A Summary & Excerpts from "Orson Pratt and the Expansion of the Doctrine and Covenants" by Brian C. Passantino (2020)

The following is my comments  and excerpts  from Orson Pratt and the Expansion of the Doctrine and Covenants by Brian C. Passantino (2020): 

In the beginning of his thesis Passantino writes:

... Before Smith died in 1844, he oversaw the collection and dissemination of his most essential and authoritative revelations and teachings as contained within the Doctrine and Covenants.

Passantino says his thesis seems to uncover the rationale for Orson Pratt adding the revelations and teachings that he was asked to add to the 1876 Doctrine & Covenants.

On page 3-4, he says that in the 1870s, Orson Pratt spearheaded the expansion of the D&C and 

its most radical change since the death of Smith. He added an additional twenty six revelations to the doctrinal corpus. ... I assert that there were three major influences or factors that informed Pratt's canonical additions to the text of the Doctrine and Covenants. The first influence was his immensely complicated relationship with Brigham Young, then president of the Church. The second factor was his desire to preserve popular revelations and further the priorities of the Church.

 

In my own words, not Passantino's, I see it as a way to outsmart Brigham Young and retain certain doctrines that counteracted Brigham's ideas like his Adam God Theory.

On page Passantino emphasizes how there were differences in personality and temperament between Young and Pratt; for example Pratt was "an intellectual of the highest order. He used  scientific theories combined with scriptures to come to reasoned conclusions. This was in stark contrast to Brigham Young...[who] never felt the need to square his doctrinal pronouncements with the scriptures." This is of course what sustained Young's Adam God doctrine for decades, in that he was not relying on reason or scriptural authority when teaching that Adam was God but relying on his own will and opinions by appealing to being a "living oracle" as President of the Church. 

On page 8, Passantino points out that Orson added "more revelations from Smith about the United Order, his economic utopian idea, which Young and his contemporaries would refer to as the 'Order of Enoch."

On page 12, he points out that Orson Pratt is recognized by historians for being an intellectual acumen and producing a scientific theology. When he was alive he was basically considered the St. Paul of Mormonism because like Paul he wrote extensively about the doctrine and theology of the Church in the form of pamphlets which had a major influence on the Church. Passantino states that according to the scholar Barlow, Pratt "felt constrained by the canon of scripture and sought to align his doctrinal beliefs within its confines." Passantino then writes: "My research takes this a step further and shows that Pratt's anxiety about squaring his beliefs with scripture may have influenced him to canonize scripture [in the 1870s] that helped lend credence to his non-canonical beliefs." In my own words, the pre-1870 canon of scripture did not contain sections of scripture like D&C 130, 131, 132, which talked about spirit matter/atoms for example, which provided canonical authority for Pratt’s theology. While acknowledging that Orson Pratt believed in continual revelation Passantino writes  that Pratt also placed a great degree of authority in the written word of scripture. On page 15, Passantino's writes:

My research suggests that the canonical expansion in the 1870s may have been a way to guard the Church from Young's doctrinal conjecture and re-emphasize the authority of the written word. Pratt saw the cannon as indispensable for the benefit of the Church and recognized the ephemerality of Young's teachings relative to this solidity of canonized scripture.

Passantino goes on to point out that after first questioning polygamy, Pratt went on to be the central mouthpiece in defending plural marriage. After Joseph Smith died in 1844, Orson Pratt was the primary actor in the decisions of the Church and was quickly recognized as the foremost teacher and interpreter of Mormon Doctrine. On page 17, Passantino writes "... his work on the Doctrine and Covenants is perhaps his most lasting [legacy, even] if heretofore underappreciated ..." In other words, Pratt's formation of the new Doctrine and Covenants editions between 1870 and 1900 canonized new content from Joseph  Smith that were formerly unpublished as scripture, which affected the future of Mormon doctrine by giving concepts like the Father God's physical  embodiment and spirit matter (or "spirit atoms"), scriptual authority.

Passantino notes that it was by the counsel of President Brigham Young that Pratt did all this, as a collaborative effort, and yet it's clear to me that Pratt's work was mostly his own as Young lacked the intellectual acumen necessary to fully oversee the process. But Young did oversee things, for example Young and Pratt both decided to divide the various revelations into verses. So it looks like it was a collaboration between Young and Pratt throughout the process (see pages 17-18).

On page 21 we learn that Pratt wanted The Pearl of Great Price to be added to the Doctrine and Covenants but when he asked the leadership if that could be done, suggesting that the Lectures on Faith be omitted from the D&C to make room for the Pearl of Great Price, his request was denied. Passantino assumes this is because the Lectures on Faith may have conflicted with Smith’s later 1840s teachings on the Godhead. I disagree with Passantino, I think the Lectures instead contributed to his Godhead theology. But it is very interesting to learn that at one point the 12 Apostles refused to remove the Lectures on Faith, when they would later be removed in 1921 after James Talmage was commssioned to form the final orthodox doctrine on the Godhead in 1916. In my view, the removal of the Lectures in 1921 was unnecessary: because Pratt's footnotes in the 1891 D&C in sections 130 and 131, drew the reader to the Lectures, which combined with Pratt's pamphlet Absurdities of Immaterialism -- explaining the doctrine of the Godhead -- also footnoted in the 1891 D&C section 131, provided a coherent Godhead theology, which I will discuss below.

On page 25, Passantino says that he "will demonstrate that many of the sections that Orson Pratt added to the Doctrine and Covenants were most definitely influenced by his relationship with Brigham Young."

On page 31 to 36, Passantino points out the Orson Hyde was the senior apostle and Pratt was next in line to become Church President after Brigham Young died, but Young changed the order of seniority making it so Hyde and Pratt would not be Church President. According to Passantino this was because both Hyde and Pratt had brief periods  of doubt and questioned Smith and left the Church, but they did later rejoin and were loyal afterward; nevertheless Young decided to set an example of them making it so anyone else in the future would not want to be disloyal or leave the Church because you could lose your seniority. It did not matter to Young that Hyde and Pratt had "repented" and come back to the Church and had been loyal for decades. 

Unrighteous Dominion 

Passantino goes on to point out that several leaders of the Church expressed dissatisfaction with Young's leadership style. Passantino points out that it may have been the authoritarian tendencies of Young that led Pratt to introduce certain texts into the canon of scripture. For example, while in Liberty Jail, Joseph Smith wrote a long letter expressing his anguish at his condition, Pratt chose to only include about 40% of the letter and part of the letter he included was likely a result of his reacting to Brigham Young's authoritarianism when Orson Pratt included from the letter what became D&C 121: 34-40 about "unrighteous dominion." Passantino writes on page 35-36 that this section can be read as 

Pratt appropriating the words of Joseph Smith to renounce the authoritative liberties taken by his prophetic president Brigham Young. This point becomes clearer as one begins to understand the instances that Pratt believe Young had exceeded his prophetic mandate.

 

One of the first major theological disagreements of the two men had was over Young's promulgation of a speculative doctrine about Adam [being] God. ... 

Passantino goes on to explain that basically Pratt rejected Brigham's doctrine that Adam was God, saying it was against the scriptural revelations of Smith. But Young said that he got the idea from Smith yet Young had no scriptural backing for this assertion. Passantino writes on pages 36-37 that 

Young went beyond Smith's authority and emphasized his own by stating that the doctrine was the way he presented it "in the name of the Lord." At one point in their argumentation, Pratt made clear that he "preferred to receive the written revelations of [Joseph Smith]." Pratt utilized Smith's teachings and revelations to refute Young's doctrinal beliefs and to combat instances where he believed Young's speculative doctrine had run amok. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that Pratt would use his project of expanding the Doctrine and Covenants to serve a similar purpose, namely, to curb the autocratic excesses of his prophet, Brigham Young. This doctrinal conflict highlights some of the differences in their approaches toward authority.

Passantino goes on to say that while Pratt himself engaged in some speculation he always did so by aligning his ideas with the scriptures and Joseph Smith's revelations while Young relied mostly only on his subjective opinion. Pratt believed in the superiority of modern revelation but also believed he could disprove Young's theological assertions by the Scriptures. When Pratt spoke he couched his talks in the language of scripture, science and scholarship, while Young referred to the scriptures sparingly and spoke more pragmatically.  Passantino points out on pages 37-38 that

These differences in approach shed light on Pratt's expansion of the Doctrine and Covenants. Pratt instinctively believed that even though modern revelation took precedence over former revelation, that canonized text mattered much more than Young seemed to realize. Pratt knew that the content of Young's seemingly innumerable sermons was ephemeral [unlasting] and that canonizing the faith's beliefs in scripture would have a much more lasting impact.

Both Pratt and Young had a stake to claim in defining the deity for the faith.

 I think this is why when Young died, Pratt strategically put a footnote to D&C 131: 7 directing the reader to his pamphlet Absurdities of Immaterialism. Builing off of Joseph Smith's pro-science ideas, Pratt was seeking to produce a scientific theology by combining the Lectures on Faith with Joseph Smith's later teachings in the 1840s. He goes on to point out that both men engaged in a theological battle with Brigham teaching Adam was God and Pratt producing pamphlets presenting a Godhead theology that better aligned with the scriptures Joseph produced. Young considered Pratt's views to contain "false doctrines" and pushed for the Adam-is-God dogma. 

Young's main issue was apparently the doctrine of the Holy Spirit being a diffused substance which constitutes (forms) the personages of the Father and Son. Young saw this as placing the Holy Spirit above the Father and Son. Reading this part of the thesis, I found it ironic that Young would feel this way when he had flat out replaced Jehovah as the God of this earth by replacing him with Adam as our Heavenly Father. Furthermore, Pratt's theology of an omnipresent substance called the Holy Spirit aligns with the doctrine of the Lectures on Faith which Joseph Smith himself re-read and approved of as doctrinal scripture just before he died in 1844.

On pages 38-42, Passantino summarizes Pratt's view stating that Pratt 

surmised that "the original divine entity was not God the Father," as Joseph Smith had insinuated near the end of his life, but rather "the Great First Cause itself" comprised of "conscious, intelligent, self-moving particles, called the Holy Spirit." ... Pratt concluded that "there is but one God, and he is in all worlds, and throughout all space, wherever the same identical light or truth is found." Therefore, "we worship that Holy Spirit or intelligence." In other words, they were worshiping the "attributes that constitutes divinity."

This view of the one God is discussed in this LDS forum. This idea is actually found in the Second and Fifth Lecture on Faith, where one reads that the Mind of the Supreme Deity, as an omnipresent Spirit, is in both the personages of the Father and Son, or in other words the Father and Son are constituted or organized by the Divine Mind and its Spirit Substance. 

