Are differences in IQ a reflection of pre-mortal attainment?

[omegaseamaster75]

55 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I know what you're saying but there are exceptions to this statement such as...  Joseph Smith Jr was foreordained to restore the gospel in this dispensation.  

It's a cool statement and may even be true but shouldn't be put forward as doctrinal or an absolute truth because it is not. It is one mans opinion.

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

It's a cool statement and may even be true but shouldn't be put forward as doctrinal or an absolute truth because it is not. It is one mans opinion.

https://www.lds.org/topics/foreordination?lang=eng

[omegaseamaster75]

I am not disagreeing with the doctrine of foreordination I am saying that these statements by our ex prophets are their opinion. They may be true and accurate but their statements are not part of our cannon

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

I have seen this before and typically this smacks hard of racism. [...]  And there may be some truth to it, but.....

And thus ends intelligent discussion, when a mere idea -- and one with potential and statistical backing -- is shunned by being labelled "racist".

It is deeply, fundamentally dishonest to dismiss or vilify an otherwise reasonable idea because you judge it to be "racist". I have many reservations about the "unequal IQ between races" idea, but one of those reservations is NOT that it's "racist".

To put it another way: The idea of unequal IQ between races is racist based on the following definition: "RACISM: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." This being the case, what does it mean? Simple. It means that the word "racist" is useless and should be discarded.

Do you think that black Americans are, on average, more athletic than white Americans? Many believe exactly that; and they may be right. But they are all racist. Do you think that Asians are, on average, shorter than Europeans? Welcome to racism, you racist scumbag! What? You say you can statistically prove the point? Doesn't matter. You're still a racist. Go back and read the definition given above. 

If "racist" is to be a useful term and not just something that fools throw out to try to strengthen their pathetic arguments, then it cannot mean the above definition. To the extent that the above definition IS used, we are justified in ignoring both it and those who use it.

EDIT: Lost Boy's comment was a jumping-off point for my post above, not the target of attack. I am attacking the idea itself, not Lost Boy's expression.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Vort

[anatess2]

14 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I am not disagreeing with the doctrine of foreordination I am saying that these statements by our ex prophets are their opinion. They may be true and accurate but their statements are not part of our cannon

Foreordination is VERY MUCH a part of scripture and, therefore, canon.  To say that our prophets are not foreordained is rejecting that very important doctrine.

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

To put it another way: The idea of unequal IQ between races is racist based on the following definition: "RACISM: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." This being the case, what does it mean? Simple. It means that the word "racist" is useless and should be discarded.

Case in point:  Every single thing politicians do to "equalize the races" are... you got it... racist.

[Anddenex]

19 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

https://www.lds.org/topics/foreordination?lang=eng

What is more intriguing is both are correct. It is a prophet's opinion, and it is truth (canon).

This is part of the problem in our day and age and I assume in the past also. When the prophets spoke during their time (as none of it was "canon"), people rejected it as mere opinion. There has been no modern prophet who has spoken directly that would be considered canon. Canon has always been added latter, but has never changed the truth of what they said.

This is in part why I Iove the Book of Mormon, as it addresses the "opinion" argument indirectly. As when Alma (I believe it was Alma, to lazy right now to find scripture) who said to this affect, "It is my opinion..." Well his "opinion" was truth. Whether canon or not canon is irrelevant -- it was/is truth. Just as with Joseph Smith being foreordained. Doctrine and Covenants highlights the truth of being foreordained (as well as the Book of Mormon - Alma 13), those who were foreordained (at least in that section), and thus giving light to the idea of those foreordained today. These aren't just cool statements, they are truths.

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

If you can't see it, then you can't recognize it.

Alma 13 suggest you are correct anatess2. How did God know and why did God foreordain specific children to specific roles? Because he "saw" something, which can be "seen" today if we are able to see as God sees.

EDIT: But as you already know, this is the reality of being foreordained, we may show the signs (which can be seen -- obviously God saw them), and thus called, but there are many called who are not chosen.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Anddenex

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

And thus ends intelligent discussion, when a mere idea -- and one with potential and statistical backing -- is shunned by being labelled "racist".

It is deeply, fundamentally dishonest to dismiss or vilify an otherwise reasonable idea because you judge it to be "racist". I have many reservations about the "unequal IQ between races" idea, but one of those reservations is NOT that it's "racist".

To put it another way: The idea of unequal IQ between races is racist based on the following definition: "RACISM: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." This being the case, what does it mean? Simple. It means that the word "racist" is useless and should be discarded.

Do you think that black Americans are, on average, more athletic than white Americans? Many believe exactly that; and they may be right. But they are all racist. Do you think that Asians are, on average, shorter than Europeans? Welcome to racism, you racist scumbag! What? You say you can statistically prove the point? Doesn't matter. You're still a racist. Go back and read the definition given above. 

If "racist" is to be a useful term and not just something that fools throw out to try to strengthen their pathetic arguments, then it cannot mean the above definition. To the extent that the above definition IS used, we are justified in ignoring both it and those who use it.

