Comments on: Only Begotten in the Flesh

By: Clark

Clark — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:59:28 +0000

I think Mormon theology is flexible enough to adopt many views. While the “God of the philosophers” has tended to be disparaged by Mormon thinkers I have met folks who adopt a more traditional view of God. There has actually been a movement the past decade or so to “toss away” a lot of accumulated theological speculation since Nauvoo — typically characterized by a strong skepticism towards readings of the King Follet Discourse and the related Sermon in the Grove. Blake Ostler’s clearly the most obvious example of this although you can find elements of it with recent attempts to engage with Evangelicals. (Such as some of Stephen Robinson’s work)

The problem with an ontological first cause is how to deal with humans who has some aspect which is typically seen as co-eternal with God. I’ve not seen any modern thinker deal with that. Although there are ways in the past that thinkers have engaged with it. The Pratts before the statements by Joseph Smith about spirits being material adopted a view akin to neoPlatonic emergent theories. That is individuals spirits were literally made out of God’s spirit and thus are one with them in some sense. Pratt moved away from this view towards his “spiritual atom” view. However my sense is that this view was popular in the early Nauvoo era even if it really hasn’t been since. I’m honestly surprised more thinkers haven’t reconsidered it.

By: Mike Burke

Mike Burke — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 01:20:35 +0000

I don’t know where to post this, but this blog seems like the place to ask the question.

Is there room in Mormon thought for an ontological cause (or source) for all things?

Could God, matter, spirit, and intelligence be related somehow (to some ontological first cause)?

By: Clark

Clark — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:31:41 +0000

But do we need to have a brain to have a mind? That is aren’t there other material structures that could do the same thing? Perhaps better?

As to your second point, of course I agree our bodies will be like his. The question is what that means.

By: Mark D.

Mark D. — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:08:10 +0000

If a resurrected body can do just fine without a particular “biological” function, does it make any sense to retain the organs, cells, and proteins that make that function possible?

The straightforward answer is no, there are some functions a resurrected body cannot do without, otherwise no one would need a body at all. The brain comes to mind. If we can be full blown “persons” without a brain, then we have no reason to have one.

My sense though is that spiritual is opposed by him to natural in the sense of people who listen to the spirit are spiritual

I agree that is at least half of what he meant. Philip. 3:21 implies a different half, as does nearly every account of an angelic visitation ever recorded.

By: Clark

Clark — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:37:22 +0000

Yes, but I’m not sure one can draw too much from that for several reasons.

1. for most resurrected beings most of the matter of their bodies will be long gone

2. removing the body was to emphasize that he was resurrected. Even though given (1) clearly a resurrected body need not use the same matter.

3. I don’t think Jesus’ wounds imply much either unless we think someone who died in a fire will be resurrected looking like Freddy Kruger.

By: John Mansfield

John Mansfield — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:45:30 +0000

A couple thoughts to throw out and see what others do with them:

1) Jesus’s mortal body disappeared from the tomb.

2) When presenting himself after resurrection, Jesus demonstrated the wounds that he died with.

By: BrianJ

BrianJ — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:10:40 +0000

Good point about evolution: it’s what ‘designed’ our current bodies, but there’s really no way for evolution to account for immortal, resurrected bodies (at least not through natural selection, etc.)

By: Clark

Clark — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:47:40 +0000

Brian, an other way to think about it is to ask if what is important is the function, capabilities and so forth, why do we assume we have to do that only in a single way? Especially when that way (our evolved bodies) aren’t exactly that well designed. (Say the human eye which really is a mess in some ways and could easily be better designed) Once you accept that why not just say a resurrected body would be better if designed rather than evolved. i.e. make it stronger, with better senses, less prone to damage, and so forth.

Mark, the Aquinas solution is clever. Basically an Aristotilean form that is also a substance. I don’t buy it for a second, mind you. But it is quite clever. Certainly I agree Paul doesn’t mean something abstract like the neoPlatonists or Thomists do. (Especially when you consider his audience is more likely filled by Stoics rather than Platonists) My sense though is that spiritual is opposed by him to natural in the sense of people who listen to the spirit are spiritual. So a spiritual body is one in which all those pesky desires and instincts we now associate with the structure of the brain are replaced. An extreme view of this would be someone who was once bi-polar suddenly having a “brain” that isn’t bi-polar. (And once again one could ask why one would need to think with a brain based upon cells, hormones and neurons rather than some other substance to think with)