Passantino goes on to say that President Young wanted Pratt formally brought before the Church to have his ideas declared false doctrine. Pratt tried to calm him down by basically apologizing for his teachings but Young continued to try and get his writings completely destroyed. Passantino then writes: "This public spat over the issue of the nature of the Holy [Spirit] became all the more interesting when Pratt inserted a section in the Doctrine and Covenants that expounded on the nature of the Godhead." He goes on in page 40 to recite the history of D&C 130:22, which came about after Orson Hyde spoke of the "Father and Son dwelling in our hearts" and Smith offering to correct Hyde's theology by saying that "the Father and Son dwelling in a man's heart is an old Sectarian notion and is not correct." Smith went on further to explain that the Father and Son having physical tangible bodies of flesh, this made it so that they could not dwell in one's heart. Smith went on to say that "a person cannot have the personage of the Holy Ghost in his heart, he may receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, it may descend upon him but not tarry with him." I personally believe that here Smith likely meant to convey the idea that the Holy Ghost was a personage in the Godhead, the 3rd member, but the Holy Spirit (not the Holy Ghost) mentioned in the then canonized scripture of the fifth Lecture on Faith, is a diffuse substance. So that the Holy Spirit is omnipresent per Lecture 2 and 5, but the Holy Ghost was a personage as the third member of the Godhead. I think this is the most logical conclusion, given Smith's statements in the 1840s on the Holy Ghost and his re-canonizing the Lectures on Faith in 1844.

Passantino goes on to point out that the original wording by Smith's scribes on the Holy Ghost above was edited to instead say that basically the Holy Ghost can dwell in us. Passantino then says that Pratt in turn seems to have used this updated wording to continue his speculation on the Godhead, writing "Not only did the cannonization of this section [130] serve Pratt's theological priorities, but it also changed the very nature of the Doctrine and Covenants." In other words, the rewording added credence to Pratt's Godhead. 

 Something Passantino does not cover is that Pratt's footnotes in the 1891 D&C has footnotes to D&C 130:22 and 131:7-8, drawing the reader to the Lectures on Faith, which would have likely to a distinction in the LDS readers mind between the omnipresent Holy Spirit of the fifth Lecture on Faith, a difuse substance of spirit matter/atoms (per section 131: 7-8), as distinct from the third member of the Godhead, the Holy Ghost (mentioned in D&C 130:22). 

On page 42, Passantino writes 

Section 130, along with sections 129 and 131, significantly changed the nature of the Doctrine and Covenants as a whole. Instead of it being a repository for revelations and the occasional letter tinged with revelatory language, it became a book that also contained teachings extracted from personal journal entries. The genre of the book was expanded to incorporate new authoritative teachings that may never have been meant by Joseph Smith to become so.

He goes on to basically say that in doing this, Pratt expanded what was considered scripture beyond what Smith himself had approved in his lifetime. Giving my own thoughts, I think that Pratt had contemplated why Joseph Smith would re-canonize the Lectures on Faith in 1844 after just teaching other ideas like God the Father has a body of flesh. Thus, being a thinking man, Pratt combined his knowledge of science with Joseph Smith's teaching that all spirit matter (or atoms) are spirit atoms or spirit matter, by formulating that doctrine that the Supreme Governing Power of Lecture 2, that constitutes (composes) the bodies or personages of the Father and Son, is likely a diffused substance of fluid omnipresent spirit-atoms acting as a Divine "Mind" (as Lecture 5 puts it). In other words, the canonization of section 130 - 131 and the footnotes added to these sections in the 1891 edition,  linking Smith's journal entries to the doctrine of the Lectures on Faith, presented Pratt's Godhead as authoritative doctrine and now bound in Scripture. Since Brigham Young was not a student of scripture I don't think he realized what Pratt was actually doing. When Young died in 1877, Pratt further canonized his Godhead theology by providing footnotes to D&C 130:22 and 131:7-8, that directed the reader to his pamphlet on the Godhead and the Lectures on Faith: that described a single Supreme Governing Power, the divine Mind, described as a fluid substance that constituted (forms) the personages of the Father and Son. So in my view, Orson Pratt had basically outsmarted Brigham Young by making it so his own Godhead theology was actually canonized in Scripture along with footnotes teaching his doctrine and he and added safety rails to block future autocratic tendencies with D&C 121: 34 - 43.

This would mean that the 1891 D&C as canonized scripture, could be argued to basically contain Pratt's scientific Godhead theology, along with the original canonization of the Lectures on Faith as official Church doctrine. So that to have an 1891 edition or a print out from online digital versions, is to essentially have LDS scripture containing Pratt's pro-science, physicalist spirituality or rational theology.

Passantino goes on to say that Pratt nevertheless sustained Brigham Young's title as President. He goes on to point out that it was after the death of Joseph Smith and the early Mormons feeling lost and confused, that it was Young's confidence in declaring it was "the word and will of the Lord" that they become the new Israel and him the new Moses, and cross the planes to Utah, which gave the Church needed cohesion and confidence to make the trek. In fact many Mormons we're happy to hear that the prophetic voice of God had returned. He concludes the section by pointing out that Pratt respected Young's sacrifices and loyalty to Joseph Smith and Pratt added a revelation from Brigham into the new edition of the D&C to honor his devotion and solidify his prophetic mantle and the doctrine of continuous revelation.

Excerpts from "Great First Cause" by Orson Pratt: The Philosophy of Self-Moving Powers as Intelligent Atoms & The Holy Spirit as the Governing Mind and Ultimate Self-Moving Intelligent Substance that forms all Forms and Personages

 Excerpts from Great First Cause, or the Self-Moving Forces of the Universe by Orson Pratt [This was published as a pamphlet, and was often included in early editions of Orson Pratt’s Works.] (Liverpool: R. James, Printer, 1851). 

Words in brackets are my own:

• Present existence proves the eternal existence of something. ...

• Creation from nothing [is] a vague conjecture

• Matter moves itself according to laws 

• Matter could not act without intelligence - Unintelligent matter could not obey a law 

• Intelligence [is] not the result but the cause of organization - Intelligent capacity's must be eternal 

• Atoms evidently had an origin ...  Atoms manufactured out of pre-existent substance.

• The probability that the present laws of the universe had an origin

• Intelligent materials acquire knowledge by experience - Cohesion and motion among the first efforts of intelligent matter

• Laws prescribed in proportion to the intelligence of materials

• Formation of atoms - All substances originated from one simple, elementary, self-moving, and eternal substance

• All organizations and all persons exhibit design ... the Deity-His person may have had a beginning, but his substance must be eternal -- A self moving Substance is the Great First Cause and Governor of all things. [Compare LDS Lectures on Faith #2 and #5. For example Lecture 2:2 states, "God is the only supreme governor, and independent being, in whom all fulness and perfection dwells; who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient"].

1. ... there must be an endless duration and a boundless space. ... Endless space and duration cannot be created nor annihilated by any being, but their continuance has been and must be eternal. These truths do not admit of being proved, for that which has no beginning cannot be preceded by a cause, and where no cause exists, there cannot possibly be any foundation for reasoning. There can be no reason why space and duration are as they are, and yet we perceive a necessity for them to be as they are. [note that similar to Pratt, the physicist Stephen Hawking argued that everything is basically energy and boundless space]

3. - Admitting the contingent truth, that something now exists in space, as nothing cannot produce something, therefore, it follows, as a necessary truth, that something must have always existed in space. Each part of this eternal something must occupy a finite space, having length, breadth, thickness, and figure. To occupy space, it must be solid, but solidity is only another name for matter; therefore, this eternal something must be matter. That which has no extension, nor parts, nor relation to space and duration, is called immateriality, which is the negative of all existence, or merely another name for nothing. (For further information upon this subject, see my treatise on the ABSURDITIES OF IMMATERIALISM.) ...

4. ... No man has ever perceived any one substance created from nothing by another. In all the varied operations of nature, we perceive no creations nor annihilations: we only perceive changes wrought upon that which already exists. Therefore, no man can know from experience, that the creation of something from nothing is a truth. ... Now there is nothing in the particular truths of nature which indicates the creation of any of her substances from nothing; hence, no such event can be established or inferred from induction. Therefore, creation from nothing is not a truth derived from reason.

5- As there is no evidence whatever in favour of the creation of any substance, we are justified in believing that the elements of every substance existed eternally. ... We can trace back the history of the earth for about six thousand years, or to the period of its formation. During this time countless millions of organizations, both vegetable and animal, have been constantly taking place. But in every case which has come under observation, the beings, organized, have been made out of pre-existing elements. In the mineral kingdom, a vast variety of new compounds have been formed, but in every instance that has come under the inspection of man, these compounds have been made from some-thing, and not from nothing.

All the miracles since the creation, that have been wrought by the power of God, have been Operations upon materials already existing. God has not, since the history of man, created any new elements, and exhibited them as a testimony that such an event is possible. When our Lord made wine at the wedding feast, it was not necessary to create it from nothing: he required the vessels first to be filled with water, after which he created or made the wine, which he could easily do by miraculously combining other ingredients or elements that already existed in great abundance. When he fed the multitudes with bread and fish, it was not necessary to make these compounds from nothing; when every element which enters into their constitution, existed plentifully all around him. ... Is it any more difficult to create an earth, Out of pre-existing elements, than it is to create various compounds, vegetables, and animals out of these elements? ...

... By the aid of light we only see the past, and not the present. Light does not inform us whether the most distant luminous bodies which can be seen are now in existence or not. Light enables us to see them exist thousands of ages ago, but it gives us no indications that they have existed as luminous bodies since that period. If the light of all worlds were created only six thousand years ago, then it would be impossible to see any of them over thirty-seven thousand billions of miles distant; for light could not travel over that distance in six thousand years ... Again, if the light of all worlds had been created at the same time, namely, six thousand years ago, several hundred new stars must have appeared every night since the invention of the telescope ... Whether our earth was created out of the ruins of some more ancient world, or whether it was formed out of elements which had never before been organized, is a mystery which the divine oracles do not reveal. But from geological inquiries it is highly probable that the elements of our globe have undergone a series of organizations and disorganizations, during countless ages that are past, compared with which the age of our present world forms but a link in the endless chain. Analogy indicates that worlds may be organized out of pre-existing elements as well as plants and animals. Analogy also indicates that the substance of all worlds may be eternal as well as the substance of which the Deity consists.

... 6.-The true definition of Matter is, that which Occupies space, and which cannot be made to occupy a greater or less amount of space. We cannot possibly conceive of the existence of God, or spirit, or any other kind of matter without conceiving such existence to be in space. ... 

... The atomic theory requires a cohesive force to bind together the parts of the atoms, hence, the conception of atoms, without force, is impossible, ... If space can be geometrically demonstrated to be infinitely divisible, matter which occupies space, ifit have no cohesive force, must be infinitely divisible, as may also be geometrically demonstrated. The parts of these particles, however small, may exist in contact without the least cohesion, and the least imaginable force would separate these parts asunder with the same ease that the same force would move either of them from a state of rest to a state of motion in free space. However far the division of a particle of matter be carried, the parts could never be reduced to nothing - they would always be larger than a point, and therefore would occupy space, and the sum of all the parts would occupy as much space as the whole particle previous to division.

