Posted by Nathan Richardson
One of the most intriguing and enigmatic doctrines of the Restoration is the doctrine of intelligence. Sometimes the scriptures use “intelligence” in the everyday sense: information or “smarts.” But sometimes the Lord uses the term to refer to an eternal “material” or “substance” that we don’t know much about. It’s used in that sense six times for sure (D&C 93:29–30, 36; Abr. 3:21–22) and possibly another four times (D&C 88:40; 130:18–19; the context makes it hard to say for certain). Elder Robert L. Simpson explained the concept this way:
Before drawing the breath of life on this earth, we were all spiritual beings living in the realm of God, the Eternal Father. Scripture reveals that even before our spiritual birth, each of us had individual identification as an intelligence. Before all else could take place, there had to be that beginning spark of light.1
What We Don’t Know
Many assumptions are made about the nature of that pre-existent intelligence, but in reality, very little has been revealed. We don’t even know whether it’s a count noun (“many intelligences,” like “many apples”) or a mass noun (“much intelligence,” like “much clay”). There are several ways of interpreting what it is like:
Intelligence, however defined, is not created or made (D&C 93:29); it is coeternal with God (TPJS, pp. 353–54). Some LDS leaders have interpreted this to mean that intelligent beings—called intelligences—existed before and after they were given spirit bodies in the premortal existence. Others have interpreted it to mean that intelligent beings were organized as spirits out of eternal intelligent matter, that they did not exist as individuals before they were organized as spirit beings in the premortal existence (Abr. 3:22; JD 7:57; 2:124). The Church has taken no official position on this issue.2
Joseph F. Smith pretty much consigned interpretations of the doctrine of intelligence to the “Interesting But Not Revealed” category when he said,
There has been some speculation and articles have been written attempting to explain just what these ‘intelligences’ are, or this ‘intelligence’ is, but it is futile for us to speculate upon it. We do know that intelligence was not created or made and cannot be because the Lord has said it. There are some truths it is well to leave until the Lord sees fit to reveal the fulness.3
Then What’s the Point in Knowing at All?
In this article, I’m not interested in describing the various ways Church leaders have interpreted the scanty passages on intelligence.4 I have only one question: If he wasn’t going to tell us anything about it, why did the Lord bother to reveal the doctrine of intelligence?
There are a lot of vital doctrines the Lord usually focuses on: priesthood, repentance, the second coming. Usually it seems like he chooses such doctrines because they are vital to our salvation or help us in the process of repenting and becoming like him. On the other end, there are a lot of things he has chosen to not reveal: the full process involved in creation, the timing of the second coming, the history of the lost tribes. Usually it seems like he withholds such doctrines because we’re not ready to understand them, or because we don’t need to know them. Revealed truth doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The Lord always has a purpose for every bit of information he reveals, and it usually involves some kind of moral obligation on our part. He doesn’t reveal things on a whim, just to satisfy our curiosity.
So why bother telling us there is a mysterious something called intelligence and then not tell us anything more about it? It would be like saying, “In the heavens there are snufflemuggins. I will tell you that they’re purple, but beyond that, I will say no more.” Considering the Lord’s characteristic revelatory parsimony, it seems unusual that he would reveal something “just because.” There may really be snufflemuggins in heaven, but why would he go through all the trouble of making sure we knew that . . . and nothing more. What is the hidden purpose behind the Lord’s choice to reveal the doctrine of intelligence?
I finally found an answer in D&C 93:29–31, and I will explain it in another post.
Notes
1. Robert L. Simpson, “Pollution of the Mind,†Ensign, Jan. 1973, p. 112.
2. Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 1, “Intelligence.”
3. Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 1:401; cited in Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), p. 13. Notice that in President Smith’s usage of the terms, he confirms that we don’t even know whether to treat it as a count noun or a mass noun.
4. For a great discussion on the various interpretations of this doctrine, see Brent L. Top, The Life Before, ch. 3: “Intelligence or Intelligences?”
My guess is that it has to do with our eternal existence and our capacity for eternal growth and progression. I wonder if there’s no good, compelling way to explain the doctrine without at least touching on intelligence, or the mind of man.
Note that there is a big debate about whether one should distinguish between intelligence and spirit. I think a compelling case can be made that in Nauvoo they weren’t clearly separated (although I think the hints of a distinction are there).
Certainly by the Utah period the doctrine of spirit birth was taught although some see this doctrine as on par with Adam/God. (I don’t—I think it a key doctrine)
Just figured I’d throw in those caveats before folks like Blake Ostler object. I’m much more a mainstream traditionalist on these things.
I should add though that our more modern notion of intelligence-spirit-body comes largely from B. H. Roberts. He took part of Pratt’s views and then threw in the popular Cartesian mind view of the era (apparently in part from William James). I’m not sure I buy that view of what an intelligence is. But it’s probably the most popular view. I tend to like Brigham Young’s view which, while not terribly developed, is much closer to a general idealism with strong materialistic streaks.
