Mormon Apostle states arguments against the Book of Mormon are "pathetic"

[PaulDupre]

Paul,
There is nothing to “pretend” about on this particular issue. (I realize you have had concerns about other issues, and appreciate that we can discuss this particular one.)

As I have read and studied and thought, I just don’t have the concept in my mind nor have I found it substantially taught (if at all) that calling spirit children “children” means an exalted woman has had a spirit child in the way you seem to be describing and have described in posts before on other threads. “Why be married at all” has to do with emotional intimacy and fulfillment through being supportive and truly completing the other companion because of complementary attributes and qualities.

Funny, Christians believe that the greatest, most profound intimacy is to be fully in the presence of the Trinity and to be completely united with God and share forever the life that He lives - to be fully connected as branches to the vine and thereby completely and intimately connected to every other saved person. There is no intimacy and fulfillment greater than this, no happiness more dizzying and euphoric. There is no completion for man but to be completely in the presence of God (the real God).

We Christians feel sorry for Mormons who believe that the next life will be pretty much like this one, except that they will be supermen, living in celestial houses with their superwives and superchildren, going to work everyday at Kolob, Inc., trying to manage their downlines and track up in the MLM structure of Mormon godhood, trying to add to their “glory”. It is really quite pathetic.

 

[PaulDupre]

As I have read and studied and thought, I just don’t have the concept in my mind nor have I found it substantially taught (if at all) that calling spirit children “children” means an exalted woman has had a spirit child in the way you seem to be describing and have described in posts before on other threads.

Then I suggest you talk to the millions of Mormon women who are angry and terrified at the prospect of being “eternally pregnant”, as they say. I think, again, you are projecting your own wishful fantasies onto your church, which does not believe as you do.

The LDS church you believe in simply does not exist, except in your own mind.

 

[ParkerD]

Then I suggest you talk to the millions of Mormon women who are angry and terrified at the prospect of being “eternally pregnant”, as they say. I think, again, you are projecting your own wishful fantasies onto your church, which does not believe as you do.

The LDS church you believe in simply does not exist, except in your own mind.

Paul,
Let’s figure. Before you have said nearly every Momon is going inactive. You have said the LDS membership number is inflated, yet now you talk about “millions of Mormon women”. You did not copy the logic I noted that is reasonable enough that a child could understand it, if they had a mind to think about the subject of an intelligence and a spirit.

I think you have not addressed the subject at all. I also think you don’t know the thinking of “millions of Mormon women”–perhaps a few you may personally know. Your other post shows you have no idea of what I nor anyone else who has any sense thinks (other than those with the kind of tear-it-down agenda that you have) about the subject of becoming like God. Nor could you explain why John wrote what he wrote on the subject, since John’s words like I have said are reasonable and specific and give a clear picture that becoming like God is exactly what he was writing about.

 

[ParkerD]

Arandur,
I guess I had better go ahead and follow the impression I have had this morning to add to some thoughts I had expressed to you earlier in this thread.

We talked about “tradition”, and that when the Savior used the word, it had a negative connotation every single time He used the word. I will illustrate with an example. You would be familiar that He said and taught, “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” Yet you think your tradition has prompted you and taught you to accuse one such as myself that they are following Satan. This would be called judging, especially in that you have no idea what I do in my personal everyday life among the people I live with and associate with. I suggest that you need to rethink the tradition that has brought you to that point, and re-read the Sermon on the Mount and realize that the Savior was speaking to you (and to me) and to everyone.

I have the impression that readers here will do well to re-read the parable in Matthew 21:33-43, and especially note verses 38 and 43. Consider that the Jews were the nation who (as a nation and people) rejected Jesus, the chief corner stone. The parable prophesies that they would have in their plans to “seize on his inheritance.” This happened in obvious ways, but also in subtle ways such as changing the ordinance of baptism and the age at which it is done. The parable says “the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” How will that “nation” be recognized? By the “fruits thereof”–not by traditions of men, nor by the bringing of Jewish traditions back into the church by subtle changes after the apostles had died or (in the case of John) gone into the wilderness.

