1. Precisely what is meant here is a bit mysterious. If Pratt is referring to chemical content of food becoming part of the consuming organism, then he may be speaking of current scientific speculation. Evidently the importance of the issue derived from the resurrection. Apparently it was thought that the resurrection was a literal gathering of materials that last formed the body. If the stuff that formed one body had become a part of another then to whom does it belong? Joseph states that the essential principles of one body do not become part of another. He does not tell us what a "fundamental principle" may be.

If Joseph believed in what is termed "extreme resurrection," that is, that the resurrected body contains only and exactly that matter found in the corpse of the person resurrected, he becomes involved in the "two-body" paradox. A moldering body in the sea for example is consummed by some animal who is in turn consummed by another person, say. That chemistry becomes part of the receiving person who might die then. To whom does the chemistry belong in extreme resurrection? Joseph's claim, if true would avoid such a paradox. However, such a claim is patently false. Human metabolism certainly allows for the uptake and incorporation of injested chemicals, indeed many medical tests depend on this process. Moreover, human transplants from dead donors make whole cell structures a part of the receiving person. In some sense, DNA structure is unique to each organism, however, and even a transplant is still regarded as foreign by the host. In that sense, there is a permanent distinction between one body and another. The question of twins however suggests that Joseph's "fundamental parts" is something else entirely. The point for Joseph seems to be that whatever transfer may take place between two bodies, it will not impede the resurrection of the body. Joseph's and Orson's points speak to the thought of the times (John Locke, Charles Buck, Thomas Dick, etc.).

Just as statements about "spirit" being matter are impossible to interpret at present in the context of modern physical theory, so we must wait for a fuller explanation of these statements to establish a correspondence with current scientific understanding, if that is possible.