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? [Read more...]

Spiritual Birth: Challenges for Historians

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). [Read more...]