God, Self and Spiritual Birth: Two Perspectives

January 1, 2011 By 22 Comments

An issue that arises in the study of the Mormon thought is the origin of the teaching that our spirits are begotten by God in a literal sense in the premortal world. In this post, I wish to bracket the issue of whether this view can be properly attributed to Joseph Smith.  Instead, I’d like to explore our emotive responses to the various perspectives regarding our relationship with God. While arguments based on history or exegesis play an important role in these discussions, it is equally important to acknowledge that these ideas resonate with us at a deeply personal level in different ways.

Recently, I compared two responses, one from David L. Paulsen and the other from Richard Lyman Bushman. These are transcripts from audio so I encourage readers to listen to the original, if possible.  Both individuals, I believe, articulate well why a particular aspect holds significance for them. Rather than offer a conclusion, I will let each statement speak for itself.  What aspect of personal origins in Mormon thought resonates with you personally?

In response to two papers on the origin of spirit birth David Paulsen explained:

I’m not totally convinced . . . that Joseph Smith never taught or even endorsed a doctrine of premortal birth, but I will not press that issue here . . . there are also ways of formulating the doctrines of self-existent spirits and spirit birth so as to avoid contradiction, and I believe so as to preserve what is religiously significant in both.  Personally, I find a reconciliation along the lines suggested by B. H. Roberts quite plausible and attractive . . . The doctrine of uncreated selves co-eternal with God has considerable explanatory power in resolving some of the most otherwise intractable philosophical and theological puzzles–most notably, the problem of evil. On the other hand, the belief that I am, in some very literal sense, the offspring or a son of God is ennobling, morally motivating, and spiritually satisfying. Being a parent myself the doctrine of God’s fatherhood helps me to understand better the love and the solicitude God feels for me and for all of us. May I say the doctrine tastes good and feels right. No wonder that from at least 1844 on, the doctrine has been taught in hundreds of sermons, articles, books, and manuals, and more recently popularized in the children’s song “I am a child of God.” The implication of [the] alternative, “I am a descendant of God” doesn’t quite do the job, religiously speaking; although admittedly, it stirs me much more than “I am the outcome of an accidental collocation of atoms” or even “I am a creation of God.” (audio marker 1:07:25 – 1:16:00).1

Richard Bushman recently explained his understanding of Joseph Smith’s cosmology.

What I think is also part of cosmology is what I call “the Stories of Eternity”2 that is, how the human intelligence wends its way through this cosmos and its pursuit of salvation. Again, you just can’t get any larger. You go to the limits of human imagination in Joseph Smith’s thought.

In response to questions about competing views of  intelligence, Bushman responded:

Mormons all know we can’t agree on that. If we try to pursue how it actually happens, we disagree on [that with] one another. I like the Joseph Smith of the King Follett discourse which has the eternal intelligence that’s approached by God and God offers to take us under his wing, and to teach us how to become like him; that, I find a very inspiring story. Some people say, well it explains moral agency, that the human soul is never created. But that isn’t the part that interests me; it’s just that idea of us coming, as Claudia said, as we were fish swimming in the sea, and then we’re sort of formed into schools and shown how to go somewhere. I think that’s a lovely story, gives a very powerful perspective on all Christian doctrines and all life. Where we differ is in spiritual birth, because there are some people who say that we really, in a way, we lived before, but we sort of really came into existence when we were, as we always say, underscoring, literally born of God. I don’t know why they had to underscore that, but that sounds like child birth. We want to have a Mother in heaven along with Father in heaven. Joseph Smith never taught that. That is a doctrine that came along shortly after his death. I’m not arguing against it, but I don’t think it’s the key to the story. The key to the story is the moment when God offers to take us under his wing and we agree. That’s the great moment. (audio marker 32:53-34:45).3

________

1. Boyd Kirkland, Van Hale, David Paulsen. “Of Gods, Men and Devils: Eternal Progression and the Second Death in the Theology of Brigham Young -&- The Origins of Man’s Spirit in Early Mormon Thought.” Sunstone Symposium, August 24, 1985. (my transcription).  Kirkland and Hale’s papers are published, but Paulsen’s response appears not to be available in print. Audio.

2. See Richard L. Bushman, Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 64-80.

3. “Richard L. Bushman – Part 2” FAIR Podcast, Episode 4. October 24, 2010. (my transcription). Audio. For additional views see Richard Lyman Bushman, On the Road with Joseph Smith: An Author’s Diary (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 60-62

Filed Under: Doctrine, Metaphysics, Mormon Studies, Theology 22 Comments
  • http://latterdayspence.blogspot.com Clean Cut

    I’m on my phone, and thus cannot comment at length, but I LOVE this post. A fascinating comparison of a fascinating topic. Richard Bushman articulates my feelings best. I’ve never heard or seen it expressed quite like that, but I LOVE what he said here and that best resonates with what I’ve read of Joseph Smith.