7. - OF FORCE. - Such a thing as a uniform motion in right lines, or a state of absolute rest, is unknown in the universe: all matter is constantly exhibiting a change of state, therefore, all matter must be under the influence of a Force. Our minds are so constituted that we cannot conceive of Force existing separate and abstract from substance. All Forces must be the Forces of something, and that something as it occupies space, must be matter. As Forces now exist, and as inert matter cannot originate Force, therefore some Force must have been eternal. All other Forces must be the effect of this eternal Force, or they must also have existed eternally. ... When I speak of the term Forces, I do not mean those secondary causes which, by many, are frequently called forces; but I mean those original qualities of matter by which it changes its own state or condition. ... Secondary causes are not Forces, but effects. Effects are originated either directly or indirectly by Forces; but Forces can, in no case, be effects, unless they were created. The creation of Forces cannot be established by reason, experience, nor divine revelation: it is a wild, vague speculation, without the least foundation. All classes admit that there must be a Force that has eternally existed ...

8.-OF THE ACTION OF FORCES. -As Forces are the qualities of substances, and exist only in connexion with matter, when they act, they must act where they exist. ... We have already shown that matter without force would be infinitely divisible: each of these infinitely small parts possesses the quality of Force by which it can move itself or cause itself to press against other parts with which it may be in contact. Millions of these parts may press themselves together, and form an atom of substance of any shape or figure, and of any degree of hardness such as shall be the best adapted to its future purposes and designs. The Force that holds together the parts of an atom is not an attractive Force, but it is the force of pressure: each part presses itself towards every other part. Attraction would require each part to be entirely passive, having no power whatever over itself and yet possessing the extraordinary and impossible power of pulling every part towards itself. ...

9. - OF SELF-MOVING MATTER. - We are aware that the various phenomena of the universe are referred by philosophers to the operations of inert and unintelligent matter: they have supposed inertia to be a property of all matter, and, therefore, they suppose all matter incapable of changing its state whether of rest or motion. If it be granted that matter is inert or inactive, it must necessarily follow, that inert matter at rest could never put itself in motion, and that inert matter in motion could never accelerate nor retard that motion, nor change its direction. But all matter with which we are acquainted appears to be highly active; every particle has a tendency to approach towards every other particle. ...

[Note that the self-moving theory of Pratt below is similar to Nietzsche's will to power theory which was at odds with Darwin's theory of the will to survive]

10. ...  One thing is certain, if there is any inert matter in the universe, it has not yet been discovered to be such by its inactivity. If its existence be assumed, it must exist in union with active matter, which forces it to act according to fixed laws; ... 

... All the materials of the universe with which we are acquainted exhibit actions which in all cases are produced by self-moving forces, for no other forces do or can exist. 

II.– Those particles of this self-moving substance which constitute the worlds, and which are generally known under the name of ponderable substances, do not act at random, but act systematically and intelligently ...

... All the phenomena of universal gravitation can be far more simply explained by this law of self-moving particles, than by assuming the absurd hypothesis of attracting particles. Even though attraction were possible, (which we by no means admit) yet, it would be infinitely more simple for a particle to move itself than it would be to move everything but itself It has generally been supposed that there is something absurd in the idea of a substance moving itself but how much more absurd would be the idea of a substance so entirely inert that it could not move itself but yet able to move a universe of substance towards itself; but how can a substance which cannot move itself move other substances which exist at a distance? Yet this great absurdity is embraced in the attracting hypothesis. Every person, with the least reflection, will admit that a substance can more easily move itself than it can move anything else. The difference between the Self-moving Theory and the Attracting Hypothesis is to be found, not in the resulting phenomena, for they are and must be the same, but in the causes which produce these phenomena. The causes assumed to explain the phenomena are diametrically opposite in their nature, as may be more fully understood by the following contrast:

The attracting hypothesis assumes that a helpless, passive, inert, particle, has the power of acting in every place where it is not present, but has no power of acting where it is present. The self-moving theory assumes that an active particle has the power to act where it is present, but no power to act in any place where it is not present. Again, the attracting hypothesis assumes that an inert particle has the power to move every substance in the universe towards itself but has no power to move itself in any direction. While the self-moving theory assumes that an active substance has the power to move itself towards other substances, but has no power to move any external substance towards itself. ... The one makes it impossible for particles to change their own state, whether of rest or motion; the other gives power to particles to change their state of rest or motion according to definite laws. ...

12. - All theologists who adopt the attracting hypothesis, require a Great First Cause, who not only gives laws to blind, unconscious, unintelligent matter, but also forces it to act according to those laws. All theologists who shall adopt the self-moving theory will require the Great First Cause itself to consist of conscious, intelligent, self-moving particles, called the Holy Spirit [see the 5th Lecture on Faith], which prescribe laws for their own action, as well as laws for the action of all other intelligent materials. An unintelligent particle is incapable of understanding and obeying a law, while an intelligent particle is capable of both understanding and obedience. It would be entirely useless for an intelligent cause to give laws to unintelligent matter, for such matter could never become conscious of such laws, and therefore would be totally incapable of obedience.

... The amount of intelligent matter in space must be inconceivably great; it exists in vast quantities in all worlds, regulating and controlling every department of nature according to fixed laws. It is evident that each particle must have not only perceived the utility of such laws, but must have mutually consented to obey them in the most strict and invariable manner. All these self-moving materials must be possessed of a high degree of intelligence, in order to obey with such perfect and undeviating exactness the innumerable laws which obtain in the universe. There is no disobedience on the part of the materials. 

... The philosophy of modern times, however, does not admit that material particles possess intelligence or knowledge: it deprives matter of all understanding and will, making it obey certain laws unconsciously and blindly, not perceiving its own acts nor their results, neither its own existence. ... 

13. ... we conceive the sublime and glorious personage of the Deity himself [see Lecture 5, where the Father is a personage of spirit, glory and power] to consist of a certain number of the most superior and most intelligent material particles of the universe [see D&C 130-131, Abraham 3], existing in a state of union, which union, if not eternal, must have been the result of the anterior and eternal powers of each individual particle. ...

... the amount of matter possessing capacities for intelligence in the universe, be it great or small, is constant, and can never be increased or diminished in the least degree. ... the moment we admit the omnipresence of this substance [the First Cause/First God], irresistibly compelled to also admit that it exists in inexhaustible quantities; not that it absolutely fills all space, for then, there would be no room for any other substance, neither room for motion. Therefore, the substance of which the deity consists, must not only exist in immense quantities, but its particles must be in a greater or less degree separate and detached from each other by intervening spaces, which is an essential condition necessary to the vast variety of motions which are constantly taking place among these parts. Now these particles of this omnipresent and eternal substance must each have size and shape. ...

... we are compelled, by the most irresistible evidence, to believe that the present [tiny] minuteness and endless similarity of parts, which so universally obtains in all self-moving substances, had an origin. Not that the substances had an origin, but only their present similar magnitudes and figures. And we are also compelled to admit that the power [see Lecture 2 and 5] which produced this present condition must have eternally existed in the substances prior to their assuming their present form. By this eternal self-existent power resident in the dissimilar atoms of substances, those atoms which were too large to be useful in the future economy of nature could divide and sub-divide themselves until their dimensions were of an appropriate size[again, compare LDS Lectures on Faith #2 and #5. For example Lecture 2:2 states, "God is the only supreme governor, and independent being, ...; who is omnipresent ..."].; while such [spirit-atoms] as were too small could unite themselves together until they attained a size requisite for their future usefulness. And thus originated that endless similarity - that apparent equality of size and figure - that exceeding minuteness [i.e. tinyness] which so universally characterizes all the atoms of the same kind of substance. ...

... So the present minuteness of all atoms of the same kind - the equality of their magnitudes - the exact similarity of their figures - and their most perfect resemblance in all respects, show, most unquestionably, that these characteristics are not eternal, but were "manufactured," not from nothing, but from an eternal pre-existing substance which (we have the highest degree of probability to believe) once existed in almost every possible variety of size and form, without likeness, or resemblance, or order, only as might have existed in some few instances by chance. ... Is there any absurdity involved in the idea of manufacturing small atoms out of large ones, as, for instance, small shot are manufactured out of large bullets? Can it be proved that the prior large atoms are necessarily indivisible? or that their parts are, by their own power, held so firmly together that they cannot, by the same power, separate themselves from each other? Is the union of the parts of each atom governed by powers that are uncontrollable by its own will? are these powers antecedent to the power of will? If then, the parts of atoms are not bound together by any powers that are antecedent to, or distinct from, the free will, or self-moving powers of the atoms themselves, it is evident that they can manufacture smaller atoms out of their own parts of such sizes and forms as shall be best suited to their future purposes and designs. And by the same free will or self-moving powers, those atoms which are too small for future uses can unite themselves together in sufficient numbers to accomplish any future object which they may have in view. To manufacture certain definite sizes and forms of substance from nothing is utterly inconceivable! But to manufacture such sizes and forms from something is not only conceivable, but consistent with the whole analogy of nature.

14. ... [the] all-powerful atoms of this omnipresent substance [are] alike; for in whatever deportment of nature we recognize the vast and powerful operations of this widely diffused substance, we also recognize the most perfect "identity of deportment under similar circumstances." ... An immense and endless quantity of substance is a necessary and essential condition to its omnipresence. Also this immense substance must be divisible, separable, and moveable, as a necessary essential condition to the exercise of its powers. ... 

15. - As all substances and forces are eternal, the probability is that they have eternally been engaged in some kind of operation. That the laws by which these forces act have been the same in all past ages is very improbable. If there were any necessity for these laws to be what they are, that necessity would render them eternal, but as they are laws given to govern substances that act voluntarily under the influence of wisdom, knowledge, and will, they can be changed at any time. The present laws of the universe may have existed, with trifling variations, for millions of years; and there may have been an infinite series of laws, each continuing for ages, and yet each differing from all the rest. If ever there were a period when the wisdom and knowledge of the materials of the universe were more imperfect than what they are under the present law, they would be unqualified to act under this law, and therefore they would act under an inferior law, such as they could understand. If we assume that some of the materials of nature, have been eternally all- wise and all-intelligent, then they could have eternally acted according to the best laws, so ~r as their own substances were concerned; but if we assume that many of the materials, instead of possessing great wisdom and knowledge, only possessed the capacities for receiving intelligence, and had to be taught and instructed by experience, then the laws devised for their rule of action would be at first extremely simple, and as they advanced in experience these laws would be changed for those of a higher order, proportioned to their increased wisdom and knowledge; and as countless ages rolled along they would at length attain to all that flilness of wisdom and intelligence which characterizes all their present operation. But shall we stop here, and suppose all the materials of the universe have ascended to the highest scale of perfection? Shall we suppose that they have now come to a stopping place, beyond which they can never advance? No: there are other laws of action in which they must be schooled, and other spheres of endless ages shall open new glories, and new laws, and new modes of action, they will progress in the grand universal, and eternal scale of being.

With this view of the subject, it is not necessary to suppose that the different materials of nature have possessed the same intelligence from eternity that they now have. Their capacities for receiving intelligence must have been eternal, but the intelligence may have been imparted at any time when circumstances favored. One of the first and most simple things which material particles had to learn, as we may suppose, was simply to exercise the force of cohesion, so that their infinitely small parts might be bound together in union; but this would require in all probability ages of experience before each part of an atom would learn how to press itself towards every other part with an equal degree of intensity, so as to preserve the forces in equilibrium; unless such an equilibrium of forces were obtained the atom could not remain at rest. When- ever an atom should desire to move in any particular direction, as for instance, to the south, with any particular velocity, it could do so, by destroying the equilibrium of forces existing in those parts of the atom which were in the line of the desired motion ...

