Emanuel Swedenborg And Joseph Smith

[mfbukowski]

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.

Thanks, I will check them out.

 

This is starting to get REALLY interesting !

[Lee Woofenden]

Hi Mark,

 

I would say that the LDS church stumbled into a hornet's nest when it adopted language such as "deification" and "becoming gods." I hope that one day it will drop that language. But that's not my call.

 

What actually happens to us may not be so different in Swedenborgian and LDS theology. Perhaps it is just terminology.

 

But just to be clear once again, Swedenborgians will never accept the idea that we can become "gods" or be "deified." That, to us, is simply wrong thinking.

 

What happens instead is that we accept God more and more into ourselves. We ourselves never become God, or even "like" God in a technical sense, because we ourselves are merely a created container that can contain God. And the God in us never becomes us. It is always God in us. So we ourselves never become God in any way, shape or form. We simply are created with the ability to accept the continual flow of God into us.

 

To use a very simple analogy, we are a cup. The cup never becomes the water in it, nor does the water in it ever become the cup. The cup and the water are always entirely distinct from one another. Yet the cup can contain the water, and serve as a vessel to deliver that water to a thirsty person.

 

To be even more stark, Swedenborg commonly makes the statement about humans that "in ourselves we are nothing but evil." (Even many Swedenborgians don't like this statement!) If we take out of us the God that is continually flowing in, what's left, which is all that we can rightfully claim as "our own," is nothing but evil and falsity. That is what we humans are on our own, without God. Every angel in heaven recognizes that—and the higher the angel, the more clearly. There is no point at which any human being or angel, even the most highly regenerated, ever becomes anything but pure evil and falsity in him- or herself. The reason they are angels and not devils is because they allow God to continually flow into themselves, to push the evil aside, and to fill them with goodness, truth, and power that is not their own, but is God's, and is God, in them.

 

So for us, this is not mere semantics. In a very real sense, we can never become "gods" in any way, shape, or form. We can only contain God. For more on this, please see my article, "Containers for God."

 

Being re-created "in the image and likeness of God," then, in our view, is not our selves actually becoming godlike, but rather our own selves being pushed to the side, to make room for a new "heavenly self" that is not our own, but is God's in us. We can claim no credit for it whatsoever. It is not ours, nor is it "us" as we are in ourselves. It is a gift from God. If we accept that gift, then we become angels of heaven because we no longer live from ourselves, but from God. And we accept that gift precisely by pushing aside our own selfish and egotistical will, and allowing God to replace it with a God-filled will. In the Biblical language, we allow God to remove our heart of stone, and replace it with a heart of flesh. Yet that heart of flesh is still God's heart and being in us. It is not us nor is it ours.

 

And yes, the analogy of fathers and sons is imperfect both because it is a human analogy and because all humans, both fathers and sons, are on the same level as one another in relation to God. God is on a distinctly different and higher level. So although, with the Bible, we can use the analogy of God as Father and we as God's children, it is a mistake to think that this is exactly like our human fathers and sons. As I've said previously, the Bible is here using human concepts and terms to point to a higher reality. It has to use those human terms because there are no better ones available, and because if it didn't use such human terms and concepts, we would have no way of approaching and understanding the nature of God at all.

 

The reality, from a Swedenborgian point of view, is that there is a "discrete level" of difference between us and God that can never be erased. It also cannot be crossed from our side to God. It can only be crossed from God to us.

 

This, in fact, is a fascinating aspect of Swedenborg's concept of "influx," or "inflow," and of the related concept of correspondences (which I've mentioned before). According to Swedenborg, the flow is always one-way: from God through spirit to matter. It never goes the other way, from matter to spirit, or from spirit to God.

 

So although God can flow into us and fill us with God's self, we can never flow upward to God, and become the nature of God ourselves. We can only accept the flow of that nature into us, and even then it is, as I said earlier, never "us" or "ours," but always God's in us, and God in us.

