Emanuel Swedenborg And Joseph Smith

[Stargazer]

I had actually given my wife this book a few years ago. It was interesting to see prominent space given to Swedenborg.

 

A few months ago I gave my wife a copy of the book, too, since she would soon be glimpsing eternity in real time.  She read it with great interest, and I believe it helped her prepare for that day.  Me, too, I have to say.

[cinepro]

Years ago on this forum, the issue was raised and faithful believer LeeUniverse responded with this memorable claim:

 

Boring.... Joseph's theology is the same as 100's of different individuals to various degrees of exactness.

 

So...there ya go.

[Slackman12000]

Since, I don't have 25 posts yet on this site, I can not edit anything that I have posted or even contact a moderator.  I am sending this second comment to make some clarifications.  The information that I provided above is not information that I compiled myself.  It is a combination of information that was sent to me by two other individuals who volunteer their own time to answer Gospel questions at fairmormon.  It is their work, their compilation of information, and their personal insight into the topic at hand.  I did not receive their permission to post it which I should have.  I'm sure they have sent the same information to other people.  Therefore, other people who read my post, who may have also sent questions to fairmormon, may receive and recognize the same information that I have just posted.  

 

I have hidden the post. If you get permission to post private emails from the senders I'll be happy to restore it. (Send a post report on this post.) Thanks for the notice.

[Lee Woofenden]

I would like to know more on your rejection of the Trinity/Godhead /three in one notion.

What is that beliefs basis?

Jesus worshipped his father

 

Hi mfbukowski,

 

Thanks for your question. Rather than post a lengthy piece here, I'll simply refer you to a few of my articles that bear on this question:

 

• What is the Biblical basis for disbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity?
• Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit?
• Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

It's not so much the Trinity aspect as the persons aspect that we object to. The Bible nowhere says that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. That was a human invention. But the Bible does say that Jesus and the Father are one.

[Lee Woofenden]

Lee,

 

I would like to point a couple of things out.  

 

First, Joseph Smith wouldn't have to get his idea of the 3 Degrees from Emanuel Swedenborg because, as the BYU article you read pointed out and referenced, the idea was present in the 1800's (which is where Swedenborg likely got his ideas from) and early 1900's (where Joseph could have been familiar with, gotten his understanding in the first place from) among Christian denominations.  

 

Second, Joseph Smiths's version of the 3 degrees, although similar in ways, is also vastly different from Edenborg's

 

Third, It's not a new Christian teaching.  It has been present from the very foundation of Christianity.  If anything, it shows how divinely inspired Smith was.  Please see my reasoning and references below.

 

Generally speaking, the first thing you always should do when you see claims that someone plagiarized this source, or that source, is to actually read them. Most of the time, these sorts of claims rest on condensing material, or paraphrasing, or taking things out of context. Yes, it appears that some of Swedenborg's material was at the Palmyra library. But so were a lot of other books. When you look at the question of 3 degrees of glory (and LDS phrase that is not found in Swedenborg at all), and you look at what Swedenborg actually wrote, it starts to make a lot less sense.

 

Hi Slackman12000,

 

Thanks for your detailed post and many quotes and references. As I said in my very first post here, using the word "plagiarized" is overly harsh. There are many influences that go from one author to another. And in the 1700s (when Swedenborg did his writing) and 1800s (when Smith did his writing) it was very common for writers to borrow from earlier writers without attribution, and no one thought anything of it.

 

I'm not qualified to say whether Joseph Smith borrowed ideas from Swedenborg. However, scholars who are qualified have published articles saying that it's a distinct possibility, but that in any case Smith went in a very different direction theologically than Swedenborg did. The article by Craig Miller that Anakim7 links to in the post that began this thread contains a list of similarities between Smith and Swedenborg, and a list of differences as well.

 

As you say, the idea of distinct levels of heaven, and of three levels of heaven, has been present since the beginning of Christianity, since it is present in the New Testament itself. So Smith had earlier sources than Swedenborg for that particular belief. Some of the other similarities listed in Craig Miller's article seem less likely to have been independently arrived at by both Swedenborg and Smith.

 

Having said that, it's perfectly possible also that Smith had no acquaintance with Swedenborg's teachings at all, and that there was no influence from Swedenborg to Smith.

 

The larger issue, in my mind, is the tension between the faithful (whether LDS or Swedenborgian) who believe that their great theologian was 100% original and was not at all influenced by any human sources, and the faithful who believe that their great theologian was influenced by other human sources, but that this does not vitiate the revelatory nature of their writings.

 

Among the Swedenborgian faithful, I fall in the latter category. I think that Swedenborg was influenced by various human authors who preceded him.