16. -After a substance had passed through ages of experience in acquiring a knowledge of cohesion and motion, it would be qualified to begin to exert these elementary forces systematically, according to prescribed laws. The next thing, perhaps, in the great school of experience would be for one portion to form itself into an immense number of atoms of the same size and form, and for another portion to form itself into a vast number of atoms of another size and form, and in this way all the elementary atoms of nature could be formed out of the same substance; their difference of their hardness, depending upon the intensity of the cohesion of their parts. Thus might the elements of spirit, light, heat, electricity, oxygen, hydrogen, mtrogen, and of all other substances, be formed originally from one substance. These various atoms uniting by their own self-moving powers, according to prescribed laws, would form all the various compounds of nature with all their various properties. For instance, a definite proportion of oxygen uniting with a definite proportion of hydrogen, heat, light, &c., would form a molecule of water; and several molecules of water united with a certain intensity of cohesion would form a liquid; with less heat the molecules would crystalize and form a solid; with a greater amount of heat they would exist in the form of vapour. After substance has learned by experience all operations, they would be qualified to act according to systematic laws, or those laws that are generally called chemical laws. ... 

... All substances have been already reduced to less than sixty kinds, which chemists term elementary, only because their imperfect experiments have not succeeded in decomposing them. Many bodies which, a few years ago, were considered elementary, have been resolved into simpler kinds; and we have no reason to suppose that we have as yet discovered even one elementary substance. If the process of decomposition were carried to its fullest extent, we should find, no doubt, that all the ponderable substances of nature, together with light, heat, and electricity, and even spirit itself, all originated from one elementary simple substance, possessing a living self-moving force, with intelligence sufficient to govern it in all its infinitude of combinations and operations, producing all the immense variety of phenomena constantly taking place throughout the wide domains of universal nature. ...

... That portion of this one simple elementary substance which possesses the most superior knowledge, prescribes laws for its own action, and for the action of all other portions of the same substance which possesses inferior intelligence. And thus there is a law given to all things according to their capacities, their wisdom, their knowledge, and their advancement in the grand school of the universe. To every law there are bounds and conditions set, and those materials that continue within their own sphere of action, and keep the law, are exalted to new spheres of action ...

17. - All the organizations of worlds, of minerals, of vegetables, of animals, of men, of angels, of spirits, and of the spiritual personages of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, must, if organized at all, have been the result of the self combinations and unions of the preexistent, intelligent, powerful, and eternal particles of substance. These eternal Forces and Powers are the Great First Causes of all things and events that have had a beginning. If the skillful arrangements and wise adaptations of the different parts of vegetables and animals to every other part indicate design, as that celebrated theologian Archdeacon Paley asserts, and if design, as he still further declares, implies a designer, and therefore, a beginning of those intricate arrangements and adaptations, then there must have been a designer or designers before any such arrangements and adaptations could exist. Paley also states, that the more perfect the being, the greater are the evidences of design; for instance, he considers that the complicated adjustments of each part to every other part, exhibited in the personage of man is a greater evidence of design than is manifested in any of the lower orders of being. If this be the case, then the spiritual personages of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, must exhibit more evidences of design in the wise adaptations and arrangements of the different portions of substance of which they consist, than any other persons in existence [note that the 5th Lecture on Faith explains that the personages of the Father and Son are constituted by, i.e., made of, the omnipresent Holy Spirit or Divine "Mind"] and to carry out Paley's argument, we are compelled to believe that these - the most superior of all other personages - must have had a beginning, for inasmuch as they indicate a design there must have been' an anterior designer - this designer must have been a self-moving intelligent substance capable of organizing itself into one or more most glorious personages. We are compelled to admit that the personage of God must be eternal, exhibiting no marks of design whatever, or else we are compelled to believe that the all-powerful, self-moving substance of which he consists organized itself. But in either case, whether his person be eternal or not, His substance, with all its infinite capacities of wisdom, knowledge, goodness, and power, must have been eternal. It is this substance which is the Great First Cause; it is this substance which governs and controls all organization by wise and judicious laws. Parts of this most glorious substance now exist in the form of personages; parts exist in an unorganized capacity, mingling more or less with all other things, forming a world here, and an animalcule yonder, governing a universe, and yet taking notice of the lowest orders of being, and imparting life and happiness to all. He is in all things and through all things, and the law by which all things are governed; and all things are not only by him and for him, but OF him. His majesty and power, His wisdom and greatness, His goodness and love, shine forth in every department of creation, with a glory that is ineffable, immortal, and eternal.

Excerpts from Orson Pratt's "Absurdities of Immaterialism" on the Holy Spirit as basically "spirit-atoms" (or mini intelligences)

The following excerpts are taken from Absurdities of Immaterialism by Orson Ptatt (1849 Liverpool edition).  Words in brackets are my own:

There are two classes of Atheists in the world. One class denies the existence of God in the most positive language: the other denies his existence in duration or space. One says, "There is no God;" the other says, "God is not here or there, any more than he exists now and then." ... The Atheist says, There is no such substance as Spirit. The [Sectarian] Immaterialist says, "A Spirit, though he lives and acts, occupies no room, and fills no space, in the same way and after the same manner as matter, not even so much as does the minutest grain of sand." ... The Atheist does not seek to hide his infidelity: but the Immaterialist, whose declared belief amounts to the same thing as the Atheist's endeavours to hide his infidelity under the shallow covering of a few words. ... That which is "not extended and not divisible" and "without parts," cannot be anything else than nothing. Take away these qualities and conditions, and no power of language can give us the least idea of existence. The very idea conveyed by the term existence is something extended, divisible, and with parts. Take these away, and you take away existence itself. It cannot be so much as the negative of space, or, what is generally called, an indivisible point, for that has a relation to the surrounding spaces. It cannot be so much as the negative of duration, or, what is generally called, an indivisible instant, for that has a relation to the past and future. Therefore, it must be the negative of all existence, or what is called absolutely NOTHING. Nothing, and nothing only, is a representative of that which has no relation to space or time—that is, unextended, indivisible, and without parts. Therefore, the immaterialist is a religious Atheist; he only differs from the other classes of Atheists, by clothing an indivisible unextended NOTHING with the powers of a god. One class believes in no God; the other class believes that NOTHING is god, and worships it as such. There is no twisting away from this. The most profound philosopher in all the ranks of modern Christianity, cannot extricate the Immaterialists from atheism. He cannot show the least difference between the idea represented by the word nothing, and the idea represented by that which is unextended, indivisible, and without parts, having no relation to space or time. All the philosophers of the universe could not give a better or more correct definition of Nothing. And yet this is the god worshipped by the Church of England—the Methodists—and millions of other atheistical idolaters, according to their own definitions, as recorded in their respective articles of faith. An open Atheist is not so dangerous as the Atheist who couches his atheistical doctrines under the head of "ARTICLES OF RELIGION." The first stands out with open colours and boldly avows his infidelity; the latter, under the sacred garb of religion, draws into his yawning vortex, the unhappy millions who are persuaded to believe in, and worship an unextended indivisible nothing without parts, deified into a god. ... Everything which the Immaterialist says, of the existence of Spirit, will apply without any variation, to the existence of Nothing. If he says that his god cannot exist "Here" or "There," the same is true of Nothing. If he affirms that he cannot exist "Now" and "Then," the same can, in all truth, be affirmed of Nothing. If he declares, that he is "unextended," so is Nothing. If he asserts that he is "indivisible" and "without parts," so is Nothing. If he declares that a spirit "occupies no room and fills no space," neither does Nothing. If he says a spirit is "Nowhere," so is Nothing. All that he affirms of the one, can, in like manner, and, with equal truth, be affirmed of the other. Indeed, they are only two words, each of which express precisely the same idea. There is no more absurdity in calling Nothing a substance, and clothing it with Almighty powers, than there is in making a substance out of that which is precisely like nothing, and imagining it to have Almighty powers. Therefore, an immaterial god is a deified Nothing, and all his worshippers are atheistical idolators.

A SPIRITUAL SUBSTANCE IS MATERIAL.

... Why believe that light consists of inconceivably small vibratory or emanating particles of matter from the mere affection of mind called color, and yet be unwilling to believe that the mind affected is material? ... [Sectarian] immaterialists, universally believe that the sensation of smell is produced by small material particles, acting upon our olfactory nerves. ... It may be said, that we determine them to be solid and extended by tracing them to the substances from which they emanate. But can it be proved that they constitute any part of the solid extended substance from which they emanate, any more than light is a part of the substance from which it emanates? We know a rose to be solid and extended, not from the sensation of vision or smell, but from the sensation of resistance which it offers to our muscular organs when we attempt to grasp it. But because a rose is solid and extended, that does not prove that light and fragrance, by which we discern its color and smell, are any part of the rose. ... We believe that matter can only act upon mind because mind is an extended material substance. ... an immaterial mind could not act upon an immaterial mind any more than nothing could act upon nothing. To talk about matter affecting that which is inextended and without parts, is to talk about matter affecting nothing. ...

OF THE ESSENCE OF SUBSTANCES. 

... Solidity is the only essence in existence. Although the ultimate atoms of matter cannot come under the cognizance of our senses, and we cannot demonstrate their solidity by any process of reasoning, yet we are none the less assured of their solidity. We believe that they are solid because it is impossible for us to believe otherwise. We are as certain that the ultimate atoms of all substances are solid, as we are that they exist. What we mean by solidity is, that all substances completely fill a certain amount of space, and that it is impossible for them ever to fill a greater or less amount of space. ... Solidity, then, is the essence to which all qualities belong—taste, smell, colour, weight, &c., are the affections of solids. Every feeling or thought is the feeling or thought of solids. All the powers of the universe, from the almighty powers of Jehovah down to the most feeble powers that operate, are the powers of solid atoms. We can conceive of solid atoms existing without powers, but we cannot conceive of atoms existing without solidity; therefore the very essence of all substance is solidity. Love, joy, and all other affections are only the different states of this essence. ...

... whenever any part of the mind is affected through its sensorial organs, every other part seems to be affected in the same instant, whereas, in reality, the affection is conveyed successively from part to part, the same as sound or light is conveyed from a sounding or a luminous body. ... the whole of the mind thinks,—the whole of the mind loves,—the whole of the mind hates,—the whole of the mind wills ... 

... Were it possible for the different parts of the mind to feel and think without being able to communicate their respective feelings to each other, then every part that thus thought and felt, would be a distinct individual, as much so as if it were separated for miles from all the rest, or, as if it were a separate organization. In this case, the whole being or mind which we before termed I, would cease its individual unity; and each part which thought and felt independently, could appropriate to itself the term I, and with the greatest propriety could apply the term YOU to every other part which thought and felt distinctly and differently from itself.

It is, therefore, because all parts of the mind seem to be affected in the same way, and apparently at the same time, that it is felt to be a single individual mind. It is this, and this only, that constitutes the unity of a thinking being, and not, as the [Sectarian] immaterialist asserts, a something "without parts," which from its very nature could constitute neither a unity, nor a plurality, nor any thing else, but nothing.