 

So to reiterate it once again, our entire theology and cosmology simply does not allow any human to be deified. It only allows us to contain God, like a cup containing water.

[mfbukowski]

Hi Mark,

 

I would say that the LDS church stumbled into a hornet's nest when it adopted language such as "deification" and "becoming gods." I hope that one day it will drop that language. But that's not my call.

 

What actually happens to us may not be so different in Swedenborgian and LDS theology. Perhaps it is just terminology.

 

But just to be clear once again, Swedenborgians will never accept the idea that we can become "gods" or be "deified." That, to us, is simply wrong thinking.

 

What happens instead is that we accept God more and more into ourselves. We ourselves never become God, or even "like" God in a technical sense, because we ourselves are merely a created container that can contain God. And the God in us never becomes us. It is always God in us. So we ourselves never become God in any way, shape or form. We simply are created with the ability to accept the continual flow of God into us.

 

To use a very simple analogy, we are a cup. The cup never becomes the water in it, nor does the water in it ever become the cup. The cup and the water are always entirely distinct from one another. Yet the cup can contain the water, and serve as a vessel to deliver that water to a thirsty person.

 

To be even more stark, Swedenborg commonly makes the statement about humans that "in ourselves we are nothing but evil." (Even many Swedenborgians don't like this statement!) If we take out of us the God that is continually flowing in, what's left, which is all that we can rightfully claim as "our own," is nothing but evil and falsity. That is what we humans are on our own, without God. Every angel in heaven recognizes that—and the higher the angel, the more clearly. There is no point at which any human being or angel, even the most highly regenerated, ever becomes anything but pure evil and falsity in him- or herself. The reason they are angels and not devils is because they allow God to continually flow into themselves, to push the evil aside, and to fill them with goodness, truth, and power that is not their own, but is God's, and is God, in them.

 

So for us, this is not mere semantics. In a very real sense, we can never become "gods" in any way, shape, or form. We can only contain God. For more on this, please see my article, "Containers for God."

 

Being re-created "in the image and likeness of God," then, in our view, is not our selves actually becoming godlike, but rather our own selves being pushed to the side, to make room for a new "heavenly self" that is not our own, but is God's in us. We can claim no credit for it whatsoever. It is not ours, nor is it "us" as we are in ourselves. It is a gift from God. If we accept that gift, then we become angels of heaven because we no longer live from ourselves, but from God. And we accept that gift precisely by pushing aside our own selfish and egotistical will, and allowing God to replace it with a God-filled will. In the Biblical language, we allow God to remove our heart of stone, and replace it with a heart of flesh. Yet that heart of flesh is still God's heart and being in us. It is not us nor is it ours.

 

And yes, the analogy of fathers and sons is imperfect both because it is a human analogy and because all humans, both fathers and sons, are on the same level as one another in relation to God. God is on a distinctly different and higher level. So although, with the Bible, we can use the analogy of God as Father and we as God's children, it is a mistake to think that this is exactly like our human fathers and sons. As I've said previously, the Bible is here using human concepts and terms to point to a higher reality. It has to use those human terms because there are no better ones available, and because if it didn't use such human terms and concepts, we would have no way of approaching and understanding the nature of God at all.

 

The reality, from a Swedenborgian point of view, is that there is a "discrete level" of difference between us and God that can never be erased. It also cannot be crossed from our side to God. It can only be crossed from God to us.

 

This, in fact, is a fascinating aspect of Swedenborg's concept of "influx," or "inflow," and of the related concept of correspondences (which I've mentioned before). According to Swedenborg, the flow is always one-way: from God through spirit to matter. It never goes the other way, from matter to spirit, or from spirit to God.

 

So although God can flow into us and fill us with God's self, we can never flow upward to God, and become the nature of God ourselves. We can only accept the flow of that nature into us, and even then it is, as I said earlier, never "us" or "ours," but always God's in us, and God in us.