 

However, this does not call into question in my mind the revelatory nature of his theological writings. God, in speaking to human beings, must use human language, ideas, and events to communicate spiritual and divine truths and realities to us humans living here on earth. So instead of vitiating the revelatory nature of the writings, in my mind it enhances that revelatory nature in that God was simply using the human ideas and events available in the mind of the human instrument of revelation in order to communicate with us here on earth more clearly, in our own language, experience, and idiom. That is how God speaks to us. Anything 100% "original' would be unintelligible to us.

 

So in my mind, suggesting that Smith may have been influenced by Swedenborg is in no way an attack on Smith and the revelatory nature of his writings as believed by the LDS faithful. Rather, it is simply a different view of precisely how God operated in providing revelation to us humans here on earth.

 

I understand that this may run into problems with the LDS faithful due to beliefs about the prior existence of the golden plates. And I'm not sufficiently versed in LDS beliefs to say anything very solid on that point. But I would suggest that God works in ways more complex than we humans can conceive. For God, "before" and "after," "prior" and "subsequent" have no meaning. God is present in all time and in all space from a state of being outside of time and space. So it is no problem for God to incorporate into earlier writings and revelations hints and suggestions of later events. All is known to God, past, present, and future.

 

All of this is a long way of saying that none of what I have said, nor the suggestion that Smith may have derived some ideas from Swedenborg, is meant as an attack on Smith's writings. I'm Swedenborgian, not LDS, so I personally don't look to the Book of Mormon and other writings associated with Joseph Smith for revelation from God. But I understand that the LDS faithful do. And I have no desire to tear down a faith that sustains millions of people, and leads them to live good and godly lives.

[mfbukowski]

Hi mfbukowski,

 

Thanks for your question. Rather than post a lengthy piece here, I'll simply refer you to a few of my articles that bear on this question:

 

• What is the Biblical basis for disbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity?
• Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit?
• Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

It's not so much the Trinity aspect as the persons aspect that we object to. The Bible nowhere says that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. That was a human invention. But the Bible does say that Jesus and the Father are one.

Ok

And Jesus is the incarnation of Love, as it were, fully divine and fully human with one human/divine nature, right?

I can see that as essentially similar to alternate interpretations of our doctrine, when we get past the words

[mfbukowski]

Hi Slackman12000,

 

Thanks for your detailed post and many quotes and references. As I said in my very first post here, using the word "plagiarized" is overly harsh. There are many influences that go from one author to another. And in the 1700s (when Swedenborg did his writing) and 1800s (when Smith did his writing) it was very common for writers to borrow from earlier writers without attribution, and no one thought anything of it.

 

I'm not qualified to say whether Joseph Smith borrowed ideas from Swedenborg. However, scholars who are qualified have published articles saying that it's a distinct possibility, but that in any case Smith went in a very different direction theologically than Swedenborg did. The article by Craig Miller that Anakim7 links to in the post that began this thread contains a list of similarities between Smith and Swedenborg, and a list of differences as well.

 

As you say, the idea of distinct levels of heaven, and of three levels of heaven, has been present since the beginning of Christianity, since it is present in the New Testament itself. So Smith had earlier sources than Swedenborg for that particular belief. Some of the other similarities listed in Craig Miller's article seem less likely to have been independently arrived at by both Swedenborg and Smith.

 

Having said that, it's perfectly possible also that Smith had no acquaintance with Swedenborg's teachings at all, and that there was no influence from Swedenborg to Smith.

 

The larger issue, in my mind, is the tension between the faithful (whether LDS or Swedenborgian) who believe that their great theologian was 100% original and was not at all influenced by any human sources, and the faithful who believe that their great theologian was influenced by other human sources, but that this does not vitiate the revelatory nature of their writings.

 

Among the Swedenborgian faithful, I fall in the latter category. I think that Swedenborg was influenced by various human authors who preceded him.

 

However, this does not call into question in my mind the revelatory nature of his theological writings. God, in speaking to human beings, must use human language, ideas, and events to communicate spiritual and divine truths and realities to us humans living here on earth. So instead of vitiating the revelatory nature of the writings, in my mind it enhances that revelatory nature in that God was simply using the human ideas and events available in the mind of the human instrument of revelation in order to communicate with us here on earth more clearly, in our own language, experience, and idiom. That is how God speaks to us. Anything 100% "original' would be unintelligible to us.

 

So in my mind, suggesting that Smith may have been influenced by Swedenborg is in no way an attack on Smith and the revelatory nature of his writings as believed by the LDS faithful. Rather, it is simply a different view of precisely how God operated in providing revelation to us humans here on earth.