If the human spirit be nearly the same form and magnitude as the fleshly tabernacle in which it dwells, it must be composed of an immense number of particles [i.e. mini intelligences as spirit-atoms or refined spirit matter], each of which is susceptible of almost an infinite variety of thoughts, emotions, and feelings. Whence originated these susceptibilities? Are they the results of organization? Did each particle obtain its susceptibilities by being united with others? This would be impossible; for if a particle were entirely destitute of the capacity of thinking and feeling, no possible organization could impart to it that power. The power to think and feel, is not, nor can not be derived from any arrangement of particles. If they have not this power before organization, they can never have it afterwards. It follows then, that if ever there were a time when the particles of the human spirit existed in a disorganized state, each particle so existing, must have had all the susceptibilities of feeling and thought that it now has; and, consequently, each particle must have been a separate independent being of itself. Therefore, under such circumstances, one particle would have been no more affected with the state or condition of others, than one man is affected with the pleasures or pains of others with whom he is not associated.

How, then, it may be asked, can these separate independent beings, be so united as to form but one being, possessing the same susceptibilities as each of the individuals of which it is composed? The answer to this question may be more clearly understood by the following illustration. Let a certain number of iron filings exist in a scattered condition, widely separated from each other. It is evident that each possesses the susceptibility of magnetism. Such as are brought within the influence of a loadstone or magnet, under favourable circumstances, will exhibit all the magnetic phenomena, while others unconnected and at a distance, will remain entirely unaffected. But let all these filings be firmly united together into one bar of iron, and be exposed to the influence of a magnet or loadstone, and they will then be affected alike. Those which were before the union distinct individual particles, exhibiting at the same time different susceptibilities and qualities, according to the different circumstances in which they were placed,—are, by their union, consolidated into one mass. In this condition, if one part be magnetized, the whole will be magnetized; if one part be moved, the whole will be moved. Therefore the particles in this bar, though distinct parts of the same substance, can no longer be considered distinct individuals, because they are no longer affected differently, but alike. So it is with the human spirit: its particles previous to the organization, are, as above stated, separate and distinct beings, and the affections of each are entirely independent of the state of the others. But when organized into a person, all particles must from henceforth be subject to the same influences; and though they are distinct parts of the same substance, yet they are one in all their thoughts and feelings; and it is this which constitutes individuality in all intelligent organizations.

If a bar of iron, weighing one pound, had the power of expressing its different qualities, it could with the greatest propriety say, I am heavy—I am magnetized—I move. The term I would represent the whole bar, consisting of an infinite number of parts,—all affected precisely in the same moment and in the same manner. Now no one would for a moment suppose the pound of iron to be immaterial and without parts, because the term I was representative of a single individual bar. So likewise in the expressions, I think,—I feel,—I remember; the term I is a representative of the whole being, every part of which thinks, feels, and remembers in the same moment and in the same manner.

... the Spirits of the Father and the Son, as well as the Holy Spirit, consist of a substance purely spiritual ... It is a doctrine firmly believed by us and all the Latter-day Saints. It is a doctrine most definitely expressed and advocated in our pamphlet on the Kingdom of God ... It is there that we have definitely spoken of "the SPIRITS of the Father and Son:" it is there that we speak of the Holy SPIRIT: it there that we have expressly said that "God is a SPIRIT." ... it is the material theory alone that establishes the very existence, of Spirit. Take away the materiality of Spirit, and you at once destroy its very existence ... The immaterialists have aimed a deadly blow at the foundation of all spiritual existence, by denying it extension and parts. We, in opposition to this unphilosophic, unscriptural, and atheistical doctrine, have most clearly expressed our belief in a real tangible substance called Spirit, which has extension and parts, like all other matter. 

... a "fleshly body" and a spiritual body are entirely different things. One is a body of material flesh; the other is a body of material spirit—they are entirely different kinds of matter, as much so as iron and oxygen. Jesus says, "God is a Spirit;" and again he says, "a Spirit hath not flesh and bones." From these sayings of Jesus, we can see that spiritual matter and fleshy or bony matter are distinct substances. These passages are sometimes quoted as a supposed proof of immateriality. But everyone knows that there are millions of substances that are not flesh and bones. A house, a stone, or a tree, "hath not flesh and bones," any more than a spirit; shall we therefore say that all these substances are immaterial? If a spirit must be immaterial because it hath not flesh and bones, then every substance in the universe, except flesh and bones, must be immaterial.

.... Christ, before his incarnation, was a spiritual body, and not a body of flesh and bones. It was the body of his spirit and not a fleshly body that was with the Father in the beginning, when God said, "let us make man in our likeness and in our image." Whenever he appeared before he dwelt in flesh, it was the pure spiritual matter only that was seen [see D&C 131:7–8]. The spiritual body of Christ has hands, face, feet, and all other members, the same as his body of flesh and bones. The spiritual bodies of all men were in the likeness of the spiritual body of Christ when they were first created.

That spiritual bodies are capable of condensation, is evident from the fact of their occupying the small bodies of infants. The spirits of just men, who have departed from the fleshly tabernacle, have been seen by the inspired writers; and from their description of them, we should not only judge them to be of the same form, but likewise of about the same size as man in this life. These departed spirits, then, which are about the same magnitude as men in the flesh, once occupied infant bodies. There are only two methods by which to account for their increase in magnitude; one is by an additional quantity of spiritual matter, being gradually and continually incorporated in the spiritual body, by which its magnitude is increased in the same way and in the same proportion as the fleshly body is increased. And the other is by its elasticity or expansive properties by which it increases in size, as the tabernacle of flesh and bones increases, until it attains to its natural magnitude, or until its expansive and cohesive properties balance each other, or are in a state of equilibrium.

The latter method seems to be in accordance with scripture. The spiritual body of Christ, when seen previous to his incarnation, is not represented as an infant in stature, but as a man, and consequently his spirit must have been of the size of a man. Therefore, when he came and dwelt in the infant tabernacle of flesh, born of a virgin, his spirit must have been greatly condensed; and did not completely regain its former magnitude until the fleshly tabernacle had attained its full growth.

... That the different particles [particles of spirit-matter as intelligent atom-like mini intelligences, see Abraham 3 and D&C 131:7–8] of a spirit are not all in actual contact is very evident from the fact that a spiritual body can alter its dimensions by condensation or expansion. It is also evident from the fact of its entering into union with flesh and bones, and also withdrawing itself at death. If the particles were in contact, and inseparably connected, there would be no possibility of getting in and out of a fleshly body, unless by entirely dissolving its parts. But, as it is, each refined particle of the spirit can, like heat or electricity, pass between the fleshly particles; and thus the whole body of spiritual particles can liberate themselves; and by their own self-moving powers and free will, can still preserve and maintain their own organization. Here is manifested the great superiority of spiritual matter to all other matter; each particle has the power of self-motion. The whole mass of particles have power to preserve themselves in an organized form as long as they please. Should they, by any contingency, be disarranged, as in passing in or out of a body, they can with the greatest ease, resume their former position, and maintain their bodily organization either in or out of a fleshly tabernacle. ...

... The prophet Joel informs us, that in the last days the Spirit shall be poured out upon all flesh. No two persons can receive the same identical particles of this Spirit at the same instant; a part therefore of the Holy Spirit will rest upon one man, and another part will rest upon another. If the Spirit rests upon all flesh at the same time, then there will be as many parts of the Spirit as there are distinct individuals in whom it dwells. No one of these parts of the Spirit can be everywhere present any more than a dove. Each part can occupy only one place at a time. If the whole be infinite in quantity, it can extend through infinite space; if it be finite in quantity, it can only occupy finite space.

That different parts of this spirit can assume different shapes, is evident from its appearing as a dove at one time, and as cloven tongues of fire at another. It is also evident from the fact of the Saviour's speaking of the Holy Spirit as a personage. "Howbeit, when he the Spirit of truth, is come, HE will guide you into all truth; for HE shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever HE shall hear, that shall HE speak: and HE will shew you things to come." (John, xvi., 13.) There is no more inconsistency in one part of the Holy Spirit existing in the form of a person [this would be the Holy Ghost, the 3rd member of the Godhead, as distinct from the Holy Spirit as a fluid omniprsent substance], than there is in another part existing in the form of a dove, and several other parts existing in the form of cloven tongues of fire.

That the all-powerful matter called the Holy Spirit is very widely diffused, is evident from the fact that the time will come when it will be poured out upon all flesh. It is very certain that the Psalmist had some idea of the immense quantities of this substance, and of its extensive diffusion, when he exclaims, "Whither shall I go from thy Spirit?" &c. The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep, and by his Spirit the heavens were garnished. When we speak of the Spirit of God, extending through all space, we do not mean that it absolutely fills every minute portion of space, for if this were the case, there would be no room for any other matter. A substance, to absolutely fill all space, would be an infinite solid, without pores and immovable in all its parts; therefore, the Spirit [or "Nooma"] exists in different parts of space in greater or less degrees of density, like heat, light, or electricity. It is this glorious and all-powerful substance that governs and controls all other substances by its actual presence, producing all the phenomena ascribed to the laws of nature; in it we exist, we live, we move, and by it we receive wisdom and knowledge, and are guided into truth in proportion as we permit it to dwell within us and receive its heavenly teachings.

... The Holy Spirit is called God in the scriptures, as well as the Father and Son. ... It is God, the Holy Spirit, then, that is everywhere, substantially and virtually. The Holy Spirit is infinitely perfect and wise, one in substance, but one in wisdom, power, glory, and goodness [see  Lectures on Faith 2:2 and 5]. Jesus prayed that all his disciples might be made one, as he and his Father are one. If Jesus and the Father are one person, then all the disciples must, according to the prayer of Jesus, lose their individual identity and become one person: this would be perfect nonsense. Therefore, Jesus and the Father are two persons or two substances [see Lecture 5, where the Supreme Deity as Fluid-Mind constitutes (forms) the personages of the Father and Son], the same in kind but not the same in identity—in the same sense that his disciples are different persons: and, consequently, distinct substances. His disciples are to be made one with him, and with each other, the same as Jesus and the Father are one; that is, they are to be one in wisdom, power, and glory, but not in person and substance. ...

These three substances act in concert in the same way that all the innumerable millions of his disciples, after they are glorified, will act in concert. The disciples will then be like him. Their glorified bodies will be similar to that of Christ's but not the same as Christ's: they will all maintain their separate individualities, like the Father and Son. The one-ness of the Godhead may be in some measure illustrated by two gallons of pure water, existing in separate vessels, representing the Father and Son, and an ocean of pure water, representing the Holy Spirit. No one would say of these three portions of water that they were identically the same. Every portion would be a separate substance of itself, but yet the separate portions would be one in kind—one in quality, but three in separate distinct identities. So it is with the Godhead so far as the spiritual matter is concerned. There is the same power, wisdom, glory, and goodness in every part, and yet every part has its own work to perform, which accords in the most perfect harmony with the mind and will of every other part.

