Emanuel Swedenborg And Joseph Smith

[Lee Woofenden]

 

Hi Stephen,

 

On this, I was simply quoting Mark (mfbukowski), who said in a post on page 3 of this thread:

 

So that's another reason I like the LDS position.  We are polytheists and have no problem with it.

 

[Lee Woofenden]

Hmm, something went wrong with that last post. It was supposed to have quoted Stephen's statement:

 

I don't see it as an attack, but I think I disagree with the terminology.  In "polytheistic" religions, it brings to mind the idea of different and often competing gods.  They have different motives, different weaknesses, different purposes, and often are in conflict with one another.  That certainly is not what Mormons have in mind when we think of God (Gods).

 

[mfbukowski]

Hmm, something went wrong with that last post. It was supposed to have quoted Stephen's statement:

Yes Lee,I guess Stephen didn't like my word. Oh well.

Another question Lee, is I know there are many variations within the Swedenborg movement. How do you determine "doctrine" as "correct"?

Edited November 23, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Lee Woofenden]

 

One of the many problems LDS find with “the Trinity” or the strict monotheism that you take, is that it uses the word "one" differently than we see the word used in scripture.

 

Hi Stephen,

 

Without going into a long response and counterargument, I would simply say that like most words in most languages, "one" has more than one meaning in the Bible. Which meaning applies in any particular context is a matter of interpretation.

 

Some take your argument in exactly the opposite direction, and believe that not only are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit fully one as a single being, but the disciples, too, and by extension, everything else, is one with God, and therefore is God. In other words, they read the passages you quote not as implying a distinction between the various beings who are one, but as saying that all things are absolutely one with God, and are God. In other words, they consider these statements to be support for pantheism: all things are God.

 

I have read passionate defenses of that position, quoting passage after passage from the Bible that the writer considers clear demonstration that the real truth behind the Bible is that the universe and everything in it is God.

 

It appears, then, that "oneness is in the eye of the beholder."

 

Swedenborgians, especially on the more liberal end of the Swedenborgian spectrum where I reside, are very comfortable reading particular words differently in different contexts.

 

If I were to simply say the word "pool," what would come to mind? It could be:

 

• a swimming pool
• a game of pool
• a betting pool

and so on. Unless I added at least another word or two, you would have no way of knowing which "pool" I meant. The context determines what the word means.

 

This is so in all language, including the Bible's language. When reading the word "one," we must look at the context to decide what it means.

 

To my mind, the clear statements of God's oneness in the Old Testament are sufficient context to determine that when "one" refers to God or any part of God, it means a oneness of being, person, and essence.

 

On the other hand, the clear distinction made between God as Creator and all things in the created universe, including humans, as created beings is sufficient context to determine that when "one" refers to the relationship between God and humans, it is speaking of a different kind of oneness: that of two distinct beings in close relationship with one another.

 

Swedenborg himself commonly interpreted words and phrases differently depending on their context. And quite often he was explicit about this, pointing out that such and such word means this when it occurs in this context, but that when it occurs in that context. Even the exact same words in a different word order would be sufficient for him to assign a different meaning to the text.

 

This, I believe, is not a weakness, but a strength of Swedenborg's mode of interpreting the Bible. Rather than trying to flatten the Bible down into an unrealistic two-dimensional text, it recognizes that the Bible is at least as complex as the rest of human language and literature, in which words and phrases can take on vastly different meanings depending on how they are used, by whom, in what context, and with what emotions behind them.

 

So along with other Swedenborgians, I am very comfortable reading the word "one" in the Bible differently depending on the context and on whom it is referring to.

[Lee Woofenden]

Yes Lee,I guess Stephen didn't like my word. Oh well.

Another question Lee, is I know there are many variations within the Swedenborg movement. How do you determine "doctrine" as "correct"?

Hi Mark,

 

Perhaps I'm wading into a quagmire. I'm no expert on LDS doctrine. I can only respond to what you and others here say, assuming that you have a reasonable knowledge of your own beliefs.

 

On your question, though I myself am a bit of a stickler on correct doctrine, because I do think that right thinking is important, I also, perhaps in somewhat contradictory fashion, believe that doctrine is distinctly secondary to love and life.

 

From my perspective (and I get this solidly from Swedenborg), doctrine by itself is worse than useless. And when it becomes the primary focus of a church or religion, that church or religion has become spiritually bankrupt.

 

Swedenborg in fact traced the final end of the first Christian church (in his scheme of the world's religious eras) to the time when Protestantism established the doctrine of salvation by faith alone as the primary doctrine of their wing of the church. While he dunned Roman Catholicism for being corrupted by lust for worldly power, he dunned Protestantism for separating faith (another word for doctrine) from love, kindness, and a charitable life, and making the key issue in religion to be correct belief, which by itself is saving.

 

This, in turn, led to the vast proliferation of Protestant sects, each fiercely distinguishing itself from others by often minute points of doctrinal difference, which are considered in those sects to be highly important, critical points on which balance the difference between salvation and damnation.

 

Swedenborg rejected that whole view of religion, insisting that "all religion relates to life, and the life of religion is to do good."

 

So although Swedenborg spent many volumes articulating correct doctrine, he considered all of it useless if it did not lead people to be good, loving, kind, compassionate, and charitable to their fellow human beings. That, he said, and not correct doctrine is the essence of genuine religion.

 

And I (not surprisingly) agree with him.

