Celestial Kingdom

[lostindc]

you would be correct that I would conclude Joseph Smith used (you could call it inspiration?) Swedenborg's work in writing the Book of Mormon.

Interesting, so Joseph wrote the BOM with the help of Swedenborg's texts, but we do not here about the three degrees of glory in the BOM and the only scripture reference we have it in is the Doctrine and Covenants.

Nice analysis of the BOM.

[cinepro]

I read about Emanuel Swedenborg's book (written in 1784) recently where he wrote about the Celestial kingdom that's mosre than just somewhat similar than the version Joseph Smith wrote about. What is your opinion regarding Swedenborg? Was he guided by God?

My all time favorite comment on this subject (and perhaps all-time favorite comment on this message board) came from faithful believer leeuniverse years ago:

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

Who knew?

[Maidservant]

I have no knowledge of Mr. Swedenbourg nor his writings, and I'm curious how one comes across that book. What subject were you investigating, and where? My appetite is whetted to know more about Mr. Swedenbourg.

In my anecdotal observation, some people outside of the Church seem to think that the acceptance of Joseph Smith as a prophet, and the believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living church on the earth THEN MEANS that there cannot be any others on the earth who God would talk to and lead or that there is a condemnation in terms of salvation of other persons who have differing beliefs.

In my understanding, it is sectarian Christianity that sets up that stringent dichotomy: only this way to believe OR you represent the devil.

Latter-days Saints don't do that in general, in my experience. God visited Joseph Smith. God and his servants restored authority. Yet there is spirit pouring out upon the earth and all righteous seekers have the opportunity to benefit from it.

As you may know, for example, Latter-day Saints honor the courageous men and women who brought about the Reformation. And yet we cannot remain in these reformation doctrines -- we have more light.

When I learn from God, I learn at church and in the temple and in my private study/revelation with God. But I also learn the gospel when I read science fiction, listen to a Catholic priest speak on the radio, read about Native American ceremonies. Coming across something like Swedenbourg (I haven't read it so I don't know actually) -- but it probably would be a big, "Wow!" If Joseph Smith read it and GOT HIS IDEAS FROM IT DIRECTLY . . . if such a thing really took place, I don't know how one could show that definitively . . . then I would RECOGNIZE THAT PROCESS as revelation because I would still understand that Joseph was talking with God and God was talking with Joseph, and God might have mentioned to Joseph, "Hm, there is this guy I talked to about 150 years ago and he stated things quite nicely, you might want to read that. Name is Emanuel." I don't have a problem with this. Why? Because Joseph is not my God. God is my God, and HE TALKS . . . to whomever he wants.

[thesometimesaint]

Thews:

Again correlation is not causation. That two people independent of each other come up with the same idea is not a cause of concern for most fair minded people.

"I believe Jesus Chirst is God and the only God,..."

So in your belief Jesus is the only God. Yet Jesus prayed to the Father, and instructed in the Bible to pray to His Father. You are entitled to believe anything you want. But I don't believe you can substantiate that belief from the NT.

Polygamy is right in the Bible, and apparently approved of by God. So is polyandry, racism, marrying young girls, and a host of other things our 21st Century western sensibilities frown upon. How nice of YOU to judge.

As has already been shown to YOU. We are not polytheistic in any Christan sense of the word.

Your apostasy is between you and God.

Disagree all you want. But it is considered bad manners to tell others what they believe.

[thews]

Thews:

Again correlation is not causation. That two people independent of each other come up with the same idea is not a cause of concern for most fair minded people.

Ok... that's your opinion, but they came to a lot of same conclusions IMO.

"I believe Jesus Chirst is God and the only God,..."

So in your belief Jesus is the only God. Yet Jesus prayed to the Father, and instructed in the Bible to pray to His Father. You are entitled to believe anything you want. But I don't believe you can substantiate that belief from the NT.

And once again we have you telling me how I came to my conclusions and you feel they are wrong, because they do not agree with your conclusions. And, once again, my question, which is not inthis thread, did not intend to include the bible, but rather Mormon exclusive doctrine.

Polygamy is right in the Bible, and apparently approved of by God. So is polyandry, racism, marrying young girls, and a host of other things our 21st Century western sensibilities frown upon.

Is "right" ...hmmmm, if it's "right" then why isn't it practiced today? It's your opinion that it's "right," but in my opinion a 42 year old man marrying a 14 year old girl isn't right, nor is marrying another man's wife, nor multiple wives. You can claim it's "right" because it's referenced in the bible, but it's not "right" in my opinion, and I have a right to my opinion, regardless of what the law states, and in the time of Joseph Smith polygamy was against the law as it is now.