 

I understand that this may run into problems with the LDS faithful due to beliefs about the prior existence of the golden plates. And I'm not sufficiently versed in LDS beliefs to say anything very solid on that point. But I would suggest that God works in ways more complex than we humans can conceive. For God, "before" and "after," "prior" and "subsequent" have no meaning. God is present in all time and in all space from a state of being outside of time and space. So it is no problem for God to incorporate into earlier writings and revelations hints and suggestions of later events. All is known to God, past, present, and future.

 

All of this is a long way of saying that none of what I have said, nor the suggestion that Smith may have derived some ideas from Swedenborg, is meant as an attack on Smith's writings. I'm Swedenborgian, not LDS, so I personally don't look to the Book of Mormon and other writings associated with Joseph Smith for revelation from God. But I understand that the LDS faithful do. And I have no desire to tear down a faith that sustains millions of people, and leads them to live good and godly lives.

Agreed, and honestly, I see almost no difference. I could justify ever "difference" as slightly altered interpretations of what latter-day Saints have written.

[mfbukowski]

Let me suggest to the LDS here some similarities to what Lee has said in certain interpretations of our beliefs.

 

I am not a Swedenborg scholar- these are just interpretations of what Lee posted here in his links, as seen through LDS eyes.

 

Yes, there is an immediate and obvious distinction in the way we view the Godhead and Lee's view-  For him there are not "three persons" in a "committeee".  That seems to be a clear "conflict"

 

But on the other hand, think a little bit about our belief that the premortal  Jesus is the organizer/creator of this universe.  All revelation comes through that person, our savior.

 

Now let's throw in, oddly, the Adam/God theory.  We can see that view as an understanding that the name "Adam" is a title as well as a person. Paul refers to Christ as the "second Adam" partially because Christ is the "father" of our salvation.  So if Paul identifies "Adam" with Christ, and Brigham identifies the title "Adam" with the Father, we have credible LDS sources definitely mixing definitions here.  Then we have "divine investiture" where sometimes angels speak for Christ and/or God and then we have proxy individual human people representing "Adam" and "Eve" in the temple.

 

It gets a little muddled who is who when we have the mixture of allegory and symbol and "reality".  Where is the practical difference in our lives about who is whom?

 

Our father is the author of the pan of salvation, but he has made Jesus Christ the "only God we have to do with" as it were.  For all practical and pragmatic purposes, Jesus Christ is the only person of the Godhead with whom we interact.

 

I don't know who it is I speak to and receive answers from in prayer, but it is quite clear to me that that "person"- and for me it is a person, not a Force or non-personal Intelligence, but an actual person who knows me, responds to me, and can teach me personally what I must do to become closer to Him.

 

I would suggest that doctrine is interpretation and verbal description.

 

Yes there are reasons to prefer our descriptions over Lee's- I think the difference for us is seeing the Godhead as a family, and with our view of essentially worshiping the Exalted Family, our entire view of God is social and communal.  So far it seems our view is more amenable for that purpose than Lee's, maybe not.

 

I just want to make the point that we are very very close I think in our practical daily understanding of who God is in our private lives.

[Lee Woofenden]

Ok

And Jesus is the incarnation of Love, as it were, fully divine and fully human with one human/divine nature, right?

I can see that as essentially similar to alternate interpretations of our doctrine, when we get past the words

 

Yes. Though during his lifetime on earth he did have a dual nature, with an outer finite human nature from his human mother, and an inner divine nature from his divine Father. During the course of his earthly lifetime he put off everything that came from his human mother, and replaced it with the divine nature from the Father, so that he is now fully human and fully divine in a single Person and Being.

 

The Son is, in essence, the human presence of the Father, which is the core of the Divine Being. They are like our human soul and body, and the Holy Spirit is like our human words and actions. In this way we humans are created "in the image and likeness of God." And just as each of us is one person with these three "parts," So God is one divine Person within which are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In using those words, the Bible is using human concepts as metaphors for deeper spiritual and divine realities. (All of this, of course, is according to the Swedenborgian conception of God.)

 

I have been told by an elderly Mormon/Swedenborgian (years ago) that, as you say, an alternate interpretation of LDS doctrine coincides with Swedenborg's view of the Trinity. But once again, I am not sufficiently versed in LDS doctrine and history to be able to say anything solid about that.

[Lee Woofenden]

And Jesus is the incarnation of Love, as it were, fully divine and fully human with one human/divine nature, right?

 

About Jesus as the incarnation of Love, please see my article, "The Logic of Love: Why God became Jesus." This article, which I originally preached as a sermon this past spring, articulates my own reasons for faith in Jesus as the human presence of Divine Love.

[mfbukowski]

Yes. Though during his lifetime on earth he did have a dual nature, with an outer finite human nature from his human mother, and an inner divine nature from his divine Father. During the course of his earthly lifetime he put off everything that came from his human mother, and replaced it with the divine nature from the Father, so that he is now fully human and fully divine in a single Person and Being.

