Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Emanuel Swedenborg And Joseph Smith

Anakin7

By Anakin7
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

Lee Woofenden Contributor

Lee Woofenden

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hi All,

 

One website that I've been frequenting lately is Christianity StackExchange. It's a Q&A site in the StackExchange network, which originated as a site for computer programmers. As such, questions are supposed to be specific and objectively answerable. On the Christianity site, this usually means asking about what particular groups and denominations of Christians believe rather than asking what's "true," or what people's opinions are on a particular topic.

 

Of interest to participants here is that there are many questions on the site about LDS beliefs, as well as people on the site who provide answers to those questions. The "lds" tag currently yields a whopping 265 questions!

 

There's always room on Christianity.SE for people knowledgeable in the history, theology, and practices of particular churches, who enjoy answering questions about their church. If any of you fall into that category, I'd encourage you to "come on down" and take a look. Before you start answering (or asking) away, though, you might want to take the Site Tour there, and also read the page about what questions are on topic on the site.

 

Here are some examples of recently active questions about LDS-related topics on Christianity.SE:

As you can see, it's an eclectic bunch of questions. You never know what someone's going to ask on Christianity.SE!

 

And now for some shameless advertising of several of my own answers about Swedenborgian belief on Christianity.SE that relate to some of the topics we've discussed on this thread:

Edited by Lee Woofenden
mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted

 

Hi All,

 

One website that I've been frequenting lately is Christianity StackExchange. It's a Q&A site in the StackExchange network, which originated as a site for computer programmers. As such, questions are supposed to be specific and objectively answerable. On the Christianity site, this usually means asking about what particular groups and denominations of Christians believe rather than asking what's "true," or what people's opinions are on a particular topic.

 

Of interest to participants here is that there are many questions on the site about LDS beliefs, as well as people on the site who provide answers to those questions. The "lds" tag currently yields a whopping 265 questions!

 

There's always room on Christianity.SE for people knowledgeable in the history, theology, and practices of particular churches, who enjoy answering questions about their church. If any of you fall into that category, I'd encourage you to "come on down" and take a look. Before you start answering (or asking) away, though, you might want to take the Site Tour there, and also read the page about what questions are on topic on the site.

 

Here are some examples of recently active questions about LDS-related topics on Christianity.SE:

As you can see, it's an eclectic bunch of questions. You never know what someone's going to ask on Christianity.SE!

 

And now for some shameless advertising of several of my own answers about Swedenborgian belief on Christianity.SE that relate to some of the topics we've discussed on this thread:

 

Great stuff Lee thanks!

 

Incidentally there are some who frequent this board who also post on a site which gives  LDS members answers to critical questions.  We are largely very misunderstood.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Main_Page

mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted

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.

No actually it was exactly what I was looking for!  That gives me a much better view of where the New Church stands as an organization on these issues, and the more we have spoken the more I see how close we are.   In fact this last post pretty much describes your "typical Mormon" as well, though we definitely lean toward the more conservative side of the scale in the "rank and file" members but then there are others like me who are more- figurative.

 

I hate the "liberal/conservative" definition of the poles of belief personally because I am probably simultaneously both liberal and conservative.   I tend to think in terms  of "paradigms" as linguistic expressions of truth which, can always be taken literally AND conservatively the same time, because neither one presents the whole story in one completely story because we can never really know the way things "really are"- just the way we perceive them.

 

So I have no problem say, believing in a literal Adam as much as I believe in evolution because I realize that neither of these stories gives the whole picture.  So am I conservative or liberal?  I would say both simultaneously.  Whatever story works to get people closer to Christ is the one I might use in any given situation.

 

I see Jungian archetypes at work in our personal falls from innocence as well as the story of Eve eating the fruit.  I wasn't there if there was a "there" or not. 

 

So I will definitely put the New Church on my list of viable alternate ways of viewing the gospel, along with Coptic Orthodox.  Perhaps that could be seen as an odd combination- the truth is that I absolutely LOVE the LDS temple- the symbolism, and even the whole idea that there IS a temple which coheres so well with early Christian beliefs.

 

I enjoy different perspectives.  I hope we can chat again soon either here or elsewhere- I am working on some projects which I think could benefit from some of your perspectives. 

Foreigner Contributor

Foreigner

Posted
Posted

In short, from my perspective, LDS theology takes an inherently polytheistic traditional Christian theology and makes it explicitly polytheistic, whereas Swedenborgian theology altogether rejects the polytheism of traditional Christian theology, and affirms a wholly monotheistic theology and concept of God.