How nice of YOU to judge.

You can have your opinion, but I'm "judging" becauce I have a differing opinion? How nice of YOU to judge my differing opinion.

As has already been shown to YOU. We are not polytheistic in any Christan sense of the word.

That's your opinion, which is another thread, and is not fact as you are presenting. What you deem "Christian" doesn't force other Christians to accept your definition, as does my opinion of what you believe to be Chrsitain. My opinion of "personages" (plural) as it applies to "poly" or "heno" vs. "mono" when it comes to theism is less about my opinion, and more about the definition of the word. Disagree all you want, but claiming your views of "Chrsitianity" from an LDS perspective is just that IMO... which is an LDS perspective. Call yourslef whatever you wish.

Your apostasy is between you and God.

Actually it's all on me... my choice based on what I believe to be true. I'm not afraid of God by the way, and my decision is mine based on my truth and what I've concluded.

Disagree all you want. But it is considered bad manners to tell others what they believe.

So you tell me what defines "Christianity" from an LDS perspective, and then tell me I have "bad manners" for "telling" you my opinion as a Christian because I asked you a question? Do the questions threaten you that much? How does the double standard apply to you? Actually, you don't have to answer that... you have already told me how my beliefs should be defined by taking what you believe as fact... which I don't.

[thews]

I have no knowledge of Mr. Swedenbourg nor his writings, and I'm curious how one comes across that book. What subject were you investigating, and where? My appetite is whetted to know more about Mr. Swedenbourg.

In my anecdotal observation, some people outside of the Church seem to think that the acceptance of Joseph Smith as a prophet, and the believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living church on the earth THEN MEANS that there cannot be any others on the earth who God would talk to and lead or that there is a condemnation in terms of salvation of other persons who have differing beliefs.

In my understanding, it is sectarian Christianity that sets up that stringent dichotomy: only this way to believe OR you represent the devil.

Latter-days Saints don't do that in general, in my experience. God visited Joseph Smith. God and his servants restored authority. Yet there is spirit pouring out upon the earth and all righteous seekers have the opportunity to benefit from it.

As you may know, for example, Latter-day Saints honor the courageous men and women who brought about the Reformation. And yet we cannot remain in these reformation doctrines -- we have more light.

When I learn from God, I learn at church and in the temple and in my private study/revelation with God. But I also learn the gospel when I read science fiction, listen to a Catholic priest speak on the radio, read about Native American ceremonies. Coming across something like Swedenbourg (I haven't read it so I don't know actually) -- but it probably would be a big, "Wow!" If Joseph Smith read it and GOT HIS IDEAS FROM IT DIRECTLY . . . if such a thing really took place, I don't know how one could show that definitively . . . then I would RECOGNIZE THAT PROCESS as revelation because I would still understand that Joseph was talking with God and God was talking with Joseph, and God might have mentioned to Joseph, "Hm, there is this guy I talked to about 150 years ago and he stated things quite nicely, you might want to read that. Name is Emanuel." I don't have a problem with this. Why? Because Joseph is not my God. God is my God, and HE TALKS . . . to whomever he wants.

Thanks for this perspective... it's very honest and I appreciate it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You make it seem as if my opinion is somehow hidden? You are correct that you responsed to the other thread many times when I asked you not to use bible quotes, as the question was asking about Mormon doctrine. You seem that I have a "gotcha" moment in my sights... that isn't going to happen to me, but the questions I asked you are obviously threatening you, which I why you're following me around from thread to thread saying the same things as if you have some "gotcha" moment for me... are the questions i asked you that much of a threat to you?

I am not threatened by your inane comments. Because my beliefs are biblically justified. Why would I be threatened. That comment also makes me think you really are looking for a "gotcha moment" as you think the things you know about my faith if brought to light will make me question my beliefs and then feel "threatened".

And I haven't been following you from thread to thread as you image as I participat much more than just your 2 threads. Notce that I have 6700 plus posts. I know I spend way to much time on here, but the point is that my time on this forum doesn't revolve around you as suppose.

If I admit (whihc I have) that Mormons are polythesitic what is that to you? What is that to you from a biblical stand point?

Lets just stop playing coy and get to the heart of why you started that other thread. What was the purpose?

