CommanderSouth

Those who succeed in walking in holiness and offer lives and voices that praise Jesus--all while being cautious about finding fault--such folk are likely to bring many along on their coat tails. 

HORSE!  HORSE!!! (*fixes post*)

Yeah, but we don't really know what "intelligence" means here.  Is "intelligence" IQ, smarts, intel, knowledge, a mass of raw material infused into spirits on their creation, an attribute of eternal spirit-beings, or sentient beings with free will, or non-sentient beings who don't gain sentience until fused into a spirit body, or....?
There are places where "spirit" and "intelligence" are used interchangeably and other places where they seem to be distinct from one another, places where intelligence seems to be an entity and places where it seems to be an attribute.  I submit that we simply do not have enough clearly revealed information about anything prior to our lives as spirit children of God.  Without said clearly revealed information, we are filling in the voids with logic, imagination, and error.

Of course.  Though I wonder if even that is WHOLLY true.  If there are not edge cases where the law is applied differently to others, that is to say, if someone claims they read the BoM and received a prompting not to come to the church, I don't question it, I may tell them to be certain, and make sure, but then I have to have faith in God and the person.  BUT, I'm not willing to wager my eternity on an exception.  I'm just not willing to rule any out, you know, being a fallible mortal .  I bring myself to "What is that to thee?  Follow thou me."  I do what the spirit tells me, I don't deny the experiences of others, even if I don't agree or understand them.

On truth, Brigham Young is quoted as saying:
 
As a protestant, for many of my 14 years of membership, I focused more on being the "Only true and living church" and not the above.  I have found it useful to shift my perspective to the idea that the church is the "Most correct" of any church on Earth.  While all truth is "Mormonism", it emphatically DOES NOT follow that "Mormonism" is all truth.  I just watched a reaction video to the Mormon Stories video interviewing the Mississippi bishop who resigned from the pulpit.  He honestly spoke about how he viewed those outside the church as "not worth his time" and that only members were "celestial material".  To me, this is obviously a failure on his part for gross misunderstanding.  But perhaps we could focus a BIT more on the "most correct" and less on the "only true".
You obviously need both, but it seems some have the balance WAY off, even those in "leadership" positions.

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.

The rest of the Christian world can spend their time memorizing John 3:16, I prefer verse 17:
But don't let Satan lull you into believing the condemnation won't come eventually.  It's just that now is not the time for it.  The end of the Millennium is the time for it.
Say what!?

HORSE!  HORSE!!! (*fixes post*)

This is a major pillar of my testimony.  Our vision of a God who doesn't condemn ANYONE, AT ALL (in the eternal damnation sense, he hates sin, to be sure).  In fact everyone's eternity is spent as close to him as THEY allow themselves to be.  And it is truly their choice, because the little bit that chooses in their core, however you word it, has always existed, and has always done, and always WILL do, exactly what it wants.
Something something horse to water...  

Nor their good works.
OK.  We are all foolish and ignorant in various ways and at various times.  We should not mistake the flaws and limitations of the members of the Church for the restored gospel and Church of Jesus Christ.
FTR, those other churches aren't "celestial" (how can they be without the ordinances that lead to exaltation?) - they seem to be teaching things that are terrestrial in nature.  As far as I can recall, it's only their creeds God has labeled abomination.  (Klaw is on the verge of declaring my typing an abomination, which, if not stopped, will reap desolation, or a least a firm biting on the arm.)  Don't forget that we have the entire rest of time through the end of the Millennium to gather Israel and provide those "exclusive" celestial ordinances to all who will receive them.
Just as the law of Moses was to prepare a people to receive the Lord at his first coming, so too, I expect, the laws, ordinances, and covenants of Christ's Church are to prepare a people to receive him at his Second Coming.  I would expect us to be blessed with more commandments and possibly more covenants during the Millennium.  The pointer is always to Christ and through him to exaltation in the kingdom of God in heaven - celestial glory (whatever that means).  That others may feel or find their way closer without the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in their mortal lives does not mean they can make it all the way without the ordinances decreed by God - were that the case, we would not be doing proxy work in our temples.
It isn't God being exclusive, it's his children using their agency and free will to choose for themselves the eternity they want - the laws they are willing to abide.  (See your other thread! )  Jesus Christ will not turn away anyone who comes to him.  He will lead them as far as they're willing to go.  In my experience, he is the very definition of patient and merciful.  Just because someone hasn't received the witness of the Spirit regarding the restored Gospel at this moment, that does not mean we can or should give up on them, nor that God has, nor that they will not eventually find their way into the required covenants and ordinances.  (To think otherwise would be to exercise judgement which is God's alone.  Check out this GC talk from last October.)