 

So although I do have a strong concept of what is and is not correct doctrine, I also see that as secondary to whether the particular doctrine leads its adherents to live good, kind, useful, and productive lives toward their fellow human beings. The key and core to all religion is the two Great Commandments: to love God with all our being and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Doctrine is useful only to the extent that it supports those two commandments. Or in Jesus' words, "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:40).

 

All of this does lead to a perhaps somewhat surprising answer to your question of how one determines correct doctrine. Jesus said, "By their fruits you will know them" (see Matthew 7:15-20). So one of the pragmatic ways I evaluate the doctrines of a particular church or branch of a church is to see how their beliefs lead them to treat their fellow human beings.

 

When I see churches and sects behaving in hateful and bigoted ways, pronouncing curses and damnation on all who disagree with them and do not conform to their particular moral code, I feel very comfortable in saying that that church or sect has gone badly astray on its understanding of the "doctrine," or teachings, of Jesus.

 

On the other hand, when I see the members of a church or sect treating their fellow human beings with love and respect, serving their needs and showing compassion to those whom those other sects hate and condemn, it gives me a sense that this church or sect has gained a more genuine understanding of the "doctrine," or teaching, of Jesus.

 

Of course, it's not a foolproof way of determining correct doctrine. People with erroneous beliefs can and do become very loving and compassionate people, and people with objectively "correct" beliefs can become self-righteous and prideful people. However, it is one of the ways I evaluate various beliefs: what sort of life does that belief lead to? Does it lead to a life of loving God with all we've got, and loving our neighbor as ourselves? If so, then it probably has at least some element of genuine truth rightly perceived in the mind of the believer.

 

Another way I evaluate doctrine is on whether or not it paints God as a God of love. The apostle John said that "God is love" (1 John 4:8, 16). I think of that as a foundational statement about the nature of God. If a particular doctrine paints God as angry, vengeful, hateful, destructive, and so on, then I consider that doctrine to be faulty.

 

I'm well aware that the Bible itself uses such descriptions of God. But in doing so, it is, I believe, speaking in human appearances in order to reach fallen and evil human beings. See, for example, Psalm 18:25-26:

 

With the merciful, you reveal yourself as merciful;

With an upright person, you reveal yourself as upright;

With the pure, you show yourself as pure;

And with the crooked, you show yourself as perverse.

 

Re: the last line, it's not that God actually is perverse, but that God is seen as perverse by the crooked, due to their own crooked nature.

 

So from my perspective, doctrines that require God to be angry, punishing, wrathful, and destructive as part of his treatment of human beings have misapprehended the true nature of God based on a shallow understanding of the Bible.

 

On the other hand, doctrines that understand God as pure, infinite love, wisdom, and power for good in everything God does have, I believe, cut through the appearances and come to a more genuine understanding of the true nature of God.

 

This is another way I evaluate various doctrines: Do they paint God as wrathful, vindictive, and destructive, or do they understand God as loving, wise, and compassionate on all of God's creatures. A favorite passage on this point is Matthew 5:43-45:

 

You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.

 

This, to me, is a beautiful picture of the true nature of God's love, which provides the warmth of that divine love to both the evil and the good, and showers divine blessings on both the righteous and the unrighteous. If the evil and the unrighteous turn that love into wrath, and twist those blessings into curses, it is not because God does not love them, but because they themselves refuse to accept God's love and blessing.

 

This, to me, is at the core of all correct doctrine.

 

There are other ways of evaluating correct doctrine. Searching out the truth is a complex business! But these are some of the ways I approach the task.

[Lee Woofenden]

On a charitable life trumping doctrine, you can read one of Swedenborg's own very beautiful and powerful statements in The New Jerusalem and its Heavenly Doctrine #9. It is online (unfortunately still in a somewhat archaic translation) here.

 

Be aware in reading the passage that Swedenborg used the word "charity" (Latin charitas) in its original Gospel sense of love and kindness actively expressed to others in one's life.

[Lee Woofenden]

Ha! 26 posts! I can finally edit my boo-boos! :-)

[Lee Woofenden]

This is not the only problem with using "There is no other god beside me" as a proof text for a single substance God.  LDS will often point out that the Son prays to the Father.  Is God praying to itself?

Hi Stephen,

 

On this general issue of Jesus at times praying to the Father as if to a separate being, please see my earlier post here.

[Lee Woofenden]

I am also enjoying the discussion. Thanks Lee, for insight on Swedenborg theology.

With all the kindness, one must in some time to reflect. Does this new insight reaffirm my position or weakens it? As for me it is the first case.

When an religious approach relies too much on metaphor, like in the quote above, it is a sign of difficulties behind. We, as LDS people, perceive the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit, quite real, with the goal to find them more real.

Hi Foreigner,

 

I'm glad you're enjoying the discussion.

 

About "metaphor," I would respond that in Swedenborgian thinking, though we use the word "metaphor" as a convenient way of connecting with commonly spoken English, our view is actually much deeper and more substantial than the word "metaphor" implies.

 

The word Swedenborg commonly uses for his mode of Bible interpretation is not "metaphor," but "correspondence." Unfortunately, English has no word that fully conveys the meaning of this originally Latin word (correspondentia) as Swedenborg uses it. (I struggled mightily when when producing a common English translation of one of Swedenborg's small, introductory books back in the 1990s, spending hours with dictionaries and thesauruses, and simply didn't come up with any satisfactory English word--nor has any other Swedenborg translator managed to do so.)

