WHEN DOES THE SPIRITENTER THE BODY?Jeffrey E. Keller

Asimilar question wasaddressed on a nationallevel early in 1981, whenthe United States Senateconvened hearings todetermine when "human

life" begins. At issue was astatement in an anti-abortion billsponsored by Senator Jesse Helmswhich read, "Present day scientificevidence indicates a significantlikelihood that actual human lifeexists from conception."

Although several distinguishedscientists, philosophers, andtheologians spoke in thecongressional hearings on bothsides of the issue, the Senatecommittee was unable tosubstantiate Helms’s claimsregardivg scientific evidence. TheNational Academy of Sciencessubsequently declared thatHelms’s bill dealt "with a questionto which Science can provide noanswer." Leon E. Rosenburg ofthe Yale Medical School added, "Ibelieve that the notion embodiedin the phrase ’actual human life’ isnot a scientific one, but rather areligious, metaphysical one."(Science News, May 9, 1981, p. 293.)

As the original question implies,the religious, metaphysical issue of"human life" in Mormon theologymay boil down to the question ofwhen the spirit enters the body. If,as Mormons believe, physicaldeath is that moment when thespirit leaves the body, it followsthat a fetus is not yet alive in thefullest sense until iit unites with aspirit to form a living soul.

There are basically three periodswhen a :fetus could acquire itsspirit: 1) at conception, 2) at"quickening" (the first ~novementsof life felt by the mother, usuallyin the fourth month ofpregnancy), or 3) at birth.Interestingly, each of these threeperiods ]has had its. supportersamong the leaders of the Church.

The idea that the spirit entersthe embryo at the moment ofconception logically entails the

corollary that abortion istantamount to murder, with thesame eternal implications of killingan adult. While never directlyaddressing the issue of spirit-body,many leaders of the Church in themiddle to late 1800s equated pre-natal killing with infanticide. JohnTaylor, speaking of abortionists,wrote., "They are murderers andmurderesses of their infants ....and you that want them, takethem, and you that do will go withthem, and go to perdition withthem and l tell you that in thename of the Lord." (Journal ofDiscourses, 22:320, 1881). In 1884,George Q. Cannon stated, "They[abortionists] will be damned withthe deepest damnation; because itis the damnation of sheddinginnocent blood, for which there isno forgiveness" (JD, 26:14-15). Aslate as; 1916 Joseph Fielding Smithwrote, "It is just as much murderto de,~troy life before as it is afterbirth, although man-made lawsmay not so consider it; but there isOne who does take notice and hisjustice and judgment is sure"(’.Relief Societ~ May, azi~le, 3:367-68).Seven months later, the FirstPresidency gave their "unqualifiedendorsement" of Elder Smith’swriting. (RS Magazine, 4:68).

However, unlike other anti-abortion groups such as theCatholic Church, whichrecognized a fixed period of"ensoulment," the MormonChurch’s position has never beenderived from an assumed timewhen the spirit enters the body.Brigham Young also associatedabortion with infanticide,although not as explicitly as didJohn Taylor and George Q.Cannon (see ]D, 12:120-121); still,President Young did not believethat ~he spirit enters the bodyuntil the time of quickening,though he did not differentiatebetween abortion beforequickening and abortion afterquickening. (see Bush, "BirthControl Among the Mormons,"’

Dialogue, Autumn 1976, pp. 12-44,for a complete discussion of earlyattitudes towards abortion). Asquoted by Joseph F. Smith inDoctrines of Salvation (2:280-81),President Young stated, "Whenthe spirit leaves them ]mortalbodies] they are lifeless; and whenthe mother feels life come to her infant, itis the spirit en~ering the body preparatorb’to the immortal existence.’" (emphasisoriginal. See also JD 18:258). TheFirst Presidency of Joseph F. Smithwas likely referring to BrighamYoung when they wrote, "True itis that the body of man entersupon its career as a tiny germembryo, which becomes an infant,quickened at a certain stage by thespirit whose, tabernacle it is, andthe child, after being born,develops into a man." ("TheOrigin of Man," Messages of the FirstPresidency, vol. 4, p. 205). Ascriptural precedent for this viewmay be inferred from Luke 1:41,"’when Elizabeth heard thesalutation of Mary, the babe]John] leaped in her womb; andElizabeth was filled with the Holy,Ghost," although this scripturehas not been explicitly quoted forthis purpose..