EDIT: Lost Boy's comment was a jumping-off point for my post above, not the target of attack. I am attacking the idea itself, not Lost Boy's expression.

I do not think that genetically black americans are more athletic than whites.

Asians are on average shorter than Europeans, but being short or tall is not a characteristic that implies some sort of superiority or inferiority. 

Using some internet stat to show that you were better in the premortal existence because you were born in an area with a higher IQ than a country that is primarily black hints strongly of racism.   Why not in the OP, just ask if IQ and what you did in the premortal existence are linked.  Why bring races into it at all?

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Asians are on average shorter than Europeans, but being short or tall is not a characteristic that implies some sort of superiority or inferiority. 

"Superior" means "above"; "inferior" means "below". Being taller or shorter than someone else literally means being superior or inferior to them.

4 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Using some internet stat to show that you were better in the premortal existence because you were born in an area with a higher IQ than a country that is primarily black hints strongly of racism.

I don't recall anyone doing any such thing.

4 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Why not in the OP, just ask if IQ and what you did in the premortal existence are linked.  Why bring races into it at all?

Obviously, because there appears to be a correlation between race and what we call "intelligence". The question is perfectly reasonable. I think the question breaks down on closer examination, and I do not believe we have either the background or the tools to address it. But to dismiss it as "racist" is counterproductive.

[Lost Boy]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

"Superior" means "above"; "inferior" means "below". Being taller or shorter than someone else literally means being superior or inferior to them.

 

I don't recall anyone doing any such thing.

Obviously, because there appears to be a correlation between race and what we call "intelligence". The question is perfectly reasonable. I think the question breaks down on closer examination, and I do not believe we have either the background or the tools to address it. But to dismiss it as "racist" is counterproductive.

Quote

"Superior" means "above"; "inferior" means "below". Being taller or shorter than someone else literally means being superior or inferior to them.

Well then.  I am not quite sure how to respond to that.  That would imply my wife is inferior.  I don't think I appreciate that.

Quote

I don't recall anyone doing any such thing.

I can't help you there.

Quote

Obviously, because there appears to be a correlation between race and what we call "intelligence". The question is perfectly reasonable. I think the question breaks down on closer examination, and I do not believe we have either the background or the tools to address it. But to dismiss it as "racist" is counterproductive.

I didn't dismiss it as racist.  I said it smacks of racism as many people use these statistics to try to prove some superiority.    And that is basically what the OP did.  tried to correlate race to premortal attainment.   If you are of a particular race, you were not as good in the premortal existence.   That is being racist.

And no it is not counterproductive.  If you first established that IQ has anything to do with premortal attainment, then maybe, but there is no doctrine supporting that idea.  And then bringing race into it is just not cool.  God loves his children regardless the skin color, facial features, etc.

[Anddenex]

31 minutes ago, Vort said:

"Superior" means "above"; "inferior" means "below". Being taller or shorter than someone else literally means being superior or inferior to them.

As a person who stands 5'9", caucasian, and play basketball -- MJ is superior, and I feel inferior when I play against an African American who is 6'6" and is a baller.

If I were 6'6", the inferiority complex would be zil -- not @zil though. I would only feel inferior with a certain type of pen in my hand.

[zil]

4 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

If I were 6'6", the inferiority complex would be zilch (or nil) -- not @zil though. I would only feel inferior with a certain type of pen in my hand.

There, fixed that for you.  (Zil is not a word - though there are a couple of "urban dictionary" definitions for it and apparently in some language it means finger cymbals.)  Meanwhile, you could be 5'4" and @zil would still be inferior.

[Anddenex]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

There, fixed that for you.  (Zil is not a word - though there are a couple of "urban dictionary" definitions for it and apparently in some language it means finger cymbals.)  Meanwhile, you could be 5'4" and @zil would still be inferior.

Pssh...I am using my liberal writing license, as in @zil ain't got zil on me -- YOLO!

[Vort]

25 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Well then.  I am not quite sure how to respond to that.  That would imply my wife is inferior.  I don't think I appreciate that.

I can't help you there.

25 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I didn't dismiss it as racist.  I said it smacks of racism

"I didn't say it was yellow. I said it was a yellow thing." How do you even draw the distinction?

27 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

as many people use these statistics to try to prove some superiority.

Many people use English words to try to bend others to their nefarious will. So therefore speaking English is evil. Is that the logic?

28 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

And that is basically what the OP did.  tried to correlate race to premortal attainment.   If you are of a particular race, you were not as good in the premortal existence.

Let us examine the OP:

On 8/21/2018 at 10:06 PM, LePeel said:

've been reflecting on the differences in IQ between individuals and differences in average IQ between races. For example, the average IQ of Sub-Saharan Africans is 70, whereas the a average IQ of East Asians is 105. What about the pygmy people? Theirs is 54. What are the implications of these differences for the Plan of Salvation? 