 

"Correspondence" in Swedenborg's theology, is a living relationship in which a higher level of reality is expressed as fully as is possible in a lower level of reality. The Divine (God) expresses itself in very specific ways in spiritual reality, and spiritual reality expresses itself in very specific ways in material reality.

 

As a simple example, we could say that a hug corresponds to the love between two people. It is not simply a metaphor for love. Yes, a hug can and commonly is used as a metaphor for love. But it is more than that. It actually expresses in its own nature the nature of the love between the two people who are hugging. Love is a force or feeling that unites people who share it. It brings them spiritually (or psychologically) close to one another. A hug is an accurate physical expression of that love, in that it brings two people who love each other physically close to one another. So it doesn't merely provide a metaphor or symbol of love. It actually is the closeness of love expressed on the physical level of reality.

 

So when I loosely say that this or that in the Bible is a metaphor for some spiritual or divine reality, most of the time what I really mean that it is a correspondence of that spiritual or divine reality. In other words, I mean that it expresses on a material or worldly level the nature of the spiritual or divine reality to which it corresponds. It shows in its physical nature the nature of something that exists on a whole different level of reality.

 

That other level of reality is non-physical. It is not composed of physical matter, and it does not operate by the laws of physics and biology. Rather, it is made of spiritual (or divine) substance, and operates by spiritual (or divine) laws.

 

And from a Swedenborgian perspective, those higher levels of reality are in fact far more real than the physical. The physical is a pale shadow and reflection of those realms of greater reality. Here we see as in a mirror or a shadow, but there we will see directly.

 

And so, when we Swedenborgians see the New Testament use human words such as "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit," we don't feel compelled to think of them as referring to their human equivalents here on earth: as literal, biological fathers, sons, and breaths (which is the concrete meaning of the word for "spirit" in the original languages). Rather, we think of them as the Bible using human expressions for physical things that we can understand in order to point our minds to higher, spiritual and divine realities that we cannot understand with our material minds while we are living here on earth unless we have some physical figures or images to use in approaching them.

 

When we think of "the Father" as the core being of God, which is love, we are thinking of how a human, worldly term, "father" expresses something deeper about the divine nature of God. It's the same when we think of "the Son" or "the Holy Spirit," which should, perhaps, be translated as "The Holy Breath."

 

For us, God is speaking to us in the Bible in words that we limited and rather materialistic human beings can grasp in order to point us to deeper realities. We don't get stuck on the human meanings of father, son, and breath, but rather look to what those words express about the deeper divine reality of God.

 

That reality, in our view, is greater and more real than our human, material, and worldly reality, which we experience here on earth. Getting stuck on the literal, human meanings of father, son, and breath is, in our view, bringing God down to our physical and biological level. Our effort is instead to use these human words as images and expressions that help us to see and understand more clearly, with our limited minds, the greater realities of the nature of God and spirit.

[Lee Woofenden]

For a rather entertaining (if I do say so myself!) piece on this view of the Bible and how it is written, please see my article, "How God Speaks in the Bible to Us Boneheads."

Edited November 23, 2015 by Lee Woofenden

[Lee Woofenden]

Editing! What a concept!!!

[mfbukowski]

Hi Mark,

Perhaps I'm wading into a quagmire. I'm no expert on LDS doctrine. I can only respond to what you and others here say, assuming that you have a reasonable knowledge of your own beliefs.

On your question, though I myself am a bit of a stickler on correct doctrine, because I do think that right thinking is important, I also, perhaps in somewhat contradictory fashion, believe that doctrine is distinctly secondary to love and life.

From my perspective (and I get this solidly from Swedenborg), doctrine by itself is worse than useless. And when it becomes the primary focus of a church or religion, that church or religion has become spiritually bankrupt.

Swedenborg in fact traced the final end of the first Christian church (in his scheme of the world's religious eras) to the time when Protestantism established the doctrine of salvation by faith alone as the primary doctrine of their wing of the church. While he dunned Roman Catholicism for being corrupted by lust for worldly power, he dunned Protestantism for separating faith (another word for doctrine) from love, kindness, and a charitable life, and making the key issue in religion to be correct belief, which by itself is saving.

This, in turn, led to the vast proliferation of Protestant sects, each fiercely distinguishing itself from others by often minute points of doctrinal difference, which are considered in those sects to be highly important, critical points on which balance the difference between salvation and damnation.

Swedenborg rejected that whole view of religion, insisting that "all religion relates to life, and the life of religion is to do good."

So although Swedenborg spent many volumes articulating correct doctrine, he considered all of it useless if it did not lead people to be good, loving, kind, compassionate, and charitable to their fellow human beings. That, he said, and not correct doctrine is the essence of genuine religion.

And I (not surprisingly) agree with him.

So although I do have a strong concept of what is and is not correct doctrine, I also see that as secondary to whether the particular doctrine leads its adherents to live good, kind, useful, and productive lives toward their fellow human beings. The key and core to all religion is the two Great Commandments: to love God with all our being and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Doctrine is useful only to the extent that it supports those two commandments. Or in Jesus' words, "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:40).

All of this does lead to a perhaps somewhat surprising answer to your question of how one determines correct doctrine. Jesus said, "By their fruits you will know them" (see Matthew 7:15-20). So one of the pragmatic ways I evaluate the doctrines of a particular church or branch of a church is to see how their beliefs lead them to treat their fellow human beings.

When I see churches and sects behaving in hateful and bigoted ways, pronouncing curses and damnation on all who disagree with them and do not conform to their particular moral code, I feel very comfortable in saying that that church or sect has gone badly astray on its understanding of the "doctrine," or teachings, of Jesus.