I want to be clear that I am not trying to say that I think we aren't the "only true and living church" and that you can ignore the ordinances.  If it sounded as such, then I was not clear enough.
Also nice call back to someone talking right to me  
That being said, I am not advocating abandoning the exclusivity of "only true" for the inclusivity of "most correct".  I am simply saying that both can be true.  Our truth doesn't negate the good intent of other churches. You said you "Don't know any sane person who suggested otherwise." with regards to Mormonism being "all truth".  I am saying that others, including the bishop in Mississippi who resigned, and to an extent, younger versions of myself, held the idea that all of the other churches are "abominable" and not celestial.  The bishop made the mistake of thinking it meant those people were beneath him, I just had trouble reconciling the seeming good will of other Christians and the exclusivity of the celestial kingdom (insofar as that you have to have ordinances done by those having authority).
All I have postulated is that PERHAPS the priesthood and effective ordinances we perform aren't the eternal truth in question, but a pointer to one.  There are logic trains I can use to justify this, but that wasn't the point I wanted to make.  I was just saying, if I can't reconcile why my mother hasn't joined the church when she loves God more than anyone I know, I'm not willing to simply say she "doesn't know" or "doesn't want to".  I accept it could be either of those, but I also am simply ceding "God's mercy" as an option.  It's the same with everyone else outside the church.  Why would God be so exclusive if he has such power.  There are only 2 options, he DOESN'T have the power, or he WILL be inclusive, and I just don't understand how.
This is all to say, if God can do something for someone else, I have faith he will.  I don't recommend betting your existence on it.  So I don't condone rebellion.  If God tells you to do something, do it.  But if I find out late the ordinances I was doing were only a reflection of something "eternal" and not the ordinance itself, I'm not going to worry about it.
When I found out the temple rituals were Masonic adjacent (if not wholly lifted) I cared exactly 0%, in fact, I applaud it, it makes sense.  The endowment is covenants, what a beautiful, liturgical, way to apply them.  I'm simply saying that if I found out that the ordinances and what not were meant to convey something MORE than just what they mean on the surface, and the MORE part is what is efficacious, then I would not be upset.  Again, thinking that this somehow allows you to ignore it, in the off chance that IT in and of itself isn't what "saves" you, you are playing Russian Roulette with your soul.  If God tells you to do it (and he has given US this "law") THEN DO IT.

In this way, I think for some it might be more appropriate to focus on the "most correct" side when "only true" starts giving trouble.  You can't abandon one OR the other. 

One of the other folk on this forum recently pointed me to this fabulous challenge issued back in 1983 GC by Elder McConkie:
You could invite your brother to join you in this adventure.

That is the one that is currently swirling about in my mind.  My stance is that I agree.  I do not believe truth has changed at all.  I furthermore don't believe TRUTH will change at all.  I think our understanding or perspective may change, our understanding my grow.  But the more basic the aspect in question, the more enlightening the answer from the spirit will need to be.
 
This is fair, and I concur.  My language is as such based on discussions with my protestant, biblical inerrantist/infallibilist brother.  I basically had to tell him that even if I found a true "mistake" in any of these, the church, scriptures, or whatever, it's because while they are OF GOD, they are NOT God.  All of those involve mortal men with agency.  

The fact that the universe exists is proof that it (or at least the matter of which it is made and the space in which it exists) has always existed.  Because neither nothing, nor nowhere can exist.
(Of course, I could be all wrong.)

