Spiritual Birth: Challenges for Historians

January 12, 2011 By 17 Comments

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).

Eternal Intelligences are begotten of God, spirits, and hence are sons of God-a dignity that never leaves them. “Beloved,” said one of old, “now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when he [Christ] shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (I John 3:2). Here, in the way of anticipating an objection, I shall pause to remark, parenthetically, that I am not unmindful of the array of evidence that may be massed to prove that it is chiefly through adoption, through obedience to the Gospel of Christ, that man in the scripture is spoken of as being a son of God. But this does not weaken the evidence for the fact for which I am contending, viz., that man is by nature the son of God. He becomes alienated from his Father and the Father’s kingdom through sin, through the transgression of the law of God; hence the need of adoption into the heavenly kingdom, and into sonship with God. But though alienated from God through sin, man is nevertheless by nature the son of God, and needs but the adoption that awaits him through the gospel of Jesus Christ to cry again in renewed and perfect fellowship, Abba, Father!3

Roberts here seems to offer a kind of harmonization where we are sons of God already but also must become sons of God, but it isn’t clear this is successful.  The two doctrines seem to resist harmonization. Furthermore, Roberts never really utilized the language of adoption in his writings as did, for example, Parley P. Pratt.4 A strong emphasis of sonship by nature tends to downplay sonship by covenant. It doesn’t seem, however, that this was necessarily Roberts’ intention:

The End of the Matter-We Shall Be Like Him-Conformed to the Divine Image: That is the end then, for the spiritually born man-he will be conformed into the image of God-conformed to the type of the Spirit-life that has taken up his abode in him. How long shall it take? Who knows? And what shall it matter? The important thing is that it shall be done. The important thing for us men is that the spirit-birth takes place; that union with God be formed; the ages may wait upon the growth, and full fruitage of that event. It may take aeons of time to make a man, longer to make Super-man; but the eternal years are his who is born of the Spirit; and again I say the important thing for us men is to have that Spirit-birth, and then are we sons of God; and while it doth not appear what we shall be, for the height and glory of that is beyond our human vision, ultimately we shall be like him, and see him as he is, and be conformed to the Christ image, that is to say, to the Divine nature-unless one shall sin against the Holy Ghost.5

These passages are important for a few reasons. First, modern readers should be surprised that Roberts uses the term “spirit-birth” to mean being “born again” of the Spirit. Second, I should point out that here Roberts uses 1 John 3:2 in this last passage to refer to being born again, but uses the same passage in the Roberts-Van Der Donckt Discussion to refer to our premortal sonship by nature. Roberts was thus not consistent in his scriptural exegesis. Third, Roberts does not reject the notion of becoming sons of God. Still he doesn’t seem to incorporate Mormon scripture and early Mormon writings on point as much as he could have. It could be argued that perhaps adoption fell out of favor because Mormon discourse was dominated by a robust emphasis on premortal origins and a literal familial relationship with God.

2. Becoming sons and daughters of God in this life is explicitly taught in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, it is unquestionably canonical. Premortal spirit birth, on the other hand, has ambiguous support in Restorationist texts.  The history of Mormon scriptural exegesis shows that, over time, Mormon expositors rely on largely on biblical passages for spiritual birth (see Roberts first usage of 1 John 3:2 above), increasingly seeing support for the doctrine in the canon as a naturalistic and literalistic cosmology developed, but setting aside portions of Restorationist texts in the process (i.e. the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants).6

3. In attempting to understand the views of a religious figure, it is common practice to take into account the textual evidence and the earliest interpretations by the earliest followers. In this case, we have a disconnect. The textual evidence that Joseph did not teach spirit birth is overwhelming.7 However, how can it be that Joseph Smith didn’t teach premortal spiritual birth, but apparently the Twelve ignore this point? Thus, Paulsen and others rely on circumstantial evidence and ask 1) where on earth did this idea come from and perhaps more importantly 2) why did many not feel or recognize that they were taking a fundamental departure from Joseph Smith? As others have pointed out in the last post, we seem to lack a satisfactory explanation. To say that all the Twelve misunderstood Joseph, while not logically impossible, seems itself to require explanation.