 

[PaulDupre]

Paul,
Let’s figure. Before you have said nearly every Momon is going inactive. You have said the LDS membership number is inflated, yet now you talk about “millions of Mormon women”.

There are millions of Mormon women - about 2.5 million, and if you can get them talking about it, you will find that they do not like the belief that they are to be eternal baby machines, eternally pregnant in a harem of “sister wives”. That might not be your vision of the celestial kingdom, but you are a man and you see yourself as the master of the harem so to you it’s no problem. But talk to some Mormon women and you will find this fear and anger lurking just below the surface. Most of them won’t express it when men are around, but some will. The rest just paste on that plastic smile and play the game.

 

[DavidMark]

The article referred to above is by Brother Gee. In it he says that “…The Church does not stand or fall on the Book of Abraham.”
Of course the arguments are not. Just read the Book of Mormon and know when compared against the Bible, it is just a Mills and Boon against Tolkien.

I liked Orson Scott Card’s Sci-Fi series based on the Book of Mormon, …which was based on the Bible.

Joseph Smith died in June 1844, one month after the Báb began His mission, at the age of 25, in Iran. It was 1260 in the Muslim calendar, a number found in many places in the Bible. I think Joseph Smith was a seer of the great climate-change coming in mid-nineteenth century spiritual life; but he was not authorized to re-organize religious life on this planet, or bring all the races into the tent of unity.

 

[ParkerD]

There are millions of Mormon women - about 2.5 million, and if you can get them talking about it, … some will. The rest just paste on that plastic smile and play the game.

Paul,
After reading this comment, I asked my wife about what she has thought about whether she expects to be “eternally pregnant”, and she said she has never even thought about it but agreed that a spirit brought forth from an intelligence would a different (unknown) process than what women go through in a mortal pregnancy, nor would the womb need to be involved at all. She has never heard it discussed among family, friends, or associates, and has been an active LDS all her life. Nor has my daughter (age 21 visiting from college) who heard our conversation, but she did say she has heard that accusation from those outside of our church.

I thought about making a phone call or two since our neighborhood has many brilliant women who absolutely speak their mind without hesitation and are assertive in every way. But I think it would be an affront to their intellect to be asked the question, because the answer is so obvious when one really thinks about a physical body as compared with a spirit and an intelligence and the development in the womb of a physical body through cell division.

However, if any reader other than Paul would sincerely believe what Paul has accused the women of the LDS church of believing, then please let me know here and I will ask at least one neighbor woman or a sister-in-law who is as outspoken as they come, and will let the readers of this thread know her response.

As I have stated before on other threads, the other accusation about any sort of thinking as to having more than one wife in eternity, may have been in Paul’s brain when he was LDS, but has never been in my brain, period. It is a completely untrue accusation. It is a defensive mechanism and tactic that is often used to attempt to discredit the LDS church, but as far as I’m concerned is another example of “pathetic” reasoning or I could use other words to describe it.

The comment I underlined is deeply pathetic and offensive to women in general, not just LDS.

 

[PaulDupre]

Nor could you explain why John wrote what he wrote on the subject [about becoming a god], since John’s words like I have said are reasonable and specific and give a clear picture that becoming like God is exactly what he was writing about.

That is a warped Mormon interpretation of what John was writing about. But if you take the plain text of Revelation, John was talking about the same thing the other apostles (especially Paul) wrote about - becoming an adopted son of God and a joint-heir with Christ, inheriting all that the Father has (eternal life). John never says that men will become Gods like the Father. You may want to read that meaning into the text, but it is simply not there.

You mentioned John’s descriptions of what awaits “him that overcometh”. Let’s take them one at a time:

1.Revelation 2:7
To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

This means that the saved will live forever in the paradise of God (heaven).

2.Revelation 2:11
He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

The second death is the death of the soul - being cut off completely from the presence of God - we call it going to hell. The saved will not go to hell.

