Joseph Smith and Swedenborgianism

[majick275]

Great quote! It has been my experience on lds forums that other religions are respected. Strange how the Mormon faith can come under such attack by other christian groups.

that’s because mormonism is NOT a Christian religion no matter how much they say they are. respecting a religion doesn’t require you to accept it’s beliefs. the LDS church still starts every missionary encounter with the great apostasy. they teach that ALL Christian churches are apostates and that their creeds are an abomination to God. add that to Mormon Leaders calling the Catholic church the whore of Babylon and the great and abominable church of the devil and I think your position is incorrect. the fact that no one here is buying Joseph Smith’s teachings certainly isn’t something worthy of criticism.

 

[majick275]

There is a reason for that. The reason is that LDS are sure of themselves, and their own theological position. When you are sure of yourself, you don’t become shaky in your boots because somebody believes something different, or even tries to persuade you of it. But if you are unsure of yourself, then every time somebody disagrees with you, you see that as a threat, and try to fight against it. In a sense, however, their fears are justified. They see us as a threat, and rightly so. We are a threat to them, because we have the truth and they don’t; and truth always prevails. Their condemnation lies in their hatred and rejection of the truth.

zerinus

get over yourself. the handful of mormons, mostly clustered in the western United States are no threat to anyone but themselves. we fight against your lack of truth so that the unsuspecting are not lured into false doctrines. you are exactly what is described in 2 Peter. Last I checked the initial condemnation is in the LDS scriptures…JS-H

 

[po18guy]

When I joined the Mormon Church 30+ years ago I was very impressed by the Mormon people. I was unable to believe in the Book of Mormon and prayed and prayed and prayed about it. Finally, one Sunday I found a quiet place out in the woods and prayed for two hours asking God to show me the Book of Mormon was true. Nothing happened. I told that to the missionary who was teaching me, and he said, “You already know it is true so you don’t need anymore.” I desperately wanted to believe it was true and was ready to accept his word for it. I was baptized shortly after that. I was 19 years old and had not been a member of any church prior to that time. I continued to feel good about the Mormon Church and even thought I “felt the Spirit” on occasions.

A strange thing happened as I grew older. I kept reading. The facts coming out made the Book of Mormon more and more doubtful. I never had a direct answer to prayer telling me it was true, but I continued to accept it because I wanted it to be true and was happy in my Mormon lifestyle. I liked the people a lot and really believed living like a Mormon would make anyone happier. I still believe that to some extent. Unfortunately, the evidence against the Book of Mormon and other Mormon scriptures (especially the Book of Abraham) has continued to pile up. And another strange thing happened. As I started attending Protestant services and Catholic masses, I “felt the Spirit” just like I did while attending Mormon meetings. Sometimes I even felt it more than I did attending Mormon meetings. And I felt the same thing watching “Field of Dreams”! Did that make “Field of Dreams” the only true movie?

At some point we really have to look at the evidence and consider probabilities. You can never prove the Book of Mormon is not true because you can’t prove a negative. You can certainly assign probabilities and the probability is about 99.9% that the Book of Mormon and other Mormon scriptures are simply 19th century creations. When I began to read the Early Church Fathers, I began to see they validated Catholic teachings. I can’t find much evidence for Mormon teachings in the early Christian church. When the Early Church Fathers talk about the Eucharist for example, they always reflect Catholic teaching rather than accepting it as merely a symbol. The Catholic teaching on the Eucharist really was the clincher for me that Catholicism is the Church Christ founded. I didn’t have to pray about that – I have faith in Christ, the Catholic Church reflected the complete teaching of Christ, and so if I have faith in Christ my only real option is the Catholic Church.

I am very suspicious of feelings as a way to determine the truth. Sometimes my feelings cause me to doubt my faith so I have to look to something other than feelings to determine the truth. Sometimes I have to choose to have faith in spite of my feelings.

Well said. Excellent. Superior! Now, if only seeking hearts will actually read and digest it…

Christ’s peace.

 

[zerinus]

And this is the problem. Christian faiths have different interpretations. I bring up the bible verse to show where Joseph Smith and Swedenborg got their interpretation about heaven, nothing more.

Neither Joseph Smith nor Swedenborg got their interpretations of heaven from that verse in the Bible. Joseph Smith obtained it by revelation from the Lord; and Swedenborg also claimed to have obtained it in the same way. Joseph Smith taught that his revelations enable us to correctly understand 1 Cor15:40–42. Swedenborg, as far as I can recall, does not make any mention of that biblical passage in connection with his understanding of heaven.

One can reach different conclusions about the verse.

Maybe; but not as “different” as some on this board have tried to present. The context of the verses (1 Cor 15:35–50) makes it clear that Paul was referring to the resurrection; in other words, he was referring to the state of man after death.

In the catholic faith, hell is huge made up of many people, including relatives. In the mormon faith, few go to hell but rather to separate kingdoms.