 

So to reiterate it once again, our entire theology and cosmology simply does not allow any human to be deified. It only allows us to contain God, like a cup containing water.

Wonderful stuff.

 

God in me is saying it's pretty much semantics.  When I feel God within me I feel Him transforming me from something carnal to something more like Him, but I must participate and follow that - "manifestation"- and do my best to reciprocate.  Yes he is filling me like a cup.  I have had experiences I have described as a "warm shower" of ineffable love flowing into me in a very tangible way that is ultimately indescribable.

 

I see that active part of the transformation part of my own effort as my own "self-creation of matter unorganized".

 

Perhaps that is the experiential part of what Protestants see as "grace" vs "works".   There is the inflow but then I feel an urgency to reciprocate and willfully change to become more close to Him.  Grace is the gift, but it doesn't end there.  We need to actively participate in repentance and try to become better servants.   There is the passive cup filling but then also a response required.

 

Life intrudes- I will think about it.  Good stuff- thanks.

[mfbukowski]

And the God in us never becomes us.

 

If that were true we could never change or repent.

[Anakin7]

 Lee when you get a chance [ Within the next 1-5 years ] read the LDS Potential link I posted in it's entirety. Grace Be with you.

 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

           Anakin7

[Lee Woofenden]

If that were true we could never change or repent.

We can repent not because our "own" nature changes, but because our "own" nature is pushed aside, and replaced with a nature that is given to us by God. And that new nature, as I said, is not actually our own, but is God's in us.

 

Repentance is an act of recognizing that we are evil and wrong, and allowing God to come in and replace, as our life focus, the evil and falsity that is us with good and truth that is God. But still, once again, as I said, we do not become God, or gods. Rather, we become containers and conduits for God—which is what we are created to be.

[mfbukowski]

We can repent not because our "own" nature changes, but because our "own" nature is pushed aside, and replaced with a nature that is given to us by God. And that new nature, as I said, is not actually our own, but is God's in us.

Repentance is an act of recognizing that we are evil and wrong, and allowing God to come in and replace, as our life focus, the evil and falsity that is us with good and truth that is God. But still, once again, as I said, we do not become God, or gods. Rather, we become containers and conduits for God—which is what we are created to be.

If God does it all, how come it's so hard to change?

Have you ever lost a hundred pounds or fought an addiction?

Edited November 25, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Foreigner]

My belief is that "Christianity" should be defined by teachings that are plainly stated in the Bible.

OK

One such teaching was so plain for Apostle Paul, the baptism for the dead ( 1 Cor. 15:29), that he even argued for resurrection with help of this practice.

We do practice that.

And you?

[volgadon]

OK

One such teaching was so plain for Apostle Paul, the baptism for the dead ( 1 Cor. 15:29), that he even argued for resurrection with help of this practice.

We do practice that.

And you?

 

Not so plain as it may seem.

[volgadon]

Hi Mark,

 

I would say that the LDS church stumbled into a hornet's nest when it adopted language such as "deification" and "becoming gods." I hope that one day it will drop that language. But that's not my call.

 

What actually happens to us may not be so different in Swedenborgian and LDS theology. Perhaps it is just terminology.

 

But just to be clear once again, Swedenborgians will never accept the idea that we can become "gods" or be "deified." That, to us, is simply wrong thinking.

 

What happens instead is that we accept God more and more into ourselves. We ourselves never become God, or even "like" God in a technical sense, because we ourselves are merely a created container that can contain God. And the God in us never becomes us. It is always God in us. So we ourselves never become God in any way, shape or form. We simply are created with the ability to accept the continual flow of God into us.

 

To use a very simple analogy, we are a cup. The cup never becomes the water in it, nor does the water in it ever become the cup. The cup and the water are always entirely distinct from one another. Yet the cup can contain the water, and serve as a vessel to deliver that water to a thirsty person.

