Joseph Smith and Swedenborgianism

[RebeccaJ]

And an anticatholic can say about the st. joseph edition of the bible: Catholics have done no different. They have taken a book and referenced it to the sources (saints etc.) that the book was never meant to source. You may as well take the constitutiion of the united states and reference it to 'Green Eggs and Ham, and call it ‘Government’.

As I already said whyme, Catholics use a Bible that they translated. They annotated their translation of the Bible with their own stuff. It is a Catholic Bible annotated with Catholic stuff. Go for it.

The KJV Bible is not a mormon translation of the Bible. It is an Anglican translation. Mormons borrowed an Anglican translation and annotated it with mormon stuff. Thus, mormons are not using a true KJV translation, as no Anglican would ever in your wildest dreams annotate a Bible with anything mormon.

I can say very confidently that King James never intended his Bible to be used in such a way. He would most likely find it offensive if not heretical.

 

[why_me]

As I already said whyme, Catholics use a Bible that they translated. They annotated their translation of the Bible with their own stuff. It is a Catholic Bible annotated with Catholic stuff. Go for it.

The KJV Bible is not a mormon translation of the Bible. It is an Anglican translation. Mormons borrowed an Anglican translation and annotated it with mormon stuff. Thus, mormons are not using a true KJV translation, as no Anglican would ever in your wildest dreams annotate a Bible with anything mormon.

I can say very confidently that King James never intended his Bible to be used in such a way. He would most likely find it offensive if not heretical.

Who knows. But I do know that almost all major churches have books interpreting the bible any way they please. This is the problem. But in the case of this thread, it doesn’t change where Joseph got the source for the three degrees of glory.

 

[ApostateRLDS]

Who knows. But I do know that almost all major churches have books interpreting the bible any way they please. This is the problem. But in the case of this thread, it doesn’t change where Joseph got the source for the three degrees of glory.

Yes, from Swedenborg’s book, not from St. Paul

 

[RebeccaJ]

Who knows. But I do know that almost all major churches have books interpreting the bible any way they please. This is the problem. But in the case of this thread, it doesn’t change where Joseph got the source for the three degrees of glory.

Maybe he got an idea, but in no way does that one scripture passage from Paul entirely describe what mormons believe. Paul talks about sun, moon and stars. He doesn’t say anything about telestial kingdoms. Or the requirements (or lack of meeting them) that get one slotted to one or the other. All of that comes from somewhere else outside of the Bible.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You are talking nonsense, and you know it.

zerinus

No, you are believing nonsense!

 

[ApostateRLDS]

Maybe he got an idea, but in no way does that one scripture passage from Paul entirely describe what mormons believe. Paul talks about sun, moon and stars. He doesn’t say anything about telestial kingdoms. Or the requirements (or lack of meeting them) that get one slotted to one or the other. All of that comes from somewhere else outside of the Bible.

Smith, ever the plagiarist, lifted it from Swedenborg.

 

[RobNY]

That depends on which quality on balance overweighs the other. If the textual inaccuracies are relatively few, or theologically and historically not very significant; while the translation is so good that it is unsurpassable; that would still make it the best translation.

zerinus

Fair enough-- there are many things to take into account. However, I’m still very skeptical that the KJV is such an unsurpassed translation.

-Rob

 

[rmcmullan]

This thread did get somewhat bogged down in the details but take a minute and consider the bigger picture. The LDS model of our eternal reward (should we win one) is very different than the Catholic one. The Catholic view is like a retelling of the parable of the labourers in the vineyard (Matt 20) where all the labours received the same reward, regardless of whether they “borne the heat of the day” or were the last hired and only worked the smallest fraction of the day. The LDS view is more like the parable of the talents where each servant received 1 or 5 or 10 talents, according to their abilities.

This is a fundamental difference.

 

[RobNY]

This thread did get somewhat bogged down in the details but take a minute and consider the bigger picture. The LDS model of our eternal reward (should we win one) is very different than the Catholic one. The Catholic view is like a retelling of the parable of the labourers in the vineyard (Matt 20) where all the labours received the same reward, regardless of whether they “borne the heat of the day” or were the last hired and only worked the smallest fraction of the day. The LDS view is more like the parable of the talents where each servant received 1 or 5 or 10 talents, according to their abilities.

This is a fundamental difference.

The Catholic view is not against having different degrees of beatitude in heaven (witness the poetic cosmology of a Dante, for instance).

But what is essential about the Catholic view of heaven is the permanent union with God which it is-- the beatific vision, when faith gives way to knowledge and man finally possesses the object of faith, which he has yearned after while in exile on earth. God alone can satisfy the emptiness we have.

I’d be interested in knowing if Mormons have a concept similar to the beatific vision.

-Rob

 

[zerinus]

Fair enough-- there are many things to take into account. However, I’m still very skeptical that the KJV is such an unsurpassed translation.

-Rob

We think that it is! That is why we favor it above any other translation.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

The Catholic view is not against having different degrees of beatitude in heaven (witness the poetic cosmology of a Dante, for instance).

