Spiritual Birth: Challenges for Philosophers

Earlier this year we explored some of the historical challenges for telling the story of “spirit birth” in Mormon theological history. In this post, we will turn our attention to the philosophical challenges raised by “spirit birth.” Again, here we are less concerned with tracing the teaching to Joseph Smith as we are examining the implications of spirit birth given our tradition. Some of the most detailed treatment of the topic is given by Parley P. Pratt and Orson Pratt. However, developing a coherent theology of spiritual birth is something Mormon theologians have not been interested in doing. Blake Ostler, for example, says little about this doctrine in his multi-volume series Exploring Mormon Thought, other than to conclude it probably does not originate with Joseph Smith. Indeed, others may feel little is to be gained from developing a theology of spirit birth. However, for those who are interested in developing a coherent theology of spirit birth several challenges exist.

1. Early Mormon thinkers believed that our spirits are fashioned from spiritual element or spiritual matter. Thus, God has complete control when he configures each of our spirits. Parley P. Pratt and Orson Pratt understood intelligence as an attribute of spiritual element. Thus, given this metaphysics, God is the one who determines the intelligence of our spirits, and therefore the question arises as to how fair it is to judge us according to our intelligence when this is predetermined by God when he creates us. Parley P. Pratt recognized this dilemma and argued that God does not create this intelligence. The level of intelligence, rather, is a function of the particular element used to form our spirits, and element differs in its level of intelligence. Pratt should be credited with acknowledging this dilemma even if his solution doesn’t quite solve the problem. One can presume that God still has control over the particular element used in the organization of our spirits. Isn’t there some consequence in how God creates our spirits? Is there any significant difference between God creating our spirits from preexisting spiritual element and God creating our spirits out of nothing? Doesn’t this lead to a kind of determinism?

Spiritual Birth: Challenges for Historians

[Cross posted from FPR]

I appreciate the comments received in response to the Bushman and Paulsen post and found fascinating the diversity of views. I wanted to explore the reasons for preferring one aspect over another apart from historical or textual arguments, but I realize that perhaps it is impossible to bracket those issues from our emotional investment. Perhaps for some, they are one and the same.

In this post, I’d like to state some tentative conclusions on the development of “spirit birth” based upon the state of the literature as I see it today (aware that related studies are forthcoming that, for obvious reasons, I’m unable to take into account at this moment). This is a departure from my usual posts where I prefer to trace the journey of an idea over time (even the move from using the phrase “spiritual birth” to using the phrase “spirit birth” has a history worth exploring)¹. Departing from that approach, I thought I would respond to the last set of comments by setting forth five tentative observations that might serve as a catalyst for new inquiries. I’ve subtitled the post “Challenges for Historians” on purpose, in an attempt to separate historical issues from philosophical ones. Perhaps “Challenges for Philosophers” will be taken up in a later post.

1. This seems to be a case where one doctrine (primeval spirit birth) has the effect of displacing another doctrine (becoming sons and daughters of God by covenant). While B. H. Roberts sought to reconcile Mormon discourse on the uncreated nature and begotten nature of man, it was not without repercussions.² There is a tension in Mormon discourse between being sons of God and becoming sons of God. It is important, however, to credit Roberts with being aware of this problem (unique among his contemporaries).

Roberts and Descartes

[Cross posted from FPR]

The problem of how to label Mormon philosophical and theological views is a perennial one, but an issue that must be treated. Mormon scholars have debated the propriety of using terms like infinite, finite, monotheism, henotheism, polytheism, modalism, binitarianism, etc. The list goes on.

Scholarly communities advance and pool together their knowledge by using shared and common terms. Essentially we talk with one another using a common language. Disputes over labeling Mormonism are inevitable and will persist for the unforeseeable future. At worst, the very terms we use to talk with each other have built-in interpretations and often can skew more precise discourse. How accurate or useful is Cartesian in describing the dualism of B.H. Roberts or in Mormon thought generally? Are there dangers of confusion? What qualifications might be necessary?

