess I look at the words “self-existing” as meaning “surviving and interacting by itself as an independent agent”, and I don’t think of “intelligences” as doing that. I think they were more embryonic than that kind of condition.

An artist creates a painting using the raw materials and the mind–the paint, the brushes and other instruments, the canvas, his or her intuition and imagination and training and inspiration that may come from either within or without–and “creates” the painting. We are not like “rebar”–we are much more like a “live painting” or a “living, breathing, growing and changing live sculpture”, as in “we are the clay, thou art the potter”.

The words “the Son was in the bosom of the Father” are not explained in either the Bible, other scriptures, or anywhere that I have read or heard, so I would say that I think there was a more intimate Father-Son relationship of which I don’t feel the slightest bit of jealousy but am instead grateful that such a relationship was provided for in Heavenly Father’s perfect plan that included me and my loved ones, you and your loved ones, everyone who has ever lived on this earth, including of course anyone reading this. Other than that, I suppose that those words could possibly mean “the Son was begotten from the Father’s intelligence”, but I personally haven’t looked at those words in that way, and I don’t know.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, within Mormonism how much is known about “Intelligences”?

Hi, JeanMichel,
Good evening to you and I hope all is well with you and your loved ones.

The answer is “very, very little”–only that intelligences have always existed and are “eternal”.

Has any of your prophets explained them or defined them?

Only very little, leading more to conjecture than to understanding what is meant by “an intelligence”. I haven’t read it described or defined. Based on that, I don’t think of it as something I either need to know or desire to know, since I accept that the scriptures are given for us to know exactly what we need to know to progress in this sphere of our existence. (I guess it will be interesting to find out some day, perhaps in the spirit world beyond this life, or more likely in the resurrection.)

Why do you think God reveals truths to your prophets, but does not really explain their value or importance?

I think we are given to understand that God has a perfect plan and that we were included in that plan from the very beginning, in a perfectly loving and wise way, so that we have enduring faith, hope and trust in Him with not the slightest shadow of doubt or uncertainty. I think we also quickly realize that there is more to know in the future than we know in the present, so we “prick up our ears” to be ready to learn from Him through the means He has appointed, and as we learn, we see how our past understanding fits in with our new understanding where earlier understanding gets built upon and becomes part of a larger mosaic of knowledge.

Do you personally think that Intelligences have a concept of “self” or are they more evolved?

I assume they are less evolved than having a concept of “self”. But I don’t know, I just make that assumption from the little I have read.

Also, when God says that He is the Alpha and the Omega/First and Last, what do you think He means?

I think that is always the Savior, Jehovah, speaking when those words are used, and that those words mean He is both the Supreme and Pre-eminent intelligence and the First Born Spirit, and is the Author and Finisher of our faith through both His atoning sacrifice and His ultimate triumph over all the cunning and wiles of the adversary including that we are a part of His triumph because He wants us included in that triumph. I view the words “The Last” or “Omega” as meaning also that we need not think there is either some “other way beyond Him or besides Him” or that there is something “after Him”–He is All that is needed for our salvation and exaltation through our trust in Him, but we need to have that level of trust.

 

[Arandur]

Hi, Arandur,

Since God is truly omnipotent, then what He “can” do is anything. What He chooses to do may be different than what He can do, and since He chooses to send Satan and the fallen spirits to outer darkness in their final outcome for all eternity, then it sounds to me like He does not “destroy” intelligences, but lets them live forever with the eternal consequences of the choices they have made, including those fallen “angels” having rejected Christ and rejected any and all truth and light. He did not “create” intelligences from nothing, but organized them and created each spirit using an intelligence as the beginning “spark of life” or “spark of living energy” or whatever one chooses to call it.

Thanks, ParkerD. For you or anyone else who believes similarly (don’t want to put all the burden on you), I have some more questions.

Sounds like you’re saying God can destroy “intelligences,” whether He chooses to do so or not. From that I gather that intelligences are not necessary, in the sense that Catholics recognize God as the only necessary being.