But what is essential about the Catholic view of heaven is the permanent union with God which it is-- the beatific vision, when faith gives way to knowledge and man finally possesses the object of faith, which he has yearned after while in exile on earth. God alone can satisfy the emptiness we have.

I’d be interested in knowing if Mormons have a concept similar to the beatific vision.

-Rob

Is the beatific vision a scriptural concept, or is it based on Catholic tradition? If it is a scriptural concept, and you can give me the scriptural references for it, then I can tell you how it compares with the LDS doctrine of salvation.

The explanation you have given above does not seem to me to allow for “different degrees of beatitude in heaven”. If they all enjoy the same “beatific vision,” how can they have “different degrees of beatitude” at the same time?

zerinus

 

[rmcmullan]

The Catholic view is not against having different degrees of beatitude in heaven (witness the poetic cosmology of a Dante, for instance).

But what is essential about the Catholic view of heaven is the permanent union with God which it is-- the beatific vision, when faith gives way to knowledge and man finally possesses the object of faith, which he has yearned after while in exile on earth. God alone can satisfy the emptiness we have.

I’d be interested in knowing if Mormons have a concept similar to the beatific vision.

-Rob

Uh, I’m not so sure either because I’m not sure I follwed that, to be honest with you. Something that hasn’t been mentioned although is available in the D&C is that each degree of glory is in the presence of God. The the Holy Ghost presides over the telestial, the Son over the terestial and the Father over celestial. I’m not so sure how that breaks down into Catholic terms if they’re the same being but different personages.

 

[RobNY]

Is the beatific vision a scriptural concept, or is it based on Catholic tradition? If it is a scriptural concept, and you can give me the scriptural references for it, then I can tell you how it compares with the LDS doctrine of salvation.

The explanation you have given above does not seem to me to allow for “different degrees of beatitude in heaven”. If they all enjoy the same “beatific vision,” how can they have “different degrees of beatitude” at the same time?

zerinus

From, “The Story of a Soul,” by St. Therese of Lisieux.

To this dearly loved sister I confided my most intimate thoughts; she cleared up all my doubts. One day I expressed surprise that God does not give an equal amount of glory to all the elect in Heaven–I was afraid that they would not all be quite happy. She sent me to fetch Papa’s big tumbler, and put it beside my tiny thimble, then, filling both with water, she asked me which seemed the fuller. I replied that one was as full as the other–it was impossible to pour more water into either of them, for they could not hold it. In this way Pauline made it clear to me that in
Heaven the least of the Blessed does not envy the happiness of the greatest; and so, by bringing the highest mysteries down to the level of my understanding, she gave my soul the food it needed.

As to the concept of the beatific vision, both to Zerinus and rmcmullan:

It consists in the fulfillment of faith. Faith gives way to knowledge. “Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God” (Jn 17:3). Paul tells us, “At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known” (1 Cor 13:12).

As John says:

Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We do know that when it is revealed we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is (1 Jn 3:2).

Faith corresponds to our intellect, the part of our soul that knows. Faith is a dark night to our soul, because our knowing consists in the emptiness or night of not knowing (because our intellects cannot know God purely and directly in this life). In the next life that faith gives way to knowledge, for our intellect no longer sojourns in exile here on earth, but instead we are directly and immediately in God’s presence. Now we see only indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then we see face to face.

So our conception of heaven is that of knowing the one true God. It involves our intellects grasping his sublime essence (although in a limited way, because our intellects are limited): that we shall see him as he is.

Zerinus, I’m not particularly interested in arguing whether or not the Catholic view of heaven is biblical. Right now I’m interested-- both zerinus and rmcrmullan-- in knowing in what Mormons think the happiness of heaven consists.

-Rob

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus, I’m not particularly interested in arguing whether or not the Catholic view of heaven is biblical. Right now I’m interested-- both zerinus and rmcrmullan-- in knowing in what Mormons think the happiness of heaven consists.

-Rob

The LDS concept of heaven is explained best in a vision that Joseph Smith received, in which the doctrine of the three heavens, or the three degrees of glory, was revealed, and the state of their happiness, as far it is possible to express it in human terms was described. This vision now forms section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants, and you can read the full text of it here. Anyone who goes to any of these three heavens are considered saved; however, since by salvation LDS generally mean salvation in the third heaven (which is what every LDS aspires to), the answer to your question will be found in verses 50–70 of that section, which describes the condition of those who go there, as well as how one qualifies for it.

zerinus

 

[rmcmullan]

RobNY, this is really my own interpretation: I think of it as in terms of an inheritance. Let’s say you’re the father and you have a number of children and are outrageously wealthy. You’d like to give as much of it as you could to your different children but realise they might not all use it with the same wisdom. And some of them, the unruly ones, might actually use their new power and wealth against each other. To them I would give nothing. To those who would use the power and wealth for good and to improve the lot of everyone, I would give as much as I can. And so on throughout all the different level of my children, I would reward them according to their intentions of mutual co-operation and edification.

Maybe that doesn’t work for you but it works really well for me.