The Son is, in essence, the human presence of the Father, which is the core of the Divine Being. They are like our human soul and body, and the Holy Spirit is like our human words and actions. In this way we humans are created "in the image and likeness of God." And just as each of us is one person with these three "parts," So God is one divine Person within which are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In using those words, the Bible is using human concepts as metaphors for deeper spiritual and divine realities. (All of this, of course, is according to the Swedenborgian conception of God.)

I have been told by an elderly Mormon/Swedenborgian (years ago) that, as you say, an alternate interpretation of LDS doctrine coincides with Swedenborg's view of the Trinity. But once again, I am not sufficiently versed in LDS doctrine and history to be able to say anything solid about that.

I have a big problem with those words, they reflect Protestant theology and dual natures which make no sense to me. One nature, God/man.

Man has Divine potential.

But it is clear to me that the Spirit is very much the same.

[mfbukowski]

About Jesus as the incarnation of Love, please see my article, "The Logic of Love: Why God became Jesus." This article, which I originally preached as a sermon this past spring, articulates my own reasons for faith in Jesus as the human presence of Divine Love.

Thank you so much for your articles and interest- I for one would love to carry on a dialogue with you about your beliefs.

I am now reading your sermon/article to which you linked above.

If you don't mind, I will note some similarities and differences and speak for my own believes, not as a representative of our church because some of my philosophical principles, though I believe them to be consistent with our doctrine, not all would agree with me on that.

 

I also believe that there is no conflict between belief in God and science, but I think that has nothing to do with materialism.  In fact I think Mormons are "materialists" in that we believe that God has a "material" body.

 

Our definition of materialism differs from most others however.  We believe that matter and spirit are essentially the same continuum of what we would call "matter" but that what we call "spirit" has been described as "matter more refined"

 

We therefore do not believe there is a dualism between "matter" and "mind" or spirit.

 

I personally believe that this is consistent with quantum physics at least in approach, the idea that matter and energy are interchangeable etc.  I am not an expert by any means in how all this works, but I think that a dualistic understanding of mind and matter goes back to ancient Greece and at its base is a pagan idea arguably introduced by Plato and his predecessors who held similar views.

 

I think this dualism entered Christianity through Neoplatonism as especially argued by Plotinus, though certainly neoplatonism was already influential in Christian belief long before Plotinus.  This was carried on by Augustine and Aquinas in scholasticism.

 

So that is one area in which our theology differs.

 

I further think that "evidence of the phhysical senses" cannot be separated from the spirit or mind.  Certainly sensory input is interpreted by the brain which is, I think, inseparable from "the mind" at least as far as science can tell us.

 

Yet of course I think there is some kind of "energy" or plasma or something yet unscientifially defined, but in principle definable- some kind of field perhaps- which is the "spirit" which lives on after leaving the body.  I do not see that as dualistic- I think that spirit is in principle definable scientifically- it just hasn't happened yet.

 

• If we are willing to accept only the evidence of the physical senses, we will most likely reject the idea of God and become atheists.
• But if we are willing to accept evidence that comes from within, from the realm of human experience in the mind and heart, we will find plenty of reason to believe in God and spirit. 

So I would disagree with your first bullet point on the grounds that I think the "whole mind" - brain and spirit as one "soul"- can perceive God though our rationality, and feelings since rationality and feelings cannot be separated.  In fact some atheists are quite receptive to the idea of a "God" of a different kind than the traditional neoplatonic view of God as an immaterial being.  In fact the "idea" of God as a perfected human, is in some cases an idea they identify with.

 

So indeed some like the "idea" of God- but they find no definition which works for them which they find worthy of worship.  In effect, many humanists effectively "worship" the notion of a perfect society of perfect people and pursue that "idea" as if it was a religious position.  Some even see atheism itself as a religious position which is faith-based, since the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven.

 

On the other hand I would heartily and enthusiastically endorse your second bullet point here.

 

The only possible "evidence" we can have for God is our own experience of Him speaking to our spirits.  William James- who we both know comes from a Swedenborgian background- in fact has given us many works justifying the view that human religious experience can be classified as "empirical evidence".

 

So while disagreeing on some of the philosophical jargon, and definitions,  I again affirm agreement on the most important issue- that God DOES reveal himself to us, to our "minds" and "spirits" and "feelings" and that indeed that is the only way He can be experienced.

 

I will stop there and continue in another post, in order to keep this from getting too long, but more to come as I move through your article.

[mfbukowski]

About Jesus as the incarnation of Love, please see my article, "The Logic of Love: Why God became Jesus." This article, which I originally preached as a sermon this past spring, articulates my own reasons for faith in Jesus as the human presence of Divine Love.