4. Thus, because of these dynamics we have essentially a bona fide Mormon tradition where “spirit birth” has been taught, in its latest iteration, easily before the last three generations of Mormons were born. It forms an essential component of modern Mormon cosmology, although strangely it doesn’t seem to take into account the cosmology of its founder nor the texts that came out of the Restoration, leading to the situation where we miss out on the theologically significant doctrine of adoption (and our own history), which is a restoration doctrine and one we find surprisingly consistent with Joseph’s cosmology. Given this state of affairs, and the tension between texts and tradition, it is no wonder that Richard Bushman exclaims: “Mormons all know we can’t agree on that.”

5. Historically speaking, I think this history is a good case study for the relationship between tradition and texts in Mormon thought, and a good case study in how reconfiguring doctrine (and there is no doubt Roberts at least saw his interpretations as something new) has implications for individual parts of the cosmological whole. I believe these issues are becoming more prominent due to an emphasis on cosmology in Mormon studies. The question being asked today isn’t so much whether Joseph Smith taught something, but more so how that teaching fits within the architecture of Joseph’s cosmological vision.

________
1. The reason for choosing the term “spiritual birth” in this post is pragmatic, rather than historical. Several thinkers contributed to the modern conception of “spirit birth.” B. H. Roberts, who is typically thought of as the father of contemporary notions of spirit birth, himself apparently never used the term “spiritual birth” or “spirit birth” to refer to the process of spirits being begotten in the premortal world, but to the second birth by the Holy Spirit. See B. H. Roberts, The Seventy’s Course in Theology: Fifth year, Divine Immanence and the Holy Ghost (Deseret News, 1912): 103-107.

2. We should use caution to avoid conflating Roberts’ exegesis of “sons of God” in scripture with his unique development of intelligence in Mormon discourse. One does not necessarily demand the other. The teaching that the Father begat our spirits pre-dated Roberts; Roberts inherited that tradition. On the other hand, Roberts’ reformulation of intelligences as the first of four estates of existence is novel with him. See B. H. Roberts, The Seventy’s Course in Theology: Second Year, Outline History of the Dispensations of the Gospel (Deseret News, 1908): 11-12.

3. B. H. Roberts, The Mormon Doctrine of Deity: The Roberts-Van Der Donckt Discussion, to Which Is Added a Discourse, Jesus Christ, the Revelation of God: Also a Collection of Authoritative Mormon Utterances on the Being and Nature of God (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1903), pp. 165-166 (bold added); 2. See also B. H. Roberts, The Seventy’s Course in Theology: Fourth, year, The Atonement (Deseret News, 1911): 15, 17fn7; and B. H. Roberts, The Seventy’s Course in Theology: Fifth year, Divine Immanence and the Holy Ghost (Deseret News, 1912): 103-107.

4. “Now I gather from all those examples of ancient days, and from the precepts laid down in them, that baptism was the initiating ordinance, by which all those who believed and repented, were received and adopted into the church or kingdom of God, so as to be entitled to the remission of sins and blessings of the Holy Ghost; indeed it was the ordinance through which they became sons and daughters; and because they were sons, the Lord shed forth the Spirit of his Son into their hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” Parley P. Pratt, A Voice of Warning and Instruction to All People, Containing a Declaration of the Faith and Doctrine of the Church of the Latter-day Saints, Commonly Called Mormons (New York: W. Sandford, 1837), p. 56-57. For other understandings of adoption as developed within Mormon liturgy see Gordon Irving, “The Law of Adoption: One Phase of the Development of the Mormon Concept of Salvation, 1830-1900,” BYU Studies 14.3 (Spring 1974): 291-314.