Unfortunately, although"quickening" has been a popularconcept, there is no scientificphenomenon recognizable asquickening. The fetus begins tomove as soon as the biochemicalcontractile proteins actin andmyosin come together, and themother does not feel thismovement until months later.Perhaps in part because of this,modern Chu~rch authorities havenot publicly supported PresidentYoung’s hypothesis.

Interestingly, since JosephFielding Smith’s 1917 statement,~he Church has also rejected thenotion that abortion is murder. Inanswer to the question "isproduced abortion termed asmurder or not?" Elder David O.McKay wrote in 1934, "To thisquestion the Church has not madean authoritative answer. It does,however, condemn abortion as avery sinful act." (Letter to TienaNate.) Nearly forty years later theFirst Presidency affirmed thisposition:.As the matter :~tands, no definitivestatement has been made by the Lordway or another re~gardin,g the crime of.c~bortion. So far as is known, he has notlisted it alongside the crime of the

42 SUNSTONE / MARCH 1985

unpardonable sin and shedding innocentblc, od. That he has not done so wouldsuggest that it is not in that class of crimeand therefore that it will be amenable tothe laws of repentence and forgiveness.(Church News, 27 Jan, 1973, p. 7).

One possible reason whyabortion is not classed withmurder is the possibility that thespirit has not yet entered thebody. Not surprisingly, David O.McKay believed that the spiritenters the body at birth. In thesame letter quoted above, hewrote:

Undoubtedly the nearest approach wehm, e to definite knowledge on this subjectis the statement made by the Savior,3Nephi 1:13, wherein he said:"Tomorrow come I into the world.’ Thisindicates that the spirit takes possession ofthe body at birth. Life manifest in thebody before that time would seem to bedependent upon the mother.

President J. Reuben Clark, citingthe same scripture, similarlystated, "But it seems possible thatthe spirit may not be present in theembryo till at least shortly beforebirth, whether the birth be regularor premature." ("Man: God’sGreatest Miracle," BYU addressJune 21, 1954, reprinted inpamphlet form). Another scripturenot cited by the brethren that mayrefer to the spirit’s inhabitation ofthe body at birth is Moses 6:59,"... ye were born into the worldby’ water, and blood, and the spiritwhich I have made, and so becameof dust a living soul .... "

A second reason why abortion isviewed differently from murder isan idea propounded by BrighamYoung--that the union of bodyand spirit prior to birth, or evenshortly after birth, is reversible.As recorded in Wiiford Woodruff’sjournal, October 15, 1867,President Young said:

W,hen some people have little childrenborn at 6 cc-~ 7 months pregnancy & theylive but a few hours then die they blessthem (~c. but I dont do it for I think thatsuch a spirit has not a fair chance for Ithink that such a spirit will have a chanceaf occupying another Tabernacle anddeveloping itself.

Whether intentionally or not,Elder Bruce R. McConkie refutedBrigham Young’s sentiments aswell as indirectly supporting thenotion of spirit-body association atbirth when he recently wrote,"Mortality is fully upon us when

we first breathe the breath of life."(Ensign, April 1977, p. 3).

Despite the various opinionsvoiced by General Authorities onwhen the spirit enters the body, orperhaps because of them, the FirstPresidency of Joseph FieldingSmith’s era concluded in 1970:

We may say that there is no directrevelation upon the subiect of when thespirit enters the body; it has always been amoot question. That there is life in thechild before birth is an undoubted fact,but whether that life is the result of theaffinity of the child in embryo with thelife of its mother, or because the spirit hasentered it remains an unsolved mystery."(Letter to W. Dean Belnap, Feb. 22,~970.)