Continuing a commentary on your fine sermon, let's talk about Jesus.

 

We of course believe that Jesus existed premortally, as a spirt Son of his Father.  As such his coming to earth was all part of the plan in which we all participate.

 

So because we do not believe in an immaterial God, we have no problem with somehow making that immaterial being material.  His body was made of "spirit matter" before coming to earth, he then took upon himself a different kind of matter as inded we all have done, since we were all premortal spirits at one time in the same situation.

 

So for us the incarnation of Jesus is a very normal process which we all undergo as human beings.  It is part of our nature and our destiny to do these things.

 

With you , we affirm the virgin birth.  Unfortunately we have historical references from those whose positions would throw some doubt on that, but the church has never disagreed with the idea of a virgin birth.

 

I would say that how exactly God made that happen is none of our business, but he made it happen, and worrying about it is irrelevant to our salvation.  I frankly do not care much about Mary's status in this situation.  Some think that our heavenly Mother was incarnated in Mary much as the Son of God was incarnated as Jesus.  I neither affirm nor deny that belief- I just don't know and since it is unknowable anyway, for me, it becomes irrelevant to how I live my life.

 

We see the "fall" as essential to real choice in this life, since life here is a test.

 

The fall was part of the plan.

 

And yes, I would agree with you that the world was a mess when the savior came to earth.

 

I suppose I will have to read more to understand your view of the atonement.

[mfbukowski]

Lee wrote this and it can be found here:

http://leewoof.org/2012/09/17/who-is-god-who-is-jesus-christ-what-about-that-holy-spirit/

 

 

 

The Gospels focus on Jesus’ words and actions. However, we do get a few brief glimpses of his inner struggles (traditionally called “temptations”). After he was baptized, Jesus spent forty days and nights in the desert, where he was tempted by the devil (Matthew 4:1–11). And Jesus went through an agony of temptation as he approached his death (Luke 22:39–46).

Swedenborg tells us that these inner struggles were going on throughout Jesus’ life. In fact, according to Swedenborg, the Devil (which is really just another name for hell—not some cosmic monster) brought to bear on Jesus the entire force of all the combined evil of the universe. Through the course of his life Jesus faced and overcame that massive force of evil, bringing it under his personal control. This is why he said to his disciples just before he was crucified, “Take courage! I have conquered the world” (John 16:33), and after his resurrection, “All power is given to me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18).

By coming to earth as Jesus Christ, God overcame the evil that was overwhelming all people on earth, and brought the spiritual world back into proper order and balance. Now, no matter how much we humans may try to thwart God’s plans, God keeps us in a balance between good and evil. This gives us spiritual freedom of choice, whatever our physical circumstances may be.

The redemption that Jesus accomplished was not just for Christians. It was universal. It saved everyone on earth who is willing to make choices for good rather than evil. From this perspective, Jesus Christ is the God and Savior of everyone on earth, no matter what name we may use in addressing God. By becoming human and bringing the forces of spiritual evil under control, God made this kind of personal salvation possible for everyone, everywhere.

Every person on earth who believes in God and lives a life of love and service to others is believing in Jesus Christ by believing in what he taught. And God has a place in heaven, not for people who merely say his name, but for people who live according to his teachings (Matthew 7:21–27).

Putting it All Together

There is one God. God came to earth as Jesus Christ. Therefore God is both divine and human, and is both the Creator of the universe and the Savior of all people who choose to accept what is good and true from God and express it in their lives.

God is pure love, represented in the Bible as the Father, formed by pure wisdom, represented in the Bible as the Son, going out in pure creative and saving action, represented in the Bible as the Holy Spirit.

This article is © 2012 by Lee Woofenden

 

So it appears that Christ "overcame" evil with love, but it is not clear to me how youj believe this was done.

 

I know that the atonement is difficult to define and explain for everyone- it is largely one of God's mysteries beyond our understanding- so I don't want to ask you questions that probably no one has an answer for anyway.

 

Do you have any other input or explanation than this?

 

I think that you are saying that if we emulate Christ's love and service, we put ourselves in a sense "in his shoes" and into loving others as he has loved us, and so then we qualify to join with him in his work and correspondingly in his reward in heaven.

 

Is that basically it?

 

I see repentance as essential because we are in effect attempting to personally "reverse" the evil we have done.  Of couse we can never do that, and the atonement therefore saves us ultimately because God gives us his grace to "make up the difference" between the effects of evil we have caused and the good we have done through repentance.

 

I find that explanation a little less vague than just simply somehow adding to the love quotient of the universe.  Perhaps it is not.  Anyway, I wonder if you have a comment on that.

[volgadon]

Greatly enjoying this.