On the other hand, when I see the members of a church or sect treating their fellow human beings with love and respect, serving their needs and showing compassion to those whom those other sects hate and condemn, it gives me a sense that this church or sect has gained a more genuine understanding of the "doctrine," or teaching, of Jesus.

Of course, it's not a foolproof way of determining correct doctrine. People with erroneous beliefs can and do become very loving and compassionate people, and people with objectively "correct" beliefs can become self-righteous and prideful people. However, it is one of the ways I evaluate various beliefs: what sort of life does that belief lead to? Does it lead to a life of loving God with all we've got, and loving our neighbor as ourselves? If so, then it probably has at least some element of genuine truth rightly perceived in the mind of the believer.

Another way I evaluate doctrine is on whether or not it paints God as a God of love. The apostle John said that "God is love" (1 John 4:8, 16). I think of that as a foundational statement about the nature of God. If a particular doctrine paints God as angry, vengeful, hateful, destructive, and so on, then I consider that doctrine to be faulty.

I'm well aware that the Bible itself uses such descriptions of God. But in doing so, it is, I believe, speaking in human appearances in order to reach fallen and evil human beings. See, for example, Psalm 18:25-26:

With the merciful, you reveal yourself as merciful;

With an upright person, you reveal yourself as upright;

With the pure, you show yourself as pure;

And with the crooked, you show yourself as perverse.

Re: the last line, it's not that God actually is perverse, but that God is seen as perverse by the crooked, due to their own crooked nature.

So from my perspective, doctrines that require God to be angry, punishing, wrathful, and destructive as part of his treatment of human beings have misapprehended the true nature of God based on a shallow understanding of the Bible.

On the other hand, doctrines that understand God as pure, infinite love, wisdom, and power for good in everything God does have, I believe, cut through the appearances and come to a more genuine understanding of the true nature of God.

This is another way I evaluate various doctrines: Do they paint God as wrathful, vindictive, and destructive, or do they understand God as loving, wise, and compassionate on all of God's creatures. A favorite passage on this point is Matthew 5:43-45:

You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.

This, to me, is a beautiful picture of the true nature of God's love, which provides the warmth of that divine love to both the evil and the good, and showers divine blessings on both the righteous and the unrighteous. If the evil and the unrighteous turn that love into wrath, and twist those blessings into curses, it is not because God does not love them, but because they themselves refuse to accept God's love and blessing.

This, to me, is at the core of all correct doctrine.

There are other ways of evaluating correct doctrine. Searching out the truth is a complex business! But these are some of the ways I approach the task.

Wonderful post Lee.

I think we agree far more than we disagree.

So do what extent would you say that what you have stated about the nature of God to be "doctrinal"?

How do those beliefs about God's "nature" contribute to us loving each other better?

[mfbukowski]

I believe that LDS doctrine supports traditional family values which in turn foster love in mankind. The family is essential to creating love in the world. That is the major reason I am LDS actually.

We have raised familial love to Godhood. I firmly affirm that belief as essential to the gospel of Christ. That is how God is love. The Family is love.

Pretty simple actually. Not much philosophy in that at all.

All else follows from that central insight.

Edited November 23, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Lee Woofenden]

I believe that LDS doctrine supports traditional family values which in turn foster love in mankind. The family is essential to creating love in the world. That is the major reason I am LDS actually.

We have raised familial love to Godhood. I firmly affirm that belief as essential to the gospel of Christ. That is how God is love. The Family is love.

Pretty simple actually. Not much philosophy in that at all.

All else follows from that central insight.

Hi Mark,

 

Yes, although as I've expressed previously, I don't agree with that concept of God, I do see how it became central to Mormonism. Mormons are, as you say, very strong on the family (at least, after dumping polygamy), and it makes a certain amount of sense that LDS doctrine would see God as a family, too.

[volgadon]

Hi Foreigner,

 

I'm glad you're enjoying the discussion.

 

About "metaphor," I would respond that in Swedenborgian thinking, though we use the word "metaphor" as a convenient way of connecting with commonly spoken English, our view is actually much deeper and more substantial than the word "metaphor" implies.

 

The word Swedenborg commonly uses for his mode of Bible interpretation is not "metaphor," but "correspondence." Unfortunately, English has no word that fully conveys the meaning of this originally Latin word (correspondentia) as Swedenborg uses it. (I struggled mightily when when producing a common English translation of one of Swedenborg's small, introductory books back in the 1990s, spending hours with dictionaries and thesauruses, and simply didn't come up with any satisfactory English word--nor has any other Swedenborg translator managed to do so.)

 

"Correspondence" in Swedenborg's theology, is a living relationship in which a higher level of reality is expressed as fully as is possible in a lower level of reality. The Divine (God) expresses itself in very specific ways in spiritual reality, and spiritual reality expresses itself in very specific ways in material reality.

 

As a simple example, we could say that a hug corresponds to the love between two people. It is not simply a metaphor for love. Yes, a hug can and commonly is used as a metaphor for love. But it is more than that. It actually expresses in its own nature the nature of the love between the two people who are hugging. Love is a force or feeling that unites people who share it. It brings them spiritually (or psychologically) close to one another. A hug is an accurate physical expression of that love, in that it brings two people who love each other physically close to one another. So it doesn't merely provide a metaphor or symbol of love. It actually is the closeness of love expressed on the physical level of reality.