 

To be even more stark, Swedenborg commonly makes the statement about humans that "in ourselves we are nothing but evil." (Even many Swedenborgians don't like this statement!) If we take out of us the God that is continually flowing in, what's left, which is all that we can rightfully claim as "our own," is nothing but evil and falsity. That is what we humans are on our own, without God. Every angel in heaven recognizes that—and the higher the angel, the more clearly. There is no point at which any human being or angel, even the most highly regenerated, ever becomes anything but pure evil and falsity in him- or herself. The reason they are angels and not devils is because they allow God to continually flow into themselves, to push the evil aside, and to fill them with goodness, truth, and power that is not their own, but is God's, and is God, in them.

 

So for us, this is not mere semantics. In a very real sense, we can never become "gods" in any way, shape, or form. We can only contain God. For more on this, please see my article, "Containers for God."

 

Being re-created "in the image and likeness of God," then, in our view, is not our selves actually becoming godlike, but rather our own selves being pushed to the side, to make room for a new "heavenly self" that is not our own, but is God's in us. We can claim no credit for it whatsoever. It is not ours, nor is it "us" as we are in ourselves. It is a gift from God. If we accept that gift, then we become angels of heaven because we no longer live from ourselves, but from God. And we accept that gift precisely by pushing aside our own selfish and egotistical will, and allowing God to replace it with a God-filled will. In the Biblical language, we allow God to remove our heart of stone, and replace it with a heart of flesh. Yet that heart of flesh is still God's heart and being in us. It is not us nor is it ours.

 

And yes, the analogy of fathers and sons is imperfect both because it is a human analogy and because all humans, both fathers and sons, are on the same level as one another in relation to God. God is on a distinctly different and higher level. So although, with the Bible, we can use the analogy of God as Father and we as God's children, it is a mistake to think that this is exactly like our human fathers and sons. As I've said previously, the Bible is here using human concepts and terms to point to a higher reality. It has to use those human terms because there are no better ones available, and because if it didn't use such human terms and concepts, we would have no way of approaching and understanding the nature of God at all.

 

The reality, from a Swedenborgian point of view, is that there is a "discrete level" of difference between us and God that can never be erased. It also cannot be crossed from our side to God. It can only be crossed from God to us.

 

This, in fact, is a fascinating aspect of Swedenborg's concept of "influx," or "inflow," and of the related concept of correspondences (which I've mentioned before). According to Swedenborg, the flow is always one-way: from God through spirit to matter. It never goes the other way, from matter to spirit, or from spirit to God.

 

So although God can flow into us and fill us with God's self, we can never flow upward to God, and become the nature of God ourselves. We can only accept the flow of that nature into us, and even then it is, as I said earlier, never "us" or "ours," but always God's in us, and God in us.

 

So to reiterate it once again, our entire theology and cosmology simply does not allow any human to be deified. It only allows us to contain God, like a cup containing water.

 

This is one reason why the rejection of creatio ex nihilo is so important for us, and why we affirm the idea that we were all intelligences in the pre-mortal world, sparks of light co-eternal with God, but shapeless until he formed us. We are very much monists, and the ideas that you outlined place a barrirer between us and God (as we see it) where none should be. It would limit our potential to progress which is an integral part of God's plan for his children. God is always going to be greater than we are. He is our father, and we would be nothing without him. He formed us, guides us, teaches us, and directs our path and progress. Jesus the Christ is the greatest of his children, the one sent to save us. That we may become like them is no lese majeste, it is a manifestation of their deep and marvelous love. Don't think that I am attacking or denigrating your beliefs, I just wanted to lay out my own view of them as a Mormon. I see Swedenborg as a man to whom God gave great insight, a real power for good and enlightenment in the world, even though I disagree with some of the implications that he drew.

[Foreigner]

Not so plain as it may seem.

It may seem plain for Paul. Not necessary for today Christians.