The Catholic belief stems from the logical requirement that there be a First and Necessary Cause, an unmoved mover. So I now have some further questions about these “intelligences.”

1. Are intelligences eternal (no beginning and no end, unless destroyed by God or some other means)? I think you’ve answered yes before on this, but would like to be sure.
2. What caused intelligences to be? Corollary: what is the purpose of their existence?
3. Is there a finite number of intelligences? Corollary: can intelligences be created, and if so, by what power (if we have any suggestion of this)?
4. Do intelligences differ in degree, character, greatness, or any other factor?
5. “Intelligence” implies rationality and awareness, the ability to think. Do these have any such power, or is it a totally redefined term (as there seem to be several in Mormonism)?
6. What does it mean for an “intelligence” to be “organized?” Is any actual creation involved, or just shaping of something existing, like manipulating clay rather than synthesizing clay or generating it ex nihilo?
7. Are only humans organized intelligences (you’ve mentioned angels, but as I understand it, Mormons think angels and humans are of the same kind or species, just differing in condition or mission)? Or are all living things?
8. In light of all this, what does it mean to “exist,” particularly before or after something else? “To exist” typically means to be, in the sense that there is no being until existence. By the normal understanding of this term, an intelligence and anything “organized” from an intelligence, because it is just a different form of that intelligence, can be said to always have existed; there was never a time when it did not exist, and therefore nothing came before it. Would you agree?

The most complete attempt at describing “intelligences” I’ve read is Orson Scott Card’s aiuas from his Ender series. Are you familiar with his concepts? If so, do you think that’s pretty accurate? It’s a longshot, but that might provide a basis for discussion, as well.

As far as I have understood, the Only Begotten Son was “in the bosom of the Father” and became God’s Only Begotten Son by being begotten as a spirit from His intelligence, which was vastly superior in light, love, and affinity for truth, than all other intelligences, and the First Born Spirit by eons of time and the Only Begotten Son in the spirit world as well as on this earth. He was begotten in the flesh as the literal Son of God through the power of the Holy Ghost overshadowing Mary who conceived as a virgin and remained so until after His birth.

Okay, I think I need to delve deeper into just what you mean by “begotten” or “to beget.” I mean it in the traditional sense of to cause, produce, procreate, as a father begetting his son, a creation out of his own substance. I also mean it in the theological sense, as the Son, Jesus Christ, being eternally begotten of the Father–“eternal” here meaning with no beginning nor end, and therefore the Son is not a crea-ture; he was not created, but always was (see John 1). He always existed, with God, and always was God (singular).

In the theological sense, applied to Christ as opposed to any other creature, the only way Jesus alone can be said to be the “Only Begotten” is because he alone is like unto God, he alone is of the same substance as God. Remember that the normal understanding of the term “to beget” is procreation, where a child comes from the substance of its parent and is of that same type and substance. This is as opposed to other creation, such as building something, forming something artistically or conceptually, etc.

As you can see, using the traditional senses of the words, there is a problem with calling Jesus the “Only Begotten” if he is not of the same substance as God, is not eternally existent as and with God (i.e., he could not have started as something else and been formed or adopted, for that is not procreated).

Do you disagree with what I have described as the “traditional” sense of “to beget?”

How would you define it, for your theology?
Do you agree that Jesus is “eternally begotten” of the Father?

If you define it differently, how do you make sense of John 1?
How do you justify the appellation “Only Begotten?”

Oh, and for either the concept of “intelligences” as you describe them, and any differing definition of “to beget,” do you have any corroborating sources suggesting that anyone other than Joseph Smith et. al. believed or taught the same or similar? I.e., where in the Bible, non-Mormon tradition and history, do you see the same being talked about?