[coolrok7]

Lee, what church body do you associate with? (FYI, I'm a Christian of the Lutheran Missouri Synod tribe)

Edited November 15, 2015 by coolrok7

[Lee Woofenden]

I have a big problem with those words, they reflect Protestant theology and dual natures which make no sense to me. One nature, God/man.

Man has Divine potential.

But it is clear to me that the Spirit is very much the same.

 

Thanks for your thoughtful discussion and questions in response to my posts and articles.

 

Before responding, I would simply point out that there are real differences and disagreements between LDS and Swedenborgian theology. So my responses will make no particular effort to harmonize the two, but rather to clarify and explain Swedenborgian theology on the points you raise. Then you will be in a better position than I am to make the comparison with LDS theology.

 

And of course, each of us is in freedom to believe or disbelieve according to our own experience and the dictates of our own minds and hearts. So none of what I say should be construed as saying that you must believe this or that. What I present is what I believe, which is representative of what Swedenborg taught and of what Swedenborgians generally believe.

[Lee Woofenden]

Lee, what church body do you associate with? (FYI, I'm a Christian of the Lutheran Missouri Synod tribe)

Hi coolrok7,

 

I am an ordained minister of the General Convention of the New Jerusalem, USA and Canada, better known as the Swedenborgian Church. This is the original body of Swedenborgians in North America. And it is the church in which I grew up. My father was a Swedenborgian minister, and there was a whole line of Swedenborgian ministers on my mother's side, all within the General Convention. So I almost literally drank in the church and its teachings "with my mother's milk."

 

Having said that, I am not currently employed by or active within the Swedenborgian Church, but am charting my own course, together with my wife, who is also a committed Swedenborgian. I am solid on the teachings of the church, but not very much in line with the form and culture of the human organization.

 

For my general views of organizational Christianity, please see my article, "Christianity is Dead. Long Live Christianity!"

[Lee Woofenden]

I have a big problem with those words, they reflect Protestant theology and dual natures which make no sense to me. One nature, God/man.

Man has Divine potential.

But it is clear to me that the Spirit is very much the same.

Now on to the specifics!

 

In Swedenborgian theology, God is human, and in fact, is the only truly and fully human being. It is said in Genesis 1:26-27 that God created humans in his image and likeness. Our understanding of this is that we physically mortal human beings are only a reflection of humanity, and that the true being and source of humanity is God.

 

(I plan to write an article for my blog on the humanity of God. Meanwhile, you might be interested in this answer I wrote for Christianity StackExchange: "Was Adam anatomically God's image?")

 

We see humanity as primarily a matter of the divine characteristics of infinite love, infinite wisdom, and infinite power. It is what we would call the mental characteristics of humanity that make a being human; the physical characteristics are only human as a reflection of those mental (really, spiritual and divine) characteristics.

 

In speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ, Swedenborg commonly uses the term "the Divine Humanity" to state this nature of God as both fully human and fully divine. There is no "dual nature" in the sense that one part of God is human and another part is divine, as in Protestant theology. Rather, what we humans on earth see as the human side of God is simply God's divine humanity in a form that we can approach and interact with. So the human nature of God that we see as Jesus Christ is simply the "body," or outward expression, of the essential, eternal human nature of God. That "body" of God is also fully divine.

 

So for us, God is fully human and fully one, just as we are one human being having a soul, a body, and actions that together are us as human beings. There is no duality in the sense that our body is somehow a different "us" than our soul. Our body is an expression of our soul. So in God, there is no duality in the Protestant sense that there are two distinct "beings" of Christ, the human and the divine. Rather, Christ is fully human and fully divine in one and the same being.

 

However, when Jesus was born on earth, he did temporarily take on a finite human nature that was distinct from the inner divine nature. That finite human nature was his maternal heredity from Mary. And it lasted only until the end of Jesus' life on earth. The last of it was expelled from the being of Jesus in the tomb after the crucifixion, so that when Jesus rose from death, there was nothing of that finite maternal heredity left. Jesus was from that point forward fully divine, as the Divine Humanity.

 

The taking on of a finite human heredity, with the same tendencies toward evil (not Original Sin, a dogma that Swedenborg rejected) as any other human being, was necessary to provide a field on which God could face, battle, and defeat the Devil, which is a collective term for hell, or the combined forces of all evil humans, and abstractly, all human evil.

 

If God were to approach the Devil directly, it would instantly destroy the Devil, annihilating all of the evil spirits in hell and all human beings committed to evil. But God has given every human being the gift of an eternal soul, even if we choose to spend eternity in hell instead of in heaven. And God will not take away that gift.