This admission, however, has inno way diminished the Church’sabhorrence of abortion. Indeed,although the Church did notdirectly address the SenateHearing on Human Life in 1981,previous editorials in the ChurchNews indicated the Church wouldsupport the proposition thathuman life exists from conception.A Church News editorial fromAugust 3. 1974, approvinglyquoted Sen. James Buckley of NewYork: "Anyone with the biologicalfacts knows that a fetus, from themoment of conception, is a livinghuman.’" (See also the CN editorialJanuary 1, 1975.) Elder James E.Faust supported this view in theApril 1975 general conference; atthe same time he explicitlydisassociated the concept of"human life" from any dependenceon a spirit-body doctrine:

Some say, as did the Supreme Court of theUnited States, that it is only a theory thathuman life is present from conception.This is contrary to insurmountablemedical evidence .... Because she feels it,every mother knows there is sacred life inthe body of her unborn babe. There is alsolife in the spirit, and some time beforebirth the body and spirit are united.When they do come together, we have ahuman soul. (Ensign, 5:27-29, May1975)

Three years later, PatriarchEldred G. Smith intimated for thefirst time since 1916 that abortionmay be murder, although he wasprobably speaking to the conceptof "human life" rather than spirit-body and did not intend hisremarks to represent a change inChurch policy. After quotingDoctrine and Covenants 132:19

("And if ye abide in my covenant,and commit no murder wherebyto shed innocent blood"), PatriarchSmith stated, "What do you thinkHe’s talking about? Is it possiblethat He was referring to abortion?Tlqink about it! Is there moreinnocent life than that of theunborn child? And why is murderreferred to when the Lord istalking about marriage?" (Ensign,May 1978, pp. 29-30).

It should be noted, however,that despite the sentimentsexpressed above that human lifeexists from conception, the fetushas never been accepted as havingfull individual rights by society ingeneral or the Church inparticular. For example, if humanlife truly begins at conception, theembryo, from the moment ofconception, would enjoy all of therights any individual has in oursociety, such as inclusion in theNational Census, and medical aidand Social Security paymentsunder Aid to Families withDependent Children. In the caseof a miscarriage, birth and deathrecords should be filed and thefetus buried in a cemetery as iscustomary for other, older,individuals. In the Church, such amiscarried fetus would be entitledto a name, a blessing and a burial,none of which are currently given.

From the perspective of themedical profession, the concept ofhuman life from conception is alsofraught with difficulties. First ofall, there is no consensus aboutwhen conception (the beginning ofpregnancy) actually occurs. Thedictionary definition of"conception," which presumablymost of the commentators quotedabove had in mind, usually refersto the moment when an egg isfertilized by sperm. However, themedical profession does notrecognize the beginning ofpregnancy until the dividing,developing egg implants itself inthe uterus some six days afterfertilization. This is the earliestpoint at which pregnancy can bedetected clinically. Thus, the Foodand Drug Administration labelsthe I.U.D., which works bypreventing implantation of thefertilized egg, as a contraceptive(preventing pregnancy) ratherthat as an abortifacient (inducingabortion). (To date the Church hasnot singled out the I.U.D. as being

MARCH 1985/SUNSTONE 43

less acceptable than other forms ofcontraception.) Other points when’conception" may occur are (1) attwo weeks, when the possibility oftwinning is past (thus no"individual" exists until then), or(2) when the fetus demonstratesawareness of or responsiveness toexternal stimuli, spontaneousmuscular movement, reflexiveaction o:r a positive brain scan(EEG). Any of these criteria would

NOTE: U.S. Senator lake Garn, (R) Utah, has reinstateda Constitutional amendment "to prohibit the practice [ofabortion] except when the life of the mother is threatened."

According to the release, Garn’s so-called "Human LifeAmendment" has been introduced in the past four Con,¢cressesand currently has twenty cosponsors.

Garn says he is "’disturbed by the ’outraxeous’ claims madeby many abortion proponants which would lead peoph’ tobelieve that the enactment of any human life amendment ’willresult in women bein,~ put in iail for having miscarria,~es. Weeven hear such extreme references as ’coerced maternity.""

"The crucial fact too often oc’erlooked in this debate is thatonce a woman becomes prey, nant, she already has a baby. Thehuman life was established at t,he moment of conception ....Medical amt biolo,gical science h’aches unequivocally that lifebegins a~ conception, not a [sic] birth.’"

Says Garn, "May people insist that the ri,~ht to choose isparamount even over a right to life. Aside fronl the obvious factthat the riy, ht to choose is mean.iny, less until the ri,ght to life hasbeen ,guaranteed there must be some sort of linlit on the type ofbehavior that can be justified by some all-encompassiny, riy, ht tochoose. ""

negate a finding of "death"according to the report of theAdHoc Committee of HarvardMedical School. (See Wardle andWood, A Lawyer Looks at Abortion,1982, chap. 2.)

