Just_A_Guy

I'm not convinced of this.  I think our "intelligence" and ability to make decisions (aka free will) predates our spirit (probably, but I acknowledge we really don't know anything about "intelligences").  I believe agency is:
1. A gift from God:
2. That the proper term is "moral agency":
3. See above verse again - that agency is accountability for our own sins - it's like if a celebrity (athlete, actor, author) hires an agent to represent them.  The agent has the power and authority to act in their client's name.  In our case, we can either be agents unto ourselves (acting in our own name and interests and reaping the "natural" rewards of our actions) or we can be agents of Jesus Christ (taking his name upon ourselves, and acting in his name and interests, and receiving the rewards he has for us).  (See also D&C 93:29-32.)
I could be all wrong, and in scripture, sometimes will and agency appear to be used interchangeably, but in my mind, the ability to make decisions (will) is distinct from agency (accountability), but both are dependent upon knowledge and opposition.
Many have speculated that Joseph must have been referring to the "intelligence" rather than the spirit, because we are spirit children of God (described in some places as "begotten") - which implies we existed in some other form prior to becoming spirit children of God - namely, the "intelligence" form.
[Lately, I have wondered if we aren't making way too many assumptions about these things (what it means to be a "spirit child of God"; the intelligence > spirit > mortal > resurrected immortal sequence; that "intelligence" is a state of being (presumably the one that preexisted the other forms - though I wonder, if that is the case, might there be a form that preceded "intelligence"?); etc.).  I'm wondering these things because reading the supporting scriptures doesn't necessarily paint the simple, consistent picture that we often use in the Church.]
I think that if our sentient self existed in some form (which we have been calling "an intelligence") prior to becoming a spirit (as a child of heavenly parents), then that form was more than a self-existing will - it was a person, a self-aware entity not so different from the "person" we are today, just made of something different - matter more fine even than spirit matter?  Energy?  Something.
If, on the other hand, we did not become sentient until we were begotten sons and daughters of heavenly parents, then I'd say our "intelligence" could be anything from an independent entity to be merged into said spirit to a mass of raw material from which God drew to create that spirit.  (Your argument that we had to have always been sentient because otherwise I don't really have free will, I only have whatever God gave me, seems sound.  I think despite D&C 93, I could make an argument that we don't have evidence of man's eternal sentience and free will - that believing in these is only assumption or deduction.)
Yep and yep.  I'd say these are true regardless of what "intelligences" are, and regardless of whether we always had sentience or gained it at some point.
"Eternal" truth is God's truth.   I smile, but I'm quite serious.  I think we're all dumb as posts compared to God and don't stand much chance of figuring out which of all the things we "know" are still going to be the "same" once we know as much as God knows (assuming we ever do).
I'm with you on all that, but I would use "will" where you use "agency".
I think the best argument for our eternal sentience and will is the simple fact that sentience and will exist at all.  How could a non-sentient being without will (or a non-sentient mass of intelligence or whatever) become or produce a sentient being?  I argue it could not.  The sentience and will had to have existed all along or there would never have been action or decision or sentience.  (This is one of those "eternity past" things that's impossible to wrap your head around, but it's also self-evident - sentience and free will are the natural initial state of all intelligent beings - they cannot be created because one of them already exists.  The only way around that is to argue the sectarian notion of a self-existing God who is the only self-existing entity - but we've rejected that notion.  The moment we claim to be the same species as God, or claim to be co-eternal with God, and claim that God was once as we are, we have no option other than: everyone is eternal and must have always been sentient and had free will.)
I think your premise is as sound as the average mortal can make.  Whether someone closer to God can make a better premise, I couldn't guess (not being them myself), but yours seems reasonable.

My understanding of things, taking into account DC 93:29-34, the King Follet Discourse, and the idea that our agency predates our spirit, is that our spirit is uncreated (a combination of the previous 2 citations).  Is it a fair enough reading to make such a statement: that our intelligence, the core whatever of who we are is a self-existing will?  That plane upon which we reside is eternal, as we are.  And the Gospel is the father's way to help us to progress to the perfections and fullness that he has.  I'm not trying to say that God did or did not create the universe, just that logic necessitates SOME kind of eternal existence, and we are part of it, as a "self".
I ask this as I'm trying to figure out what might be able to be called "eternal" truth and what might not.  The only thing I can put at the center of everything is agency.  Uncreated will is the core of existence.  How these tie together, I'm not sure how much I can say, but I feel like the message of the Gospel is that we have a choice, and if we have a choice our will has to be self-existent, as it can't choose to be created.  I set up agency as the center, because I don't see any way that a God without limits (not that I believe in one), would create beings he knew would choose eternal separation from him, and that this would lead to their suffering (even though in that traditional idea of God, he also makes the rules).
I have more that I'm thinking of about this, but I want to make sure my premise isn't horribly flawed in some way I can't see.