Hi Lee,

Thanks for your latter clarifications. Surely, we have different attitude but at the other hand much more in common. Therefore I have to return, so to explain a former issue.

I am sorry that while so much has been said about love lately, I got angry about mfbukowski...

I cannot agree with his statement: "We are polytheists and have no problem with it.". This is a terrible false teaching. I am afraid he went astray with his semantics.

One good source of knowledge for the topic is: "Are Mormons Christians?" by Stephen E. Robinson. Here I would like to say something on my own. So I want to state, using your words, that our theology is wholly and strictly monotheistic. LDS Christians are monotheists like Jews, Muslims, other Christians and hopefully Swedenborgians. With that said, the doctrine of plurality of gods is something quite different and does not imply polytheism.

I am quite realistic and such is my religion. In my Hebrew Bible the third word is for God in plural term. In Psalm 82 we can read: "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." and "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." Despite that the Jews consider themselves monotheists, as we are. And Jesus himself confirmed this firmly in John 10, that scripture cannot be broken and as men were called gods, He can be called the Son of God. Accordingly, the first Christians and Christian saints considered much about gods and deification - as documented in the book mentioned above.

Yes, Joseph Smith elaborated more on plurality of gods, but the concept is well based in the Bible. And this is not in fact new for Christians because the Jews already had to match the plurality and unity of God, and managed that. Jesus did not complicate the issue, He explained it. He taught the principle of Kingdom, that is the principle of power and the principle of love as well. John 15:10 "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love." You can be endowed with power in this Kingdom according to your understanding of the principle. That is so simple.

The was no problem of plurality vs. unity at the beginning. The philosophers of dark ages invented it. I imagine that Swedenborg, when concerned over the issue, resolved to go forward, with a new concept of oneness of God.

I am glad that LDS Church goes rather back. The basic notion for us is restoration.

Anyway, I hate to see any proposed connection of polytheism to our religion. I would rather leave the word "polytheism" well at dark side of power. And not rather glad to see that a philosopher migrates us somehow  semantically to that side.

Lee Woofenden Contributor

Lee Woofenden

Posted
Posted

Great stuff Lee thanks!

 

Incidentally there are some who frequent this board who also post on a site which gives  LDS members answers to critical questions.  We are largely very misunderstood.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Main_Page

Hi Mark,

 

The reason I thought you (plural) might be interested in Christianity.SE is that it is a place where questions about various Christian groups (defined as those who define themselves as Christians) can be answered objectively, with supporting quotes and documentation. Discussion and debate is specifically disallowed in the main Q&A section. Prejudicial and inflammatory questions and answers are usually shut down pretty quickly. And the site is frequented by a wide variety of Christians and non-Christians seeking answers about religious belief. It has a fairly high profile on the search engines.

 

In other words, it's a great place for misunderstood churches and denominations to correct the record in a public place, not just on boards frequented mostly by their own members.

Lee Woofenden Contributor

Lee Woofenden

Posted
Posted

I cannot agree with his statement: "We are polytheists and have no problem with it.". This is a terrible false teaching. I am afraid he went astray with his semantics.

 

Hi Foreigner,

 

I'm simply looking in from the outside. His statement looked reasonable, since LDS teaching does, I believe, distinguish the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in a more separated way than even traditional Trinitarian belief (which I also reject). 

 

Perhaps this is something you need to resolve internally?

Lee Woofenden Contributor

Lee Woofenden

Posted
Posted

I am quite realistic and such is my religion. In my Hebrew Bible the third word is for God in plural term. In Psalm 82 we can read: "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." and "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." Despite that the Jews consider themselves monotheists, as we are.

Hi Foreigner,

 

Once again, this is one interpretation. However, the Hebrew word אֱלֹהִים (elohim) does not only mean "God" or "gods." It is also used to mean "angels," which in Jewish and Christian theology are not considered gods, but beings created by the one God. And it is used to mean "rulers, judges," or in other words, human beings who are in a position power over others. Here is the definition from Gesenius.

 

Jesus' quotation in John 10:34 of the poetic line from Psalm 82:6, "ye are gods," is certainly a tricky one to interpret. However, the interpretation that says he literally means that people are gods is roundly rejected in Christianity generally because it would conflict with Christianity's belief that it is a monotheistic religion, and because there are other interpretations available based on the varying contextual meanings of the underlying Hebrew word.