3.Revelation 2:17
To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

I know the Mormons love this one because you think it alludes to the temple endowment, but it does not. Those elements of the endowment were created in the 19th century to conform to this passage, not the other way around. And Mormons have no “hidden manna”, the new name is written on paper not in stone, and my new name is Cornelius and so now you know it. Mormons also think that when they get to the celestial kingdom, they will each be given their very own seer stone (as if God needs a seer stone to know things). But all that is Mormon fantasy and has nothing to do with what John wrote.

Catholics understand this passage thus:

“Hidden manna” refers to the manna preserved in the ark of the covenant (Ex 16:32-34; Heb 9:4) which was a type of Christ in the Eucharist (the Bread of Life). The saved person feeds upon the flesh and blood of Christ in life, and is given a fulness of the presence of Christ after death.

In the bible, white connotes purity and stone connotes permanence.
In the bible a “new name” always means a change in one’s relationship to God, a new identity and a new covenant. Entering heaven entails all three.

4.Revelation 2:26
And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: 27And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. 28And I will give him the morning star.

More about inheriting the power and authority of Jesus. Isaiah and Paul (Rom 15:12) both spoke of Jesus ruling over the nations (i.e.:the gentiles). If we are to inherit and reign with Christ then of course we too will rule the nations.

5.Revelation 3:5
He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

An allusion to the transfiguration of Christ wherein His raiment was white as snow (John was there), perhaps also the angel who rolled away the stone at the resurrection (John saw the angel, too). John is saying the same thing the other apostles taught, that Jesus “shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body”.(Phil 3:21)

6.Revelation 3:12
Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

The “pillar in the temple” is a reference to the pillars in 1Kings 7:21 and 2Chron 3:17 and would have been very significant to Jewish readers. The pillars had names written on them. To become one of the pillars of the temple was a symbol of great honor.

7.Revelation 3:21
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Again, saying what the other apostles wrote, that the saved will rule and reign with Christ. See 2Tim 2:12.

8.Revelation 21:7
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

Again, joint-heirs with Christ (Rom 8:17), adoption as sons (Gal 4:5).

 

[kikkichan]

ParkerD,

Thanks again, If you don’t mind, … more questions!

Originally Posted by kikkichan
ParkerD, (Note: ParkerD’s answers will be in UPPER CASE)
…
(1) – Before we were “brought forth” as spirits, we each existed as an individual intelligence. Is an individual intelligence a being? YES
Is an individual intelligence distinct, that is, is each individual intelligence like an embryo destined to become a particular spirit-child/person when it is brought forth? YES
Or is a it non-distinct and destined to become whatever spirit-child/person the heavenly father wills? NO

I ask this because Jesus was brought forth from a particular “more advanced intelligence”, correct? YES
and it makes me wonder if individual characteristics existed in the individual intelligence state. YES

…
thanks again,
–kc

Where do individual intelligences come from? Did they ever not exist?

It seems that the Heavenly Father doesn’t create us, at least not in the way I think of creating out-of-nothing.
When a Mormon talks about creation, is it comparable (for lack of a better word) to what a sculptor might do?
I think I’ve seen the word organize.

Also,

Kikkichan,
By the way, I sent an email to the LDS Sunday School General President today so that they would consider updating the online Gospel Principles manual to the 2009 printed edition. (He said he would pass along the reminder.) It still has this quote in it that you cited, but it doesn’t have the passage that I had told Paul I disagreed with the wording of. It was changed to read “they will have eternal increase.”

Do you really have (name removed by moderator)ut at this level? I thought you were “just this guy” you know!

thanks yet again,
–kc

 

[Arandur]

Arandur,
I guess I had better go ahead and follow the impression I have had this morning to add to some thoughts I had expressed to you earlier in this thread.

We talked about “tradition”, and that when the Savior used the word, it had a negative connotation every single time He used the word. I will illustrate with an example. You would be familiar that He said and taught, “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” Yet you think your tradition has prompted you and taught you to accuse one such as myself that they are following Satan. This would be called judging, especially in that you have no idea what I do in my personal everyday life among the people I live with and associate with. I suggest that you need to rethink the tradition that has brought you to that point, and re-read the Sermon on the Mount and realize that the Savior was speaking to you (and to me) and to everyone.