 

So in order to face and overcome the Devil and the power of evil without annihilating all evil and all humans and human spirits who are evil, God took on a finite humanity from Mary, and used it as a battlefield in which to face the Devil on his own turf, defeat him, and reduce him to servitude in hell under God's power. Ever since then, God has used that power to maintain the balance between good and evil, or between heaven and hell, so that we humans on earth remain in freedom to choose between good and evil, rather than being overwhelmed and dragged down to hell against our will as we would have been if God had not defeated the Devil through his Incarnation on earth and his spiritual battles against and victories over the Devil throughout his lifetime on earth.

 

This view of the Incarnation and Redemption is outlined in my article, "Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit?"

 

Once Jesus had defeated the Devil--which work was completed on the Cross--he no longer had any need for the finite human nature from Mary, and completed the process of putting it off from himself and replacing it with the divine nature that came from his own inner divine soul, called "the Father" in the New Testament. And from that time forward, he no longer had a dual nature, but was, as Swedenborg called him, "The Lord God Jesus Christ."

 

This is the Jesus Christ that Swedenborgians worship. We do not make a distinction between Jesus Christ and God. For us, Jesus Christ is God.

[Lee Woofenden]

I hope this provides at least a basic answer to your questions. If there are remaining questions that you would like me to address, please do post them here, and I'll do my best to answer them.

[Lee Woofenden]

FYI, I have now posted an edited and somewhat expanded version of my post above as an article on my blog, under the title, "Was Jesus Christ Human from Mary, or Human from God?" I included a link back to the original version here.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for your thoughtful discussion and questions in response to my posts and articles.

 

Before responding, I would simply point out that there are real differences and disagreements between LDS and Swedenborgian theology. So my responses will make no particular effort to harmonize the two, but rather to clarify and explain Swedenborgian theology on the points you raise. Then you will be in a better position than I am to make the comparison with LDS theology.

 

And of course, each of us is in freedom to believe or disbelieve according to our own experience and the dictates of our own minds and hearts. So none of what I say should be construed as saying that you must believe this or that. What I present is what I believe, which is representative of what Swedenborg taught and of what Swedenborgians generally believe.

Of course, agreed.

[mfbukowski]

Lee, I am very interested in carrying this on, and will respond soon. I have ministerial obligations for the next 24 hours or so.

[mfbukowski]

FYI, I have now posted an edited and somewhat expanded version of my post above as an article on my blog, under the title, "Was Jesus Christ Human from Mary, or Human from God?" I included a link back to the original version here.

Again- thanks for this article and reference, I have had a chance to read it.

I find this quote from one of your articles quite compelling

 

Swedenborg uses the phrase “divine humanity” to describe this God who is both divine and human at the same time. Because of this divine humanity we can see God not only as far above us, but also as right here beside us. In other words, we can now have a personal relationship with God in Jesus Christ.

 

I think this captures as well the LDS vision of the nature of Christ, which we share.

 

On the other hand, I think that we do not share the same terminology theologically.  So in pursuing this discussion I think we need to have that at the forefront and be aware of the real differences and similarities between us, and not get caught up in the semantic issues.

 

I don't know if you are acquainted with the philosophy of Wittgenstein, but in his later work he expressed the belief that largely "philosophical" issues were semantic issues, nothing more and nothing less.

 

I see that often when two believers start discussing things like the Trinity they get caught up in the one God vs three God issue and how one harmonizes one with the other, and the discussion ends up with some semantic explanation of how to harmonize these issues. 

 

I think the LDS view simplifies this problem incredibly.  On the other hand, we also have issues I think in harmonizing the experience of personal revelation with the idea of three persons in the Godhead.  When I am fortunate enough to be blessed with a sense of communion with God, my personal experience is that there is ONE Intelligence, outside myself and not part of me with whom I am communing.  I do not experience three intelligences, just one.

 

That is easily explained for us- the notion that it is the person of Jesus Christ with whom I am communing, because that is his mission as our Savior and redeemer and in a sense the "Father" of my salvation.  His assignment as it were, is to take care of humanity as the Word, the messenger to us throughout eternity.

 

I find that explanation perfectly adequate.  I also personally like the idea of a Social God- the Eloheim as a plural consisting of male and female beings- essentially a Divine family with whom we can become one and 'part of the family'.   I find that explanation to be extremely compelling as well.

 

I am also interested in helping secular people understand the God of Christianity, and putting it in their terms so that perhaps with a glimmer of what God is or could be in their lives, they might become interested in pursuing these ideas further.   In seeking this goal in my writing, I have found repeatedly that many secular people may be able to see God as an Ideal Friend with whom they can commune.  Perhaps they even see Him as an Ideal Self, perhaps identifying the idea with their "unconscious".

 

Though I disagree with that idea, since it is clear to me personally that God is a Being outside myself, I think that perhaps seeing the kingdom of heaven as "within" the self might facilitate further understanding and the eventual realization of God's true nature.  I once held that view myself, but found that the closer I got to God the clearer it became that the ideas flowing into my mind were not my own, but from a Being of eternal love outside myself.