Each atom of the Holy Spirit is intelligent, and like all other matter has solidity, form, and size. It is because each ["spirit atom" or mini intelligence] acts in the most perfect unison with all the rest that the whole is considered one Holy Spirit. All these innumerable atoms are considered one Holy Spirit in the same sense that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered one God. The immense number of atoms, though each is all-wise and all-powerful, is, by virtue of their perfect concord and agreement, but one Holy Spirit, the same as the intelligent particles of a man's spirit are, by their peculiar union, but one human spirit. ... it consists in a unity or oneness of wisdom, power, and glory, each part performing its own splendid works and operations in union with the mind and will of every other part. No one part can perform any work but what is the mind of the whole. Therefore, in this sense it is the same mind—the same will—the same wisdom that pervades the whole. ...

... "The Lord he is God in heaven above and upon the earth beneath; there is none else."—Deut. iv. 39. Such a passage when referring to the person of God, should be understood the same as we would understand a similar expression concerning any earthly ruler: for instance, it can be said of her Majesty, she is queen in Great Britain and also in Canada, and there is none else; that is, there is none else that is queen in these two places. This would have no reference to her person being in these two places at the same time; it only shows that she should be the only acknowledged queen in these two places. But when God says, "I fill heaven and earth," he has reference to his Holy Spirit, a part of which fills heaven, and another part fills the earth. That part which fills the earth has the same wisdom, knowledge, glory, and power as the part that fills the heaven; hence, though distinct and separate essences, their perfections and attributes are one. One wisdom—one glory—one power, pervade every part of this glorious essence. This oneness is such that the part which fills the earth will never act contrary to the will of the part which fills the heavens. The essence possesses a plurality of parts, but the wisdom possesses no divisibility of parts; it is infinite wisdom in every part. Wisdom cannot be divided into parts any more than love, hope, joy, or fear. A truth is identically the same truth whether possessed by one or a million of persons, and is not susceptible of being divided into fractions. The Holy Spirit is called "The Spirit of Truth." Though the essence that possesses this truth may be divided into an infinite number of parts, occupying an infinite number of separate spaces, yet the truth that pervades them all is ONE truth. It is the indivisibility and unity of these perfections or qualities that constitute the oneness of the Godhead. ...

... Sir Isaac Newton in the Scholium, at the end of the "principia," in speaking of God says, "He is omnipresent, not by means of his virtue alone, but also by his substance, for virtue cannot subsist without substance." Virtue or morality cannot subsist without substance; hence it can have no image without substance. Substance alone can have an image. Such an image may have the property of virtue, or of morality, and by reason of this property may be called a virtuous image, or a moral image. It is in this sense alone that the apostle Paul applies the term image to the new man. "Ye have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge, after the image of him that created him." Col. iii. 10. "Ye have put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." Eph. iv. 24. Now what is this new man? It is the spirit of man renewed in its properties, but not changed in its substance or essence. This substance previously to the renewal of its qualities was immoral, after the renewal it became moral or virtuous, possessing the same quality in a degree as the substance or image of the Deity. The substance of the Deity [see Lecture  #2] may be termed a moral substance or image, the same as the substance of gold is called a yellow substance, or yellow image, if it resembles a person. The yellowness of gold could not be an image independently of the substance, neither could the morality of the Deity be an image independently of his essence.

The spiritual substance of man was formed in the beginning after the same image as the spiritual substance of the persons of the Father and Son [again, see Lecture#5 that explains the personages of the Father and Son are constitutrd by the omnipresent divine Mind or Holy Spirit]. Previously to the fall these spirits were all moral in their nature; by the fall the spirits of men lost their morality and virtue, but not their essence—that continued the same; by the new birth man regains his morality and virtue, while the essence remains the same; it now becomes a moral virtuous image, whereas the same substance was before immoral. Paul, in speaking of the resurrection, says, "As we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." I Cor. xv. 49.

This cannot mean a heavenly image without substance; for when man rises from the dead, he certainly will rise with flesh and bones. The immortal bodies of the saints when they rise from the grave "will be fashioned," as Paul says, "like unto the glorious body of Jesus Christ." As Jesus ascended into heaven with a body of flesh and bones, so will his saints bear the same image, having flesh and bones after "the image of the heavenly." That these glorious bodies of immortal flesh and immortal bones will be moral images, in the sense above stated, there is no doubt. ...

... we believe the Father and Son to be two separate distinct personages, as much so as fathers and sons of the human race; it will there be seen that we also believe the Holy spirit to be a separate distinct substance from the two substances of the Father and Son. ... The substance of [which the Father] is composed is wholly material. It is a substance widely different in some respects from the various substances with which we are more immediately acquainted. In other respects it is precisely like all other materials. The substance of his person occupies space the same as other matter. It has solidity, length, breadth, and thickness, like all other matter. The elementary materials of his body are not susceptible of occupying, at the same time, the same identical space with other matter. The substance of his person, like other matter, cannot be in two places at the same instant. It also requires time for him to transport himself from place to place. It matters not how great the velocity of his movements, time is an essential ingredient to all motion, whether rapid or slow. It differs from other matter in the superiority of its powers, being intelligent, all-wise, and possessing the power of self-motion to a far greater extent than the coarser materials of nature. "God is a spirit." But that does not make him an immaterial being—a being that has no properties in common with matter. The expression, "an immaterial being," is a contradiction in terms. Immateriality is only another name for nothing. It is the negative of all existence. A "spirit" is as much matter as oxygen or hydrogen. It has many properties in common with all other matter. Chemists have discovered between fifty and sixty kinds of matter; and each kind has some properties in common with all other matter, and some properties peculiar to itself which the others do not inherit. Now, no chemist in classifying his substances would presume to say, this substance is material, but that one is immaterial, because it differs in some respects from the first. He would call them all material, though they in some respects differed widely. So the substance called spirit [or nooma] is material, though it differs in a remarkable degree from other substances. It is only the addition of another element of a more powerful nature than any yet discovered. He is not a being "without parts," as modern idolators teach; for every whole is made up of parts. The whole person of the Father consists of innumerable parts; and each part is so situated as to bear certain relations of distance to every other part. There must also be, to a certain degree, a freedom of motion among these parts, which is an essential condition to the movements of his limbs, without which he could only move as a whole.

.... "The Holy Spirit being one part of the Godhead, is also a material substance, of the same nature and properties in many respects, as the spirits of the Father and Son. It exists in vast immeasurable quantities, in connexion with all material worlds. This is called God in the Scriptures, as well as the Father and Son. God the Father and God the Son cannot be everywhere present; indeed they cannot be even in two places at the same instant: but God the Holy Spirit [or the "Deity" of Lecture 2] is omnipresent—it extends through all space, intermingling with all other matter, yet no one atom of the Holy Spirit can be in two places at the same instant, which in all cases is an absolute impossibility. It must exist in inexhaustible quantities, which is the only possible way for any substance to be omnipresent. All the innumerable phenomena of universal nature are produced in their origin by the actual presence of this intelligent all-wise and all-powerful material substance called the Holy Spirit. It is the most active matter in the universe, producing all its operations according to fixed and definite laws enacted by itself, in conjuction with the Father and the Son. What are called the laws of nature are nothing more nor less than the fixed method by which this spiritual matter operates. Each atom of the Holy Spirit is intelligent, and like other matter has solidity, form, and size, and occupies space. Two atoms of this spirit cannot occupy the same space at the same time. In all these respects it does not differ in the least from all other matter. Its distinguishing characteristics from other matter are its almighty powers and infinite wisdom, and many other glorious attributes which other materials do not possess. If several of the atoms of this Spirit should exist united together in the form of a person, then this person of the Holy Spirit would be subject to the same necessity as the other two persons of the Godhead, that is, it could not be everywhere present. No finite number of atoms can be omnipresent. An infinite number of atoms is requisite to be everywhere in infinite space. Two persons receiving the gift of the Holy spirit, do not each receive at the same time the same identical particles, though they each receive a substance exactly similar in kind. It would be as impossible for each to receive the same identical atoms at the same instant, as it would be for two men at the same time to drink the same identical pint of water." (Kingdom of God. Part I, page 4. ...)

... The Godhead may be further illustrated by a council, consisting of three men—all possessing equal wisdom, knowledge, and truth, together with equal qualifications in every other respect. Each person would be a separate distinct person or substance from the other two, and yet the three would form but ONE council [again, compare Lecture 5]. Each alone possesses, by supposition, the same wisdom and truth that the three united or the ONE council possesses. The union of the three men in one council would not increase the knowledge or wisdom of either. Each man would be one part of the council when reference is made to his person; but the wisdom and truth of each man would be the whole wisdom and truth of the council, and not a part. ...

... the Holy Spirit is necessary to sanctify and purify the affections of men, and also to dwell in them as a teacher of truth. Immense quantities of this substance are also necessary in order to be present in connexion with all other substances, to control and govern them according to fixed and definite laws that good order and harmony may obtain in every department of the universe. The Father and Son govern the immensity of creation, not by their own actual presence, but by the actual presence of the Spirit. ... the Father and Son can be in heaven, and yet, through the agency of the spirit [nooma], act upon the earth. An omnipresent person is impossible, but an omnipresent substance, diffused through space, is not only consistent, but reasonable. Persons through the medium of such an all-wise and all-powerful substance, can exercise Almighty power, at the same time in the most distant departments of creation. Without such a substance with which they were in union, they could not carry on the grand and powerful operations of universal nature; for no substance can act where it is not present.

... The spiritual body of the Deity is altogether a different kind of substance from the fleshly body of man, yet they may resemble each other in figure. The substances are entirely different ... Man walks with his legs, so does God sometimes, as is evident from his going with Abraham towards Sodom. God can not only walk, but he can move up or down through the air without using his legs as in the process of walking. (See Gen. xvii. 22; also xi. 5; also xxxv. 13.)—"A man wrestled with Jacob until the breaking of day;" after which, Jacob says—"I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."—Gen. xxxii. 24-30. That this person had legs is evident from his wrestling with Jacob. His image and likeness was so much like man's, that Jacob at first supposed him to be a man.—(See 24th verse.) God, though in the figure of a man, has many powers that man has not got. He can go upwards through the air. He can waft himself from world to world by his own self-moving powers. These are powers not possessed by man only through faith, as in the instances of Enoch and Elijah. Therefore, though in the figure of a man, he has powers far superior to man. 

... The person of God is one thing, and his glory is another; they are inseparably connected. He cannot divest his person of his glory, nor lay it aside, but he can hide his glory from the gaze of man, or he can reveal it and his person also, or he can reveal his person and not his glory. ...

... [God] could divide the waters of the sea [so Moses could cross], and hold them up by the actual presence of his Holy Spirit which not only moves upon the face of the waters [in Genesis], but is likewise in and through the waters, governing them and controlling all the elements according to the mind of God. It is the actual presence of this Spirit that produces all the phenomena ascribed to the laws of nature, as well as many of the deviations from those laws, commonly called miracles; it extends, like the golden rays of the bright luminary of heaven, through all extent; it spreads life and happiness through all the varied species of animated beings, and gilds the starry firmament with a magnificent splendor, celestial, immortal, and eternal.

Introduction: The Four Main Godhead Theories

 In this blog series I'm going to cover two main theories that I believe best explains the LDS Godhead as found in the LDS Scriptures and the 1840s sermons of Joseph Smith and the LDS prophets and apostles in the 1800s. 