:sigh:
And I will suggest that you reread what I have written without your victim mentality prejudging my message so that you can read what I have actually written. I will also direct you to my replies to Dianaiad about not putting words in my mouth.

Nowhere did I “accuse one such as [your]self that they are following Satan.” I made no such judgment. I have several times explained carefully and logically what I mean, yet you have so little respect or so much blindness or prejudice or bigotry that you have refused to pay attention.

I will attempt to explain yet again, in brief. To the extent that someone follows false teachings, even if they do so sincerely trying to follow God, they are either mislead by mere inventions of man, or teachings influenced by Satan. Your own church confirms that Satan influences seemingly God-centered churches with false teachings, so I don’t see why this is so hard for you to understand.

The main difference is actually that your church, your leaders, your very scriptures, directly call all other churches “of the devil” in such strong language that yes, they all strongly imply that we are directly worshipping Satan. Your church is the one quite clearly guilty of what you’re accusing me of. I have never made such accusations, that any church is the devil’s church and that its people follow him. Even Islam, which I worry is as close to a “church of the devil” as there is in any significant structure, is followed by people who sincerely try to follow God, and so I would not say they are “following Satan,” only that they have been deceived to the extent that they believe in false teachings.

Same for me. I disagreed with the Church on many things in the past. To the extent that I believed in false teachings, I was deceived. The origin of those teachings could have been man or devil, but the effect was the same. I do believe that the devil did strive to keep me in those false beliefs, whether he originated them or not.

This is just the normal state of things. If you believe the devil exists and tries to influence man, if you do not believe he does so as I have explained, why not? What does he really do, then?

I have the impression that readers here will do well to re-read the parable in Matthew 21:33-43, and especially note verses 38 and 43. Consider that the Jews were the nation who (as a nation and people) rejected Jesus, the chief corner stone. The parable prophesies that they would have in their plans to “seize on his inheritance.” This happened in obvious ways, but also in subtle ways such as changing the ordinance of baptism and the age at which it is done. The parable says “the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” How will that “nation” be recognized? By the “fruits thereof”–not by traditions of men, nor by the bringing of Jewish traditions back into the church by subtle changes after the apostles had died or (in the case of John) gone into the wilderness.

If you wish to start a thread to judge things by fruits or discuss the great apostasy, feel free. As far as fruits, I believe it is quite demonstrable that the charity, unity, size, endurance, cultural effects, etc. of the Catholic Church far and away prove it to be God’s work, God’s family, Christ’s body. I don’t think Mormonism holds a candle to that bonfire, despite the good I am happy your church does do. We could get into it to address this post of yours, but such a bragging game, I think, would be "fruit"less.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I liked Orson Scott Card’s Sci-Fi series based on the Book of Mormon, …which was based on the Bible.

Joseph Smith died in June 1844, one month after the Báb began His mission, at the age of 25, in Iran. It was 1260 in the Muslim calendar, a number found in many places in the Bible. I think Joseph Smith was a seer of the great climate-change coming in mid-nineteenth century spiritual life; but he was not authorized to re-organize religious life on this planet, or bring all the races into the tent of unity.

What series?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Paul,
After reading this comment, I asked my wife about what she has thought about whether she expects to be “eternally pregnant”, and she said she has never even thought about it but agreed that a spirit brought forth from an intelligence would a different (unknown) process than what women go through in a mortal pregnancy, nor would the womb need to be involved at all. She has never heard it discussed among family, friends, or associates, and has been an active LDS all her life. Nor has my daughter (age 21 visiting from college) who heard our conversation, but she did say she has heard that accusation from those outside of our church.

I thought about making a phone call or two since our neighborhood has many brilliant women who absolutely speak their mind without hesitation and are assertive in every way. But I think it would be an affront to their intellect to be asked the question, because the answer is so obvious when one really thinks about a physical body as compared with a spirit and an intelligence and the development in the womb of a physical body through cell division.

However, if any reader other than Paul would sincerely believe what Paul has accused the women of the LDS church of believing, then please let me know here and I will ask at least one neighbor woman or a sister-in-law who is as outspoken as they come, and will let the readers of this thread know her response.