 

So when I loosely say that this or that in the Bible is a metaphor for some spiritual or divine reality, most of the time what I really mean that it is a correspondence of that spiritual or divine reality. In other words, I mean that it expresses on a material or worldly level the nature of the spiritual or divine reality to which it corresponds. It shows in its physical nature the nature of something that exists on a whole different level of reality.

 

That other level of reality is non-physical. It is not composed of physical matter, and it does not operate by the laws of physics and biology. Rather, it is made of spiritual (or divine) substance, and operates by spiritual (or divine) laws.

 

And from a Swedenborgian perspective, those higher levels of reality are in fact far more real than the physical. The physical is a pale shadow and reflection of those realms of greater reality. Here we see as in a mirror or a shadow, but there we will see directly.

 

And so, when we Swedenborgians see the New Testament use human words such as "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit," we don't feel compelled to think of them as referring to their human equivalents here on earth: as literal, biological fathers, sons, and breaths (which is the concrete meaning of the word for "spirit" in the original languages). Rather, we think of them as the Bible using human expressions for physical things that we can understand in order to point our minds to higher, spiritual and divine realities that we cannot understand with our material minds while we are living here on earth unless we have some physical figures or images to use in approaching them.

 

When we think of "the Father" as the core being of God, which is love, we are thinking of how a human, worldly term, "father" expresses something deeper about the divine nature of God. It's the same when we think of "the Son" or "the Holy Spirit," which should, perhaps, be translated as "The Holy Breath."

 

For us, God is speaking to us in the Bible in words that we limited and rather materialistic human beings can grasp in order to point us to deeper realities. We don't get stuck on the human meanings of father, son, and breath, but rather look to what those words express about the deeper divine reality of God.

 

That reality, in our view, is greater and more real than our human, material, and worldly reality, which we experience here on earth. Getting stuck on the literal, human meanings of father, son, and breath is, in our view, bringing God down to our physical and biological level. Our effort is instead to use these human words as images and expressions that help us to see and understand more clearly, with our limited minds, the greater realities of the nature of God and spirit.

This, essentially, is comparable to the idea of symbols in the Kabbalah, which did have an influence on Swedenborg.

[Lee Woofenden]

Wonderful post Lee.

I think we agree far more than we disagree.

So do what extent would you say that what you have stated about the nature of God to be "doctrinal"?

How do those beliefs about God's "nature" contribute to us loving each other better?

Thank you. I do believe that there are commonalities that tie together all of the religions, even if there are doctrinal differences that distinguish and sometimes separate us.

 

I consider all of what I've stated about God to be doctrinal. I don't think there's any such thing as true doctrine separate from a kind and charitable life. If they become separated, the doctrine gets falsified and corrupted, and the life wanders like a ship without a rudder.

 

The core of our doctrine of God is that God is one, and God is pure, infinite love, wisdom, and power.

 

How do those beliefs about God's nature contribute to our loving each other better?

 

For every religion, the beliefs about God form the core of the church's doctrine, and also set the standard for human life. If God is the Creator, then we look to God as the pattern and model of God's creation, and of our own life.

 

So if we see God as pure love, with no hate, anger, revenge, and so on, that sets a very high standard for us to strive for in life. In every situation we are to seek the most loving, compassionate, and charitable path. We may not always succeed, but that is the divine ideal.

 

If we see God as pure wisdom and pure truth, with no falsehood in him, then that sets a very high standard for us to seek out the truth in as pure a form as we can grasp it, and to make that truth the guide for our life.

 

And if we see God as pure power for good, that sets a very high standard for us to actively pursue a life in which we use whatever more limited power and faculties we have for the good of others, and of course, for our own good, too.

 

Such a concept of God gives no excuse for putting our own needs, life, salvation, and so on ahead of the needs, life, and salvation of others. Certainly we do have to provide for our basic needs, and for the needs of our family, as a priority. However, the purpose of doing that is not for our own benefit and pleasure, but to make ourselves healthy in mind ad body so that we can love our neighbor more fully and effectively, as Jesus taught us to do.

 

In short, having a concept of God as pure love, wisdom, and power sets the standard and provides the model for us to strive toward in our own lives. We will, of course, only partially succeed in emulating the divine pattern God has set for us. But that divine pattern always calls us upward to higher levels of love and understanding, and greater levels of caring and usefulness toward all of our fellow human beings.

[mfbukowski]

This, essentially, is comparable to the idea of symbols in the Kabbalah, which did have an influence on Swedenborg.

So one night say that the symbol calls up and participates to a degree in the greater reality?

That also reminds me of sympathetic magic, but without the negative connotation?

[mfbukowski]

Hi Mark,

Yes, although as I've expressed previously, I don't agree with that concept of God, I do see how it became central to Mormonism. Mormons are, as you say, very strong on the family (at least, after dumping polygamy), and it makes a certain amount of sense that LDS doctrine would see God as a family, too.

Well of course we do not see polygamy as damaging that concept but enhancing it. But that is beyond this thread I think.

So do you want to answer the doctrinal questions? Or avoid the quagmire?

[Lee Woofenden]

This, essentially, is comparable to the idea of symbols in the Kabbalah, which did have an influence on Swedenborg.

Hi volgadon,

 

Every religion has its mystical end. For Judaism, it's the Kabbalah and Kabbalists. Swedenborgianism certainly fills the bill for being on the mystical end of Christianity--though it is also a very pragmatic religion, focused on doing practical good for others.