5. B. H. Roberts, The Seventy’s Course in Theology: Fifth year, Divine Immanence and the Holy Ghost (Deseret News, 1912): 109 (bold added). For another usage of 1 John 3:2 see B. H. Roberts, The Truth, The Way, The Life, An Elementary Treatise on Theology: The Masterwork of B. H. Roberts, ed. Stan Larson. (Smith Research Associates, 1994): 616.

6. For an example and argument see Darwinism’s Influence on the Mormon View of Spirits – Part II.

7. See for example Joseph Smith’s Revelations on Preexistence and Spirits.

Filed Under: Doctrine, History, Metaphysics, Mormon Studies, Scripture, Theology Tagged With: , , , 17 Comments
  • http://www.newcoolthang.com Jakob J

    The two doctrines [literal "spirit-body" birth and born-again "adoptive" birth] seem to resist harmonization.

    Why do you think they resist harmonization? They are totally different concepts, so they seem tremendously easy to harmonize on a conceptual level. From what I can tell you are saying that if we are already sons of God then it can’t make sense that we must become sons of God. However, this objection seems to be lacking in imagination. Isn’t it fairly easy to imagine that someone might suggest we are already sons of God in one sense but not in another? (Incidentally, my objection here is related to a conceptual or philosophical issue rather than a historical one, but it seemed to be raised in the post despite the disclaimer that you would be focussing on the historical problems).

    although strangely it doesn’t seem to take into account the cosmology of its founder nor the texts that came out of the Restoration, leading to the situation where we miss out on the theologically significant doctrine of adoption

    Here you jump to a very significant conclusion on what appears to be no evidence. I totally disagree that we have missed out on the doctrine of adoption. I think it would be fairly easy to document the idea of spiritual adoption and being born again in mainstream and influential books from within Mormonism. Further, you claim that it doesn’t take into account the texts of the restoration despite the fact that the principle theological support for the idea of spirit birth comes from restoration texts like D&C 132, regardless of the fact that the primary proof-texts for spirit birth are from the Bible. Focussing on the proof-texts misses the point in my opinion.

  • http://splendidsun.com J. Stapley

    Note that Pratt’s A Voice of Warning the prime early Mormon text on adoption was written in the mid 1830s. Sam’s article in the Summer issue of JMH does a splendid job of laying out early American Christian and early Mormon adoption theology.

    The first explicit account that I can think of off the top of my head indicating the idea that we start as children, fall away and need to be adopted back is BY several decades into Utah.

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

    You are forcing a tension that need not exist. As if, being begotten means we can’t make a covenant. These ideas fit together fine.

    It also staggers me why it seems like Joseph Smith is the only modern day prophet we have had for those who reject spirit birth.

  • Thomas Parkin

    Agree with #s 1 & 3. I do not think we are near well enough aware of the doctrine which says that we become the sons of Christ, and grow to be like Him, through the gospel process. I’m not as conscious of it as is merited. But this has virtually nothing to do with whether or no I am a son of God, as offspring or in some more figurative way, in an essential, cosmological sense.

  • http://agitatingfaithfully.org Dane

    I can’t recall having ever heard the phrase “adoption” used (in this sense) in a Sunday school class. The verbal distinction that I do hear occasionally is that we’re born “children of God”, but we become “children of Christ”.

  • http://jettboy.blogspot.com Jettboy

    It doesn’t make any sense to me either why there is some confusion here. The whole point of the Fall of Adam and Eve was losing our spiritual connection as Children of God and through Christ and Obedience to the Gospel regaining and expanding on that relationship. Maybe you are taking it too literally in the physical sense.

  • http://splendidsun.com J. Stapley

    I think Dane hits on a common disconnect. While the BoM does emphasize becoming a child of Christ, the D&C and the bible emphasize becoming a child of God through Christ. The common tack in the modern Church is to basically ignore the early texts, which is generally what we do when later traditions (and I’m not using that pejoratively) are divergent.