 

An example of this Psalm 8:4-5, translated in the KJV:

 

What is man, that thou art mindful of him?

and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels,
and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
 
The Hebrew word translated "angels" here is אֱלֹהִים. In Christian translations of Psalm 8:5 it is commonly translated "angels" instead of "God" because it is quoted and translated that way in the New Testament in Hebrews 2:7, where the Greek word used is not θεός (theos), God, but ἄγγελος (aggelos), angels. And the reason it is translated that way in the New Testament is that the New Testament writers relied primarily upon the Septuagint, which uses ἄγγελος in its translation of Psalm 8:5, as you can see here.
 
In other words, the Hebrew word אֱלֹהִים has a history going all the way back of having multiple meanings, not all of which are "God" or "gods." So although the LDS interpretation of אֱלֹהִים as a plurality of gods is a possible interpretation, it is certainly not the only interpretation. And given that as you say, both Judaism and Christianity are monotheistic religions, I would say that it is a very unlikely interpretation. It would certainly not be supported by Jewish Hebrew scholars, nor is it supported by the main body of Christian Bible scholars.
 
Regardless of that, it is clearly a matter of interpretation. And once again, the LDS interpretation verges toward recognizing multiple gods in some sense of that word, whereas the Swedenborgian interpretation maintains a strict monotheism, and rejects the idea of the actual existence of multiple gods in any sense of the word.
Lee Woofenden Contributor

Lee Woofenden

Posted
Posted

So I have no problem say, believing in a literal Adam as much as I believe in evolution because I realize that neither of these stories gives the whole picture.  So am I conservative or liberal?  I would say both simultaneously.  Whatever story works to get people closer to Christ is the one I might use in any given situation.

Hi Mark,

 

From my perspective, there is no problem with innocently speaking of Adam as a literal human being. We speak in appearances all the time. We say "the sun rises" and "the sun sets" when we now know that it does no such thing. And yet, we still speak that way in common language because from our perspective, the sun does rise and set.

 

In much the same way, the New Testament speaks of early, mythical figures such as Adam and Noah as if they were real people, but the points it is making in those instances don't actually require Adam and Noah to be literal human beings. They are referring to the stories of Adam and Noah.

 

It's just too clunky to have to add a parenthetical ("But Adam wasn't a real human being") every time we talk about Adam. For the purposes of the story, he is a character who is a human being, and when referring to the story, that's how we refer to him. When speaking about Star Wars, fans and critics alike casually refer to Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader as if they were actual individuals. But if you asked them, they'd say, "Well, of course, they're just characters in a movie."

 

It's when Christians begin insisting that Adam and Noah actually were real, historical individuals (something the Bible never actually says) that they start wandering into areas of fallacy and falsity. That is akin to insisting that the sun actually does rise and set, and that it's not just a matter of our perspective: that the earth actually stands still and the sun revolves around it. This we now know to be false. And those who would still insist upon it have wandered into an area of scientific fallacy and falsity.

 

Similarly, science has by now sufficiently demonstrated that the events of the early chapters of Genesis could not have literally, historically happened as described. So just as we now have further information showing that the sun doesn't actually rise or set, but the earth rotates on its axis making the sun appear to us to rise and set, we now have further information demonstrating as close to conclusively as you can get that those early chapters of the Bible are not literally true or historically accurate, but more in the nature of myths and origin stories of the Hebrew people.

 

Does this mean they are "false"? Absolutely not. It merely means that the truth they express is not worldly scientific and historical truth. Rather, these stories express a deeper kind of truth, which we Swedenborgians would call spiritual truth. And that kind of deeper truth is much more worthy of the Word of God than mere materialistic science and history.

volgadon Grand Master

volgadon

Posted
Posted

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?

 

 

Theurgy. Because the symbol participates to a degree in what you term the greater reality, our actions here can affect the celestial realms for good or for bad. I always cringe when someone has discovered that the Bible can be read symbolically (as if this wasn't the bleeding obvious and the heritage of centuries of Western thought), and they think that a symbol utterly negates its own reality. 

2
Lee Woofenden Contributor

Lee Woofenden

Posted
Posted

I hate the "liberal/conservative" definition of the poles of belief personally because I am probably simultaneously both liberal and conservative.   I tend to think in terms  of "paradigms" as linguistic expressions of truth which, can always be taken literally AND conservatively the same time, because neither one presents the whole story in one completely story because we can never really know the way things "really are"- just the way we perceive them.

 

Hi Mark,

 

I'm not crazy about the common liberal/conservative definitions of the poles of belief either. I see a more two- or three-dimensional landscape of belief than that one-dimensional scale allows for.