 

[Arandur]

I think that is always the Savior, Jehovah, speaking when those words are used, and that those words mean He is both the Supreme and Pre-eminent intelligence and the First Born Spirit, and is the Author and Finisher of our faith through both His atoning sacrifice and His ultimate triumph over all the cunning and wiles of the adversary including that we are a part of His triumph because He wants us included in that triumph. I view the words “The Last” or “Omega” as meaning also that we need not think there is either some “other way beyond Him or besides Him” or that there is something “after Him”–He is All that is needed for our salvation and exaltation through our trust in Him, but we need to have that level of trust.

Jehovah? You mean Yahweh?

I would submit that Alpha and Omega would be meaningless terminology if it did not relate to order in time, as does the Divine Name (YHWH, I AM).

Consider that Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters in the Greek alphabet. This helps clarify the meaning of “the First and the Last,” homing in more precisely on what is meant. For it cannot mean merely the “First in Honor,” as your “Supreme or Pre-eminent spirit.” The letters alpha and omega are not greater than the other letters. They merely start and finish the arrangement of the alphabet in time. It is therefore this order in time that must be spoken of. Thus, Jesus must be the first and the last in time.

For further elucidation, this matches up very nicely with John 1, where Jesus is depicted as eternal, with God in the beginning, before all others. The “Omega” helps clarify the connection with the Divine Name: that, as “First and Last,” as “I AM,” God is the only necessary, self-sufficient being. The only one that IS because of Himself. Thus the only one that always was and always will be, because He MUST BE. He cannot cease being, whereas others theoretically can.

If a being can be said to be necessary, then if it were to cease being, all that exists would cease to be. In this way, no “intelligences” or anything else could exist without it. In Him all things have their be-ing. God is the only being that can claim, in the first person, I AM, for never was or could He be not. Nothing else can share this name, this property.

 

[ParkerD]

Thanks, ParkerD. …

1. Are intelligences eternal (no beginning and no end, unless destroyed by God or some other means)? I think you’ve answered yes before on this, but would like to be sure.
2. What caused intelligences to be? Corollary: what is the purpose of their existence?
3. Is there a finite number of intelligences? Corollary: can intelligences be created, and if so, by what power (if we have any suggestion of this)?
4. Do intelligences differ in degree, character, greatness, or any other factor?
5. “Intelligence” implies rationality and awareness, the ability to think. Do these have any such power, or is it a totally redefined term (as there seem to be several in Mormonism)?
6. What does it mean for an “intelligence” to be “organized?” Is any actual creation involved, or just shaping of something existing, like manipulating clay rather than synthesizing clay or generating it ex nihilo?
7. Are only humans organized intelligences (you’ve mentioned angels, but as I understand it, Mormons think angels and humans are of the same kind or species, just differing in condition or mission)? Or are all living things?
8. In light of all this, what does it mean to “exist,” particularly before or after something else? “To exist” typically means to be, in the sense that there is no being until existence. By the normal understanding of this term, an intelligence and anything “organized” from an intelligence, because it is just a different form of that intelligence, can be said to always have existed; there was never a time when it did not exist, and therefore nothing came before it. Would you agree?

The most complete attempt at describing “intelligences” I’ve read is Orson Scott Card’s aiuas from his Ender series. Are you familiar with his concepts? If so, do you think that’s pretty accurate? It’s a longshot, but that might provide a basis for discussion, as well.

Hi, Arandur,

I’ve been very busy much of my free time with end-of-school-year family activities, but here are brief responses:

1. They are eternal, meaning they have no beginning, from what Joseph Smith taught.
2. I have thought of that existence as a somewhat static condition of just “being”. I think of it as an embryonic condition, but that is just a term I compare it with. (They could be an energy form or an embryonic matter form, but would be in an “unorganized” condition.) I would say that they have no purpose other than just “being” until God gives them a purpose through creating a spirit using that “embryonic condition” and His knowledge and creative goodness and light as the source for the creation.
3. Since there are “worlds without number” that are inhabited, then I would say the answer is “an infinite number”.
4. Yes, they definitely do. They have an innate but qualitative affinity for truth, light, goodness, and love, some more than others and One significantly more than any other in any universe if one thinks of “multiverses”, and He was begotten as the Only Begotten Son.
5. I would say it is definitely a word that has its own new definition as the pre-cursor to a spirit, and actually there are more than one kind of use of the word “intelligence” in the Doctrine and Covenants, so it becomes a potentially confusing term and is probably a word that needs to be understood “spiritually” rather than attempting to have a finite, word-perfect definition. (See D & C 93).
6. I don’t know the answer other than it seems to me “synthesis” is a more correct comparison than “shaping”, and there is an energy involved in the creation process that only God could do, and it is referred to as a “birth” of a spirit (but not from a womb). It is also organizing them into a social situation where there is communication among a group of spirits and where the spirits are aware of their Maker and address Him as their Father and feel His infinite love for them.
7. Only humans.
8. I would agree.

I haven’t read the writings of Orson Scott Card, so I don’t have an opinion about his descriptions, but from what I’ve read about him he is primarily a fiction writer, so it would be his attempt to build a story using the term or the concept as his mind imagines it.

Wishing you peace, and I’ll try and answer the rest as I get time.

 

[Holly3278]

Personally, I don’t believe Mormonism. Why should I?

 

[ParkerD]

Thanks, ParkerD…
Okay, I think I need to delve deeper into just what you mean by “begotten” or “to beget.” I mean it in the traditional sense of to cause, produce, procreate, as a father begetting his son, a creation out of his own substance. I also mean it in the theological sense, as the Son, Jesus Christ, being eternally begotten of the Father–“eternal” here meaning with no beginning nor end, and therefore the Son is not a crea-ture; he was not created, but always was (see John 1). He always existed, with God, and always was God (singular).

In the theological sense, applied to Christ as opposed to any other creature, the only way Jesus alone can be said to be the “Only Begotten” is because he alone is like unto God, he alone is of the same substance as God. Remember that the normal understanding of the term “to beget” is procreation, where a child comes from the substance of its parent and is of that same type and substance. This is as opposed to other creation, such as building something, forming something artistically or conceptually, etc.

As you can see, using the traditional senses of the words, there is a problem with calling Jesus the “Only Begotten” if he is not of the same substance as God, is not eternally existent as and with God (i.e., he could not have started as something else and been formed or adopted, for that is not procreated).

Do you disagree with what I have described as the “traditional” sense of “to beget?”

How would you define it, for your theology?
Do you agree that Jesus is “eternally begotten” of the Father?

If you define it differently, how do you make sense of John 1?
How do you justify the appellation “Only Begotten?”

Oh, and for either the concept of “intelligences” as you describe them, and any differing definition of “to beget,” do you have any corroborating sources suggesting that anyone other than Joseph Smith et. al. believed or taught the same or similar? I.e., where in the Bible, non-Mormon tradition and history, do you see the same being talked about?

Arandur,

What I would say about the very spiritual words “Only Begotten Son” is that I think there is more to know than we know about what those words mean, but I also think we are to understand that Jesus was born as the Son of Heavenly Father through the miracle of Mary conceiving by the power of the Holy Spirit while being a virgin and remaining so until well after Jesus’ birth and well after her “days of purification”. He is also the First Born Spirit Son of Heavenly Father, by a very large period of time, and was “in the bosom of the Father” and thus was God the Son when He was the First Born Spirit Son.

I look at the words “eternally begotten” differently than you described. It could mean what you described, or it could mean “always planned for in the infinite plan of God the Father for His spirit children”. Or, it could mean “begotten by the Eternal Father.” To me, it means more the latter two ideas, but that is just my personal way of looking at those words based on scriptural meanings for the words “eternal” and “eternally”. I think it is left for us to have a spiritual acceptance of the words and know absolutely that the Father and the Son are both omnipotent and infinitely loving and omniscient, and do all things for our best good.