I flatly deny that the Church as a whole has any such policy or practice regarding missionaries testifying.  Elizabeth Smart came home from her mission to testify against her kidnappers—multiple times, IIRC.
I could *hypothetically* see why local leaders in a particular area (particularly one where government corruption may be an issue) might prefer to stay out of legal proceedings.  But, if they’re leaning on third parties/lay members to stay silent or hide evidence . . . the Church could get in a lot of trouble for that.
I would tell my leaders that I intend to inform legal authorities/ defense counsel/ whatever of the situation on such-and-such a date unless they instruct me in writing by virtue of their priesthood and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ that I must remain silent.  And if they do write such a letter, my next step is to forward a copy of it to the Area Presidency.
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng#title251
 
So, that has to do with leaders.   I see nothing in the handbook about how missionaries can't be witnesses or testify in legal proceedings.  

That is known as the Star of Abraham.  It is used a lot in Islamic construction and symbolism.  Ibrahim or Abraham is one of their most Holy Prophets.  Not only was he the father of Ishmael, but he also supposedly purged the world of idolatry and showed them the correct way to worship.  He also built the Kabbalah (sp?) and was the Holy Prophet of his time.
Some Hypothesize that Israel anciently may have also used this symbol originally.  Of interest, it would be then that both groups who claim to be descended from Abraham may have used this symbol
As for it being the Seal of the Melchizedek Priesthood...I don't know.  The Islamic religions do not make that claim as far as I know and neither do the Jewish religions or scholars that have the hypothesis about it's prior usage in the region.
If I had to hazard a guess, IF IT IS the Seal of the Melchizedek Priesthood it is due to Abraham.  He received the Melchizedek Priesthood most likely from the Priest of Salem, or Melchizedek. 
In this it could be that this symbol was originally used BY Melchizedek and as Abraham became the rightful heir of that lineage and it's blessings, which in turn blesses the entire earth as we also must trace our lineages back to him, it also became his symbol.  Hence, this symbol not only would be the Star of Abraham, but also a symbol tracing it's heritage to Shem and then to Noah and from there to Adam eventually. 
That's just a wild guess on my part though. 
The Star of Abraham is a well known Islamic symbol used prolifically today.  I'm not sure why it doesn't show up on Google searches or other things (I did a quick check so I could post some references for everyone, but I couldn't find one on the internet via google...which is surprising to me.  It is such a well known symbol in the Middle East and it's symbology I am surprised that it isn't something that is easily found via google). 

Interesting, thanks for sharing that! I have always been more of a fan of the 8-pointed star being identified as the star of Bethlehem and representing (among other things) a new beginning.

Someone wrote an article tracing the whole “seal of Melchizedek” thing; and it turns out that it originated from a photo caption in Nibley’s book that was actually written by a research assistant and not Nibley himself.  The RA—when approached much later about it—vaguely recalled thinking they’d seen it in a book somewhere.
It’s an aesthetically cool motif, certainly a very old one, and I like the symbolic meaning that’s being imputed to it.  But I’m not convinced it’s an ancient symbol of Christ, priesthood, or anything else relating to the Gospel.
EDIT:  pretty sure this is the article I was thinking of.  https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-11-no-3-2010/seal-melchizedek

A different temple, but I have liked this article about the significance of the eight pointed star that litters the San Diego Temple. Though I will say upfront that I find the connection of this symbol with the "Seal of Melchizedek" to be a bit dubious.

Someone wrote an article tracing the whole “seal of Melchizedek” thing; and it turns out that it originated from a photo caption in Nibley’s book that was actually written by a research assistant and not Nibley himself.  The RA—when approached much later about it—vaguely recalled thinking they’d seen it in a book somewhere.
It’s an aesthetically cool motif, certainly a very old one, and I like the symbolic meaning that’s being imputed to it.  But I’m not convinced it’s an ancient symbol of Christ, priesthood, or anything else relating to the Gospel.
EDIT:  pretty sure this is the article I was thinking of.  https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-11-no-3-2010/seal-melchizedek

Nibley's Temple and Cosmos (page 17): "The curious Saturn stones may refer to the unlimited glories awaiting worthy saints." No citations for it though.