 

As for the Kabbalah influencing Swedenborg, that is a matter of much debate among Swedenborgian scholars. I've mostly steered clear of that debate as not being particularly useful. Swedenborg did have access to Kabbalistic ideas in his native Sweden. One of his college professors was a scholar of Jewish mysticism. However, he seems to have gone in a rather different direction than the Jewish Kabbalah.

 

And so, similar to the debate that started this thread about whether Swedenborg influenced Joseph Smith, I would say that Swedenborg probably did have at least a passing familiarity with Kabbalistic thought, but if he adopted ideas from it, he put his own spin on them, and integrated them in his own way into a system that had a different basic structure of belief. For one thing, Swedenborg was thoroughly Christian, and Jesus Christ figures centrally in his theology.

 

Having said all that, the mystical ends of every religion tend to seek and find commonalities among all the great religions, and to think of one another as spiritual brothers and sisters.

 

At the other end of the spectrum, the fundamentalists and literalists of every religion tend to focus on the differences between themselves and the people of all other religions--and even between themselves people in their own religion (such as Christianity) that have different doctrines than they themselves do. Most of the "religious" conflict in the world involves the fundamentalist wings of the respective religions clashing with one another.

 

So although I myself do not think that the Kabbalah was Swedenborg's major source of inspiration for his spiritual interpretation of the Bible, I am happy to think of Kabbalists as brothers and sisters in seeing the Scriptures as being primarily about spiritual and divine realities rather than about material and worldly history and events.

[Lee Woofenden]

So do you want to answer the doctrinal questions? Or avoid the quagmire?

I think I did just above (here). But if you have something else in mind, let me know what doctrinal questions you wanted me to answer.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks

Disregard the previous- I missed this post on my phone.  Sigh.  Technology!

Thank you. I do believe that there are commonalities that tie together all of the religions, even if there are doctrinal differences that distinguish and sometimes separate us.

 

I consider all of what I've stated about God to be doctrinal. I don't think there's any such thing as true doctrine separate from a kind and charitable life. If they become separated, the doctrine gets falsified and corrupted, and the life wanders like a ship without a rudder.

 

The core of our doctrine of God is that God is one, and God is pure, infinite love, wisdom, and power.

 

How do those beliefs about God's nature contribute to our loving each other better?

 

For every religion, the beliefs about God form the core of the church's doctrine, and also set the standard for human life. If God is the Creator, then we look to God as the pattern and model of God's creation, and of our own life.

 

So if we see God as pure love, with no hate, anger, revenge, and so on, that sets a very high standard for us to strive for in life. In every situation we are to seek the most loving, compassionate, and charitable path. We may not always succeed, but that is the divine ideal.

 

If we see God as pure wisdom and pure truth, with no falsehood in him, then that sets a very high standard for us to seek out the truth in as pure a form as we can grasp it, and to make that truth the guide for our life.

 

And if we see God as pure power for good, that sets a very high standard for us to actively pursue a life in which we use whatever more limited power and faculties we have for the good of others, and of course, for our own good, too.

 

Such a concept of God gives no excuse for putting our own needs, life, salvation, and so on ahead of the needs, life, and salvation of others. Certainly we do have to provide for our basic needs, and for the needs of our family, as a priority. However, the purpose of doing that is not for our own benefit and pleasure, but to make ourselves healthy in mind ad body so that we can love our neighbor more fully and effectively, as Jesus taught us to do.

 

In short, having a concept of God as pure love, wisdom, and power sets the standard and provides the model for us to strive toward in our own lives. We will, of course, only partially succeed in emulating the divine pattern God has set for us. But that divine pattern always calls us upward to higher levels of love and understanding, and greater levels of caring and usefulness toward all of our fellow human beings.

[mfbukowski]

Thank you. I do believe that there are commonalities that tie together all of the religions, even if there are doctrinal differences that distinguish and sometimes separate us.

 

I consider all of what I've stated about God to be doctrinal. I don't think there's any such thing as true doctrine separate from a kind and charitable life. If they become separated, the doctrine gets falsified and corrupted, and the life wanders like a ship without a rudder.

 

The core of our doctrine of God is that God is one, and God is pure, infinite love, wisdom, and power.

 

How do those beliefs about God's nature contribute to our loving each other better?

 

For every religion, the beliefs about God form the core of the church's doctrine, and also set the standard for human life. If God is the Creator, then we look to God as the pattern and model of God's creation, and of our own life.

 

So if we see God as pure love, with no hate, anger, revenge, and so on, that sets a very high standard for us to strive for in life. In every situation we are to seek the most loving, compassionate, and charitable path. We may not always succeed, but that is the divine ideal.

 

If we see God as pure wisdom and pure truth, with no falsehood in him, then that sets a very high standard for us to seek out the truth in as pure a form as we can grasp it, and to make that truth the guide for our life.

 

And if we see God as pure power for good, that sets a very high standard for us to actively pursue a life in which we use whatever more limited power and faculties we have for the good of others, and of course, for our own good, too.

 

Such a concept of God gives no excuse for putting our own needs, life, salvation, and so on ahead of the needs, life, and salvation of others. Certainly we do have to provide for our basic needs, and for the needs of our family, as a priority. However, the purpose of doing that is not for our own benefit and pleasure, but to make ourselves healthy in mind ad body so that we can love our neighbor more fully and effectively, as Jesus taught us to do.