Not exactly. In LDS doctrine, all those who have committed serious sins, and not repented of them in this life, will go to hell for a length of time to pay for their sins; except that hell for most people is not a permanent state. After they have paid the price of their sins, they are taken out, and go to one of the three kingdoms. In this respect, hell is similar to purgatory of the Catholic Church. Hell becomes a permanent state for those who have committed the unpardonable sin, whose numbers are relatively few. Swedenborg, as far as I can remember, teaches that hell is a permanent state.

I have no idea what is better.

I do. Mormonism is better!

zerinus

 

[why_me]

Neither Joseph Smith nor Swedenborg got their interpretations of heaven from that verse in the Bible. Joseph Smith obtained it by revelation from the Lord; and Swedenborg also claimed to have obtained it in the same way. Joseph Smith taught that his revelations enable us to correctly understand 1 Cor15:40–42. Swedenborg, as far as I can recall, does not make any mention of that biblical passage in connection with his understanding of heaven.

zerinus

According to Bushman in Rough Stone Rolling, mentions on pages 198-199,especially on page 199 which states:" …but it was more likely the passage from Paul sparked the revelations of both men". (He references the information)

Check it out and see what you think.

 

[zerinus]

According to Bushman in Rough Stone Rolling, mentions on pages 198-199,especially on page 199 which states:" …but it was more likely the passage from Paul sparked the revelations of both men". (He references the information)

Check it out and see what you think.

I haven’t read Bushman, so I comment; but in either case, I would disagree with him. I see D&C 76 as an independent revelation from the Lord, in which the three degrees of glory was revealed to Joseph Smith. The fact that Joseph Smith’s revelation and the teachings of Paul have something in common, it does not necessarily follow that the one must have been derived from the other. Both could have originated from the same divine source. Those who do not believe as I do, obviously would try to see a connection wherever they can find it; but that is not necessarily a logical deduction that needs to be accepted.

zerinus

 

[why_me]

I haven’t read Bushman, so I comment; but in either case, I would disagree with him. I see D&C 76 as an independent revelation from the Lord, in which the three degrees of glory was revealed to Joseph Smith. The fact that Joseph Smith’s revelation and the teachings of Paul have something in common, it does not necessarily follow that the one must have been derived from the other. Both could have originated from the same divine source. Those who do not believe as I do, obviously would try to see a connection wherever they can find it; but that is not necessarily a logical deduction that needs to be accepted.

zerinus

But what I find interesting is that many of people here may not know that in the new testament (first Cor. 15:40-42), the celestial and the terrestial are mentioned. Both mentioned as aspects of glory.

And so, it is not improbrable that both Joseph Smith and Swedenborg took that scripture to heart in contemplation and commented on it.

I have no idea what the catholic church says about celestial and terrestial bodies as different in glory.

 

[RebeccaJ]

But what I find interesting is that many of people here may not know that in the new testament (first Cor. 15:40-42), the celestial and the terrestial are mentioned. Both mentioned as aspects of glory.

And so, it is not improbrable that both Joseph Smith and Swedenborg took that scripture to heart in contemplation and commented on it.

I have no idea what the catholic church says about celestial and terrestial bodies as different in glory.

The NAB does not use the words celestial and terrestial. Comparing the mormon bible against the NAB…the passages are changed in the mormon bible to reflect the mormon belief. The NAB footnotes this…

19 [39-41] The expression “its own body” (1 Cor 15:38) leads to a development on the marvelous diversity evident in bodily life.
20 [42-44] The principles of qualitative difference before and after death (1 Cor 15:36-38) and of diversity on different levels of creation (1 Cor 15:39-41) are now applied to the human body. Before: a body animated by a lower, natural life-principle (psyche) and endowed with the properties of natural existence (corruptibility, lack of glory, weakness). After: a body animated by a higher life-principle (pneuma; cf 1 Cor 15:45) and endowed with other qualities (incorruptibility, glory, power, spirituality), which are properties of God himself.

Nothing about differing degrees of heaven…just two levels being described. Alive or dead.

 

[Paul_G]

I haven’t read Bushman, so I comment; but in either case, I would disagree with him. I see D&C 76 as an independent revelation from the Lord, in which the three degrees of glory was revealed to Joseph Smith. The fact that Joseph Smith’s revelation and the teachings of Paul have something in common, it does not necessarily follow that the one must have been derived from the other. Both could have originated from the same divine source. Those who do not believe as I do, obviously would try to see a connection wherever they can find it; but that is not necessarily a logical deduction that needs to be accepted.

zerinus

It is quite possible that Paul was inspired by Zoroastrianism while he sojourned in the Arabian desert.

Paul

 

[zerinus]

It is quite possible that Paul was inspired by Zoroastrianism while he sojourned in the Arabian desert.

