In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul thought like a Stoic and a Jew combined; for him the goal was discarding the flesh body in the resurrection, which he describes as a seed being planted and the shell discarded while a new non-flesh body emerges. Here is how the biblical scholar James Tabor describes Paul's view of the resurrection:
Paul makes clear that in Christian resurrection the body is left behind like an old change of clothing, to turn to the dust, and the spirit is “reclothed” with a new spiritual body. He compares the physical body to a temporary tent, and the new body is a permanent house (2 Corinthians 5:1-5). He even throws in a polemic against the Greek Platonic view of the “unclothed” or disembodied immortal soul—he says our desire is not to be naked, which is the state of death before resurrection, but to be clothed again!
(Source)
According to Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Paul was influenced by Stoicism's metaphysics and philosophy. So Paul believed that you do not "take off" your flesh body and "put on" a Platonist body, but instead you put on a new pneumatic body (influenced by Stoicism). What is clear is that Paul did not believe the body of flesh (composed of earthly matter) could enter Heaven. As he writes in 1 Corinthians 15.50 (KJ21):
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
As Tabor points out, Paul disagreed with the Greek Platonic view of the unclothed or disembodied immortal soul, nevertheless he maintained in many ways the typical Platonist attitude: that there were pure, uncorrupted, and perfect platonic Forms (including non-flesh bodies) in the sky; and the earth was the realm of the imperfect, dirty, corrupt, clay of flesh. Paul's solution then was to replace the flesh body (earthly matter) with a body composed of pure pneuma, literally meaning air or wind but from a Stoic perspective was viewed as a spiritual material substance that was not composed of earthly matter. The goal was to replace the flesh body with a supernatural breathy/pneumatic body that was no longer controlled by the desires of the flesh. Hence, in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul encourages celibacy for widows and virgins and tolerates marriage among those who can't control their sensual desires. For more details see Platonism and Paul? Posted by Jacob J. Prahlow (May 22, 2015). Also see Paul and his use of Greek Philosophy at biblethingsinbibleways.
Early Christianity was a martyrdom sect within Judaism. The Pauline ideal path of celibacy-to-martyrdom made sense because the "pure spirit" was at odds with the "flesh body." In the article, "Dying we live"(2 Cor. 6.9): discipleship and martyrdom in Paul, author Paul Middleton discusses Pauline passages, to show that Paul promoted dying a martyr (if one were given the opportunity). This is why Paul said to die is gain. To discard the flesh body and to be "re-clothed" in a non-flesh spiritual/pneumatic body, was the ultimate goal.
Paul was an apocalyptist and he envisioned an imminent return of Christ when all mortal flesh bodies would be annihilated. This is why you needed to literally or mystically die in baptism and be possessed by the spirit of Christ (turning you into a pneumatic body) so you would not be annihilated in the second coming of Christ. So it made sense for him to promote the discarding of the flesh body since he was firmly convinced that the final apocalypse (end of all mortal life) would occur in his lifetime. There's no need to plan for the future and have a family and focus on the joys of sensuality in the flesh when all mortal flesh would soon be annihilated. In fact, respected Bible scholar E.P. Sanders, argues in his 2008 talk, Is Paul's Legacy Relevant Today?, that Paul would probably not have been so strict on young people to remain virgins and celibate if he knew the second coming was not actually imminent. Sanders points out that young people today are not getting married as young as they did in Paul's day; and if Paul knew that people today would be remaining single (and not married) often into their late twenties, he might have had a different attitude about sex.
Paul saw the human body of flesh as an obstacle to union with Christ. Since Christ was returning from the skies at any minute, it made sense to describe his followers as virginal brides to their husband Christ at his soon arrival. Within Paul's dualistic mindset, flesh and spirit were opposed. Through the ritual of baptism the Pauline convert's flesh body had died and they were possessed by Christ and implanted with a new pneumatic body. As he writes in Colossians 3: 8-10 (RSV, words in italics my own for emphasis):
8 But now put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and foul talk from your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old nature with its practices 10 and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.
And in Galatians 5:16 (RSV):
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh.