 

In short, having a concept of God as pure love, wisdom, and power sets the standard and provides the model for us to strive toward in our own lives. We will, of course, only partially succeed in emulating the divine pattern God has set for us. But that divine pattern always calls us upward to higher levels of love and understanding, and greater levels of caring and usefulness toward all of our fellow human beings.

Followup afterall!!

 

So one could be a "Swedenborgian" while accepting what you have said here and while NOT accepting what you have said about God's nature in previous posts?

 

I guess I am exploring the borders here of what makes a Swedenborgian a Swedenborgian as far as beliefs are concerned, and if there is any more firm definition of what "membership" entails.

 

Am I a "Swedenborgian"?  Would other Mormons be welcome as members?  What are the doctrinal principles/practices which define your membership as opposed to simply loving God?

 

We have interview requirements which are broad and can differ highly in interpretation, yet we have to feel that in good conscience before God we are answering the questions honestly.

 

Is there some sort of counterpart process or qualifying "bar" one must reach to be defined by your community as Swedenborgian?  The "Oh yeah, he's a little weird but one of us" kind of thing?  

 

I am trying to pin you down a little here!!!  

 

Edit: 25 minutes later!!

Sorry about the lateness but I don't want to clutter the thread with too many posts

 

Post 55 above says this:

 

 

Swedenborgians do not see Jesus Christ as a pre-existing "person" of God (nor do we see the Holy Spirit as a pre-existing "person" of God). From eternity, there is simply God: one being, whose main "essential components" (Latin essentialia) are Love, Wisdom, and Power. That Trine, or Trinity, exists in God from eternity and to eternity. It is the basic nature of God.

 

That nature exists outside of time and space. It is not a part of the material universe, nor is it a part of the spiritual universe. It is made of divine substance, which is pure love. All other substances are derived from that divine substance. It is distinct from them by being self-subsisting and uncreated, whereas all other substances, both spiritual and material, are created and not self-subsisting. It is also distinct from all other substances and beings in that it is infinite, whereas all other substances, both spiritual and material, are finite—meaning that they have boundaries and limits around them. In fact, the very act of creation is an act of God putting boundaries or limits on emanations from his infinite, unbounded substance, and thus rendering them finite and therefore non-God.

 

In the act of creation, spiritual reality takes on an analog of time and space, which involves a succession of changing states of love and truth. In the act of creation, material reality takes on time and space, in which it is extended. Time and space are properties of material reality, not a pre-existing or overarching grid in which material reality exists, as was previously thought under Newtonian physics.

 

I am just wondering if one actually has to believe in "divine substance" and the various "natures" of God- all that metaphysics- to be a "Swedenborgian"

Edited November 24, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Let me just say this because I have said a lot about the word "correspondence" on this board regarding the "correspondence theory of truth" and its problems.

Lee "defined" correspondence as follows:

 

"Correspondence" in Swedenborg's theology, is a living relationship in which a higher level of reality is expressed as fully as is possible in a lower level of reality.

 

THAT I think is about as good a definition as one can get of "my" correspondence definition as well- since I have never defined the word.

 

For me language itself is an attempt to provide that exact kind of "correspondence" but always always falls short.  

 

Just the word "red" can be seen as attempting  "a living relationship in which a higher level of reality is expressed as fully as is possible in a lower level of reality."

 

It's a good definition, but I think might not clarify it in a theological context any better for me.   Words.  Can't live with them, can't communicate without them!

 

So when I loosely say that this or that in the Bible is a metaphor for some spiritual or divine reality, most of the time what I really mean that it is a correspondence of that spiritual or divine reality. In other words, I mean that it expresses on a material or worldly level the nature of the spiritual or divine reality to which it corresponds. It shows in its physical nature the nature of something that exists on a whole different level of reality.

 

That other level of reality is non-physical. It is not composed of physical matter, and it does not operate by the laws of physics and biology. Rather, it is made of spiritual (or divine) substance, and operates by spiritual (or divine) laws

 

So my point is that as I see it, this applies as well to the word "red" or "chair" as well as it applies to theology.

 

Experience itself happens in consciousness which is, I think to Lee, "spiritual"

 

We experience the consciousness of chairs and the color red and the words "participate" in that consciousness I suppose but yet do not really "re-present" it.   A blind person does not know "red" better for having heard the word.

 

You press an "A" key on a piano, and the other "A" keys and their harmonics "resonate" with that frequency.  Perhaps its similar.

Edited November 23, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Lee Woofenden]

 

Followup afterall!!

 

So one could be a "Swedenborgian" while accepting what you have said here and while NOT accepting what you have said about God's nature in previous posts?

 

I guess I am exploring the borders here of what makes a Swedenborgian a Swedenborgian as far as beliefs are concerned, and if there is any more firm definition of what "membership" entails.

 

Am I a "Swedenborgian"?  Would other Mormons be welcome as members?  What are the doctrinal principles/practices which define your membership as opposed to simply loving God?

 

We have interview requirements which are broad and can differ highly in interpretation, yet we have to feel that in good conscience before God we are answering the questions honestly.

 

Is there some sort of counterpart process or qualifying "bar" one must reach to be defined by your community as Swedenborgian?  The "Oh yeah, he's a little weird but one of us" kind of thing?  

 

I am trying to pin you down a little here!!!  

 

Edit: 25 minutes later!!