No matter which definition ofconception is used, once a decisionby society or the Church is made

to recognize human life fromconception, any medical procedurewhich increases the rate ofmiscarriage could be viewed asinvoluntary manslaughter. Thiswould include amniocentesis, x-rays, cancer chemotherapy, andmedications for the mother. Aninteresting case along these linesinvolves the hydatidiform mole,which is a potentially cancerouscluster of cells sometimes found ina woman’s uterus. Removal of thismole theoretically could bemurder, as it is nothing more thana fertilized egg gone awry.

In conclusion, then, theChurch’s stand against abortionapparently does not derive from adoctrine fixing the time when thespirit enters the body. Further,although General Authoritieshave held various opinions aboutthe subject of spirit-body, no"orthodox" view exists in theChurch; it is a "moot question."An interesting corollary doctrinalpoint developed in the process isthat life can exist without directspiritual inhabitation, through"affinity" with another spirit, inthis case the mother’s, may berequired. Finally, although thefetus does not enjoy all of therights of other individuals in theChurch, the Church has generallyaffirmed its right to live.

]EFFREY E. KELLER will ,~raduate ~rom theUniversity o[ Utah medical school in Maythis yec~r. He is the father or two."Queries and Comnlents" welcomes su,~,~eshonsfor topics from readers. Contact Gary Ber~ifera,"Queries (~ Contnlents" editor, in careSLINSTONE.

MORMONSAND THELAWMartha Bradley

New endeavors always seemto demand some sort of ajustification. In this case,it’s easy. Every year sev-eral fine articles are pub-

~i~!.~:~i~ ]ished on various aspects ofMormonism and religion. Theycome in a variety of differentforms. Some are historical, someare sociological. Others are simplythe fascinating ramblings of aninteresting mind.

What is almost always true,however, is that many reallyimportant articles slip by un-noticed or unabsorbed because wewere either too busy to read themor perhaps because they appearedin journals t]hat we did not haveaccess to.

On the other hand, sometimessomething we read grabs ourinterest, and we want more--butdon’t know where to go to get it.

This new .column will attempt tosatisfy both these concerns. Firstof all we want to call certain out-standing studies to your attention,giving a short synopsis of themost important and intriguingpoints that the author has pre-sented. And next, we’ll provide ashort bibliography of other inter.-esting articles that have been writ..-lien on similar subjects. Hopefullyit will both help you and inspireyou to do additional in-depthreading.

Allen, James B. "’Good Guys’ Vs.’Good Guys’: RudgerClawson, John Sharp, andCivil Disobedience inNineteenth-Century Utah."Utah Historical Quarterly 48(Spring 1980): 148-74.

In "Good Guys" vs. "GoodGuys" James B. Allen addressesthe paradox faced by nineteenth--,century Mormons in the wake ofantipolygamy legislation. He askswhat conditions justify disobe-

44 SUNSTONE / MARCH 1985

dience to civil laws when theyappear to be morally reprehensibleat the same time assuming theimportance of upholding andhonoring the law?

The policy of civil disobedienceas announced by John Taylor in1879 was part of a greaterAmerican tradition of dissentamong those who found certainlaws offensive to fundamentalvalues and beliefs. The Mormonsargued for a higher law as theonly true basis for judging thevalue of any single piece oflegislation.

Allen suggests that the dualityirnplicit in this question lines up"good guys" against "good guys"on opposite sides of the issue--using the examples of RudgerClawson and John Sharp to illus-trate how the Church dealt withboth.

Rudger Clawson was the firstpolygamist to be tried under theEdmunds Act. He adopted theloyal mainline Mormon approachwhich was to avoid confrontationbut when caught accept convictionwithout denying the principle. Inso doing he received the warm andconsistent support of Churchleaders and in the years imme-diately following ascended to aleadership position in the Churchhierarchy as President of the Quo-ru:m of the Twelve Apostles.