As I see it there are basically four Godhead theories, or theologies, that best explain all the data from the early Mormon Scriptures and Sermons. I will briefly list them below and then discuss them.

1. James Talmage's Godhead Theory 

2. Blake Ostler's Godhead Theory

3. The Pratt-Hyde Godhead Theory

4. My Twin-Genome Theory 

Note that all these theories except James Talmage's Godhead theory (which is the currect official doctrine of the LDS Church), are presented as entertainment and explorative theology and do not represent the official doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

The Talmage Theory as LDS Orthodoxy 

The traditional LDS Godhead theology is basically based on the theory formulated by James Talmage in his books which have basically become official LDS Church doctrine: as specifically found in his books Jesus the Christ, The Articles of Faith and Talmage's 1916 Exposition on the Father and Son. 

Blake Oster's Theory 

A non-traditional yet respected Godhead theory in the Mormon thought world, is the one presented by LDS scholar and philosopher Blake Ostler, called Monarchical Theism. The popular podcast A Thoughtful Faith (with host Jacob Hansen), has recently discussed Ostler's theory and presented it as a viable option to the "regressive Gods" theory. Ostler basically posits that, first: Jehovah is God the Father and second, this God the Father over this earth only had a mortal father and not a supernatural Father, i.e. there was no God above God the Father. 

I think Ostler's Theory is a reasonable alternative to the Talmage Theory. 

The third alternative Godhead theology is what I have termed the Pratt-Hyde Godhead Theory. This Theory deserves its own blog posts which can be found in the table of contents of this blog series.

The fourth alternative Godhead theology is my own explorative position, or a speculative alternative theory, which I call the Twin-Genome Theory for short. Return to the table of contents to begin learning more about this theory. 

Birthing the Mormon People through Plural Marriage by Selecting for Elect Men to Bear Noble Preexistent Spirits & Grow in Power and Dominion

Up to Location 1700 of the ebook, Selective Breeding by Alamariu, it occurred to me that it was the unbridled unconventional nature of Joseph Smith, which like the early warband, led him to break away from Protestant convention (nomos):

The primary function of nomos is “social control,” homogenization, taming, tribal survival, the continuation and preservation of mere life through a regime of commands, speech and teaching that covers up and suppresses nature. Excellence, virtue, on the other hand, is a matter of nature, of blood, and it cannot be taught.

[Selective Breeding, page 140]

For a time Joseph returned to Nature and rank order which is encapsulated in Orson Hyde's diagram The Kingdom of God. Hyde's diagram is in a way a version of the symbolism of the wolf in the early warband among the Romans and Greeks. Here are some quotes from the book Selective Breeding on this subject:

Nature, phusis, phue, refers first of all, and always, and above all, to a concrete material reality, to a biological reality that means very plainly: “the body.” (Pindar)

S. 122

Christianity was “Platonism for the people,” or, which is the same thing, an entirely exoteric Platonism. A Platonism with a priesthood that no longer understood nor cared for the fact that the outward moral and political orientation was meant as a protective outer wall for an inner garden where nature itself was nurtured and preserved. The quasi-Platonic priesthood of medieval Christianity, for all its spiritual profundity, was incompetent when it came to the needful task of caring for the “overall development” of man or the cultivation of human nature, a nature they denied.

S. 264

“Its fundamental belief must, in fact, be that the society should exist, not for the sake of the society, but only as a base and framework on which an exceptional kind of nature can raise itself to its higher function and, in general, to a higher form of being, comparable to those heliotropic climbing plants on Java – people call them sipo matador – whose tendrils clutch an oak tree so much and for so long until finally, high over the tree but supported by it, they can unfold their crowns in the open light and make a display of their happiness.”

S. 269f

The martial state, the Spartan state, is the prototype of the state: in its being dedicated to the production of military genius it lays the precondition, or presents the model, for the state as dedicated to the production of genius more generally, for the state as the cultivation of human nature or as the staging ground of higher culture.

S. 271

The founders are necessarily not determined by their time, but determine the horizon of a people; they stand outside this horizon and have nature as a guide much in the same way a horse breeder does.

S. 279

(Source)

By tapping into Nature (defined as spirit matter (D&C 131:7-8), God's law and the Logos or Christ in D&C 88, and the Mind of Deity in Lecture #5), and declaring that God the Father has a body of nature, of divinized flesh and bone (D&C 130:22), Joseph Smith broke free from puritanical Augustinian Christianity and the body-despising Creeds. Rather than the species of docile celibate priests, his priests would compete for rank via showing loyalty, courage and kingdom-building. Thus he restored the energy of Nature and the selection of the most intelligent, strong, and cooperative species of men through the practice of plural marriage: as those who were able to rise in status within the priesthood hierarchy and practice plural marriage were the one's who were most able to multiply their genes and personality traits; and thus it was their natures (genes) and personalities that formed the main body of the Mormon People. 

Joseph did not operate only in the realm of our God-given unconscious instincts of lifeward vitality and Nature however. The Latter-day Saints would not be brute beasts and like ancient warrior terrorizers but peace-seeking gatherers seeking to avoid violence and instead act as warriors for Zion. As we read in Doctrine and Covenants 105: 14-17 (emphasis added):

For behold, I [the Lord] do not require at their hands to fight the battles of Zion; for, as I said in a former commandment, even so will I fulfil—I will fight your battles. Behold, the destroyer I have sent forth to destroy and lay waste mine enemies; and not many years hence they shall not be left to pollute mine heritage, and to blaspheme my name upon the lands which I have consecrated for the gathering together of my saints [LDS]. Behold, I have commanded my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., to say unto the strength of my house, even my warriors, my young men, and middle-aged, to gather together for the redemption of my people [i.e. Zion], and throw down the towers of mine enemies, and scatter their watchmen; But the strength of mine house have not hearkened unto my words. But inasmuch as there are those who have hearkened unto my words, I have prepared a blessing and an endowment for them, if they continue faithful.

LDS were to fight only in self-defense, as Americanized, civilized men, of decorum and virtue ethics. As a genius synthesizer, Joseph Smith integrated Haidt's "hive mind" with his vision of Zion; thus you have LDS apostle Orson Hyde's Kingdom diagram of ascending rank hierarchy, combined with the synergistic Beehive symbol.

Joseph's "warriors" we're not sword-wielding Norse Vikings or Greek warrior men on chariots, but men endowed with power to open their mouth and speak with courage and conviction in order to persuade through good communication. Thus you read in the autobiography of Parley P. Pratt showing his adventurous spirit and his bravery and valor in being willing to compete verbally with the Ministers of the day, and win over converts. The early years of Mormonism was a time of being on the offensive, attacking the Protestant dogmas and Creeds in speeches and pamphlets. For example, Joseph openly criticized the Creedal Trinity dogma. Thus it was a competition of minds, a war of ideas, and Mormonism was superior to the competition in my view, offering the genius of Joseph Smith's better theology: wherein he not only had the creativity and Midrashic skills of the apostle Paul in revealing new scriptures; but he was ingenious in how he surrounded himself with the most intelligent, creative and strong-willed men and devout women to be his friends and counselors. He thus bred a leadership of elites which bolstered the LDS Movement with the scholarly intelligence of those like Orson Hyde (who taught Joseph grammar and formed one of the earliest LDS visuals The Kingdom of God), the poetic artistry of Parley P. Pratt (who articulated Mormonism in books and pamphlets), and the strong-willed nature of those like Brigham Young (who succeeded Smith after his death and championed the Mormons in their arduous trek to Utah).

At location 1652 of the ebook Selective Breeding, Alamariu writes:

Without this precise type of aristocracy as a social precondition, an extreme parochialism reigns and there is no looking and no ability to look beyond the boundaries of one people's nomos to begin with.

Very few charismatic preachers dared to go beyond the Creeds and the closed Canon, those who did lacked the aristocratic warrior spirit, the anti-fragility or ability to withstand the scrutiny and criticism and personal attacks. In this regard, Joseph Smith was a breed apart, and he surrounded himself with other strong-willed and creative individuals, like Orson Hyde, Parley P. Pratt and Brigham Young. And from out of the effort and innovations of these higher men, Mormonism broke away from both Catholicism and Protestantism and produced a more life-affirming theology and a Jewish-like Peoplehood.

Selecting of the Choice Spirits/Intelligences through the Seed of Noble Bodies

A video on Joseph Smith and spirit birth offers these quotes (I was able to verify the second quote with a link in brackets but not the first quote):

“When plurality was first taught in Nauvoo the following arguments were used, that supposing Male & female be about equal in number -- are there not some, more righteous than others. Spirits are begotten in the spirit world, by the righteous -- the wicked have not the privilege of procreating their species, and why not the same restrictions in this world. The wicked, here, have the privilege of begetting tabernacles in this life, but not to beget the intelligent spirit in the eternal world” ~ Orson Pratt (Salt Lake City School of the Prophet Minutes 18 June 1870, page 94)

The “spiritual wife” doctrine I will explain, as taught me by Elder W___e, as taught by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Elder Adams, William Smith, and the rest of the quorum, &c., &c. It is as follows: -- Joseph had a revelation from God that there were a number of spirits to be born into the world, before their exaltation in the next; that Chrsit would not come until all these spirits received or entered their “tabernacle of clay;” that these spirits were hovering around the world, and at the door of bad houses, watching a chance, however dishonorably, of getting into their tabernacle; that God had provided an honorable way for them to come forth -- that was, by the “Elders of Israel” sealing up virtuous women, and as there was no provision made for woman in the scriptures, their only chance of heaven was to be “sealed up” to some Elder for time and eternity, and be a star in his crown forever; that those who were the cause of bringing forth these spirits would receive a reward -- the ratio of which reward should be the greater or less according to the number they were the means of bringing forth. This, Mr. Editor, is the substance of the “Mysterious of the Kingdom,” in as few words as I can use to explain it.”

(Letter to the Editor by Henry Rowe, 3 February 1845, Messenger and Advocate vol. 1, no. 9, March 1845); [Also see Boston Investigator Vol. XIV. Boston, Mass., Wednesday, February 12, 1845. No. 41.]

 These quotes are unreliable but they point to the idea of spirit being born through noble men. These spirits would be the Intelligences mentioned in the Book of Abraham chapter 3, where first future polygamist Abraham is told by the Lord in verse 14, "I will multiply thee, and thy seed [genes] after thee, like unto these [stars in the sky]; and if thou canst count the number of sands, so shall be the number of thy seeds." Then in verse 18-26 we read (emphasis added):

Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal. I [the Lord] dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to declare unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen.

Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born. And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them [see D&C 132]; And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

In the 2020 thesis Defending "The Principle": Orson Pratt and the Rhetoric of Plural Marriage by Jake D. Simmondson, we read on pages 19-25 that regarding the 1852 LDS General Conference, Orson Pratt gave the following reasons for Plural Marriage. Note that I have not quoted every defense from the thesis, but have focused on one theme in particular:

… Pratt then leads the congregation on a careful journey through several interrelated doctrines in order to finally land at several points regarding marriage, including plural marriage. 

[1] In the premortal existence of mankind, man was sired as a spirit child of a divine

Father in heaven.