This seems to give rise to another question, though.  We have skeletons of infants and children who died pre-Christ.  But I had always understood that the non-Telestial dead who died pre-Christ were resurrected shortly after He was.  So, why weren’t these little ones resurrected?  Is *every* pre-Christian grave modern archaeologists find, the resting place of a wicked person?
One solution to this that I’ve been toying with, is that while resurrection *might* in some cases entail the re-gathering/re-assimilation of all of the specific atoms/molecules that went down into the grave (especially when doing so constitutes a sign to others, such as Christ’s own resurrection)—that that may not *always* be the case; and resurrection may actually involve the selective retrieval of some body material that was discarded throughout one’s life (if *every* molecule that was ever part of/eaten by us came back in the resurrection, we’d be physically enormous.)  
Thus, I suspect that the fact that we today have remains that are traceable to a particular individual, doesn’t necessarily mean that the individual has not yet been resurrected.  Peter, for example—we know he’s been resurrected.  Joseph Smith saw him.  He got ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood by him.  And yet, I think the evidence is reasonably strong that the 1st century skeleton found under St. Peter’s Basilica and analyzed in the mid 20th century, does originate with the apostle Peter.  But then, it must be that there isn’t enough of him there at the Vatican to even call it his “body” anymore.  Certainly, the soft tissues are all gone.  Whatever’s still there is like . . . nail clippings.  The nonessential stuff.

I thought it was PREEHHH-ciousss.

Well, isn’t that precious?

Well, isn’t that precious?

Well, isn’t that precious?

It's a LotR reference.

Another possibility arises with what the future holds specifically for children who die. Some believe they will still have the chance to mature to adulthood, perhaps during the Millennium, before they are resurrected. Maybe a Lazarus type regeneration, temporary in nature.
But I also agree with your assessment that resurrection does not have to utilize the final remains of an individual.

Yup, I agree.  Dust to dust.  Its all the same stuff.  If God can turn Hydrogen into Gold via nucleosynthesis, then He can clothe a spirit with any physical matter He chooses.  So many bodies lost at sea or cremated ashes thrown to the winds do not require God to hunt down each particle and piece them back together.
Joseph & Hyrum’s remains have been recovered and reburied.
D&C 138: 40, 50-51 are pretty good verses to support that Abel is resurrected.
Although I’m sure I could wait a few thousand years without a body as long as I was doing something worthwhile and understood the future plans.  I see the beauty of delayed gratification.

I've been listening to this guy (Bryce Dunford) on Youtube for a few days.  I figured I'd share one episode.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDmQfVhoA3Q
It's a bit long, so I'll just point out one symbol he pointed out from both the Nauvoo Temple and the SLC Temple.
We know there are stars, moons, and suns on the temples. But the order is messed up from the Telestial, Terrestrial, Celestial sequence.   Stars are on top Suns are in the middle Moons are at the bottom He points out that this incongruity can be clarified by looking at the following verse:
He points out that the woman was a symbol for the Church.  Thus the temple (also a symbol of the Kingdom of God on Earth) is wrapped (clothed) with the sun in the middle, with stars near the top (crown) and the moon near the bottom (under her feet).
Very interesting.

To some degree it probably is; but I believe God will send us better candidates when we show we want them and refuse to embrace the openly-amoral, proudly visionless libertines that the abortionists or the “beer, babes, burps ‘n’ brawls” wing of the GOP serve up to us.  Naive, I know . . .
A certain forum member back in 2016-ish got really mad when I cited 1 Kings 19:18 and likened it to Trump; but that’s still pretty much where I am.  If the GOP thinks they need my vote, they know where to find me.  

This seems to give rise to another question, though.  We have skeletons of infants and children who died pre-Christ.  But I had always understood that the non-Telestial dead who died pre-Christ were resurrected shortly after He was.  So, why weren’t these little ones resurrected?  Is *every* pre-Christian grave modern archaeologists find, the resting place of a wicked person?
One solution to this that I’ve been toying with, is that while resurrection *might* in some cases entail the re-gathering/re-assimilation of all of the specific atoms/molecules that went down into the grave (especially when doing so constitutes a sign to others, such as Christ’s own resurrection)—that that may not *always* be the case; and resurrection may actually involve the selective retrieval of some body material that was discarded throughout one’s life (if *every* molecule that was ever part of/eaten by us came back in the resurrection, we’d be physically enormous.)  
Thus, I suspect that the fact that we today have remains that are traceable to a particular individual, doesn’t necessarily mean that the individual has not yet been resurrected.  Peter, for example—we know he’s been resurrected.  Joseph Smith saw him.  He got ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood by him.  And yet, I think the evidence is reasonably strong that the 1st century skeleton found under St. Peter’s Basilica and analyzed in the mid 20th century, does originate with the apostle Peter.  But then, it must be that there isn’t enough of him there at the Vatican to even call it his “body” anymore.  Certainly, the soft tissues are all gone.  Whatever’s still there is like . . . nail clippings.  The nonessential stuff.