If I am so threatened as you imagine I am why would I persist in going to.. gasp... the bible for justification in my beliefs?

[thesometimesaint]

thews:

The term correlation is not causation is a well accepted fact. Labeling it opinion is either unknowing or disingenuous of you.

"I believe Jesus Chirst is God and the only God,..." is your statement not mine. Do you wish now to clarify what you meant?

I accept that they are your conclusions. What I am seeking is some basis in that belief from the Christian Bible.

As the Saints get much of their theology from the Christian Bible. It is misleading on your part to make any such distinction.

For the Saints we don't practice it today because we have been commanded by God not to. Other Christian sects will have to tell you their reasoning.

Sealings are very different than marriages. The only information we have is that JS was Sealed to other younger women. Tradition has it that Mary became the mother of Jesus at a younger age than 14, and that her husband Joseph was much older. Marriage by much older men to young women was common in early 19th Century America. In fact the age of consent was only historically recently raised from 14 in several states. Yours is a classic case of Presentism.

I'm not a lawyer, but do know that there are several lawyers whom will disagree with that.

Not just my opinion words have meaning. Look up polytheism in the dictionary. To claim that the Saints are to be excluded from Christianity because of some alleged polytheism, in any other than a Christian sense of the word, does violence to that meaning. Go ask a modern day Jew, or Muslim if Christians are polytheistic. You can not exclude the Saints from Christianity using the label of polytheism. You will also exclude NEARLY all of Christianity if you do try to do it.

I am not judging you, and yes I am judging your opinion. I have every right and a moral obligation to do so.

Christian: Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Christian

[R.O.U.S.]

I think they both read 1 Corinthians 15.

Celestial bodies was never written in The Bible. 1 Corinthians 15 says: "More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised." http://niv.scripturetext.com/1_corinthians/15.htm . The link will explain what it all means.

Also Corinthians 40-42 does not say anything about Celestial Kingdoms. That was added. Here's what it really says:........40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. 42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable

Yours was changed!...........This is what your false bible says. """Corinthians 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:"""

[ttribe]

Celestial bodies was never written in The Bible. 1 Corinthians 15 says: "More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised." http://niv.scripturetext.com/1_corinthians/15.htm . The link will explain what it all means.

Also Corinthians 40-42 does not say anything about Celestial Kingdoms. That was added. Here's what it really says:........40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. 42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable

Yours was changed!...........This is what your false bible says. """Corinthians 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:"""

The KJV isn't a "Christian Bible"? Who knew?

[mercyngrace]

Celestial bodies was never written in The Bible. 1 Corinthians 15 says: "More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised." http://niv.scripturetext.com/1_corinthians/15.htm . The link will explain what it all means.

Also Corinthians 40-42 does not say anything about Celestial Kingdoms. That was added. Here's what it really says:........40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. 42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable

Yours was changed!...........This is what your false bible says. """Corinthians 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:"""

Actually, rodent, the Book of Mormon doesn't even talk about a celestial kingdom. The world celestial isn't even used in the book once. Not. Once. You should fact check. Furthermore, we use the King James version of the Bible - the recent translation to which you keep referring (NIV) is the new kid on the block....

Nice that you edited your post though, recognizing that your original comment didn't even refer to the relevant verses.

[lostindc]

Actually, rodent, the Book of Mormon doesn't even talk about a celestial kingdom. The world celestial isn't even used in the book once. Not. Once. You should fact check. Furthermore, we use the King James version of the Bible - the recent translation to which you keep referring (NIV) is the new kid on the block....

Nice that you edited your post though, recognizing that your original comment didn't even refer to the relevant verses.

I love it

[jkfrost]

I read about Emanuel Swedenborg's book (written in 1784) recently where he wrote about the Celestial kingdom that's mosre than just somewhat similar than the version Joseph Smith wrote about. What is your opinion regarding Swedenborg? Was he guided by God?

http://www.trialsofascension.net/mormon/plagiarism.html

Perhaps they both knew of these places

God is no respector of persons.

"In some sects of Judaism, heaven is viewed as being split into seven parts. The seventh heaven is called Araboth. It is home to the Cherubim, Seraphim, and the Seven Archangels. An archangel supervises each heaven, and Cassiel leads Araboth. There is some relationship to the colloquial phrase and the characteristics of Cassiel. He is associated with luck, wisdom, and overwhelmingly positive feelings. Therefore, in a way, the use of the phrase does suggest a little mental convening with the attributes of Cassiel. A statement like:

[mercyngrace]

I love it

A momentary lapse... patience is a virtue I'm still acquiring ;-)

[TrespassersW]

Emanuel Swedenborg vs.Joseph Smith

(Heaven and Hell, chapter 5)

There are three heavens: the celestial, the spiritual, and the natural. Those of a lower heaven are unable to see those in a higher heaven. Furthermore, the celestial heaven has three divisions.