  • http://www.visionsofthekingdom.com David T

    I agree with Bushman 100% on this.

  • http://www.smallsimple.wordpress.com Eric Nielson

    I vote for Paulsen. It was a thrill to meet him and present with him at the 2010 SMPT conference on literal spirit birth. Unfortunately I still can’t get to the audio of that conference.

    Anyway, at the time Paulsen was developing a paper making the case that Joseph likely did teach a spirit birth idea given that those teachings were attributed to Joseph so shortly after his death.

    The tripartite model with a spirit body that is literal offspring is what rings true for me.

  • http://juvenileinstructor.org Ben Park

    Emotively, I can see where the two sides have their appeal. Personally, I resonate more with the feelings Bushman describes–the “adoptive” sense of Godly relationship.

    Historically, an argument placing the thought on JS just can’t be persuasive to me, and I say that having read most of Paulsen’s arguments in favor of it (both in print and manuscript). Besides not being able to find direct evidence for it in his recorded sermons or writings, it just doesn’t fit within his larger theological corpus.

  • http://ldsscience.blogspot.com Jared*

    Emotively, I would give the edge to Paulsen. However, the emphasis on literalness seems to require projecting a lot of mortal biology back on to God, and I have a lot of reservations about that. I wonder if there is some kind of third option that we just don’t have the conceptual tools to describe, so we are condemned to imperfect analogies.

  • smb

    Jonathan Stapley and I are proponents of the “adoptive” model. I have a devotional paper I’m trying to find time to complete where I make the argument fairly explicitly. This clearly is closer to Richard Bushman’s reading here.

  • http://boaporg.wordpress.com WVS

    smb, looking forward to that. There is much to recommend an adoptive model from a textual point of view. But accounting for the post Nauvoo period really has to be done in any broadly accepted Mormon theology. Hence, I do like Roberts, even though it really cannot find support in Joseph Smith, completely.

  • Matt W.

    I think Bushman and Paulsen can find all the things they like in the other’s theological framework.

  • http://www.nine-moons.com Seth R.

    I prefer the adoption model of our divine parentage because it more powerfully solidifies the voluntarily loving relationship at the heart of notions of theosis, the trinity, and such.

    It also is in line with one of my favorite philosophically oddly matched quotes for Mormons:

    “Companions, the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators, the creator seeks — those who write new values on new tablets. Companions, the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest. … Fellow creators, Zarathustra seeks, fellow harvesters and fellow celebrants: what are herds and shepherds and corpses to him?”

    Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

  • smb

    WVS, you (as always) have a valid point that I will have to consider carefully.

  • http://www.smallsimple.wordpress.com Eric Nielson

    While JS may not be documented as explicitly teaching literal spirit birth, I do not feel he explicitly taught against it either. There are several subsequent prophets who did explicitly teach this however. Which may have been part of what WVS was getting at.

  • http://www.libertypages.com/clarktech Clark

    I think you have to separate out the tripartite model from Robert’s particular tripartite model which includes intelligences as Cartesian minds. However let’s be honest. Pratt’s spiritual atoms is practically a tripartite model even if it’s not ontologically the same as Roberts. And that arises fairly early.

    As for arguments to attributing such ideas to Joseph to me the strongest arguments are the nature of his creation of the Priesthood and Relief Society as tied to a kind of becoming like God. It’s true that he never has a place where he says we are becoming exactly like God. But it’s not hard to see him heading in that direction. Even if, as with the Merkabah mystics who have a kind of divinization of folks like Enoch, there remains an essential unbridgeable gap with God, we have a divine family with male and female. And undoubtedly that is something Joseph was developing.

  • Thomas Parkin

    I don’t care whether it is adoption or spirit birth – I tend to pull for the latter – but it is necessary that some real change occurs to the ‘intelligence’ at that point.

    Reason is: given an infinite amount of time all intelligences would have progressed to their absolute limit. The only way we have a hierarchy of development (abr 3) is to imagine a starting point from which some develop more quickly that others. That starting point may be adoption, or spirit birth, or some other alternative, but needs to exist.