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

    Great comments so far. As a reminder, I’ve stated above these are tentative conclusions that I am offering up front without necessarily setting forth the arguments that would normally lead up to these conclusions. I’m experimenting with this approach to get the ideas out there and get some initial feedback.

    1. Jakob J, great question. There are a few reasons why I suggest that these ideas “seem to resist harmonization.” I agree that we can hold in our minds these two ideas simultaneously. Individuals like Brigham Young (as J. Stapley points out), Orson Pratt and B.H. Roberts have done so in their sermons and writings. I’m not disputing that. Rather, I’m focusing on narrative creation, i.e. what kinds of narratives get passed on from generation to generation. It seems to me there is a kind of “resistance” for this narrative to get passed on. One of the reasons is “adoption” ends up being used by critics of the church, or Mormons perceive it is being used by critics of the church, as a sword against the unique Mormon doctrine of premortal spirit birth. Thus, when critics appeal to Biblical passages on adoption to undermine Mormon claims of premortal sonship, the natural response is to assert more strongly a literal spirit birth. B.H. Roberts’ statement above is made within that context.

    Brigham Young offers a reconciliation:

    “I think, however, that the rendering of this Scripture is not so true as the following, namely: “But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to continue to be the sons of God.” Instead of receiving the gospel to become the sons of God, my language would be—to receive the gospel that we may continue to be the sons of God.” JD, 12:100 (emphasis added).

    You can already get a feel for Young’s preference, requiring him to, in a sense, rewrite the scripture to make it fit, and when push comes to shove it is not uncommon to pick one over the other. You get language from Orson Pratt like “It is said by some that we are his sons and daughters only by adoption.” One gets a sense for the polemical undertones. Young also said:

    “The generality of mankind are ignorant of the real relationship that exists between them and Heaven. They do not understand that God is our Father. By adoption? No; but we are his children by a legal inheritance.” JD 7:274.

    So, there exists a polemical environment where adoption is perceived as a challenge to, or even an attack upon premortal spirit birth. You can still find this dynamic today. In the Evangelical counter-cult literature, adoption is often pitted as what the Bible teaches against premortal spirit birth as what Mormonism teaches. Given the dynamics of apologetics, it is difficult to fashion a narrative that incorporates the original scriptural language and serves to defend unique Mormon claims simultaneously, that gets successfully passed on from generation to generation. This is my general meaning when I say it “seems to resist harmonization.” It’s not simply a matter of two ideas existing in the mind, but how these ideas interact in a religious polemical environment and the narrative that results from that dynamic.

    Incidentally, there are other related dynamics at play including, I argue, Mormonism’s response to the Darwinian heresy that I outline in Part 1 and Part 2.

    2. Because of Joseph Smith’s adamant teaching that spirits are eternal and uncreated, that God could not create himself and God never had the ability to create the spirits of man and that it is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it, it isn’t clear that D&C 132 is compelling as support for the doctrine. It certainly isn’t explicit and evidences no language such as “birth.” If that is the principle text for spirit birth among Joseph’s revelations, I feel my original suggestion that the idea “has ambiguous support in Restorationist texts” still seems more than appropriate.

  • http://boaporg.wordpress.com W. V. Smith

    I think D&C 132 can be read successfully in a context of adoption ala KFD, particularly the way BY broached the subject. It’s quite possible that JS read it that way. (D&C 132 begs for a well constructed critical study I think. Not sure who would want to tread those waters though.)

  • http://www.newcoolthang.com Jakob J

    aquinas, thanks for you cogent response. I agree with your point that in the polemical environment of competing theologies both sides may get backed into corners and take unnecessarily polarized positions. That certainly happens. I also think on this issue the evangelicals have the winning argument since the proof-texts we use from the Bible are taken out of context to support spirit-body birth.