Does a high IQ indicate a person increased to a greater degree in pre-mortality? Is IQ the manifestation of something in the spirit? Or do you think IQ is unconnected to the spirit? 

This is NOT a question of does IQ = morality/spirituality. Its a question of is IQ a flesh and blood reflection of a spirit's "mental capacity" or degree of increase.

You are wrong. The OP did nothing of the sort that you wrongly claim he did. He asked a question, or a series of questions. The questions are perfectly reasonable, if a bit sensitive for modern American sensibilities. Your slander against the OP is unfounded.

31 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

That is being racist.

No. That is asking a question. It is you, if anyone, who is being racist by imputing racist motives to the OP, based on nothing more than your presumption of his race.

32 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

If you first established that IQ has anything to do with premortal attainment, then maybe, but there is no doctrine supporting that idea.

That is precisely why the OP asked his question, because there is no settled doctrine on the matter.

33 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

And then bringing race into it is just not cool.

Bringing race into what? Into the question of premortal actions? What are you even talking about?

34 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

God loves his children regardless the skin color, facial features, etc.

Please demonstrate where anyone on this thread ever stated or implied otherwise.

[zil]

6 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Pssh...I am using my liberal writing license, as in @zil ain't got zil on me -- YOLO!

Yo mama uses ballpoints.

[Lost Boy]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

I can't help you there.

"I didn't say it was yellow. I said it was a yellow thing." How do you even draw the distinction?

Many people use English words to try to bend others to their nefarious will. So therefore speaking English is evil. Is that the logic?

Let us examine the OP:

You are wrong. The OP did nothing of the sort that you wrongly claim he did. He asked a question, or a series of questions. The questions are perfectly reasonable, if a bit sensitive for modern American sensibilities. Your slander against the OP is unfounded.

No. That is asking a question. It is you, if anyone, who is being racist by imputing racist motives to the OP, based on nothing more than your presumption of his race.

That is precisely why the OP asked his question, because there is no settled doctrine on the matter.

Bringing race into what? Into the question of premortal actions? What are you even talking about?

Please demonstrate where anyone on this thread ever stated or implied otherwise.

Lost a bunch of respect for you vort.

[Vort]

Just now, Lost Boy said:

Lost a bunch of respect for you vort.

Ah, well. Such is life.

[JohnsonJones]

On Joseph Smith...

This is deep doctrine of which you probably really don't need to know or delve into.

This is what a LITTLE PART of Mormon Culture has thought...

I'm not sure of the source...

The third member of the Godhead changes.  Thus, the Holy Ghost at times has been different individuals.

As per some, at one time, Joseph Smith while he was a Spirit was the Holy Ghost.  Thus, the entire part about knowing who he was.

Obviously, when Joseph Smith was here on Earth, that meant someone else was the Holy Ghost at the time most likely.

[wenglund]

If we take our intelligence from this life to the next (D&C 130:18-19), then why wouldn't we, in some ways and to some extent, take it from pre-mortality to mortality?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Traveler]

I am not sure that we can even say racism without being (at some level) a racist.  Technically a race is defined in genetic terms - and as near as I can determine - the human race is so diverse it is impossible to accurately identify any possible divergent race.  For example - it is my understanding that if all the blond haired blue eye individuals currently alive were somehow removed from the gene pool that within roughly 10 to 15 thousands years the percentage of blond hair blue eye individuals would be pertly much be the same as if those currently with those traits remained in the gene pool. 

I believe efforts to distinguish various segments of the human race as a race unto themselves is much more political than scientific.  Or perhaps I should say - completely political and without sound scientific basis.  From a religious stand point - especially considering the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - we are all brothers and sisters from the same single family line.  

But there is a bigger problem with this thread - IQ is not the same as intelligence.  At least in scientific terms.  I was in junior high when I discovered that all the kids in my school that everybody thought was smart - higher IQ - were just the kids that did their homework.  This was greatly reinforced when I studied genus (exceptional learners) in college.  The one most single common denominator of an exceptional learner is that they have a mentor.  In other words it is more the culture of an individual after their birth that it is the genetics they were born with.

One last point - Every one should ready Moroni Chapter 10.  Perhaps many times.  Every person comes to this mortal existence with spiritual gifts from G-d.  I believe for some a spiritual gift may translate as athletics, some with music, some with art, some with scientific logic, some with the ability to make friends, some with the gift of compassion and so on and so on.  I see no reason - especially from Moroni Chapter 10 -- where anyone should think themselves better because of the spiritual gifts they have compared to others.   I believe that to think so, is the very epitome of pride - and as near as I have been able to determine - being prideful is much worse that being what is politically called a racists. 

 

The Traveler

Edited August 30, 2018 by Traveler

[bytebear]

I do think that genius is a gift from God, and something that God releases at His designated time.  I think the discovery and harnessing of electricity, the invention of movable type, the invention of flight, of the telegraph, telephone and internet. All given to mankind at a time when the gospel needed a boost.   I think God placed people with the gifts and the intellectual nudge to figure those things out at the right time and place.