    You can get around this by just eliminating the hierarchal differences between various “spirits” (this may please those of you with a particularly democratic sensibility), but I think is scripturally untenable. (Abr 3, also Christ identifying Himself as being in the beginning (of what?) with the Father, as we were, as well, but that He was the “Firstborn” (meaning what?)) Or, you can get around it (in a way that will not appeal to democratic sensibilities) and say that intelligences themselves have various limits to their growth – not only were they not co-equal with God (JS), but they were not even co-equal with each other.

  • http://thepierianspring.wordpress.com/ aquinas

    Clark, I’m curious why you describe Roberts’ understanding of intelligences as “Cartesian minds.” I know you have repeatedly described Roberts’ views in this way, but I’m not sure I follow. I’m not aware of any published commentary on Roberts that describes his views as Cartesian. I don’t sense that Roberts was diverging from the Mormon metaphysics preceding him, which rejected Cartesian dualism, but perhaps I’m missing something.

    Traditionally we have focused our attention to the historical and philosophical arguments, but I’m also curious about our personal and emotive responses to these views.

  • http://www.libertypages.com/clarktech Clark

    He says it in The Way, the Truth and the Life. I’ll see if I can dig up my copy later tonight and quote from it.

  • http://www.libertypages.com/clarktech Clark

    OK, Chapter 8 in that book goes through it. A few examples. (Page numbers from the Signature version of the book)

    (76) “…for we shall hold here that there is a distinction between mind and matter, as there is a difference between that which acts and that which is acted upon; as there is a difference between the thinking essence or substance and that which has or manifests mechanical force merely…”

    But the whole chapter presupposes a Cartesian conception of mind (or what Roberts in that chapter calls mind-element). The discussion of what Roberts means by intelligence on 77 is pretty clearly Cartesian.

    There actually are some more explicit passages but I’m afraid I lost my Roberts notes some time ago. I did way back in the early days of my blog write about possible influence on Robert’s conception of mind by way of Fisk. You might find the discussion there helpful.

    Those arguing Roberts doesn’t adopt a Cartesian view have a lot to establish I’m afraid. (At least to me)

  • Mark D.

    Clark, those quotes sound more than compatible with property dualism, pan psychism, and spirit matter. “mind element” is not traditional Cartesianism at all.

    If Roberts believed in “mind element”, is he really advocating a tri-partite model at all? Or is he advocating “normal element”, “spirit element”, plus “mind element”, but no actual indestructible, singular and personal Cartesian minds? (i.e. one per individual)

    Since Joseph Smith clearly taught that spirit/intelligences were the latter, if Roberts did not he diverges from Joseph Smith at least as much as Orson Pratt did.

  • http://thepierianspring.wordpress.com/ aquinas

    Clark and Mark thanks for these additional comments. Perhaps I will consider putting down my thoughts in a later post because I’d like to get some clarity on this point. Perhaps some of this depends on how we are defining “Cartesian.”

    Clark, I’ve been surveying writings on Roberts and Mormon metaphysics and no one else describes Roberts’ view as Cartesian. I’m not saying that as an appeal to authority, but only because I’d like to see your response to this broader literature. As Kuhn says, our knowledge is a social enterprise and I believe we benefit from engaging these various viewpoints.

  • http://www.libertypages.com/clarktech Clark

    Mark if you read the whole section it becomes much clearer. He says mind element not to imply property dualism or Pratt’s model but rather than there is some mind-substance.

    As I mentioned he appears quite influenced by Fisk who critiques views similar to Pratt’s and presumably that led Roberts to refine Pratt’s view.

  • http://www.libertypages.com/clarktech Clark

    BTW – out of curiosity do they just not call him Cartesian or do they actively argue he’s not Cartesian? And what sources are you referring to?

    I ask since even before I’d read any of his writings the way the tripartite model had been taught was intelligences as immaterial while spirits and bodies were material.

  • Mark D.

    Minor points notwithstanding I believe that the view of a spirit-intelligence of Joseph Smith and that of “an” intelligence by B.H. Roberts are unquestionably Cartesian, and have a hard time seeing how anyone could come to the opposite conclusion.

  • http://thepierianspring.wordpress.com/ aquinas

    Mark, I agree that whatever view Roberts has, he is understanding himself to be holding the same view as Joseph Smith. Whatever term we apply to Roberts should apply to Joseph Smith. But then again, given that many Mormons today believe Joseph Smith and B.H. Roberts on the matter, are we saying that Joseph Smith and B.H. Roberts are the only ones in the history of Mormondom or in the broader Judeo-Christian world in making a distinction between body and mind? Within those traditions, who is not a Cartesian?