What is the soul other than an organized intelligence?

[_sock puppet]

22 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;

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, ...

So, are souls merely organized intelligences as indicated in these passages from the Book of Abraham? No other, magical mystery 'spiritual' element in the alchemy that is a soul?

If so, then there is no 'spiritual' knowledge that is not intelligence. Yet religionists tell us that we should not rely on tools of the intellect, but should 'feel' that Mormonisms truth claims are right.

[_sock puppet]

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
Any TBMs or mopologists?

[_ldsfaqs]

Since "religionists", but especially Mormons don't teach anyone that they should just rely on feelings, and not at all on intellect, your question is a strawman.

Mormonism has always taught that Faith is the "evidence of things not seen, but which are true".
We also teach to know all things "by study and by Faith".
This is our doctrine, and has always been our doctrine.

Atheist false assumptions of the religious that they make judgments based on "blind faith" is simply a lie. While it is true that most other religions more so consider Faith to be "belief" rather than based on study, evidence, and action as more so Mormonism believes, NO ONE in any religion bases their judgments simply on Faith alone, or "belief" alone. That is an Atheist lie, meant to degrade. Everyone bases their judgments on some kind of information. The actual question is, how good of information, how balanced and objective, how truthful, etc.

[_sock puppet]

Mormonism has always taught that Faith is the "evidence of things not seen, but which are true".

I suppose that means things not seen with the eyes, right?

How about of things not heard with the ears?

How about of things not touched with the hands or any other part of the physical body?

How about of things not smelled with the nose?

How about of things not tasted with the tongue?

And if there is no physical sensation data, on what is the belief initially founded? In the absence of being based on such data, it would appear that what is being described is that faith is a belief that is evidence that you belief that for which there is no data?

Or in other words, a proposition for which there is no "external" evidence is evidence by your mere belief in it? Not only is that a classic bootstrap, but it raises the question, if you believe that is not founded on evidence why you need to call your otherwise unfounded belief 'evidence' for that which you believe?