[mfbukowski]

This is one reason why the rejection of creatio ex nihilo is so important for us, and why we affirm the idea that we were all intelligences in the pre-mortal world, sparks of light co-eternal with God, but shapeless until he formed us. We are very much monists, and the ideas that you outlined place a barrirer between us and God (as we see it) where none should be. It would limit our potential to progress which is an integral part of God's plan for his children. God is always going to be greater than we are. He is our father, and we would be nothing without him. He formed us, guides us, teaches us, and directs our path and progress. Jesus the Christ is the greatest of his children, the one sent to save us. That we may become like them is no lese majeste, it is a manifestation of their deep and marvelous love. Don't think that I am attacking or denigrating your beliefs, I just wanted to lay out my own view of them as a Mormon. I see Swedenborg as a man to whom God gave great insight, a real power for good and enlightenment in the world, even though I disagree with some of the implications that he drew.

I think this captures it well.

 

From as much as I have read so far, I have no problem at all with his central insights, but I think his interpretations of the experience reflect his Protestant upbringing.  I think to an extent, the same applies to Joseph, at least early on, but as he matured and grew with the revelations he became more comfortable with putting the Protestantism behind him.

 

But again this is not to denegrate Swedenborg or Lee for that matter, one iota.  Both have fascinating views and alternate perspectives on a message incredibly similar to ours.

[mfbukowski]

A key also to our doctrine is a distinction between "acting" and "being acted upon"

 

That defines our agency.  We are to "ACT" and use our own wills to move forward.  To be "acted upon" is to become an object upon which others or other forces may act.  It defines our independence as a being.  Perhaps that is a hint of the American concept of "inalienable rights of the individual" peeking through to theology or perhaps it is theology peeking through to the "founding fathers".

 

The view puts human action and the freedom to act at the center of what it is to be human- even to be a "self".  We separate ourselves from others by our actions.  We also can then voluntarily join with them to become a community of equals.  But until we exists as selves, we cannot associate with an "other"- for there to be "two" there first has to be "one".

 

So is the goal to have many becoming "one"?  First there must be many for them to become one.  We cannot become one with God until there is a "self" there which becomes "One" with God.

 

I know that the image of being a "cup" is an important one with special significance to us in ways we won't go into in this forum, but perhaps just saying that is enough.

 

But in my opinion we need to actively take on the position of "being a cup" to open ourselves up to God's grace.  God cannot come in until we hear him knocking at our door and open the door to him.

 

That is a voluntary step we take to make ourselves worthy and do what is necessary to receive his revelation.  James 1:5 and Moroni 10:4-5 say we must "ask God" to receive knowledge and Alma 32 says we must "experiment" upon the word actively to find out that what we are taught is "sweet" to us.

 

That does not deny what Lee has said about being a "cup"- perhaps I am just seeing it in a more active way. 

Edited November 25, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Lee Woofenden]

If God does it all, how come it's so hard to change?

Have you ever lost a hundred pounds or fought an addiction?

Hi Mark,

 

It is hard to change because our "own" self resists and fights against God's will to change us. And God will only bend, not break, our will. As long as we are unregenerate, we are enslaved to our own ego and will, which are selfish and greedy. These fight a continual battle against the presence of God flowing into us. Only we can make the choice to side with God rather than with our own ego. And that choice does not come without bitter internecine conflict in our soul.

[Lee Woofenden]

OK

One such teaching was so plain for Apostle Paul, the baptism for the dead ( 1 Cor. 15:29), that he even argued for resurrection with help of this practice.

We do practice that.

And you?

Hi Foreigner,

 

We view baptism as a primarily symbolic act picturing our willingness to be spiritually washed from our evil desires and false ideas through the process of rebirth, or regeneration. So when we practice baptism, we don't think that the ritual has any meaning merely as a physical act, but only the attitude and commitment of the one being baptized (or the parents, in the case of infant baptism) to focus on putting away selfishness and greed, and learn to live a good and loving life instead.

 

But to answer your specific question, Swedenborgians don't, to my knowledge, practice baptism on behalf of the dead.