As I have stated before on other threads, the other accusation about any sort of thinking as to having more than one wife in eternity, may have been in Paul’s brain when he was LDS, but has never been in my brain, period. It is a completely untrue accusation. It is a defensive mechanism and tactic that is often used to attempt to discredit the LDS church, but as far as I’m concerned is another example of “pathetic” reasoning or I could use other words to describe it.

The comment I underlined is deeply pathetic and offensive to women in general, not just LDS.

Well then we wouldn’t really be the children of heavenly parents, we would be something they fashioned out of an already existing being and some other stuff.

 

[PaulDupre]

Well then we wouldn’t really be the children of heavenly parents, we would be something they fashioned out of an already existing being and some other stuff.

Sounds more like Dr. Frankenstein than heavenly father.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Sounds more like Dr. Frankenstein than heavenly father.

I was thinking more along the lines of Stargate or Hugo, which leads back to my other question what is the sci-fi series based on the BOM by Card?

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,

Thanks again, If you don’t mind, … more questions!

1–Where do individual intelligences come from? Did they ever not exist?

2–It seems that the Heavenly Father doesn’t create us, at least not in the way I think of creating out-of-nothing.
When a Mormon talks about creation, is it comparable (for lack of a better word) to what a sculptor might do?
I think I’ve seen the word organize.

Also,

3–Do you really have (name removed by moderator)ut at this level? I thought you were “just this guy” you know!

thanks yet again,
–kc

Hi, Kikkichan,
I sincerely hope you are doing well. ('Not just saying that.)

1–Joseph Smith taught that each intelligence has always existed, and that each has distinctness. They definitely have some light or energy composition that is an integral part of that distinctness, and the implication is that other intelligences exist in the universe that are not yet spirits. I have never read “where” they come from, as to place.

2–It is correct that spirits were not “created” out of nothing. “Organized” is the word Abraham used, in his language of course. Spirit is purer matter than we can see with mortal eyes, and have a make-up that is more advanced than an intelligence, but we don’t know much at all about what comprises an intelligence beyond what I have noted. God “organized” intelligences into spirit beings, so that they could advance to a stage of growth whereby they could become prepared to gain a body on earth and advance further through the challenges, oppositions and learning process of this mortal world. I don’t know that a sculptor analogy would quite fit other than the eventual outcome of a resurrected body, which we partially “sculpture” ourselves by our choices in life and their impact on our spirit and our body.

3–The LDS teaching manuals request feedback, but I didn’t know how to email to an address where my email would get in the hands of the right person, so I figured that I could give the feedback to the person who could direct it to the right place. He happens to teach at BYU besides being the newly called General Sunday School president. He was gracious enough to email back the same day. But no, I don’t have some “clout” other than that I do teach our ward Gospel Principles class so I had first-hand current familiarity. He had given a superb talk about teaching during the recent LDS General Conference.

Thanks for your questions, Kikkichan. I think they were good ones.

 

[ParkerD]

Well then we wouldn’t really be the children of heavenly parents, we would be something they fashioned out of an already existing being and some other stuff.

Zaffiroborant,
Mormons are familiar with the concept that Christ “spiritually begets” those who “become His sons and His daughters” through accessing the full measure of His grace. Obviously, an inventor or a person who has major impact on a field such as the “father of modern medicine” can be called a “father”. Just because we don’t know the process whereby Heavenly Father organized our intelligence (I liked the word “embryo” that I think Kikkichan used) into a spirit being doesn’t mean in my mind that it is not appropriate to address Him lovingly as Father and that He regards us as His children, especially since He told us to call Him “Our Father in Heaven”.

I think the intent of that relationship description being used is clear enough–we are the “offspring” of God and He wants us to become like Him (as a son would) if we earnestly choose to live in a way to access the atonement that allows us to do that very thing. Consider again that He is infinitely smart, and knows how to impact our minds and hearts in such a way as to be the greatest “Enabler” in the universe, using exactly the right means and without forcing us in any way. He “enables” intelligences and spirits to progress by clothing them in physical bodies with those components of our soul within our bodies. Just because He did not “procreate” us spiritually, does not mean He can’t call us His children and be perfectly truthful in calling us that.