Paul allowed sex so you don't "burn with desire" being still stuck in your human nature (flesh); but he promoted a higher ideal of celibacy and asceticism: the separating the flesh from the spirit. In Paul's dualistic worldview, the spirit and flesh are opposed. As he writes in Galatians 5:17 (NRSV):
For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want.
In order to liberate his Gentile converts from the coming apocalypse -- which Paul thought was going to happen in his lifetime -- Paul wanted to liberate his saints (or "holy ones") as he called them from the impulse to have sex with pagan prostitutes in Corinth (which was the sin of idolatry); so he encouraged celibacy as the highest ideal. Could it be that this is a long-term mistake (based on what we know now that Christ did not return as expected) but perhaps it had short term utility (in that it enabled early Christians to better learn how to exercise self-control and work on their inner character)?
I need to however be clear that in my analysis above I am not saying that Paul hated sex. In the article Maybe Paul Didn’t Hate Sex: A Response to Stephen Patterson, William O. Walker, Jr. makes the case that all this does not mean that Paul completely denounced the healthy sensuality that can occur in marriage. He just wished that his followers would remain as he is (celibate) due to the circumstances of the impending apocalypse and/or perhaps because of the unique cultural circumstances in Corinth (where there was the practices of incest and idolatrous pagan prostitution). However, if a member in Corinth was unable to accept the calling of celibacy, Paul did speak favorably of sensuality within marriage, including encouraging spouses to not deprive the other of sexual satisfaction (see 1 Corinthians 7:3-5). Walker points out that Paul spoke favorably of his married followers and in 1 Corinthians 9: 5
Paul indicates that “the other apostles,” “the brothers of the Lord,” and “Cephas” are married and suggests that they are accompanied by their wives as they engage in the work of the churches. Indeed, this verse could even be seen as expressing Paul’s own wish that he might be accompanied by a wife.
Walker also points out:
In First Corinthians 7, Paul does not call for the dissolution of marriages, as one might expect if he really hates sex. Quite to the contrary, he urges that marriages be preserved if possible— even marriages between believers and nonbelievers (1 Cor 7: 10– 24, 39). ...
… In First Corinthians 7: 7, Paul appears to regard both the celibate state and the married state as gifts from God: “I wish all people were as I myself am; but each one has his or her own gift, one of one kind and one of another.”Again, this is difficult to reconcile with the view that Paul hates sex.
Conclusion
In my judgment, an examination of all of the relevant evidence by no means indicates unambiguously that Paul hated sex. On the one hand, he clearly hated porneia, and, in one passage (First Corinthians 7), he expressed a preference for the celibate state, spoke of marriage as a safeguard against porneia, and suggested that there were pragmatic reasons for remaining unmarried. On the other hand, he did not call for the dissolution of marriages; he spoke of the importance and even necessity of sexual relations between married spouses; he appears to have associated marriage (and thus, presumably, sex) with such terms as “purity,”“holiness,” and “honor”; he speaks highly of couples (presumably married and thus engaged in sexual relations) who were active leaders in the churches; and, noting that other leaders in the churches are married, he at least hints that he himself might like to be accompanied by a wife as he carries out his responsibilities as an apostle. In short, the evidence regarding Paul’s attitude toward sex is mixed.
So it is important that one not immediately jump to the conclusion that Paul completely hated sex. Paul’s attitude towards sex is mixed, as Walker points out. However it should also be noted that most scholars think that Paul was celibate and not married. For another point of view different from Walker's, see What Early Christians Thought about Marriage and Sex by Spencer McDaniel; where McDaniel argues that Paul was in fact celibate and that yes and there were married disciples but the ultimate ideal was celibacy. So much so that there were later Christian writings like The Acts of Paul and Thekla, that promoted celibacy among devout Christians. Meanwhile the early church fathers in large part promoted denying the bodily sexual pleasures and promoted celibacy.
In the article How views on priestly celibacy changed in Christian history (September 5, 2018) we read:
As a a scholar of early Christianity, I know that Scriptural interpretations are always dynamic; Scripture is read and understood by different Christians in different time periods and places. So, it is not surprising that a short time later, Paul’s writings found new meaning as asceticism – the practices of self-control that included fasting, celibacy, and solitude –began to spread within Christianity.