[Lee Woofenden]

This is one reason why the rejection of creatio ex nihilo is so important for us, and why we affirm the idea that we were all intelligences in the pre-mortal world, sparks of light co-eternal with God, but shapeless until he formed us. We are very much monists, and the ideas that you outlined place a barrirer between us and God (as we see it) where none should be. It would limit our potential to progress which is an integral part of God's plan for his children. God is always going to be greater than we are. He is our father, and we would be nothing without him. He formed us, guides us, teaches us, and directs our path and progress. Jesus the Christ is the greatest of his children, the one sent to save us. That we may become like them is no lese majeste, it is a manifestation of their deep and marvelous love. Don't think that I am attacking or denigrating your beliefs, I just wanted to lay out my own view of them as a Mormon. I see Swedenborg as a man to whom God gave great insight, a real power for good and enlightenment in the world, even though I disagree with some of the implications that he drew.

Hi volgadon,

 

Yes, it's clear enough that Swedenborgian and LDS doctrine takes a different view of these things. In the end, I don't think it will make all that much practical difference which doctrine is correct. Either way, the doctrine is a call toward rebirth and regeneration in the image of Christ. And if it motivates and guides us toward that, it has done its job.

 

Incidentally, Swedenborg also roundly rejected creatio ex nihilo. But rather than go in the direction that we all existed in some sort of primordial state before creation, Swedenborg stated that the universe and everything in it was created from substances emitted from God, on which God placed limits so that it became distinct from God. That was the burden of one of my earlier posts here.

Edited November 26, 2015 by Lee Woofenden

[Lee Woofenden]

A key also to our doctrine is a distinction between "acting" and "being acted upon"

Hi Mark,

 

Here's a relevant snipped from Swedenborg's True Christianity, #588:

 

We have thoughts and we will things as if we did so on our own. This feeling that we think and will on our own is what allows for a reciprocal partnership [with the Lord]. No partnership can exist without reciprocation. For example, no partnership would exist between an active element and a responsive element if there were no adaptation or point of contact between them.

 

God alone is an active force. We allow ourselves to experience that active force and we cooperate with it to all appearances as if we were acting on our own, although inwardly we are actually acting from God.

[Lee Woofenden]

Speaking of spiritual meanings in the Bible, some of you may be interested in an answer to this question, which I just wrote and posted today on Christianity StackExchange:

 

Why was God so specific about how to make the Tabernacle?

[volgadon]

A key also to our doctrine is a distinction between "acting" and "being acted upon"

 

That defines our agency.  We are to "ACT" and use our own wills to move forward.  To be "acted upon" is to become an object upon which others or other forces may act.  It defines our independence as a being.  Perhaps that is a hint of the American concept of "inalienable rights of the individual" peeking through to theology or perhaps it is theology peeking through to the "founding fathers".

 

The view puts human action and the freedom to act at the center of what it is to be human- even to be a "self".  We separate ourselves from others by our actions.  We also can then voluntarily join with them to become a community of equals.  But until we exists as selves, we cannot associate with an "other"- for there to be "two" there first has to be "one".

 

So is the goal to have many becoming "one"?  First there must be many for them to become one.  We cannot become one with God until there is a "self" there which becomes "One" with God.

 

I know that the image of being a "cup" is an important one with special significance to us in ways we won't go into in this forum, but perhaps just saying that is enough.

 

But in my opinion we need to actively take on the position of "being a cup" to open ourselves up to God's grace.  God cannot come in until we hear him knocking at our door and open the door to him.

 

That is a voluntary step we take to make ourselves worthy and do what is necessary to receive his revelation.  James 1:5 and Moroni 10:4-5 say we must "ask God" to receive knowledge and Alma 32 says we must "experiment" upon the word actively to find out that what we are taught is "sweet" to us.

 

That does not deny what Lee has said about being a "cup"- perhaps I am just seeing it in a more active way. 