 

However, for better or for worse, it is a well-nigh universal concept in our culture, and throughout the world. So I've made my peace with it as part of ordinary conversation. It's just easier to speak in terms that people are used to. If the conversation gets into the nitty-gritty, we can then move to mappings that are fuller-bodied and have more precision than the classic liberal/conservative scale.

 

And the reality is that the "average person" would see my branch of the Swedenborgian Church as a very liberal church. For example, we've been ordaining women since 1972, and we've been ordaining openly gay and lesbian people since 1997. The more conservative Swedenborgian denominations still do not ordain either.

 

So for better or for worse, "liberal" provides a generally accurate characterization of my church in the mind of the average English-speaking person. The fact that it's actually a more complex picture is just not needed in most ordinary conversation.

volgadon Grand Master

volgadon

Posted
Posted

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,

 

I'm not suggesting that classic, Jewish Kabbalah had to be a major influence on Swedenborg. The truth is probably far more complex. The evidence can be tenuous, like the professor that you mentioned, by whom, I assume, you mean the Jewish convert Johannes Kemper. As far as I know, the hard evidence is missing that would show he taught Swedenborg, though it is unlikely that he did not. I'm sure that most of Swedenborg's thought should indeed be attributed to himself and his visions, but there are definite areas of kabbalistic influence as no man thinks in a vacuum. Christian Kabbalah was a major aspect of 17th-18th century intellectual life in northern Europe. The idea of symbols and correspondences was important in both systems, indeed, it was the cornerstone of Reuchlin's concept of the Kabbalah.

 

In the most cautious formulation, I am suggesting a similarity and affinity between Swedenborg's correspondences and kabbalistic notions of symbols. 

 

Jewish Kabbalah is an area in which I do have a bit of knowledge, a particular academic passion of mine. What Swedenborgian authors should I read on the question of kabbalistic influence on Swedenborg? 

1
Lee Woofenden Contributor

Lee Woofenden

Posted
Posted (edited)

Lee,

 

I'm not suggesting that classic, Jewish Kabbalah had to be a major influence on Swedenborg. The truth is probably far more complex. The evidence can be tenuous, like the professor that you mentioned, by whom, I assume, you mean the Jewish convert Johannes Kemper. As far as I know, the hard evidence is missing that would show he taught Swedenborg, though it is unlikely that he did not. I'm sure that most of Swedenborg's thought should indeed be attributed to himself and his visions, but there are definite areas of kabbalistic influence as no man thinks in a vacuum. Christian Kabbalah was a major aspect of 17th-18th century intellectual life in northern Europe. The idea of symbols and correspondences was important in both systems, indeed, it was the cornerstone of Reuchlin's concept of the Kabbalah.

 

In the most cautious formulation, I am suggesting a similarity and affinity between Swedenborg's correspondences and kabbalistic notions of symbols. 

 

Jewish Kabbalah is an area in which I do have a bit of knowledge, a particular academic passion of mine. What Swedenborgian authors should I read on the question of kabbalistic influence on Swedenborg? 

Hi volgadon,

 

Yes, Kemper is the one.

 

You seem to have summed up the situation quite well, and probably know more about this than I do. I've read some of the debate on Swedenborg and the Kabbalah among Swedenborgian scholars, but it was years ago. Some years ago I also attended a lecture focusing on the homunculus by a then-professor at the Swedenborgian House of Studies, which was on the side of "not much influence, the two systems are completely different."

 

Here are some scholarly references that I came up with with, listed in no particular order:

 

Hanegraaff, Wouter J. 2004. “Emanuel Swedenborg, the Jews, and Jewish Traditions.” In Reuchlin und seine Erben: Forscher, Denker, Ideologen und Spinner, edited by Peter Schäfer and Irina Wandrey. Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke. 135–154.

 

Lamm, Martin. [1915] 2000. Emanuel Swedenborg: The Development of His Thought. Translated by Tomas Spiers and Anders Hallengren. West Chester, Pa.: Swedenborg Foundation, pp. 55-58, 227-231. (This book is available from the publisher here.)

 

Williams-Hogan, Jane. 2000. “Emanuel Swedenborg and the Jewish Kabbalah: Organic or Syncretic Relationship?” Paper presented at the symposium “Western Esotericism and Jewish Mysticism,” 18th Quinquennial Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Durban, South Africa, August 5–12, 2000.

 

Bell, Reuben P. 1995. “Swedenborg and the Kabbalah.” Arcana 1(4):23–32. (Arcana Magazine was published by the Lord's New Church, one of the sects of the Swedenborgian Church. This article was apparently republished in The Arms of Morpheus: Essays on Swedenborg and Mysticism, which is available from the publisher here)

 

Schuchard, Marsha Keith. 1998. “Leibniz, Benzelius, and Swedenborg: The Kabbalistic Roots of Swedish Illuminism.” In Leibniz, Mysticism and Religion, edited by Allison P. Coudert, Richard H. Popkin, and Gordon M. Weiner. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 84–106.