    Your second point about Joseph’s theology is weaker, in my opinion. “Birth” has never been an ex nihilo creative event in Mormon thought. Physical birth is a process where a pre-existing spriit is clothed with a physical body. You cite Joseph’s teaching of eternally existing spirits as though this obviously argues against spirit birth but I don’t see the objection. The only kind of literal birth we are familiar with fits the patter of a pre-existing being taking a new body. This is, in fact, exactly how BH Roberts framed his notion of spirit birth with a pre-existent and uncreated “intelligence” being clothed with a spirit body. I think you assume too much when you assume Joseph’s teaching here is in conflict with the idea of spirit-body birth.

    As I have argued at length elsewhere, Joseph Smith used several words when talking about the uncreated part of mankind. It is the mind and the intelligence that are most definitely mentioned by Joseph as being eternal (in the KFD and D&C 93 especially). The relationship of mind to matter is not addressed by Joseph, so making assumptions about their relationship and attributing them to Joseph seems like overreaching to me. Joseph makes several statements that indicate he thought of spirits as having definite and unmorphable shape, but I am not aware of anywhere that he goes on record as saying that the human shape with ten fingers and ten toes (which seems to be a product of evolution) is an eternally existing form. I think there are a lot of very difficult problems raised by claiming that spirit form is eternal and I would not attribute that claim to Joseph. I think he left more wiggle room than you are suggesting. The idea that an eternal mind is somehow clothed with a spirit body does not seem to obviously contradict his theology as you have suggested.

    As to D&C 132, there is no iron clad proof-text in there, obviously, but I am merely suggesting that the ultimate basis and motivation for the ideas of spirit birth and heavenly mothers are found there. Put another way, I believe that the reason spirit birth persists in Mormon thought is tied to the theology expressed in D&C 132, with continuation of lives predicated on eternal marriage, etc.

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

    Jakob J, thanks for the opportunity to clarify my statements as to the first issue you’ve raised.

    As to the second issue, my intention in the post is to delineate problematic issues in explaining the development of spirit birth in the history of Mormon thought. I’ve outlined the scholarship that addresses this issue in my post: Joseph Smith’s Revelations on Preexistence and Spirits. Neither Blake Ostler nor Charles Harrell argue that Joseph Smith taught spirit birth. Richard Bushman also believes this was a later development. Historians want to avoid reading modern notions of spirit birth back into early Mormon texts in ways that early Mormons themselves did not interpret the text, being cognizant of exegetical history.

    You write: “The idea that an eternal mind is somehow clothed with a spirit body does not seem to obviously contradict his theology as you have suggested.” What I’m exploring is the historical development from one idea to the next. Accordingly, your articulation of the issue is anachronistic. The particular notion of “clothing” mind with a “spirit body” cannot be found in any of Joseph’s extant sermons or revelations. Now, Mormon philosophers and theologians might seek to offer reconciliations of various ideas, but the historian can only tell the story of the way Mormons reconciled these positions as evident in contemporary accounts. Offering anachronistic reconciliations would not be desirable history.

    My point, in this post, is to suggest challenges for future histories of Mormon thought and I believe this disconnect between Joseph’s cosmology and the radically different cosmology that developed immediately after him is one of those areas.

    Part of the purpose in referring to Paulsen and Bushman on this issue is to show that knowledgeable and well-respected scholars of Joseph Smith disagree on the history. How do we account for this? And how should historians tell this story? No doubt Terryl Givens will have to negotiate this issue in his upcoming volume but it is unclear what approach Givens will take to this controversial area.

    As to the actual merit of reconciliations and discussions on the nature of spirit bodies, I’d like to save those philosophical issues for the next post.

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

    WVS, interesting thoughts. I’d like to read such a study, but as you point out some topics resist treatment for a variety of reasons.