Sorry about the lateness but I don't want to clutter the thread with too many posts

 

Post 55 above says this:

 

I am just wondering if one actually has to believe in "divine substance" and the various "natures" of God- all that metaphysics- to be a "Swedenborgian"

 

Hi Mark,

 

To answer that question reasonably, I'll first mention a distinction traditionally made by Swedenborgians between "The Church Universal" and "The Church Specific." Those terms are no longer in vogue among most Swedenborgians, but the ideas behind them are:

• The Church Universal consists of all people, everywhere, of every religion who believe in God and live a good life, meaning a life of love, kindness, and service to their "neighbor," or fellow human beings.
• The Church Specific consists of people who have accepted and endeavor to live by the particular doctrines of the New Jerusalem, AKA the New Church, AKA the Swedenborgian Church.

No Swedenborgian thinks that a person must be Swedenborgian in order to be saved. (Okay, as in every church, there are a few fruit loops on the fringes, but main body thinks of them about as fondly as they do of mosquitoes.)

 

I say the above to point out that membership in our church isn't seen as being all that critical, as it is in many other churches and sects. Yes, we have our conservatives who think it's very important to be Swedenborgian, and that their particular branch of the church is the only one that is the real church. But even they will admit that non-Swedenborgians can be saved, and that it's not really necessary to be part of their church in order to go to heaven. They pretty much have to admit that, because Swedenborg himself said it quite clearly many times.

 

So really, for us, being Swedenborgian is more like a fellowship of people who share common beliefs about God, the Bible, and the life that leads to heaven rather than some key issue for our eternal salvation. We get together and form churches because we like to be together with, and worship together with, others who share our particular faith.

 

If you're wondering, then, what one has to believe or do to be a part of what Swedenborgians see as the Lord's church on earth, then the answer is that you have to believe in God and live a good life. It's about as broad as you can get.

 

If you're wondering what you'd have to believe and do in order to become a member of one of the Swedenborgian denominations (yes, as small as we are, we've managed to fragment into several sects), that would depend on which of the branches you wanted to join.

 

However, in general, if you approached one of our churches of any branch, and wanted to become a member, you'd likely have to take a membership class of some sort, which would teach you the basics of our beliefs. The curriculum would probably include a healthy dose of teaching about the nature of God, including Jesus Christ as God, the nature of the Bible, including its continuous, connected spiritual meaning, the necessity of living a good and useful life in order to get to heaven, and an overview of Swedenborg's descriptions of the spiritual world, including heaven, the "world of spirits" and hell.

 

What happened next would depend on which branch you wanted to join. The more conservative ones would likely want you to affirm your belief in a laundry list of specific doctrines that they view as essential to the faith of the New Church (which is what they would more likely identify themselves as than "Swedenborgian"). The more liberal ones would likely ask you if you are comfortable with these beliefs, and want to be a part of this church that believes in them.

 

The latter was the approach I took during my ten-year pastorate in Massachusetts. Prospective new members would take a six-week Newcomers Class taught by yours truly. I would then ask them if they were comfortable belonging to a church that believes these things. If they said yes--even if they might not thoroughly believe every one of them themselves, then I would recommend them to the Church Committee for membership, and they would be voted in, and then confirmed into the church during one of our regular Sunday services. Some of them told me quite frankly that they believed some, but not all, of the things I had taught in the class. But if they still wanted to be part of the church, we would welcome them.

 

There was also a general expectation that they would not make a ruckus about parts of our belief that they were not entirely in agreement with. For example, one cradle member of the church believed in reincarnation, which is contrary to Swedenborg's teachings. She taught Sunday School for many years, and never once taught reincarnation in the class. She recognized that this would be contradictory to the teachings of our church, and thus a disrespectful thing to teach in Sunday School classes sponsored by the church. If someone did make a ruckus, we'd deal with that as the situation required.

 

I realize this is probably more diffuse than you were hoping for, but that is the reality of the situation on the ground at our various churches.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Lee Woofenden

[Lee Woofenden]

 

I am just wondering if one actually has to believe in "divine substance" and the various "natures" of God- all that metaphysics- to be a "Swedenborgian"

In reality, very few members of the Swedenborgian Church could provide you with these philosophical answers about the nature of our theology, our concept of reality, and so on. In fact, even some of our clergy would struggle a bit with it. I happen to have a more extensive grounding in the teachings of our church than perhaps 99% of our membership, and I enjoy delving into these things with anyone who may show interest and aptitude.

 

Your average Swedenborgian, if asked, might get as far as saying that we believe in one God, that we believe Jesus is God come to earth to save us and teach us, that we believe that the Bible has a deeper meaning, that we believe that to be saved we must love our neighbor and engage in useful services for others as part of our everyday life, and that those who do that from a good heart will go to heaven, while those who are selfish and greedy and treat others badly will go to hell after death, where they will continue to live a fairly ordinary life in community with others either very happily (in heaven) or fairly miserably (in hell) for eternity--but that in either case, it is our own choice, depending on the sort of life we find enjoyable or pleasurable.

 

If, during my pastorate, any of my parishioners were able to say that much about what we believe, I would be very pleased. For many of them, the beliefs were less intellectual than they were kinesthetic. In other words, they may not have been able to clearly articulate our beliefs, but those beliefs were embodied in the way they lived. In general, they were good, decent people who believed that it was very important to love others, be good to others, and serve others well as part of their daily work, whether paid or unpaid. And though I taught many things from our doctrines in my sermons and classes, I always aimed to convey that what it's all about is loving God and loving our fellow human beings. If people got that message, and some basic truths about God, the Bible, and the afterlife along the way, I was quite satisfied that I was doing my job.