'All spirit is matter'

D&C 131:7-8 commits the Church to a physical God and physical spirits, which invites physical questions it cannot answer.

What the Church claims

Spirit is refined matter; God the Father has a tangible body of flesh and bones.

Once the evidence is in, this claim: Contested. Nothing here shows the claim false, and nothing defends it either. D&C 131:7-8 makes spirit a kind of matter and God a body located in space, which raises ordinary physical questions about composition, location and energy that the Church has never addressed and that LDS philosophers answer in incompatible ways. Contested rather than weak: the doctrine is unworked rather than refuted.

The record

  • D&C 131:7-8: 'There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure'. D&C 130:22 gives the Father 'a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's'.
  • A 2017 Dialogue article argues Latter-day Saints 'probably aren't materialists' in the philosophers' sense, i.e. the verse need not entail physicalism.

The moving target

  • 1843-05: All spirit is matter.

The exchange

LDS philosophers, e.g. the 2017 Dialogue discussion

D&C 131 rejects Platonic immaterialism, not modern physics; 'matter' here is a broad category and spirit-matter may be undetectable by present instruments.

The answer: If spirit-matter interacts with brains and bodies it should in principle be detectable, and if it never is, the claim is unfalsifiable. A localized embodied God also sits uneasily with omnipresence and with hearing millions of simultaneous prayers, which pushes the real work onto an undefined 'light of Christ' (D&C 88) or Holy Ghost. Still, this is speculative metaphysics on both sides.

What they get right: Substance dualism has its own interaction problem; LDS monism is not obviously worse.

Latter-day Saint philosophers writing in Dialogue

Latter-day Saint monism is a serious metaphysical position with real advantages. It dissolves the interaction problem that has dogged Cartesian dualism for four centuries, and it treats embodiment as a good rather than a limitation.

The answer: The advantage is real, which is why this claim is contested rather than untenable. The cost is that the position stops doing the work it is credited with. If spirit-matter has no measurable mass, no energy, no interaction and no instrument that could detect it, and is known only by revelation, then it is the immaterial substance the doctrine was formulated to reject, wearing a different label. Section 131 buys its elegance with a claim about physics that it then exempts from physics, and 'matter too fine to be detected' has been the answer since 1843 with no progress toward detecting it.

What they get right: Nothing in physics rules out forms of matter not yet detected, and skeptics who treat the doctrine as refuted by current instruments are overclaiming.

Both cases at full strength

The skeptics' case

The verse is a hostage to fortune rather than a refutation: it makes claims that sound empirical (a finer kind of matter) while being insulated from any test. Its main argumentative use is cumulative - it is one more place where Nauvoo theology converts religious mystery into quasi-physical assertion, which then has to be quietly re-spiritualized.

The apologetic case

Monism avoids the mind-body interaction problem, takes embodiment seriously, and fits a universe of law. Nothing in physics rules out forms of matter we cannot presently detect.

What would change this

Any operational definition of spirit-matter.

Closely related

Sources

An independent project. Not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or with any organization cited here. Summaries are written here; short quotations are attributed and linked. Every page names its sources so that it can be corrected, and every page can be challenged.