Regarding Ex Nihilo and the problem of evil.

[CommanderSouth]

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.

[zil2]

2 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

the idea that our agency predates our spirit

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:

Quote

Moses 4:3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

Quote

Moses 7:32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

2. That the proper term is "moral agency":

Quote

D&C 101:78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

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.

2 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

our spirit is uncreated

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.]

2 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

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?

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.)

2 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

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. 

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.

2 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

I ask this as I'm trying to figure out what might be able to be called "eternal" truth and what might not.

Quote

D&C 19:10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

"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).

2 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

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'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.)

2 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

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 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.

Edited February 6 by zil2

[CommanderSouth]

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!

Edited February 7 by CommanderSouth
Clarity

[laronius]

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. 

[CommanderSouth]

4 minutes ago, laronius said:

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. 

Absolutely, which is why I hesitate to call much "eternal" truth.  Most things (or words/ideas) we have are LIKE the eternal truth, but still not all encompassing of it.

[CV75]

16 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

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 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.

[CommanderSouth]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

I feel this as well.  Honestly, Orson Scott Card's idea of "phylotes doing what they want" in Xenocide spells out this idea very well.  I'm not marrying myself to it, but it is fully satisfying

[CommanderSouth]

15 hours ago, zil2 said:

"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).

For clarity, when you say this, do you mean this truth finds it's SOURCE in God, or it is the truth he POSESSES?  I ask because if it's emanating from him, I go back to the "God is the only self-existent being" idea.  If you mean POSESSES, then yeah, that makes sense.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, CommanderSouth said:

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.

Yep, same page.

1 hour ago, CommanderSouth said:

all intelligence is susceptible to growth

Here's Nibley (Approaching Zion, Chapter 3 "Zeal Without Knowledge") quoting Joseph Smith:

Quote

"The mind or the intelligence which man possesses," says Joseph Smith, "is co-equal with God himself." What greater crime than the minimizing of such capacity? The Prophet continues, "All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement. . . . God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge." Expansion is the theme, and we cannot expand the boundaries unless we first reach those boundaries, which means exerting ourselves to the absolute limit.

(Nibley expands my brain like no other mortal I've ever read.)

11 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

For clarity, when you say this, do you mean this truth finds it's SOURCE in God, or it is the truth he POSESSES?  I ask because if it's emanating from him, I go back to the "God is the only self-existent being" idea.  If you mean POSESSES, then yeah, that makes sense.

Quote

D&C 93:24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.

28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

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".

33 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

I ask because if it's emanating from him, I go back to the "God is the only self-existent being" idea.

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):

Quote

D&C 88:6 He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;

7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.

8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;

9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;

10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

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.

[CommanderSouth]

5 minutes ago, zil2 said:

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

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.

8 minutes ago, zil2 said:

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".

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.
 

13 minutes ago, zil2 said:

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'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).

[CV75]

1 hour ago, CommanderSouth said:

I feel this as well.  Honestly, Orson Scott Card's idea of "phylotes doing what they want" in Xenocide spells out this idea very well.  I'm not marrying myself to it, but it is fully satisfying

Not familiar with any of that...! And I hope I'm not doing it!  

[zil2]

22 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

Claiming that the church is caving to external pressure. 

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.)

22 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

My faith is in God, not the church, not the scriptures, nothing else. 

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.

Edited February 7 by zil2
clarified

[zil2]

13 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

He calls the universe "self-existent" and I agree.

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.)

[CommanderSouth]

2 minutes ago, zil2 said:

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 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.)

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.

 

7 minutes ago, zil2 said:

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.

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.  

[zil2]

4 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

my protestant, biblical inerrantist/infallibilist brother

One of the other folk on this forum recently pointed me to this fabulous challenge issued back in 1983 GC by Elder McConkie:

Quote

May I be so bold as to propose a test and issue a challenge. It is hoped that all who take this test will have a knowledge of the Holy Bible, because the more people know about the Bible, the greater their appreciation will be of the Book of Mormon.

This test is for saint and sinner alike; it is for Jew and Gentile, for bond and free, for black and white, for all of our Father’s children. We have all been commanded to search the scriptures, to treasure up the Lord’s word, to live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God. (See D&C 84:44.) This, then, is the test:

Let every person make a list of from one hundred to two hundred doctrinal subjects, making a conscious effort to cover the whole field of gospel knowledge. The number of subjects chosen will depend on personal inclination and upon how broad the spectrum will be under each subject.

Then write each subject on a blank piece of paper. Divide the paper into two columns; at the top of one, write “Book of Mormon,” and at the top of the other, “Bible.”

Then start with the first verse and phrase of the Book of Mormon, and continuing verse by verse and thought by thought, put the substance of each verse under its proper heading. Find the same doctrine in the Old and New Testaments, and place it in the parallel columns.

Ponder the truths you learn, and it will not be long before you know that Lehi and Jacob excel Paul in teaching the Atonement; that Alma’s sermons on faith and on being born again surpass anything in the Bible; that Nephi makes a better exposition of the scattering and gathering of Israel than do Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel combined; that Mormon’s words about faith, hope, and charity have a clarity, a breadth, and a power of expression that even Paul did not attain; and so on and so on.

You could invite your brother to join you in this adventure.

[Jersey Boy]

On 2/6/2024 at 6:03 PM, zil2 said:

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").  

There is no “probably” about it. The Lord makes it perfectly clean that the intelligences that existed before the organization of spirit bodies had free will, and if it were not so nothing could exist.

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. (Doctrine and Covenants 93)

[zil2]

46 minutes ago, Jersey Boy said:

There is no “probably” about it. The Lord makes it perfectly clean that the intelligences that existed before the organization of spirit bodies had free will, and if it were not so nothing could exist.

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. (Doctrine and Covenants 93)

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.

Edited February 8 by zil2

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Why do we try to complicated a simple doctrine like this? We, as members, seem to want to make things into grand mysteries when there is nothing complicated about it at all.