BTW—to your central question of why talk about intelligence I think it depends upon context. I think the key issue is that something about us that is mind-like is co-eternal with God. This is the basis for the central rejection of creation ex nihilo which I think has huge theological implications. It constitutes the main difference between us and other Christians and Jews.
Why bother? Perhaps, as the man said, to let us know that we have not come out of nowhere. That we have an eternal component that is central to our agency.
I have always understood that “intelligence” in this sense is what makes us individuals with certain potential. The premortal existence started us on the road to develop our potential and now we’re at the next stage. But what “organizing” in this context means, I leave for someone wiser than me for now.
The 9th article of faith says that *many* great and important things will yet be revealed.
Clark: Certainly by the Utah period the doctrine of spirit birth was taught, although some see this doctrine as on par with Adam/God. (I don’t—I think it a key doctrine.)
What problem do people have with spirit birth? I thought it was a pretty basic and intuitive doctrine. Why do some object to the idea?
I tend to like Brigham Young’s view.
I do, too, actually. It seems true in a lot of ways. Why do you like it?
Our more modern notion of intelligence-spirit-body comes largely from B. H. Roberts. He took part of Pratt’s views and then threw in the popular Cartesian mind view of the era (apparently in part from William James).
Yeah, I used to assume that was the plain meaning of passages about intelligence, until Craig Ostler explained to me some other ways of understanding them. It was a really eye-opening conversation.
I’m not sure I buy that view of what an intelligence is. But it’s probably the most popular view.
I have my misgivings, too. I wonder if it’s so popular because, in the absence of any prophetic elucidations, people fill in the gaps with non-revealed ideas gleaned from culture and education.
I like the idea of an intelligence being tied to intelligence rather than just an euphamism. I think it also explains D&C 93 quite well where the self is more a hole through which other intelligence shows itself. There’s a lot here tied to Heidegger, Leibniz and others. I was writing a paper on all this for SMPT but got too busy with my new business.
If you are interested I put up some rough drafts several years ago on my take. I was going to fill it out with more rigorous argument and references.
Oh, on spirit birth there are many at New Cool Thang who reject it.
Nathan! No cliff-hanger essay endings allowed.
Seriously, this is an interesting topic. I’m glad you’re writing about it. I thought it was interesting that the D&C scripture you referenced ties intelligence with agency. I’ll have to devote more time to thinking about it.
I think that the uncreated essense of man is important in explaining moral evil in the world without attributing it to God.
I really like BH Roberts view in the “Immortality of Man” essay.
As far as spirit birth, I have been a supporter of that view on the ‘nacle for a long time. Objections include: Not wanting to think of Heavenly Parents and the ‘birds and the bees’, resurrected beings having spirit offspring, running out of intelligences someday, and desiring to keep God as a distant ‘other,’ to name a few. I still prefer spirit birth however.
Now, when people have reservations about the doctrine of spirit birth, do you mean (1) the idea that before we were spirits, we were something else, and we required some event that formed us into individual spirits, or just (2) the idea that that event requires parents with physical bodies and some kind of literal birth process? I’m not sure which idea they’re rejecting.
Clark: There is a big debate about whether one should distinguish between intelligence and spirit. I think a compelling case can be made that in Nauvoo they weren’t clearly separated (although I think the hints of a distinction are there). Certainly by the Utah period the doctrine of spirit birth was taught.
Yeah, I’ve heard that some people see it that way (and I understand that you don’t). To me, though, it’s like saying, “In the City of Nephi period, there is no evidence that Nephi distinguished between the spirit world and the eternities after the judgment. To him, they were both just the afterlife. The notion of a spirit world as a distinct time period before the judgment/eternal life is a later development that began during the Zarahemla period under a later president of the Church, Alma the younger.”
Clark, you claim, “He took part of Pratt’s views and then threw in the popular Cartesian mind view of the era (apparently in part from William James).” I don’t know what you mean by the WJ connection. James was definitely not a mind-body dualist nor a Cartesian.
I think that the doctrine of intelligence was important to reveal because of other things that are revealed about it. For instance, the idea that intelligence is light and truth and it forsakes the evil one, and the idea that Satan takes away intelligence through disobedience and the idea that we can gain more intelligence through our diligence and obedience and the idea that our intelligence crosses the veil with us into mortality and out of mortality with us when we die.
I think what we eventually learn is that one heavenly treasure we can accumulate that will rise with us is intelligence and we do that through obedience.
What this also says to me is that if I want to become smarter, I have to be more obedient.
What this also says to me is that if I want to become smarter, I have to be more obedient.
I totally agree (2 Ne. 28:30). To me, that’s one more thing that implies that “intelligence” as used in the scriptures is very different from what is meant in scientific circles. It has a moral component that cannot be ignored or separated from it.