 

Perhaps with some poking around on the Internet you can find some of the articles for which I haven't referenced sources. At any rate, this mini-bibliography points you to some of the scholars who have taken up the subject of the possible connections between Swedenborg and the Kabbalah. Happy hunting . . . and reading!

 

Edit: I should add that not all of these scholars are Swedenborgians. I would also suggest reading all of them (if possible) before coming to any particular conclusions, as some of these scholars disagree sharply with one another in their conclusions.

Edited by Lee Woofenden
1
mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted

Theurgy. Because the symbol participates to a degree in what you term the greater reality, our actions here can affect the celestial realms for good or for bad. I always cringe when someone has discovered that the Bible can be read symbolically (as if this wasn't the bleeding obvious and the heritage of centuries of Western thought), and they think that a symbol utterly negates its own reality.

I couldn't agree more. Like fingernails on a blackboard. And you hear that all the time here.
Foreigner Contributor

Foreigner

Posted
Posted
Once again, this is one interpretation. However, the Hebrew word אֱלֹהִים (elohim) does not only mean "God" or "gods." It is also used to mean "angels," which in Jewish and Christian theology are not considered gods, but beings created by the one God. And it is used to mean "rulers, judges," or in other words, human beings who are in a position power over others.

 

Hi Lee,

I know about these various meanings. That is at length discussed in the book I advised above.

Here is a quote from the book:

"For both the doctrine of deification and the implied doctrine of plurality of gods, an understanding of the definitions involved is essential. So let's be clear on what Latter-Day Saints do not believe. They do not believe that humans will ever be equal to or independent of God. His status in relation to us is not in any way compromised. There is only one source of light, knowledge, and power in the universe. If through the gospel of Jesus Christ and the grace of God we receive the fullness of God (Ephesians 3:19) so that we also can be called gods, humans will never become "ultimate" beings in the abstract, philosophical sense. That is, even as they sit on thrones exercising the powers of gods, those who have become gods by grace remain eternally subordinate to the source of the grace; they are extensions of their Father's power and agents of his will. They will continue to worship and serve the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost forever, and will worship and serve no one and nothing else.

If the Latter-day Saints had chosen to refer to such glorified beings as "angels" instead of "gods", it is unlikely anyone outside the LDS church would have objected to the doctrine per se. It seems that it is only the term that is objectionable. And yet the scriptures themselves often use the word god in this limited sense to refer to nonultimate beings."

I hope, that after reading a few more pages of the book, you could change your opinion, and notice that our theology is not so distasteful. You have said: " Swedenborgian interpretation maintains a strict monotheism, and rejects the idea of the actual existence of multiple gods in any sense of the word." But you yourself have already described that in Old Testament the name of God is sometimes interpreted as angels?

One more quote from the book:

"When anti-Mormon critics interpret Exodus 7:1, Deuteronomy 10:17, Psalm 8:5 (in Hebrew), Psalm 45:6, Psalm 82:6, or John 10:34-36, they go to great lengths to clarify that these scriptures use the term god in a limited sense and that therefore they do not involve any polytheism - there may be more than one "god", but there is only one God. When they discuss Latter-day Saint writings that use the term god in the same sense, however, the critics seldom offer the same courtesy. Instead they disallow any limited sense in which the term gods can be used when that term occurs in LDS sources, thereby distorting and misinterpreting our doctrine, and then accuse us of being "polytheists" for speaking of "gods" in a sense for which there are valid scriptural and historical precedents."

Anakin7 Veteran

Anakin7

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Lee I am glad you liked the link I gave above. Read the rest when you have time and link to it if needed. Have a True Grace filled day.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

[Kal- El on your page !]

Lee Woofenden Contributor

Lee Woofenden

Posted
Posted (edited)

If the Latter-day Saints had chosen to refer to such glorified beings as "angels" instead of "gods", it is unlikely anyone outside the LDS church would have objected to the doctrine per se. It seems that it is only the term that is objectionable. And yet the scriptures themselves often use the word god in this limited sense to refer to nonultimate beings."

Hi Foreigner,

 

Yes, I think the author is right that if the LDS church had used the term "angels" instead of "gods," no one would object. And I do think that "angels" is a much better term for what we humans can become.