    Dane, that is interesting. Rodney Turner writes: “It is not enough to be a child of God; all mankind are children of God by virtue of spirit birth. But only those who enter into a valid covenant with Christ and are born again through the complete ordinance of baptism become his sons and daughters. (See Mosiah 27:25; 3 Ne. 9:17; Ether 3:14; Moro. 7:48; D&C 25:1.).” Rodney Turner, “Two Prophets: Abinadi and Alma,” in Studies in Scripture: Volume Seven, 1 Nephi to Alma 29, ed. Kent P. Jackson (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1987), 247.

    This is another approach in seeking to retain both adoption and spirit birth.

  • http://www.newcoolthang.com Jakob J

    aquinas, I think you are misunderstanding my objection. If you approach this from the standpoint of historical development (which is fine obviously) then what you are faced with in Joseph’s theology are lacunae.

    I am not trying to impose an anachronistic concept onto Joseph Smith. What I’m trying to point out is that in the statement I included from the post, you claim that these theological developments did not take into account Joseph’s cosmology or the texts of the restoration. I flatly disagree with that assessment. These developments are interesting to trace from a historical perspective; I am with you there. Where I disagree is in your assessment that they are in obvious conflict with Joseph’s cosmology and with the texts of the restoration. My claim is that to find them in conflict you must first fill in the lacunae in Joseph’s theology with your own speculations.

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

    Bravo Jakob!

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

    I think that’s right Jakob and that there are lots of ways to deal with these issues theologically while allowing it to be much vaguer if not outright undeveloped in Joseph’s thought.

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

    Jakob J, I do appreciate the comment. It seems we are somewhat talking past each other. To reiterate, I’m making “some tentative conclusions on the development of “spirit birth” based upon the state of the literature as I see it today.” Given the fact that I’ve chosen not to include a string of footnotes leading up to my conclusions this time, some uncertainty as to what literature I’m referring is understandable.

    Mormon historiography tends to illustrate that our views of Joseph Smith’s teachings have changed over time. Earlier studies of Joseph Smith’s thought tend to blend modern views back into the Nauvoo period. Take for example, T. Edgar Lyon, “Doctrinal Development of the Church During the Nauvoo Sojourn, 1839-1846.” BYU Studies 15 (Summer 1975):435-46. While it is significant in terms of the sophistication and acknowledgment of doctrinal development, I suspect that modern scholars would find some of Lyon’s claims to go beyond the historical evidence, in that some of the claims appear to be anachronistic. But of course modern scholars have the advantage of better sources. Beginning in the 1980s we really see an explosion in terms of Joseph Smith scholarship. First of which is the publication of Ehat and Cook’s Words of Joseph Smith in 1980. We then get Ostler (1982) and Harrell (1988) both extremely important works on historical development. Significant works, not only because of where they were published, but because they make prominent these differences between Joseph’s thought and later views. There are other important developments in the literature at this time I can’t outline here (not to mention the Joseph Smith Papers).

    Yet, consider Richard Bushman’s Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction (2008) and take note particularly of Bushman’s “Stories of Eternity” in his chapter titled “Cosmology.” Do you get a sense of the role that “spirit birth” plays in Joseph Smith’s cosmology as described by Bushman? What I’m trying to say is that the trajectory of the literature leads to this kind of convergence where the tension between spirit birth and Joseph’s cosmology becomes pronounced. What I’m suggesting is that as these distinctions become ever more prominent, it might be a challenge when telling the history of development of these ideas.

  • smb

    These are important topics to consider. I argue in a devotional piece I’m hoping to submit soon that the historical differences are actually relatively minor but that their later amplifications have become somewhat more significant. The more work on this the better, and I agree that Terryl’s treatment will be important on this topic.

    I would also draw attention to Jonathan’s important essay on adoption theology and liturgy after Joseph Smith’s death. The two essays are in production and are entitled: Jonathan A. Stapley, “Adoptive Sealing Ritual in Mormonism: Theology and Practice,” Journal of Mormon History 37.3 (Summer 2011): forthcoming and Samuel Brown, “Early Mormon Adoption Theology and the Mechanics of Salvation” in the same number.