The “Mormons” have a peculiar doctrine in regard to our pre-existence… Why

the fact is, that being that animates this body, that gives life and energy, and

power to move, to act, and to think; that being that dwells within this

tabernacle is much older than what the tabernacle is. … the spirits of all men,

male and female, did have an existence, before man was formed out of the dust

of the ground. But who was their Father? I have already quoted a saying that

God is the Father of our spirits.[49]

[2] The work of the Father is eternal in nature; His designs and the course of the lives of

men fit into an eternal plan.

Suffice it to say, that Abraham and many others of the great and noble ones in

the family of spirits, were chosen before they were born, for certain purposes,

to bring about certain works, to have the privilege of coming upon the stage of

action, among the host of men, in favorable circumstances.[50]

[3] All of the spirit children of Heavenly Father are to be born on the earth in order to

receive a mortal body and fulfill the eternal plan of the Father.

The Lord has ordained that these spirits should come here and take tabernacles

by a certain law, through a certain channel … Here, then, we perceive, just

from this one principle, reasoning from the blessings of Abraham alone, the

necessity—if we would partake of the blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and

Jacob—of doing their works; and he that will not do the works of Abraham

and walk in his footsteps, will be deprived of his blessings.[51]

[4] His last point (which was his most important in the context of plural marriage) argues

that marriage, being eternal, is the divinely appointed method of offering bodies to

these spirits from heaven. Thus, plural marriage, in a household of faith and

obedience, offer the highest number of spirits possible the opportunity to receive an

earthly tabernacle in a setting wherein they can learn the Gospel of Jesus Christ and

live a life that will allow them to return to their God.

The Lord ordained marriage between male and female as a law through which

spirits should come here and take tabernacles, and enter into the second state of

existence … [they are] reserved until the dispensation of the fullness of times,

to come forth upon the face of the earth, through a noble parentage that shall

train their young and tender minds in the truths of eternity, that they may grow

up in the Lord, and be strong in the power of His might, be clothed upon with

His glory, be filled with exceeding great faith … among the Saints is the most

likely place for these spirits to take their tabernacles, through a just and

righteous parentage … like unto the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob of

Old. [52]

That final line, “like unto the patriarchs”, is a clear reference to plural marriage as practiced by the ancient prophets, and the function of polygamy in fulfilling the grand objectives of God that Pratt mentioned. …

… Participants in plural marriage are able to experience and enjoy the promises offered

to Abraham and his posterity:

We read that those who do the works of Abraham, are to be blessed with the

blessing of Abraham… Here then, was a foundation laid for the fulfillment of

the great and grand promise concerning the multiplicity of his seed. It would

have been rather a slow process, if Abraham had been confined to one wife, like

some of those narrow, contracted nations of modern Christianity.[54]

- The Abrahamic covenant was very important to the Latter-day Saints. [Footnote 55: See modern scripture taught and published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, such as The Book of Abraham, Doctrine and Covenants 76:56, Doctrine and

Covenants 86, and Doctrine and Covenants 132:30]. They saw themselves as the modern-day house of Israel and were anxious to obtain the blessings of this covenant.[56] Plural Marriage was another opportunity to secure these deeply desired blessings.

This accords with the Book of Abraham 2: 9-11 below (emphasis added), where Abraham as a body is the source, through his seed (sperm), of producing a great nation as God’s People (emphasis added):

9 And I will make of thee [Abraham] a great nation, and I will bless thee above measure, and make thy name great among all nations, and thou shalt be a blessing unto thy seed after thee, that in their hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations;

10 And I will bless them through thy name; for as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed, and shall rise up and bless thee, as their father;

11 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal.

This is why the last verses of D&C 132 speak of plural marriage as the way to have children on earth (or bear the souls in the pre-existence). As we read in an original version of the text below on page 8 of Revelation, 12 July 1843 [D&C 132] (words in brackets my own and some original footnotes pasted within brackets below):

… for they [plural wives or concubines] are given unto him [the LDS male in the 1800s] to multiply & replenish the Earth according to my Commandment [See Genesis 1:28; 9:1.] & to fulfill the promise which was given by my father [God] before the foundation of the world & for thine exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may have <​bear​> the Souls of men, for herein is the work of my father Continued that he may be Glorified— And again verily verily I Say unto you if any man have a wife who holds the Keys of this power [Authority or knowledge of God given to humankind. In the earliest records, the term keys primarily referred to Joseph Smith’s authority to unlock the “mysteries of the kingdom.”]& he teaches unto her the Law of my priesthood as pertaining to these things, they then Shall She believe & administer unto him …. for I will magnify my name upon all those these who receive & abide in my law … I Commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife[Genesis chapter 16 discusses Sarai, who instructed her husband, Abram, to have children by her servant Hagar.]

I used to read this as bearing souls in a future heaven as gods, however the paragraph could be read as those who practice having many wives better able to bear the souls of men (pre-existent spirits) into mortality (i.e. life on earth).

The thesis by Simmondson continues:

Those who participate in plural marriage provide mortal bodies within ideal families

to the most valiant and righteous sons and daughters of Heavenly Father. In so doing,

they help to build up the Kingdom of God through successive righteous generations:

This is the reason why the Lord is sending them here, brethren and sisters; they are appointed to come and take their bodies here, that in their generations they may be raised up among the righteous… this would be their highest pleasureand joy, to know that they could have the privilege of being born of such noble parentage. Then is it not reasonable and consistent that the Lord should say unto His faithful and chosen servants… take unto yourselves more wives?[60]

- The Saints were fixated upon the idea of Zion, and their focus was that of building Zion, both in a literal and figurative sense. An essential component of the building of Zion was raising a righteous posterity. According to Brigham Young, this was an individual endeavor as well as a family affair:

When we conclude to make a Zion we will make it, and this work commences in the heart of each person. When the father of a family wishes to make a Zion in his own house, he must take the lead in this good work, which it is impossible for him to do unless he himself possesses the spirit of Zion. Before he can produce the work of sanctification in his family, he must sanctify himself, and by this means God can help him to sanctify his family…[61]

One way to establish and strengthen Zion was for God’s “faithful and chosen” to participate in plural marriage, increasing the number of children raised in homes with “noble parentage”.

From this it is clear that plural marriage was thought of as the means of providing a filtering pathway, a selection process, for birthing as many spirits/intelligences as possible to be born into the lineage of noble priesthood holders. In episode"696: Mormon Polygamy & Quest for the Presidency (Newell Bringhurst/Craig Foster 1 of 2)" on YouTube, at the one hour and 9-11 minute mark, Craig Foster talks and quotes from one of his books stating:

Just to give you an idea of the impact that plural marriage had on the Church, just using the LDS leaders (the Presidents of the Church), with these six men from Brigham Young through Heber J. Grant, there were 98 wives and 225 children. This means that the first 150 years of the Church -- from 1830 to almost the middle of the 20th century -- were presided over by polygamists; and to give you an idea of the continuing impact, the last of these 225 children (of these polygamist leaders) to die was Francis Marian Grant, the youngest daughter of Heber J. Grant and Emily Harris Wells. Francis ... died in 1995, 165 years after the founding of the Church and 151 years after the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. ... So pretty much in everyone's lifetime that's going to be reading these books, at least right now, we had remnants of plural marriage with the children of these leaders.

In other words, there was definitely a selection process of a certain type of person or personality, which built the main body of the Mormon People.

This is why in the book Wilford Woodruff: History of His Life and Labors as Recorded ...by Matthias F. Cowleyon, on page 546 he says, “The law of the Patriarchal order of marriage belongs to this dispensation, and after it was revealed to the Prophet Joseph he was commanded to receive it. If he and the people had rejected it, the Church and Kingdom of God would have advanced no further and God would have taken it from them and given it to another people.”

So basically the LDS Presidents birthing over 200 kids certainly filtered in a certain type of DNA and personality and characteristics. Like courage and strength and agreeableness and conscientiousness (on the Big 5 Personality traits that I discuss here).  

In 1834 Joseph Smith said to the LDS members (emphasis added):

... it is only a little handful of Priesthood you see here tonight, but this Church will fill North and South America. it will fill the world.' ... 'it will fill the Rocky Mountains. There will be tens of thousands of Latter-day Saints who will be gathered in the Rocky Mountains ... This people will go into the Rocky Mountains; they will there build temples to the Most High. They will raise up a posterity there, and the Latter-day Saints who dwell in these mountains ...

In the documentary, America's Sacred Ground: Kirtland, an actor playing Joseph Smith is depicted prophesying the above quoted text on the future growth of the Mormon People. I took the following screenshots where the words were combined with Utah:

Click in images to Enlarge 

Here, we get a visual of the meaning of multiplying and replenishing of lives through the male seed (Abr. 2:11), of bearing souls of men (D&C 132:63) through plural marriage, as it was all about raising up a righteous posterity through a select few righteous  men. 

If you think about it, why do the Gospels begin with a genealogy of Jesus? Because it mattered that he descended from the tribe of David as the Davidic Messiah, for it was through his Davidic line that the Messiah would produce the Jesus People, as a new spiritual species. 

In the book Dominion and Dynasty: A Study in Old Testament Theology, Vol. 15 (New Studies in Biblical Theology) by Dempster, Stephen G., the author covers how Jesus descended from polygamists and the whole theology of the Hebrew Bible was about God's People (Israel) gaining dominion by forming dynasties just like Joseph Smith sought to do. Just as there was a selection process in forming the Jewish People and the Davidic line through which Jesus descended, similarly there was also selection process that took place in early Mormonism.

Jesus himself descended from polygamists who raised up a righteous seed. Christians interpret the Messiah being spoken of in Isaiah 9:7 below, to be Jesus, as quoted below from the Expanded Bible:

There will be no end to the ·growth [abundance; increase] of his ·rule [dominion; government],
    nor to the peace he will bring.
He will rule as king on David’s throne
    and over David’s kingdom [2 Sam. 7:11–16].
He will ·make it strong [establish and sustain it]
    by ruling with justice and ·goodness [righteousness]
    from now on and forever.
·The Lord All-Powerful will do this
    because of his strong love for his people [L The zeal/jealousy of the Lord Almighty/of Heaven’s Armies/T of hosts will accomplish this].

The "the growth [abundance; increase] of his ·rule [dominion ...]" is interpreted in LDS Scripture as LDS Christians receiving the same glory, power and dominion as Christ as co-heirs with Christ (see Lecture #7 and D&C 132).

Note that not only does Jesus descend from polygamists but he metaphorically represents plural marriage by being the Bridegroom (husband) to many brides, as "His Bride" (that is the church/ecclesia) are Christians who are metaphorically his fiancés and future plural wives metaphorically. It is through the selection process of Jesus breathing his divine seed (sperma) into certain people, that he spiritually births a new species or deified People. From this perspective, Joseph Smith simply restored this biblical selection process of birthing a People, as plural marriage was the biblical method of bringing preexistent souls into an elite lineage of intelligence and kindness, as Joseph was according to scripture commissioned by Christ "to bring to pass the gathering of mine elect; for mine elect hear my voice and harden not their hearts ..." (D&C 29:7).