 

However, although Swedenborg does describe princes in heaven (he doesn't use the word "king" for them, reserving that term for God in a spiritual sense) who have a royal court, and presumably some sort of throne, he describes them only in some of the mid-level and lower heavens, where the trappings of worldly kings and thrones still hold sway in the minds of the angels there.

 

Swedenborg describes the highest angels, by contrast, as living very simply, often in tents, or at most in simple wooden dwellings, and having no interest in the trappings of power such as titles and royal courts. And if they're not interested in those symbols of power, they would by extension be horrified at the idea of being called "gods." On the contrary, they are the most humble and innocent of the angels, and attribute no power or glory at all to themselves, seeing themselves as merely servants of God.

 

And these, Swedenborg says, are actually the most powerful of the angels, precisely because they attribute no power at all to themselves. From a distance, he says, they often look like children playing because of their innocence and simplicity of heart. And yet, when he came close to them they were full adults, and as he talked to them he recognized that they had a wisdom that went far beyond any of the other angels he met in the various regions of heaven.

 

No evil spirits dare come anywhere near them or their communities, because evil spirits feel horrible pain if they sense even the slightest whiff of the heavenly atmosphere in which those angels live. Evil has no power at all over them, because they live in the region of heaven that is closest to God's love, wisdom, and power.

 

So for Swedenborgians, it's not only the term that is objectionable, but the idea that the ultimate in human glory would be to be like gods sitting on thrones and ruling over planets and peoples. Such an idea, to us, would denote a distinctly lower heaven, for those whose minds are still caught in worldly ideas of power.

 

Even the angels in those mid-level to lower heavens who occupy positions of power attribute none of that power to themselves. In conversation with one of them, the prince told Swedenborg that he accepts the various symbols and tokens of power not because he thinks he deserves them in any way, but because it helps the common people (angels) in his community to respect him and his leadership. But the leadership, he said, is really the Lord's acting through him, and none of it is his own. He saw the power as being in the position, not in himself as a person, and that he was there purely to serve the people of the community of which he was the leader.

 

The only spirits Swedenborg describes referring to themselves and others in their communities as "gods" are in hell, not in heaven. There, he says, the most powerful (in an evil sense) spirits are often referred to by the other spirits as "gods."

 

No one in Swedenborg's heaven would ever refer to him- or herself as a "god." They would, however, refer to themselves and one another as angels. And that would be an accurate term, from our perspective.

 

I do not mean to imply that because LDS members think they will become gods, that means they will go to hell according to Swedenborg's theology. But from our perspective, there are serious problems with using the word "gods" to refer to created beings. And from our perspective, the different meanings of the Hebrew elohim should be recognized and distinguished, not all glommed together under the word "god."

 

Swedenborg actually describes a "false heaven" in which people who think they will be great rulers in heaven get to try out that idea of heaven. They discover through experience that it is a fantasy and an illusion. If they are basically good people, though, they will move on, and eventually find their place in heaven, much humbled.

 

So once again, it is not just the term, but also the substance of the concept that we object to.

 

And yet, it is simply a belief. From our perspective, if the people who believe deification are good, faithful, and loving people who engage in useful service to their fellow human beings, they will find their ultimate home in heaven.

Edited by Lee Woofenden
mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted

Theurgy. Because the symbol participates to a degree in what you term the greater reality, our actions here can affect the celestial realms for good or for bad. I always cringe when someone has discovered that the Bible can be read symbolically (as if this wasn't the bleeding obvious and the heritage of centuries of Western thought), and they think that a symbol utterly negates its own reality. 

Why don't we teach that?  Seriously?

 

One of the reasons I like Wittgenstein is that he understands that linguistic descriptions cannot capture the Unspeakable.  That is is Jewish heritage speaking.

 

Joseph was obviously a visionary but we don't teach this aspect of it.  Seriously- why not?

 

For that matter this fits Swedenborg as well.

1
mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted

Theurgy. Because the symbol participates to a degree in what you term the greater reality, our actions here can affect the celestial realms for good or for bad. I always cringe when someone has discovered that the Bible can be read symbolically (as if this wasn't the bleeding obvious and the heritage of centuries of Western thought), and they think that a symbol utterly negates its own reality. 

I think this is highly relevant to certain questions being raised against the church currently, and arguably the performance of what amounts to perhaps an "anti-ritual" in violation of cosmic forces.  Black magic?  Perhaps the forces do not care enough to even notice, perhaps they do.

mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hi Foreigner,

 

I'm simply looking in from the outside. His statement looked reasonable, since LDS teaching does, I believe, distinguish the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in a more separated way than even traditional Trinitarian belief (which I also reject). 