I read John 1:1-3 and of course think of Genesis 1:1, and understand that the Son is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, as well as other earths (D & C 76:23-24), under the divine direction and acting in perfect harmony with the Father–thus the Father could be said to be the Creator also. The words “the beginning” have a different connotation than probably for you, I assume. To me those words mean “the beginning of Creation”, so they place a time frame and a context that has to do with this earth and its creation.

I’ve given an explanation about the words “Only Begotten Son.” I think “in the bosom of the Father” are very important words (D & C 76:25), and I know that He has the most personally bonded and alike relationship possible between a Father and a Son, beyond our comprehension.

I don’t know of any other source for the concept of “intelligences”, and I think any prophet who learned about this was given specific instruction about what to share or write. This is for a good purpose in that some spiritual knowledge is something to “reach for” rather than to just have given to us, and Abraham for example “reached for it” and shared a tiny bit of what he learned but gave it in a spiritual framework so that we would be “stretched” spiritually in trying to understand it. (Abraham 3:18-22).

 

[Peter_John]

Arandur,

What I would say about the very spiritual words “Only Begotten Son” is that I think there is more to know than we know about what those words mean, but I also think we are to understand that Jesus was born as the Son of Heavenly Father through the miracle of Mary conceiving by the power of the Holy Spirit while being a virgin and remaining so until well after Jesus’ birth and well after her “days of purification”. He is also the First Born Spirit Son of Heavenly Father, by a very large period of time, and was “in the bosom of the Father” and thus was God the Son when He was the First Born Spirit Son.

I look at the words “eternally begotten” differently than you described. It could mean what you described, or it could mean “always planned for in the infinite plan of God the Father for His spirit children”. Or, it could mean “begotten by the Eternal Father.” To me, it means more the latter two ideas, but that is just my personal way of looking at those words based on scriptural meanings for the words “eternal” and “eternally”. I think it is left for us to have a spiritual acceptance of the words and know absolutely that the Father and the Son are both omnipotent and infinitely loving and omniscient, and do all things for our best good.

I read John 1:1-3 and of course think of Genesis 1:1, and understand that the Son is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, as well as other earths (D & C 76:23-24), under the divine direction and acting in perfect harmony with the Father–thus the Father could be said to be the Creator also. The words “the beginning” have a different connotation than probably for you, I assume. To me those words mean “the beginning of Creation”, so they place a time frame and a context that has to do with this earth and its creation.

I’ve given an explanation about the words “Only Begotten Son.” I think “in the bosom of the Father” are very important words (D & C 76:25), and I know that He has the most personally bonded and alike relationship possible between a Father and a Son, beyond our comprehension.

I don’t know of any other source for the concept of “intelligences”, and I think any prophet who learned about this was given specific instruction about what to share or write. This is for a good purpose in that some spiritual knowledge is something to “reach for” rather than to just have given to us, and Abraham for example “reached for it” and shared a tiny bit of what he learned but gave it in a spiritual framework so that we would be “stretched” spiritually in trying to understand it. (Abraham 3:18-22).

So are you saying there was never any choice offered over who should come as the redeemer?

It also sounds like you affirm our relationship with Christ (combining this post and your prior answers) has always been as Father/Children, and never anything else.

Finally a comment, not wishing to start a tangential debate. I think a better way to state about if other creatures arise from “intelligences” would be that it has not been specified, only hasbeen discussed in particular. As I recall Joseph Smtih and Brigham Young both discussed all living things having spritis before physical bodies. As you decribe, spirits are described as organized intellifgences. Per Institute manuals the dual stories of Creation in the Old Testament are accounts of a spiritual; creation prior to the physical creation, and all things are first created spiritually. The difference is that of all those things he has organized, God only recognize humans as children.

If you do know of any specific refutation of other creatures having intelligences, please refer me to it. Otherwise, the body of discussion on the topic leans the other way, involving lesser and greater classes of intelligences in other life forms, and a special relationship between humans and the Creator/Organizer.