A second-century expansion on the story of Paul, The Acts of Paul and Thecla, a largely fictional story about Paul’s missionary efforts in what is now modern Turkey, casts Paul primarily as a preacher of self-control and celibacy. In this story, Paul blesses “those who have wives as if they have them not.”
Such a phrase may sound strange to modern readers. But as monasticism grew within Christianity, some married Christian couples were faced with a problem: They did not want to divorce their spouses, because Scripture spoke against divorce. And yet they wanted to choose the life of celibacy. So these Christians chose to “live as brother and sister,” or “to have wives as if they had them not.” ...
So what is clear is that the Pauline passages I have quoted have been interpreted by Protestantism through an Augustinian Lens. So Joseph Smith was encountering a Protestant culture that interpreted Paul's writings as the impure Flesh against the pure platonic Forms.
Joseph Smith as revelator was also dealing with a new set of circumstances which Paul did not experience. Joseph Smith was not living in Corinth and dealing with the fear of idolatry from members interacting with pagan cult prostitutes. Smith did not grow up being influenced by Hellenism and Platonism like Paul did. Smith grew up a 19th century American. Paul's expectation of the end of the mortal world in his lifetime was an incorrect expectation. Regardless of what Paul really thought about sex, Paul's mindset did lead to the first Christians practicing celibacy for centuries and forming monastic orders in expectation of the imminent end of the mortal world. Smith simply did not have this monastic celibacy-driven mindset.
Just as Paul searched the scriptures and used midrashic methods, Joseph also searched the scriptures and was inspired to return to the original Hebrew mindset that the flesh body was good. Joseph Smith did not replace Paul's core ideas but did expand upon them with a more updated scientific worldview. To use a computer analogy, Joseph upgraded Paul's Stoic and Platonic software by declaring flesh to be refined spirit matter (D&C 131: 7), and God himself is a spirit enfleshed (D&C 130: 22). These theogical upgrades occurred in the 1840s after Smith underwent his own line upon line progression from a typical Protestant to more of a Spiritual Naturalist. I discuss this in more detail in my blog post: The Nauvoo Era and the Sensual-Body & The Puritan-Body of Today's Institutional Mormon Church.
When Joseph Smith dictated “the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam” (Mosiah 3:19), he was simply projecting Pauline thought into the text of the Book of Mormon (published in 1830). Compare 1 Corinthians 2:14 (KJV):
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Another example of how much Joseph Smith was clearly influenced by Paul's platonism early on, is how we see that Paul wrote in the New Testament, “For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace” (Romans 8:6); and so being clearly influenced by Pauline thought, Joseph then has the character Jacob in the Book of Mormon preach the exact same thing nearly word for word: “Remember, to be carnally-minded is death, and to be spiritually-minded is life eternal” (2 Nephi 9:39).
Joseph Smith composed The Book of Mormon in his early twenties, while being heavily influenced by Evangelical Protestantism (many LDS Scholars acknowledge this). He would later override Paul's Platonism by mixing it with the science of his day and the early Hebraic pro-body attitude.
Joseph did not reject Paul or replace Paul but simply added to Paul's midrashic brilliance in the 1840s, with Joseph's own Americanized midrashic brilliance and science-based upgrade. Joseph wasn't the only one to upgrade Paul, as biblical scholars point out that many of the letters and Epistles attributed to Paul are not actually written by Paul. In other words, many later Christian writers upgraded Paul's ideas and claimed their work was written by Paul because their ideas would carry more weight if they claimed it was composed by Paul rather than themselves. For more details see Forged by Bart Ehrman.
Christians continued to upgrade Paul for centuries in order to make his original midrashic genius better fit their modern times. For details on the growing amendments and the upgrades to Paul's ideas within the Protestant tradition, see Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices by George Barna and Frank Viola.