(Doctrine and Covenants, 76, 131:1)

There are three heavens: the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms. Those of a lower heaven are unable to see those in a higher heaven. Furthermore, the celestial kingdom has three divisions.

That isn't quite the way I read it.

According to Swedenborg, there are two Kingdoms of Heaven: the Heavenly and the Spiritual. He then goes on to say that there are "three heavens": the Heavenly, the Spiritual, and the Natural. He also refers to these as the third, second, and first heaven, respectively. He further explains that the Natural is divided into Heavenly-Natural and Spiritual-Natural, and that each heaven is also divided into an outer and an inner region.

It didn't really sound all that LDS to me, other than the fact of there being three heavens, which, as has been noted, can be taken from the Bible.

(Conjugial Love, 20-21, 54(5), 155)

Swedenborg witnessed a marriage ceremony in heaven, in which the husband wore priesthood robes like those of Aaron while the wife was arrayed as a queen. Also, marriage between man and woman is necessary to inherit the highest heaven.

(Doctrine and Covenants, 131:2)

LDS temple marriages are believed to carry over to heaven, and involve clothing similar to what Swedenborg described. Also, marriage between man and woman is necessary to inherit the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom.

This is the clothing Swedenborg described:

"The bridegroom was dressed in a robe of bright purple, and a tunic of fine shining linen, with an ephod, on which was a golden plate set round with diamonds, and on the plate was engraved a young eagle, the marriage-ensign of that heavenly society; on his head he wore a mitre: the bride was dressed in a scarlet mantle, under which was a gown, ornamented with fine needle-work, that reached from her neck to her feet, and beneath her bosom she wore a golden girdle, and on her head a golden crown set with rubies."

That doesn't really sound all that much like anything Mormon to me.

Also, LDS believe that sealing ordinances must be performed on earth, not in heaven.

Further, I didn't see anything from Swedenborg about marriage being required to enter the highest heaven. In fact, he specifically says that those who choose celibacy over marriage would be admitted, but that they wouldn't like it much. Anyone have any additional light to shed on this?

(Heaven and Hell, 421-422)

After dying, people enter a world of spirits that is nearly identical to this one. Afterward, they inherit a degree of glory based on how they lived while incarnate.

(Alma 12:24, 34:32-34, 40:21)

After dying, people go to the spirit world, which exists here on this world. Afterward, they inherit a degree of glory based on how they lived on the earth as well as in the spirit world.

I couldn't find anywhere where Swedenborg refers to heaven as "degrees of glory" or anything like it. His description of the spirit world didn't sound to me like something "nearly identical to this one." It was a place of limbo, halfway between heaven and hell in which people gravitated toward their true nature until they became fully suited to heaven or to hell.

That's the way I read it, anyway.

(Heaven and Hell, 27, 35)

Societies of angels exist whose primary function is to communicate between the kingdoms of heaven.

Doctrine and Covenants, 76:86-88)

Angels are appointed to minister to lower kingdoms of heaven.

This one isn't even close, IMO. Swedenborg specifically says that angels can have no contact with those of higher or lower kingdom. There are border communities of a sort that facilitate communication between kingdoms because they can't communicate directly.

Joseph described inhabitants of higher kingdoms ministering to those of lower.

That's not even really similar, if you ask me. They're very nearly opposites.

Emanuel Swedenborg received his divine calling on April 6, 1744. One year later on April 6, 1745 the Lord appeared to him again.

(Doctrine and Covenants, 20:1)

The LDS church was established on April 6, 1830. It also teaches that Jesus was born on April 6.

This one is pretty good. There definitely seems to be a connection of some sort there.

(Last Judgement, 33-39; True Christian Religion, 647)

The church established by Christ died spiritually due to apostasy and false doctrines. The Lord's church would be re-established and again act as a link with heaven.

(Joseph Smith History, 1:16)

The church established by Christ died spiritually due to apostasy and false doctrines. The Lord's church was restored through Joseph Smith.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(True Christian Religion, 340-342, Heaven and Hell, 427)

One of the great errors of Christianity is justification by faith alone. People will be judged for their actions as well.