Paul

Possible but unlikely. Paul tells us that he went to the Arabian Desert to communicate directly with the Lord. He even informs us that the message of the gospel that he preached was communicated to him at that time directly by revelation from the Lord, not by any man. Furthermore, he tells us that he was even caught up to the “third heaven,” where he saw and heard things that were not “lawful for man to utter” (2 Cor 12:2–4). If he got his knowledge of the three heavens from anywhere, that is where he is most likely to have got it from.

zeirnus

 

[Paul_G]

Possible but unlikely. Paul tells us that he went to the Arabian Desert to communicate directly with the Lord. He even informs us that the message of the gospel that he preached was communicated to him at that time directly by revelation from the Lord, not by any man. Furthermore, he tells us that he was even caught up to the “third heaven,” where he saw and heard things that were not “lawful for man to utter” (2 Cor 12:2–4). If he got his knowledge of the three heavens from anywhere, that is where he is most likely to have got it from.

zeirnus

Certainly I am not discounting the experience of Paul in the desert, and I don’t want to make too fine a point with this, it is just that the notion of three glories or heavens was known and taught by Zoroaster long before the birth of Jesus. This just shows to me that Gospel principles may have been known and communicated at some level through the epochs of time.

Paul

 

[zerinus]

Certainly I am not discounting the experience of Paul in the desert, and I don’t want to make too fine a point with this, it is just that the notion of three glories or heavens was known and taught by Zoroaster long before the birth of Jesus. This just shows to me that Gospel principles may have been known and communicated at some level through the epochs of time.

Paul

Yes, I agree. In any case, I don’t see what the Zoroastrians would be doing in the sesert of Arabia. Zoroastrians were of Persian origin (Magi) who dwellet in the “east,” long ways away from Arabia.

zerinus

 

[Paul_G]

Yes, I agree. In any case, I don’t see what the Zoroastrians would be doing in the sesert of Arabia. Zoroastrians were of Persian origin (Magi) who dwellet in the “east,” long ways away from Arabia.

zerinus

Your point is well taken, I was just aware that Paul’s teaching and Zoroastrian believe were some what similar. I have read through some of their writings but have not made a study as to the range of their influence. So as you suggest Paul’s and Zoroaster probably arrived at this notion of 3 heavens independently. Though I still find it interesting they shared this idea.

Paul

 

[why_me]

The NAB does not use the words celestial and terrestial. Comparing the mormon bible against the NAB…the passages are changed in the mormon bible to reflect the mormon belief.

The LDS use the King James Version of the Bible. It is not a ‘Mormon Bible’.

 

[majick275]

the LDS start with the KJV and modify with the JST when they want and thus, in essence do end up with a “mormon bible”.

 

[Paul_G]

the LDS start with the KJV and modify with the JST when they want and thus, in essence do end up with a “mormon bible”.

Not quite, we read the KJV, and in discussion may look at the JST and discuss how it may fit with the Bible. To say that LDS routinely interpret the KJV in conjunction with JST is a wee bit misleading, wouldn’t you say?

Paul

 

[RebeccaJ]

Not quite, we read the KJV, and in discussion may look at the JST and discuss how it may fit with the Bible. To say that LDS routinely interpret the KJV in conjunction with JST is a wee bit misleading, wouldn’t you say?

Paul

It is misleading to pretend that you speak for all mormons. I know that there are mormons who prefer the JST over any other. Also, the JST of Mathew is a part of official mormon scriptures.

 

[Paul_G]

It is misleading to pretend that you speak for all mormons. I know that there are mormons who prefer the JST over any other.

Neither do the preferences of some LDS speak for all Mormons.

Also, the JST of Mathew is a part of official mormon scriptures.

That is interesting, perhaps you could point out for me where you found this stated.

Paul

 

[RebeccaJ]

Neither do the preferences of some LDS speak for all Mormons.

And so you know that is not the point. The JST version is not the KJV, and LDS do use it.

That is interesting, perhaps you could point out for me where you found this stated.

Scriptures

Paul

 

[Paul_G]

The NAB does not use the words celestial and terrestial. Comparing the mormon bible against the NAB…the passages are changed in the mormon bible to reflect the mormon belief. The NAB footnotes this…

19 [39-41] The expression “its own body” (1 Cor 15:38) leads to a development on the marvelous diversity evident in bodily life.
20 [42-44] The principles of qualitative difference before and after death (1 Cor 15:36-38) and of diversity on different levels of creation (1 Cor 15:39-41) are now applied to the human body. Before: a body animated by a lower, natural life-principle (psyche) and endowed with the properties of natural existence (corruptibility, lack of glory, weakness). After: a body animated by a higher life-principle (pneuma; cf 1 Cor 15:45) and endowed with other qualities (incorruptibility, glory, power, spirituality), which are properties of God himself.

Nothing about differing degrees of heaven…just two levels being described. Alive or dead.

Yes you are correct Paul is talking about two levels I would characterize them a little differently than you have described them here. However the main issue is the differences between heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, and is there any mention of the 3 degrees of glory. Paul teaches that not all flesh is the same on earth the differences are to be found between human, animal birds and fish. Likewise he is also suggesting that there are differences in heavenly bodies. They not only differ from the earthly bodies but also differ from each other, in a sense somewhat like the difference of the splendour of the sun, the moon, and the different stars.

Now is there a mention of levels of glory no not explicitly, however differences in splendour found amongst the heavenly body suggested by Paul allows for this notion implicitly. Why else would there be differences in the glory of the heavenly bodies?

Paul