 

Perhaps this is something you need to resolve internally?

This has been discussed quite a bit with some of us who consider the Restoration as more of a Revolution against what has happened to "Creedal (a Mormon shortcut for those who accept the Nicene Creed) Christianity" vs those who are more comfortable with traditional vocabularies of monotheism, dual natures, substance theology etc.

 

There are those apologists who want desperately to belong to the "Christian" club and those of us who think the term has been co-opted by those who went down the wrong road, and do not care if we are known by that re-defined word or not.

 

It's not a new issue, but to me, it's strictly semantic.  Others seem to get pretty "exercised" over the "issue"

 

So quoting Wittgenstein makes me a "liberal" and not believing in same sex marriage makes me a "conservative".  Believing in evolution makes me a "liberal" but affirming that we actually have a living prophet to be followed makes me a "conservative."

 

Go figure ;)

Edited by mfbukowski
Lee Woofenden Contributor

Lee Woofenden

Posted
Posted (edited)

Lee here is a Link from my LDS Kryptonian Archive on the Divine Potential of man - http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_theosis.shtml. May True Grcae be with you and those you Love.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

[Kal -El]

Hi Anakin7,

 

Thanks for the link. I may at some point read it, just to clarify in my mind the LDS doctrine on the subject.

 

However, to my mind, and in my theology, there is no "divine potential" in any created being. There is only spiritual potential, and that will always be a discrete layer of reality below the divine nature of God.

 

Once again, I support the right of the LDS faithful to believe as they find it in themselves and in their doctrines to believe.

 

However, for me and for my fellow Swedenborgians, the idea that humans can become divine in any manner is something completely unacceptable and unimaginable. We humans, even if we may become angels of the highest heavens, will always be "a little lower than God," to use that translation of Psalm 8:5.

 

For us, that is more than a poetic turn of phrase.

 

As I've mentioned in previous posts here, we see divine reality, which is God, as being a distinct and unique level of reality above all other realities. We humans exist on the material and spiritual levels of reality. And though we largely (but actually not entirely) leave the material level behind when we pass from this world to the next, it is utterly impossible for us ever to reach the divine level of reality. That level of reality is eternally and uniquely occupied by God alone.

 

So human deification is simply impossible in our theology.

Edited by Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden Contributor

Lee Woofenden

Posted
Posted

There are those apologists who want desperately to belong to the "Christian" club and those of us who think the term has been co-opted by those who went down the wrong road, and do not care if we are known by that re-defined word or not.

 

Hi Mark,

 

There is a similar tug-of-war among Swedenborgians. Some of our most "liberal" churches don't particularly want to identify themselves as "Christian" because of the connotations that word carries with it in regular society.

 

I, along with Swedenborg, do not think that the traditionally "Christian" church is Christian at all--at least, not doctrinally speaking. Yes, there are many people in it who live as Christians, and are therefore Christian in reality. But all of the "Creedal" (Nicene-creed-based) churches have, in our view (supported by Swedenborg's plain statements on the subject) completely falsified the doctrines of the Christian Church, and thereby rendered themselves non-Christian.

 

In True Christianity #668, almost as an aside during a discussion of the real, spiritual meaning of baptism, Swedenborg wrote:

 

Surely everyone who is willing to can see that there was some divine purpose in the establishment of this practice [baptism]—a purpose that has been hidden until now because the Word's spiritual meaning has not been revealed before. Today, however, this spiritual meaning is being revealed because the Christian church in its true essence is now getting underway for the first time. The former church was Christian not in essence or in reality but in name only. (italics added)

 

Since we reject the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons, which is the foundation of the doctrine of nearly all of the Christian churches in the world, we are considered by some of them to be "non-Christian." And if they want to believe that, that's their problem, not ours.

 

My belief is that "Christianity" should be defined by teachings that are plainly stated in the Bible. The doctrines we reject, and based on which other churches sometimes charge that we're not Christian, were all invented by human beings at specific times in history, starting with the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, and are not stated, plainly or otherwise, in the Bible. Some of them are even explicitly denied in the Bible, in the plainest language possible.

 

That's the message of a brief article that I've pinned near the top of my blog so that all comers can easily find and read it: "Christian Beliefs" that the Bible Doesn’t Teach

 

The older I get, the less I care about what all of these self-proclaimed Christians think about our beliefs. I just continue to teach them. Anyone with ears to hear them will listen. Those who are entrenched in the falsities of traditional "Christianity," based on human-manufactured creedal doctrines, will not be able to hear or accept them as long as their minds are clouded by those old falsities.