 

 

If you kick a physical object like a soccer ball, you unleash physical force on it. So it is moved because you apply force. In an ethico-religious context, I see the difference between acting and being acted as consisting largely of consequences. How I perceive being acted upon is to imagine that God decided that we would all be saved regardless of what we do. We cannot choose to damn ourselves, and we cannot choose to be saved, because whatever we do the result is entirely the same, and it goes according to God's will rather than ours. Our will can never be our own this way. This, of course, is something that God will not stand for, and why he did not give Satan his honor and power, but affirmed the agency of man. 

[volgadon]

Hi volgadon,

 

Yes, it's clear enough that Swedenborgian and LDS doctrine takes a different view of these things. In the end, I don't think it will make all that much practical difference which doctrine is correct. Either way, the doctrine is a call toward rebirth and regeneration in the image of Christ. And if it motivates and guides us toward that, it has done its job.

 

Incidentally, Swedenborg also roundly rejected creatio ex nihilo. But rather than go in the direction that we all existed in some sort of primordial state before creation, Swedenborg stated that the universe and everything in it was created from substances emitted from God, on which God placed limits so that it became distinct from God. That was the burden of one of my earlier posts here.

 

Thanks.

 

I must have missed that post, I will go back and look for it. Interestingly enough, we also believed in emanation, or rather, church members in the 1840s explicitly used the form, but with a Mormon twist. This is one of those ideas which has a distinctly kabbalistic flavour, even though emanation was brought over from Neoplatonism and found in the writings of some early Christian mystics.

[Lee Woofenden]

Thanks.

 

I must have missed that post, I will go back and look for it. Interestingly enough, we also believed in emanation, or rather, church members in the 1840s explicitly used the form, but with a Mormon twist. This is one of those ideas which has a distinctly kabbalistic flavour, even though emanation was brought over from Neoplatonism and found in the writings of some early Christian mystics.

Hi volgadon,

 

I suppose I could dig up the post where I talked about how God created the universe. (Or it's possible that my mind is playing tricks on me, and I didn't deal with that here.) However, if you want to skip that quagmire and go right to the full version, here is an article on my blog that deals with it: Containers for God

 

And for the training wheels version: How did God Create the Universe? Was the World Really Created in Six Days?

[mfbukowski]

Speaking of spiritual meanings in the Bible, some of you may be interested in an answer to this question, which I just wrote and posted today on Christianity StackExchange:

Why was God so specific about how to make the Tabernacle?

Lee I loved this article. We are well acquainted with these ideas because they are precisely what we understand about our temple.

We have extensive literature available on these points.

All of our theology and much not explicitly stated can be found symbolically in the temple. I find temple worship to be the cornerstone of my certainty that Joseph was a prophet. No human could have created it.

[Foreigner]

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.

Hi Lee,

I am afraid, every Christians are self-proclaimed Christians, including you and me.

Anyway, you are in part successful - I have started to read Swedenborg. In fact I have planned for years. That is not simple. It looks that he worked much. And I am a busy man.

So what to start from? Any important visions, revelations for beginning?

[Lee Woofenden]

Anyway, you are in part successful - I have started to read Swedenborg. In fact I have planned for years. That is not simple. It looks that he worked much. And I am a busy man.

So what to start from? Any important visions, revelations for beginning?

Hi Foreigner,

 

Yes, Swedenborg is a deep well—and one that can be rather forbidding for newcomers to his thought. Here is a place to start: Who was Swedenborg? What Should I Read?

 

If you are interested in particular topics in theology, Bible interpretation, the afterlife, or other spiritual subjects, feel free to run them by me, and I'll be happy to recommend relevant reading if it exists on the subject.

[Lee Woofenden]

Lee I loved this article. We are well acquainted with these ideas because they are precisely what we understand about our temple.

We have extensive literature available on these points.

All of our theology and much not explicitly stated can be found symbolically in the temple. I find temple worship to be the cornerstone of my certainty that Joseph was a prophet. No human could have created it.

Hi Mark,

 

Glad you enjoyed it!