 

[PaulDupre]

Before Parker convinces the world that Mormon spirit babies are produced in a sterile manufacturing process, let’s see what an LDS prophet taught about the continuation of the seeds:

“The Mormons believe that all men were born in the spirit world of the union of the sexes, having a literal father and a literal mother before coming to this world, that the spirits are just the same in appearance as the body, that God is a married Being, has a wife at least, as Jeremiah said the angels were offering incense to the queen of heaven. The Latter-day Saints believe that God is an exalted Man, and that we are the offspring of Him and His wife.”

• (President George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, vol. 1, p. 129)

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,
Mormons are familiar with the concept that Christ “spiritually begets” those who “become His sons and His daughters” through accessing the full measure of His grace. Obviously, an inventor or a person who has major impact on a field such as the “father of modern medicine” can be called a “father”. Just because we don’t know the process whereby Heavenly Father organized our intelligence (I liked the word “embryo” that I think Kikkichan used) into a spirit being doesn’t mean in my mind that it is not appropriate to address Him lovingly as Father and that He regards us as His children, especially since He told us to call Him “Our Father in Heaven”.

I think the intent of that relationship description being used is clear enough–we are the “offspring” of God and He wants us to become like Him (as a son would) if we earnestly choose to live in a way to access the atonement that allows us to do that very thing. Consider again that He is infinitely smart, and knows how to impact our minds and hearts in such a way as to be the greatest “Enabler” in the universe, using exactly the right means and without forcing us in any way. He “enables” intelligences and spirits to progress by clothing them in physical bodies with those components of our soul within our bodies. Just because He did not “procreate” us spiritually, does not mean He can’t call us His children and be perfectly truthful in calling us that.

But still and all we would not be literal sons and daughters of our heavenly parents. I can call my dogs my children all I want it doesn’t mean they are literally my children anymore than it means we are heavenly father and mothers children if they didn’t create us from themselves. As I see it spirit bodies are just a finer form of matter (the LDS explanation) and as such are subject to the same rules. In your scenario we are not offspring we are creations, there is a big difference. You are wandering into standard Christian belief here where we are adopted sons and daughters and can in no way be made of the same stuff.

 

[DavidMark]

3.Revelation 2:17 **To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. **

There are the interpretations of followers, and the definitive interpretation of the Founders.
Consider, when Jesus read Isaiah in the synagogue. He was not well received.
Now, most Catholics think the Woman of Revelation 12 is Mary the Queen of Heaven. They have to be right, don’t they…there are so many of them! No.

That Woman was the Law of God during the Muslim Dispensation which was 1260 “days” in duration, and the Child she carried to the wilderness of Arabia was the Promised One of Islam, the Báb, who announced Himself at the Kaaba in 1260 AH/1844 CE (a few months after Joseph Smith was killed.)
And the new name promised in Rev. 2:17 and 3:12 is “Bahá” which means glory, light and splendor", and its superlative “Abhá” the Most Glorious. This is the name that Michael hid in Enoch and now reveals to those of His lovers whose hearts are not completely occluded. Ya Bahá’ul-Abhá!

 

[ParkerD]

Before Parker convinces the world that Mormon spirit babies are produced in a sterile manufacturing process, let’s see what an LDS prophet taught about the continuation of the seeds:

Paul,
Just because a counselor in the First Presidency said a certain thing, doesn’t mean I have to believe the specific wording of what he said. Abraham used a word that translated to mean “organized”, and Joseph Smith did the translating by revelation and used the word “organized” based on revelation. I think President Cannon was not speaking revelation when he said or wrote that particular statement. As far as I’m concerned, the book of Abraham trumps him.

If what President Cannon wrote was to be taken literally in the common interpretation of what those words would mean, then it would mean there is such a thing as a “spirit sperm” and a “spirit egg” and they unite and develop into a spirit offspring, and somehow God places an intelligence into the spirit that is thus formed. There is no such implication in any scripture. We simply don’t know the process whereby spirits are “organized” from intelligences.