]By contrast ]ohn Sharp becamea "dissenter from the dissenters."He chose in the confrontation togive up the principle rather thancontinue to disobey the law. Sharpwas looked upon by many as atraitor to the cause and found hisChurch position affected by hisdecision to succumb. He was even-tually asked to step down from hisposition as bishop where he hadserved for more than twentyyears.

For both men the question wasone of conscience. Each evidencedthe fact that private and publicmorality are for many one in thesarne and that one’s personalintegrity rests upon the complexrelationship between one’s actionsancl one’s sense of right. Finally,Allen suggests that the moralrightness or wrongness of anydecision is not always absolute andthat one should reserve judgmentand carefully examine motives,intentions, and integrity.

Cannon, Kenneth L. II. "Mountain

Common Law:’ The Extra-legal Punishment of Seduc-ers in Early Utah." UtahHistorical Quarterly 51 (Fall1983): 308-27.

When Howard Egan killed hiswife’s seducer and the father ofher illegitimate child he was exe-cuting extralegal measures famil-iar to many Americans whoassumed that vigilante action bestserved justice.

According to Kenneth CannonUtah’s Mormon maiority con-doned such measures. The cases ofthose who killed seducers, as wellas editorial reaction in the press,attest to the existence of con-tinued support for such extralegalactivities. In fact, in the periodbetween 1851 and 1877, therewere no convictions of men whohad extralegally punished a rela-tive’s seducer or rapist.

As defense attorney in the Egancase, young George A. Smithvoiced the justification for theextralegal punishment of seducers,a principle of "mountain commonlaw," when he said: "The principle,the only one, that beats andthrobs through the hearts of theentire inhabitants of this territory,is simply this: The man who se-duces his neighbor’s wife must die,and her nearest relative must killhim!"-

Although there was not uni-versal approval of the practice,many prominent community andChurch leaders seemed to supportextralegal measures to compensatefor the inadequacies of legal stat-utes and institutions. Mormonhistorian 13. H. Roberts found thefrequent turning to the "un-written law" a tribute to the "highsense of honor, the virility, thestrength, and the courage of thecommunity’s manhood."

Cannon says that although vigi-lante justice in territorial Utahwas similar to the experience inother parts of the country--it didattempt to bring order to societyand to control crime--for theMormons controlling seductionhad the additional benefit of beinggood public relations. In a timewhen many in the nation wereaccusing the Mormon patriarchyof licentiousness, this intoleranceof seduction seemed to be tangibleevidence of the high moral stan-dards of the Church.

This article won the Dale L.Morgan Award for the best schol-arly article published in UtahHistorical Quarterly during 1984.

Linford, Orma. "The Mormons,the Law, and the Territoryof Utah." The American ]ournalof Legal History 23 (July 1979):213-35.

Throughout its history Americahas had a tradition of legalismwhich holds a special regard forthe law as both idea and a systemof institutions. As one legal histo-rian put it "People in the UnitedStates were anxious to reducepublic issues to legal issues, and tojustify their notions of policy byappeal to legality. Behind suchthinking was a widespread popularconviction that in a meaningfulsense men had ’rights’ which theycould go to court to enforce."

In this article Orma Linford asksseveral questions about theMormons and their relationship tothe law. How did the Mormonsreiect this tradition of legalism andwhy? How was Mormon Utah dif-ferent from the rest of the coun-try? What was the legal systemcreated by the Church in Utah?

By the time the Saints hadsettled in the Great Basin, theyhad developed an elaborate philo-sophy about the law, lawyers, andlegal institutions. Much of thisthinking was developed throughexperience. The Latter-day Saintchurch’s history of confrontationwith the law began with theProphet Joseph Smith, who wasaccused of various crimes, includ-ing imposture, banking lawobstruction, treason, murder,arson, robbery, and a number ofother felonies. In Kirtland, inNauvoo, and wherever theysettled, the Saints seemed to invitetrouble and experienced repeatedlegal confrontations. They evendiscovered the insufficiency ofcourt systems led by their ownmen, following laws of their ownmaking.

In territorial Utah the Mormonmajority began to work outsidethe legal parameters of the lawand created parallel law enforce-ment bodies with their own iuris-diction, authority, and laws whichclearly constituted a challenge tofederal authority.