1
mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hi Anakim7,

 

Thanks for the link. I may at some point read it, just to clarify in my mind the LDS doctrine on the subject.

 

However, to my mind, and in my theology, there is no "divine potential" in any created being. There is only spiritual potential, and that will always be a discrete layer of reality below the divine nature of God.

 

Once again, I support the right of the LDS faithful to believe as they find it in themselves and in their doctrines to believe.

 

However, for me and for my fellow Swedenborgians, the idea that humans can become divine in any manner is something completely unacceptable and unimaginable. We humans, even if we may become angels of the highest heavens, will always be "a little lower than God," to use that translation of Psalm 8:5.

 

For us, that is more than a poetic turn of phrase.

 

As I've mentioned in previous posts here, we see divine reality, which is God, as being a distinct and unique level of reality above all other realities. We humans exist on the material and spiritual levels of reality. And though we largely (but actually not entirely) leave the material level behind when we pass from this world to the next, it is utterly impossible for us ever to reach the divine level of reality. That level of reality is eternally and uniquely occupied by God alone.

 

So human deification is simply impossible in our theology.

I do not want to contradict you but perhaps you do not understand that we also believe we will never be "equal to God". 

 

We also believe we will always be QUITE a bit "lower than God"

 

Exaltation is LIKE growing up and becoming "like your dad"- but of course extended beyond death.  If your dad is an accomplished person he has had more time to become more accomplished than you.  That is a poor analogy but it kind of works.  Assuming your dad never dies, he will (let's assume) have more money, knowledge and experience than you because even if you are just as smart and just as motivated, lucky etc etc he has had more time to achieve more than you have.

 

So extend that analogy into the eternities.

 

God has had PLURAL "eternities" for him to perfect himself. He will always be Our Father.  He is infinitely above us and will always be our God.  We will always pray to Him as Jesus himself prayed to Him.  Think about that - the God Jesus prayed to his Father.   Jesus said that all he did was what his Father did.

John 5:19

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Another analogy I use is, imagine that we are all on an elevator moving up, but God is on a step ladder of infinite height but the ladder is still on the same elevator we are.  Our children are on a lower "rung" than we are but the whole pyramid is still moving up together.

 

Relative to those outside we may be "gods" but internally we see the infinite difference between us and Our Father.

 

So now in your imagination, taking this analogy into account,  look at your post.

 

We humans, even if we may become angels of the highest heavens, will always be "a little lower than God," to use that translation of Psalm 8:5.

 

For us, that is more than a poetic turn of phrase.

 

As I've mentioned in previous posts here, we see divine reality, which is God, as being a distinct and unique level of reality above all other realities. We humans exist on the material and spiritual levels of reality. And though we largely (but actually not entirely) leave the material level behind when we pass from this world to the next, it is utterly impossible for us ever to reach the divine level of reality. That level of reality is eternally and uniquely occupied by God alone.

 

So human deification is simply impossible in our theology.

 

Were it not for that last line, I could have written that myself.

 

So for me it comes down to what "deification" is.  You also said that we can participate in the "divine nature" and become "more human" as we follow God/Christ,  our "nature" becomes more Christlike.   Did I get that wrong?

 

So I think perhaps we are closer than you may think at first blush.

 

And this whole "creator/creature" distinction becomes, in my opinion, untenable Biblically.  I think that is a philosophy of man, quite frankly which came into Christianity through Reformed theology.  (I think?)

 

If God can in any way be described as "Our Father" - which term the Bible clearly uses- the distinction becomes very tenuous.  Is your earthly father your "creator"?

Are you his "creation"?

 

Certainly in participating with the laws of the universe as God made them work, your father participated in your coming here to earth.  No question.  And with your children it works the same way.

 

I honestly do not want to debate with you because I think that in the long run we are brothers with the same beliefs but defined by different vocabularies, but I DO wish to explore those perceived differences and see if they are "semantic" or not.

 

We also affirm that we will never be equal with Our Father, but that we CAN become more- and more- and more- like him.

 

Edit:  This from LDS.org. 

It is a fairly brief article and authoritative.  I think it might help.https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

 

For some observers, the doctrine that humans should strive for godliness may evoke images of ancient pantheons with competing deities. Such images are incompatible with Latter-day Saint doctrine. Latter-day Saints believe that God’s children will always worship Him. Our progression will never change His identity as our Father and our God. Indeed, our exalted, eternal relationship with Him will be part of the “fulness of joy” He desires for us.

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...