In his book Wrestling the Angel, LDS author Terryl Givens points out in Chapter 6 (subtitled Monism), that Smith rejected the philosophical trend of dualism (lasting from Plato to Paul to today) and presented instead the philosophical and theological union of spirit and matter. Smith thus had much in common with Spinoza's substance monism. Givens discusses various Christian philosophers who agreed with this type of monism. As Givens puts it, the trend of "platonic privileging of intellect over physicality" to "the Pauline elevating of spirit over flesh ..." were the standard philosophies of Protestantism and traditional Western dualism. Smith reversed this dualism with his material monism so that the physicality of the body was combined with the intellect, and spirit and flesh were merged. Smith proclaimed the enfleshment of God the Father and through his material monism he divinized both flesh and spirit.
In his book The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt points out that Ancient Greek philosophers, from Plato onward to later Kant and beyond, deified Reason and demonized the Passions. Western philosophy has been doing the same ever since. Haidt refers to this trend as the rationalist delusion in that it separates the spirit from the flesh or the intellect from the instinctual passions. Haidt points out that unlike Plato, Thomas Jefferson was more correct when he taught that reason and the passions should be co-rulers. The book Descartes Error shows that our decisions are made via a combination of our "gut feelings" and reasoning. The rationalist delusion is the rejection of the scientific findings supporting the social intuitionist model with its continued worship of reason; as if we were frontal lobes only, just brains-on-a-stick.
Smith did not have access to Haidt's research, but I think he intuited these truths (of modern science) that bodily passions and the intellect are intertwined. To try to separate consciousness from the body, our mind from our passions, is to not understand the science of biology. Paul was simply limited in his understanding, he really believed that there was an alien force possessing people. If he had been educated in neuroscience and had a knowledge of our paralimbic system and basal ganglia, he would have been better able to understand that the desires and passions of his organically evolved body are not caused by a "sin virus" possessing his limbs; but are evolved instincts that actually aided in the survival of our species through the process of evolution.
Here is how the website for Total Life Ministry explains Paul's ancient worldview in regards to spirit possession and Sin (words in bold and underlined, my own for emphasis):
The seventh chapter of Romans makes it clear that not only have all sinned, but also, all have a principle of sin dwelling within them. This principle of sin is present from conception. It is an inheritance from Adam. It works in the fleshly body and mind (Ephesians 2:3) to bring forth sinful thought, speech, and deeds, and to produce the fruit of sin, which is death. Paul describes it as "a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my [redeemed] mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members" (Romans 7:23 NASV). ...With Paul, they cry out, "Wretched man that I am!" (Romans 7:24 NASV).
… A common science fiction theme illustrates the problem of sin dwelling in us. Sin is like an evil alien being that has taken up residence in a human body, working evil and destruction through it. Once the alien enters the person's body, no power can remove it. The alien and the human become one entity whose works are evil. The only remedy is death. Kill the host organism and thus render the invader harmless by removing the body through which it operates.
God never intended for sin to dwell in humans. But Adam opened the door to sin by his choice to disobey God (Romans 5:12,19). Sin entered in and has subsequently been passed down to each generation. …
… Because we deserve death anyhow, God's easiest solution to the problem of sin dwelling in us would be to simply kill off each of us as soon as we first commit sin. This would accomplish two things: (1) justice would be served; (2) the alien principle of sin would be rendered powerless, at least in regards to the potential destruction it would have worked through the now dead individual if he had continued living.
But, God ... In His wisdom … sent His Son, Jesus, to die in our place. … Thus we are justified in God's sight through the blood of His Son, … But the alien doesn't go away; it still lives in us. Sin still dwells in our bodies. … Remember, the alien can only be rendered powerless by killing the body it works through. We will not be rid of the principle of sin dwelling in our members until either our earthly body dies and goes into the grave, or Jesus returns and changes our mortal body "into conformity with the body of His glory" (Philippians 3:20-21). …
So what do we do while we still dwell in our mortal bodies? … He pronounces: "For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God" (Colossians 3:3 KJV). No matter that we still live in a body infected with sin. God says that we were "in Christ" when he hung on the cross and died. … Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death....we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death..." (Rom 6:3-5 NASV). ….If I am dead, it follows that the alien, i.e., the principle of sin, cannot work through me. I am not available to be used by it, and therefore, the alien's power--its ability to stir up lusts and passions within--is broken. Paul says we were crucified in Christ for this purpose, "that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin." (Romans 6:6-7 NASV). It was my old self that lived according to the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2). But now, in Christ, my old self is dead, and being dead, I am unavailable to sin.