This seems to give rise to another question, though.  We have skeletons of infants and children who died pre-Christ.  But I had always understood that the non-Telestial dead who died pre-Christ were resurrected shortly after He was.  So, why weren’t these little ones resurrected?  Is *every* pre-Christian grave modern archaeologists find, the resting place of a wicked person?
One solution to this that I’ve been toying with, is that while resurrection *might* in some cases entail the re-gathering/re-assimilation of all of the specific atoms/molecules that went down into the grave (especially when doing so constitutes a sign to others, such as Christ’s own resurrection)—that that may not *always* be the case; and resurrection may actually involve the selective retrieval of some body material that was discarded throughout one’s life (if *every* molecule that was ever part of/eaten by us came back in the resurrection, we’d be physically enormous.)  
Thus, I suspect that the fact that we today have remains that are traceable to a particular individual, doesn’t necessarily mean that the individual has not yet been resurrected.  Peter, for example—we know he’s been resurrected.  Joseph Smith saw him.  He got ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood by him.  And yet, I think the evidence is reasonably strong that the 1st century skeleton found under St. Peter’s Basilica and analyzed in the mid 20th century, does originate with the apostle Peter.  But then, it must be that there isn’t enough of him there at the Vatican to even call it his “body” anymore.  Certainly, the soft tissues are all gone.  Whatever’s still there is like . . . nail clippings.  The nonessential stuff.

IIRC, Paul Reeve has pointed out that by “priesthood” Young is probably referring to the patriarchal order—that what changed Young’s mind about blacks and the priesthood (he was initially in favor of it) was coming to understand the importance of the temple sealing, developing a horror that righteous Abel’s line of posterity had been cut off, and concluding (via inspiration or otherwise) that Cain ought not to have priesthood-bearing seed until Abel did.  So . . . maybe 1978 was the year Abel finally finally attained his exaltation, took his place upon a throne (as, IIRC, we are told that Abraham and some other patriarchs already have), and—presumably—attained godhood.
Of course, in modern times we’ve been asked not to speculate about this.  But since so many disregard that counsel by speculating—even arguing—that the ban was spurious, I don’t know that there’s a lot of harm in pondering the possibility that maybe BY was, to some extent, right.

IIRC, Paul Reeve has pointed out that by “priesthood” Young is probably referring to the patriarchal order—that what changed Young’s mind about blacks and the priesthood (he was initially in favor of it) was coming to understand the importance of the temple sealing, developing a horror that righteous Abel’s line of posterity had been cut off, and concluding (via inspiration or otherwise) that Cain ought not to have priesthood-bearing seed until Abel did.  So . . . maybe 1978 was the year Abel finally finally attained his exaltation, took his place upon a throne (as, IIRC, we are told that Abraham and some other patriarchs already have), and—presumably—attained godhood.
Of course, in modern times we’ve been asked not to speculate about this.  But since so many disregard that counsel by speculating—even arguing—that the ban was spurious, I don’t know that there’s a lot of harm in pondering the possibility that maybe BY was, to some extent, right.

I am of the opinion that few things of this life are as they appear.  I had a younger brother that grew up mostly after I had left home (and moved far away from my family).  I only knew him while he was a child.  He died in an accident a few months after he returned home from his mission.  His death was particularly hard on my parents. 
During my younger brother’s funeral, I had an experience that is somewhat difficult to explain.  My brother came to me and communicated with me – it was a profound spiritual experience for me.  I learned that our mortal existence has what I would best describe as presets.  One of the major presets is the time of our death.  On rare occasions there can be an extension or contraction concerning our time of death pending on circumstances. 
Many sorrowed for my brother thinking that his time on earth had been shortened.  I learned that his time had been extended to serve a mission.  I inquired why my brother came to me rather than my parents or other family members.  I learned that the reason was because our parents and other family members were too stricken with grief and my brother could not connect with them.  I was to let them know that my brother was blessed to fulfill a mission.  Also, that he was about a good work and would not be denied any blessings and should not be mourned for dying young.   It took several years for my parents to be comforted.
Like the song “Come Come Ye Saints”, And if we die before our journey {seems} through – Happy Day, all is well.
 
The Traveler