These people seem to only see what the Church does and fail to see what it does not do.  The teachings of the Church have not changed in my lifetime (I'm over 50).  (period. full stop. the end.)  Policies may have changed.  Member attitudes may have changed.  The gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the Church has not changed.  If people think, for example, that the Church has changed its thinking on sex or gender or marriage and that one day anyone will be able to marry be sealed in the temple of God to anyone without regard to sex or gender, those people do not understand the gospel or biology or God.  (I will happily hang my soul on that truth.)
Faith must always be in Jesus Christ in order to have any redemptive power.  But make no mistake, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the kingdom of God on earth.  It is Jesus Christ's one and only church.  The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are as much the word of God as the Bible (if not more so), and make no mistake, they are the word of God.  And Joseph Smith was and is a true prophet of God.  These are some of the truths that came with me through the veil.  Of them I am more certain than of the keyboard I'm typing on or the kitty telling me to quit typing.

Interestingly, I focus on the 13th verse, last comment, "who is in the midst of all things".  To me that sets the tone.  Light and truth go out from God's presence, he is in the midst of it all, but it doesn't have his existence solely/wholly because of him.
It's like Madsen said in Timeless Questions, Gospel Answers.  He calls the universe "self-existent" and I agree.
Combining this with what you said feels, dare I say, tastes, like truth.
This is where I am landing.  I am open to nearly anything.  This is also partly why I get frustrated at those who voice confusion at certain trends in the church with regards to society.  Claiming that the church is caving to external pressure.  I simply have faith that God will work it out.  If I need to change perspective and see why XYZ is right/less right/wrong, then I have faith he will.  If the church needs to do/not do XYZ in the long run, I have faith he'll help us do/not do XYZ.  I take the approach of the farmer in the parable in which he keeps having "good" and "bad" things happen to him and his family.  "We'll see".  My faith is in God, not the church, not the scriptures, nothing else.  He will never fail me.  Not that I accuse anyone in particular of anything, just to be wary, and reserve judgment as long as possible.
 
I'm about to revert to Pentecostal and start shouting and dancing (ironically, I never did back then).  This is the truest of true things.  Words describe things, THEY ARE NOT THE THINGS, and nothing is ever really encapsulated by a word (usually).

The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is the only church with the true priesthood and living ordinances.
It obviously has not cornered the market on truth, or righteousness though.

On truth, Brigham Young is quoted as saying:
 
As a protestant, for many of my 14 years of membership, I focused more on being the "Only true and living church" and not the above.  I have found it useful to shift my perspective to the idea that the church is the "Most correct" of any church on Earth.  While all truth is "Mormonism", it emphatically DOES NOT follow that "Mormonism" is all truth.  I just watched a reaction video to the Mormon Stories video interviewing the Mississippi bishop who resigned from the pulpit.  He honestly spoke about how he viewed those outside the church as "not worth his time" and that only members were "celestial material".  To me, this is obviously a failure on his part for gross misunderstanding.  But perhaps we could focus a BIT more on the "most correct" and less on the "only true".
You obviously need both, but it seems some have the balance WAY off, even those in "leadership" positions.

Yep, same page.
Here's Nibley (Approaching Zion, Chapter 3 "Zeal Without Knowledge") quoting Joseph Smith:
(Nibley expands my brain like no other mortal I've ever read.)
A lot of people read that as " truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" - but the "knowledge of" part sorta changes the meaning. (Of course, given Jacob's statement, you can't blame folks for dropping the "knowledge of" - maybe it's not so important as it seems to me.  See my final sentence.)
God has placed "truth" into spheres.  I expect one could spend hours dissecting and rearranging and diagramming above verses and come away knowing no more than they started.  Only the Spirit can teach a person what the above means.  But that and the D&C 19 verses I quoted cause me to not hold too tightly to anything I think I know.  Yes, I still hold tightly to some things - things that, as far as I can tell, came with me through the veil - but if God tells me something that adjusts my understanding, well, as the one in control of my sphere, I'm not going to argue that what he's doing is contrary to "eternal truth".
I don't think we're back at that idea - I reject it and Joseph Smith plainly taught that it's not true.  Nevertheless (verse 12):
You could dissect the life out of that one for years.  Reading these things makes me feel dumb as a post.  Want to know what it's saying?  Seek the Spirit, because I think our language is so ridiculously flawed and incapable that it's a wonder we can ever comprehend anything of God.