The law and the legal institu-

MARCH 1985/SUNSTONE 45

tions which made it possible forthe rest of American society tohave their civil rights and libertiessecured did not in the same waymeet the needs of the Mormons.The resulting concept of law wasquite different from the tradi-tional American interpretation ofu,e rule of law as a protector ofprivate rights and a regulator ofcivil society. To the Mormons,individual rights were subordinateto the good of the group. Theestablishment of order had alreadybeen accomplished through God’slaws. To them, laws, both spiritualand temporal, were created for thegrowth of the kingdom. TheMormons’ special contempt forjudges and for the law itself wasdirectly in opposition to the typicalnineteenth-century Americanviewpoint.

Linford concludes that this rela-tionship was also different becauseof Latter-day Saint idealism,utopianism, and the completemerging of Church and statewhich in the rest of the countrywere so ,carefully separated.

SELECTED WORKSAllen, James B. "’Good Guys’ vs.

’Good Guys’: RudgerClawson, John Sharp, andCivil Disobedience inNineteenth-century Utah."Utah HistoricaI Quarterly 48(Spring 1980): 148-74.

Cannon, Kenneth L. II. "MountainCommon Law:’ The Extra-legal Punishment of Seduc-ers in Early Utah." Utah His-torical Quarterly 51 (Fall 1983):308-27.

Church, A1 and Janice Perry. "TheLong Arm of the Lawyer."Utah Holiday, February 1979,26-35.

Dyer, Robert G. "The Evolution ofSocial and Judicial AttitudesTowards Polygamy." UtahBar Journal 5 (Spring 1977):213-35.

Ellsworth, Paul. "Mobocracy andthe Rule of Law: AmericanPress Reaction to theMurder of Joseph Smith."BYU Studies 20 (Fall 1979):71-82.

Galliher, J. F. and L. Basilick."Utah’s Liberal Drug Laws:Structural Foundations aridTriggering Events." SocialProblems 26 (1979): 284-97.

Gardner, Martin R. "Illicit Legis-lative Motivation as Suffi-.cient Condition for Unco~-stitutionality under theEstablishment Clause--ACase for Consideration: TheUtah Firing Squad." Washiny~-ton University Law Quarterly(Spring 1979): 435-99.

Gardner, Martin R. "Mormonismand Capital Punishment: aDoctrinal Perspective, Pastand Present." Dialogue 12(Spring 1979): 9-26.

Gee, Elizabeth D. "Justice for Allor for the ’Elect’? The UtahCounty Probate Court,1855-72." Utah HistoricalQuarterly 48 (Spring 1980):129-47.

Grime, Mary Cochran. "ChiefJustice Daniel Gantt of theNebraqka Supreme Court:Letters and Excerpts fromhis Journal, 1835-1878."Nebraska History 61 (Fall1980): 280-309.

Linford, Orma. "The Mormonsand the Law--The PolygamyCases." Utah Law Review 9(Winter 1964): 213-35.

Linford, Orma. "The Mormons,the Law, and the Territoryof Utah." American Journal ofLegal History 23 (July 1979):213-35.

Moody, Eric N. "Nevada’s Anti-Mormon Legislation of 1887and Southern Idaho Annexa-.tion." Nevada Historical SocietyQuarterly 22 (Spring 1979):21.

Schweikart, Larry. "The MormonConnection: Lincoln, theSaints, and the Crisis ofEquality." Western HumanitiesReview 34 (Winter 1980):1-22.

Swenson, Raymond T. "Resolu-tion in Civil Disputes byMormon EcclesiasticalCourts .... " Utah Law Review23 (1978): 573-95.

Wells, Merle W. "Law in theService of Politics: Anti-Mormonism in ldaho Terri-tory." Idaho Yesterdays 25(Spring 1981): 131-54.

Winder, Lori. "LDS Position onthe ERA: An HistoricalView." Exponent II 6 (Winter1980): 6-7.

RICK GRUNDER - BOOKSsource

Early Mormon Background and ParallelsFrcqucnt catalogucs and lists issued in Mormonism to 1850 and

Gc’neral rare books & n~anuscripts, early medieval to twentieth oenturv

915 MAXWELL TERRACE o BLOOMINGT()N, INDIANA 474()1

¯

46 SUNSTONE / MARCH 1985