But God did not stop here…. "Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:4 NASV). My body has a new occupant, God Himself,...."I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me" (Galatians 2:20 NASV).
...Next Paul says, "For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him..." (Romans 6:6 NASV). ….Paul exhorts, "Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Romans 6:11 NASV)....."Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts..." (Romans 6:12 NASV). …."...And do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness..." (Romans 6:13 NASV). ...
"...But present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead..." (Romans 6:13 NASV).
… "But present...your members as instruments of righteousness to God" (Romans 6:13 NASV). …. "slaves of righteousness, resulting in sanctification" (Romans 6:19).
Source: http://www.totallifeministries.org/Articles/Sin_In_Us.htm Retrieved 2/15/19
Paul thought people needed to be literally spirit possessed by the Messiah in order to overcome being possessed by this "alien force" called Sin. For more details see the article: 1 Corinthians 11:3-16: Spirit Possession and Authority in a Non-Pauline Interpolation by Christopher Mount.
What Joseph Smith did was update Paul's scientific understanding. In Paul's day everything was caused by possession by evil and good spirits. I was watching a Bible archaeological documentary and there was even a religious scroll around the time of Paul providing a spell to remove a headache demon. This was the reality of Paul's world. We no longer exercise headache demons but take aspirin. What Joseph Smith did then was update Paul's understanding so that the body was not infected with an alien Sin virus and we are not corrupt and depraved but in fact the body is good.
Augustine had upgraded Paul's concept of inheriting this possessing Sin-agent by adding that we all inherited Sin as basically a "spiritual STD." That is, Augustine added sex as the portal through which the virus of Sin is inherited. You inherited this Sin-possession through the sexual copulation that led to your conception. Joseph Smith reacted to this Augustinian attack on human sexuality with the Articles of Faith number 2: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.”
Joseph Smith did not understand organic evolution which is now taught at BYU, but Smith did present an evolving concept of our intelligence (as "god's in embryo") evolving into godhood. Thus, we are noble bodies of "spirit matter" that are not punished for Adam's sins, and do not need to discard our mortal flesh because it is possessed by an alien virus; instead, Joseph revealed that we needed our flesh body as former intelligences in order to experience the joys of the flesh, so that we could become fully divine.
In Chapter 7 (titled Laws physical and spiritual) of his book Wrestling the Angel, Givens points out that instead of nature (or matter) being created out of nothingness by God (as is taught in Protestantism), Smith argued that Nature and God were coeternal. In other words, Nature is not a corruption separate from God, but Nature is the bodily clothing of our enfleshed God; and matter is the material from which God organizes his creations. What this does is entirely shift one's understanding and attitude toward matter, flesh and spirit. No longer is spirit and flesh opposed to each other because all flesh is refined spirit matter.
Reading this chapter by Givens, it occurred to me that in doing this Smith avoided the idea that Nature is corrupt and you need to escape it by evacuating your impure natural body to put on or morph into this "pure" un-natural non-flesh-body into a platonic realm of immaterial Forms. In short, what platonism did was present imaginary unnatural Forms, and so Joseph Smith presented a natural spirit world wherein he naturalized the divine.
If God himself is composed of natural material (refined spirit matter) then all matter (earth, "life!") is not inherently "bad." In Joseph's view, organic Life becomes holy, sensuality now divine, and the flesh body is now godly. Thus, the unnatural attitude of Platonic Protestantism was replaced with Joseph Smith's "100% all natural" theology, with no added Platonist flavors and Augustinian additives.
From this we can see how the theological architecture of the platonistic Hellenistic worldview influenced Paul's apocalypticism and his path of celibacy-to-martyrdom. In contrast, the theological architecture of Joseph Smith was more American and closer to modern science. As he lived in an era with a growing knowledge of science not available to Paul; which allowed Joseph to receive new insights and revelations leading away from the "despising of the body" toward what Peter Coviello calls the radiant body.