I think we're on the same page.  I understand my choice of words could have been a finer point, but I think we're in the same place.  All "intelligence" exists in some eternal degree with the ability to "choose" to grow.  Maybe it's an urge, maybe it's contemplated, but it's a fundamental, primal, thing.  THAT is the core of what eventually becomes a spirit child of heavenly parents.
I am especially on the same page where it relates to "eternal" truth.  I have been pondering hard on free will vs nihilism.  The only conclusion that made sense to me is the Restored Gospel. And you are very right, what we call truth IS true, but the actual truth is SO much more.  So, it behooves us not to get stuck on our words, they are pointers, not the thing pointed to.  BUT, we also need remember that the truth is what we believe and MORE, not less.  
Orthodox Christendom in all flavors is repellant (honestly, abhorrent) to me. Defined as, the "limitless" God that has no need and is by definition satisfied, makes beings, knowing many will ultimately choose suffering, but had no decision in their creation.
The Restoration teaches a view that harmonizes what we see in reality and all true science, with the loving, personal, splendorous God that Orthodoxy TRIES to present.  In this, there is peace for me.  In this view, God isn't magic, he's REAL.
I think the way we might word my first post is the simple, "We are eternal, as God is.  We, and he, at our core, are some types of "will"/"intelligence"/"something that wants/chooses" as is everyone.  While he is vastly far beyond us, laughably even, all intelligence is susceptible to growth, and it will, according to its desire."
None of this is to remove the hand of God in directing and aiding, just to set up the premise.  Because I find no other premise sound or satisfying.  Though I am always willing to listen and broaden my understanding!

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.

I see God as all-powerful, which power comes from greater knowledge and love relative to our own, and in perfect balance. He is thus considerate of lesser beings and commits Himself to their obtaining a fulness of joy -- every kind of life in its sphere. Lesser beings can never rebel enough to take away what He has obtained, try as they might, and in trying find Him leveraging their efforts to His interests.
By "sphere" I mean existence, or the extent to act (agency) and be acted upon (lack thereof). I do not understand how different forms of life came to have different spheres of existence, and why some things are purely acted upon, but it does seem to have something to do with the knowledge and love they possess (or lack thereof) and the balance therein, resulting in their level of self-comprehension (or none) and what becomes expressed in the spiritual and physical realms for us to perceive and interpret as space-time, forces, elements, microbes, plants, animals, people, etc.
From our perspective, God has always existed, and from our perspective, we have always existed no matter when we began to perceive that we do. We may pass between many veils and estates, and not all of them are remembered, though we begin to see them as we become more like God.

Our knowledge of our existence is mostly limited to the immediate past and future. I am defining immediate from an eternal perspective, so in other words the revealed premortal spirit world and the postmortal spirit world through judgement. As we move out beyond those points our knowledge is extremely limited. And while there are a few things we do know it would kind of be like connecting the dots of a drawing of an architectural plan where 95% of the dots are missing. Maybe enough to give us a very vague outline but trying to fill in details is guess work. 

I think we're on the same page.  I understand my choice of words could have been a finer point, but I think we're in the same place.  All "intelligence" exists in some eternal degree with the ability to "choose" to grow.  Maybe it's an urge, maybe it's contemplated, but it's a fundamental, primal, thing.  THAT is the core of what eventually becomes a spirit child of heavenly parents.
I am especially on the same page where it relates to "eternal" truth.  I have been pondering hard on free will vs nihilism.  The only conclusion that made sense to me is the Restored Gospel. And you are very right, what we call truth IS true, but the actual truth is SO much more.  So, it behooves us not to get stuck on our words, they are pointers, not the thing pointed to.  BUT, we also need remember that the truth is what we believe and MORE, not less.  
Orthodox Christendom in all flavors is repellant (honestly, abhorrent) to me. Defined as, the "limitless" God that has no need and is by definition satisfied, makes beings, knowing many will ultimately choose suffering, but had no decision in their creation.
The Restoration teaches a view that harmonizes what we see in reality and all true science, with the loving, personal, splendorous God that Orthodoxy TRIES to present.  In this, there is peace for me.  In this view, God isn't magic, he's REAL.
I think the way we might word my first post is the simple, "We are eternal, as God is.  We, and he, at our core, are some types of "will"/"intelligence"/"something that wants/chooses" as is everyone.  While he is vastly far beyond us, laughably even, all intelligence is susceptible to growth, and it will, according to its desire."
None of this is to remove the hand of God in directing and aiding, just to set up the premise.  Because I find no other premise sound or satisfying.  Though I am always willing to listen and broaden my understanding!

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.