(Alma 11:34-37)

Faith is meaningless without works. People will be judged for their actions as well.

The Apostasy was a relatively common topic back then. This is a pretty weak connection.

And as for works being necessary, all that means is that both Joseph and Swedenborg read the book of James.

(Arcana Coelestia, vol. 1)

The creation and Garden of Eden stories are allegories of our spiritual progress.

The LDS counterpart to this idea is found in the temple endowment.

I have't looked at Arcana Coelestia, so I couldn't comment on this. It seems a pretty generic connection, IMO.

[lostindc]

That isn't quite the way I read it.

He further explains that the Natural is divided into Heavenly-Natural and Spiritual-Natural, and that each heaven is also divided into an outer and an inner region.

This rings a bell, it reminds of some pseudepigrapha I was reading a year ago. If I have time I will try to locate that tomorrow while at work.

With the rest of your post, I agree, Swedenborg's texts do not sound LDS at all.

[handys003]

Why would Joseph Smith accept the theology of Swedenborg who declared that there was no Trinity of Persons? Swedenborg was adamant about his theological writings how the Divine Trinity exists in One Person, in One God, the Lord Jesus Christ. This goes contrary to the first vision.

[Joseph Antley]

Why would Joseph Smith accept the theology of Swedenborg who declared that there was no Trinity of Persons? Swedenborg was adamant about his theological writings how the Divine Trinity exists in One Person, in One God, the Lord Jesus Christ. This goes contrary to the first vision.

The people who tell you that Joseph borrowed his theology from Swedenborg would also tell you that the description of the Father and the Son appearing as two separate beings in the First Vision didn't occur before 1835.

[handys003]

The people who tell you that Joseph borrowed his theology from Swedenborg would also tell you that the description of the Father and the Son appearing as two separate beings in the First Vision didn't occur before 1835.

I realize that. I guess they would say he had access to books on Saudi Arabia detailing Lehi's journey through to Bountiful. Oh wait did I say guess!?

I know J. Smith was a savant! Way ahead of his time.

[thews]

I realize that. I guess they would say he had access to books on Saudi Arabia detailing Lehi's journey through to Bountiful.

you mean like this book written in 1792...

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/browse?type=lcsubc&key=Arabian%20Peninsula%20--%20Description%20and%20travel%20--%20Early%20works%20to%201800

Travels through Arabia and Other Countries in the East (Edinburgh: Printed for R. Morison and Son, 1792), by Carsten Niebuhr, ed. by Robert Heron (PDF and partial HTML at dinsdoc.com)

Oh wait did I say guess!?

I know J. Smith was a savant! Way ahead of his time.

The arguments in here make it seem as if everything Swedenborg wrote would have to be exact to have relevance. You can deny them if you choose, but it doesn't negate that there are far too many similarities to make an act of random chance. For the record Joseph Smith liked to read... they had books back then on many subjects. The argument that he couldn't have possibly known enough about Arabia to write about locations is false, as referenced above.

[David T]

For the record Joseph Smith liked to read... The argument that he couldn't have possibly known enough about Arabia to write about locations is false, as referenced above.

CFR that:

1. the record states that prior to translating the Book of Mormon that 'Joseph Liked to Read'

2. Joseph had access to a library or otherwise that carried this book

[Redefined]

CFR that:

1. the record states that prior to translating the Book of Mormon that 'Joseph Liked to Read'

2. Joseph had access to a library or otherwise that carried this book

Why is it not possible in your mind that Joseph Smith could have had some scholarly intelligence that is downplayed for the sake of faith-promotion?

[Redefined]

Why is it not possible in your mind that Joseph Smith could have had some scholarly intelligence that is downplayed for the sake of faith-promotion?

Adding: and don't get me wrong here, by "scholarly intelligence" I don't mean "above and beyond" any other person of his day.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why is it not possible in your mind that Joseph Smith could have had some scholarly intelligence that is downplayed for the sake of faith-promotion?

It doesn't work that way. You have to have actual historical evidence that JS new of the book and read it. Not just here is a book that was in print.

Sorry but the "idoit savant" therory is one of the worst theories I have heard.

[Redefined]

It doesn't work that way. You have to have actual historical evidence that JS new of the book and read it. Not just here is a book that was in print.

Sorry but the "idoit savant" therory is one of the worst theories I have heard.

I think the mistake is claiming that Joseph Smith couldn't possibly had read the book. . . because he well could have.