Comments on: Brigham on spirit

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 03:53:57 +0000

Nice!

By: Matt W.

Matt W. — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 03:51:48 +0000

Yeah, I was hoping to do something similar for SMPT, but never got past titling it “When Souls didn’t have wings”.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 03:35:24 +0000

Thanks Matt, I appreciate it. The adoption paper is fairly well done. It will be published as either one or two articles, co-authored with Sam Brown. In the interim, Sam, Kathleen Flake and I will each be presenting on ritual adoption in a session at the forthcoming MHA in Independence.

On my long list of things to do, is a paper on the development of premortal doctrine or spirit birth or something.

By: Matt W.

Matt W. — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 00:55:17 +0000

Still the best post ever. J., If you see this, did that article on Adoption ever get published?

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 02:24:19 +0000

Cheers!

By: Clean Cut

Clean Cut — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:49:19 +0000

As usual, I’m late to all the important discussions. But I just have to say that I’m so glad that I’ve been able to read through all the comments and see all the different ideas through time as I try to work out my own understanding on this. Excellent, excellent strand here.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:55:41 +0000

I don’t think that human spirits are constrained to a specific form; and I think there is significant evidence for this. We know that the spirit of Jesus Christ appeared in a specific form in Ether. However, I am unaware that anyone would suggest that their premortal spirit looks like their mortal body. This would require a measure of predetermination that is, I believe, unacceptable to Mormonism. Consider, for example the case of the child born out of wedlock. So if we believe that post-mortal spirits look different than premortal spirits, we have already accepted the malleability of spirit form.

By: Mark D.

Mark D. — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:22:25 +0000

So if you lean towards (5), the question that follows is “If spirits have bodies, and are ontologically unitary (no parts), what if anything constrains (human) spirits to have two eyes and ten fingers? Platonic forms? personal preference?

By: Mark D.

Mark D. — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:07:07 +0000

My point is that if you reject (1)-(4) then (5) is a logical necessity. Either spirits have parts or they don’t. (1),(2),(3) are variations on the proposition that spirits have parts. (4) and (5) are variations on the proposition that spirits do not have parts, or the parts really aren’t “parts”.

One can say that the question is inconclusive of course, but to the degree we can say *anything* on the subject at all, it has a bearing on one of these five possibilities. So if you reject (4), then you are logically bound to either accept (5) or admit there is a possibility that one of the other options is correct. They are not independent questions.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:25:24 +0000

I think we don’t have enough information to say much about the materiality of spirits. All we know is that they are; but what that means isn’t particularly evident. That means that your 1 and 2 are baseless (unless you take a Orson Pratt or Brigham Young expansion). If we are to take Joseph Smith’s teachings as normative, then we also have to take the well attributed teaching in the KFD that “God never did have the power to create the spirit of man” and that the spirit and mind of man is eternal. Abraham shows that “spirit” and “intelligence” are the same thing and eternal, which usage was consistent with Joseph Smith. I consequently reject 3. I think Parley Pratt’s exposition on spirit bodies is fanciful at best; really, we don’t have any idea what it means that spirits have a material body. They are not material in any way that is consistent with any usage of the term. That said, I believe it is true; especially in the sense (which I think Joseph was getting at) that if something exists it can’t not exist (i.e., it can’t be immaterial). So 4 is out. 5 assumes that we can adequately show the nature of that spirit body, which I don’t think we can; however the point about ontology and identity is, I believe, consistent with Joseph’s teachings.