 

But on the other hand, being a good Wittgensteinian (?) I realized that conventional descriptions of the trinity were logically untenable.  I found an an excellent description which made perfect sense to me logically and spiritually in the LDS intepretation.  Three persons- a Holy Family, with extended family included- male and female- a family of which I could become a member after an infinite period of working on myself to become more like them.

 

One "nature"-  human nature- which like the "nature" (whatever that word means) of say, a butterfly, which growing from an egg to a caterpillar, can eventually transform its "nature" into a divine being.

 

No need for separate dualistic "natures" - a concept which I found logically impossible to justify- just one human being with the potential to transition from a god in embryo to full Godhood given enough time and desire to become like my Father.

 

What is the nature of a man?  To be a man.  What is the nature of God?  To be God.  What is the nature of a dog?  To be a dog.  The nature of a butterfly is to be a butterfly.

 

Why does one need to postulate two "natures" to account for the nature of a butterfly to transition from one form to another?  One would not postulate that a butterfly has two natures- a "caterpillar nature" and a "butterfly nature"- that is already contained in the idea of a "butterfly nature".  That is what butterflies do!!

 

Is being a human embryo a different "nature" than being a human baby?  Is a human baby a different nature than a human adult?  We would not make these distinctions- so why do with do it with Christ?

Again

 

 

Swedenborg uses the phrase “divine humanity” to describe this God who is both divine and human at the same time. Because of this divine humanity we can see God not only as far above us, but also as right here beside us. In other words, we can now have a personal relationship with God in Jesus Christ.

 

I love this formulation but I do not need to postulate "two natures" to account for it.

 

Humanity is- in it's ONE nature, both "human" and "divine".  Christ is a glorified human, our example, our goal to become, all possible within "human nature"

 

That's the way I see it.  The scholastic philosophers like Aquinas and the neoplatonists brought this whole idea of "two natures" into Christianity and I don't think it ever belonged there.  It is a pagan idea and a way to justify the "evil nature of fallen man".

 

Yes people do evil things.  Yes, some do evil continually.  Choice to do good or do evil is part of our "nature", if we are carnally minded.

 

I love your idea that Christ is "more human" than we are.  Indeed I find this highly compatible with the idea of "one human nature" in which we grow more and more human as we grow closer to God

 

That whole notion I think is in direct conflict with the idea that there  is a "Divine Nature" opposed to a "Human nature".  Why postulate that when you are already granting that God is "more human" than we are?

 

That's essentially why I said earlier that I saw traditional Protestant theology in what you were saying.  Protestants of course are partial to emphasizing man's "fallen" nature which is not in itself capable of being overcome.  That idea leads to postulating "two natures", and I think is an unwarranted step.

 

I think the LDS position avoids this problem- one nature which includes divine potential- with the analogy of a caterpillar and butterfly for those who are literally minded.

 

Another question:

With their view of God being completely Christ as one person, how do Swedenborgians account for the various bible verses which describe Christ praying to his "Father"?

 

Thank you so much for helping me with this

Mark

[mfbukowski]

Lee, I guess this kind of what I am having trouble with

 

This

 

In speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ, Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) commonly uses the phrase “the Divine Humanity” to express this nature of God as fully human and fully divine.

There is no dual nature in Jesus Christ in the sense that one part of Christ is human and another part is divine, as in traditional Christian theology. Rather, what we humans on earth see as the human side of God is simply God’s divine humanity in a form that we can approach and interact with. The human nature of God that we see as Jesus Christ is simply the “body,” or outward expression, of the eternal human nature of God. And this “body” of God is also fully divine.

In other words God is fully human, fully divine, and fully one, just as each one of us is one human being whose soul, a body, and actions together are us as a human being. There is no “duality” in us in the sense that our body is somehow a different “us” than our soul. Our body is an expression of our soul.

In the very same way, in God there is no duality in the traditional Christian sense that there are two distinct beings or natures of Christ, one human and the other divine. Rather, Jesus Christ is fully human and fully divine in one and the same divine being.

 

Seems to conflict with this:
 

 

On this question, Swedenborg follows the two accounts of Jesus’ birth, given in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Jesus had a human mother (Mary), but his father was God. (See Matthew 1:18–25; Luke 1:26–38.) When Jesus was born, he had a dual nature: an infinite divine nature and a finite human nature.

During the course of Jesus’ life, he gradually set aside everything of the finite human nature he had received from Mary, and replaced it with the infinite divine nature of God.

 

http://leewoof.org/2012/09/17/who-is-god-who-is-jesus-christ-what-about-that-holy-spirit/