In the realm of Mormon metaphysics, Sterling McMurrin makes the following observation:

Mormonism teaches a strict numerical dualism of the spirit and the body; through they are both material, they are two different entities. But the dualism is in number degree only and not in the fundamental quality or character of reality, a fact which distinguishes the Mormon position from the typical mind-body dualism that has typified Protestant thought, for instance, since Descartes. . . . It is important to recognize that the mind-body problem, the question of the nature of the soul or spirit and the body and the relation between them, has been a major metaphysical issue in occidental religious thought since the earliest Christian centuries. The Mormon treatment of this problem, which is radically unorthodox when judged by either Catholic or Protestant thought, nevertheless conforms to the general pattern of Christian theology, that the soul or spirit is immortal though the body is subject to death.¹

The Saint Pauls of Mormonism

[Cross posted from FPR]

Like many of you, I’m very excited for the forthcoming biography of one of Mormonism’s most influential early apostles: Parley P. Pratt: The Saint Paul of Mormonism by Terryl Givens with Matthew Grow. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011 (projected).

The very title itself tells a story. The Utah historian, Edward Wheelock Tullidge, wrote in 1876:

For his eloquent and erudite championship of the Church, both as speaker and writer, he is widely recognized as the Paul of Mormonism.¹

Tullidge, however, was referring to the apostle Orson Pratt who he also called “the Paul of Mormondom” and the “Mormon Paul.”² In his Life of Joseph the prophet (1878), Tullidge wrote:

[Parley's] Hebraic pen, made the ancient prophets live again in the divine of our own times; while his learned brother Orson has been as the veritable St. Paul of the Latter Days.³

A History of Mormon Theology

For a few years now I’ve developed an interest in the history of theology.  Part of my interest stems from my attempts to learn the broader Christian theological landscape in order to better communicate with those outside of Mormonism.  I’ve found it fascinating to trace the development of an idea through time.  From the New Testament texts and non-canonical writings to the writings of early church fathers, medieval theology, the reformers, the counter-reformation and beyond, there is broader story behind many of the doctrines we take for granted.  We look at the world through theological lenses without realizing we are wearing them and that these lenses have a story.

While Mormonism has a much shorter history, its doctrines also have a rich and dynamic history, but the story is less-well known.  I’ve searched for resources on the historical developments of Mormon theology, but have discovered that not many exist.¹

Last summer, the topic was tangentially broached on a thread at Times & Seasons, and I expressed my interest in a history of Mormon theology. Word on the street at the time was that Terryl L. Givens was considering writing an intellectual history of Mormonism.  I’ve long considered who might be qualified to write such a work and I find the prospect of Givens taking on such a project to be, well, exciting.  Givens is an extremely gifted writer who, given his background and recent slate of books (People of Paradox, When Souls Had Wings, and his upcoming biography of Parley P. Pratt), is uniquely situated to really do the tradition justice.

Darwinism’s Influence on the Mormon View of Spirits

This is the first part in a series.  This first post covers a brief history leading up to the Nov. 1909 Doctrinal Exposition, The Origin of Man. Part Two deals with the Exposition itself, and later posts the history after the Exposition.

Gospel Principles, originally published in 1978, begins its articulation of Mormon cosmology by referring to a statement issued November 1909 by Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund titled The Origin of Man.

What is the history behind this doctrinal exposition?  Why November 1909?  What was occurring in the Church and in America broadly that precipitated such a statement by the First Presidency?  What happened after the statement was issued?

What Can Lesson Manuals Teach Us? Voices from the Dusty Bookshelf

Lesson manuals are curious creations.  Some believe a manual can facilitate discussion and conversation.  Others believe a manual can provide structure and guidance.  Ultimately, a manual is a tool for teaching and learning.  But what is to be taught?  How should it be taught?  These are perennial questions that plague any community of faith concerned with imparting first principles and beyond.

Perhaps no religious tradition begins with lesson manuals.  The first religious text that Joseph Smith produced was the Book of Mormon, arguably not a work with subject matter conveniently arranged in a topical format.  Yet pedagogical works seem to follow quickly as the need grows to impart knowledge and instruct in principles of the gospel in a formal setting.  Many lesson manuals in the past are hardly remembered and perhaps not even known by many Latter-day Saints today, although a few have definitely made their mark.