Agreeing with the claim that Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) and his
theology “prefigured central themes in antebellum Mormonism,” one anti-Mormon
author wrote:
It is possible that
Joseph Smith picked up some of his ideas directly from Swedenborgians, perhaps through
Joseph’s associate Sidney Rigdon. (Robert M. Bowman Jr., Jesus’ Resurrection and Joseph’s Visions: Examining the Foundations of
Christianity and Mormonism [Tampa, Fla.: DeWard Publishing Company, 2020], 163)
In a footnote, the Evangelical apologist wrote:
As acknowledged in
J.B. Haws, “Joseph Smith, Emanuel Swedenborg, and Section 76: Importance of the
Bible in Latter-day Revelation,” in Doctrine
and Covenants: Revelations in Context, ed. Hedges, Fluhman, and Gaskill,
142-67 (esp. 145-50). Hays suggests that Swedenborg and Joseph may have both
received divine revelations (156) and argues that these revelations occurred in
the context of their respective studies of the Bible (157-58). (Ibid., 163 n. 25)
Haws’ essay can be found online here
and I would highly recommend people read it, as it is well-researched. Notwithstanding,
Haws, while open to Rigdon being informed about Swedenborg’s writings, shows
that there is scant meaningful evidence supporting such; furthermore, he argues
that Joseph’s theology of the afterlife is radically different from that of
Swedenborg’s. Note the following, for example:
. . . considering Rigdon’s long association with
Alexander Campbell before joining with the Mormons, the discovery that Campbell
made several references to Swedenborg in the two periodicals that he edited and
published seems significant.[34] In fact, in at least two instances,
Swedenborg and Rigdon are both mentioned in the same issue of the
periodical—once even in the same article. In the October 4, 1830, issue of the Millennial Harbinger, an article entitled “Traveller’s Reply—Excerpts from the
Traveller’s Journal” contains this interesting entry: “June 21st. Read two
hours in the visions of Swedenborg on Heaven and Hell; and a sketch of his
life.” Then, after providing a journal entry for June 22, the “traveller,” who
signs the article “Francis,” wrote a summary of his experiences: “I had the
privilege of spending several days at [Alexander Campbell’s] house, of forming
a very pleasing personal acquaintance with him. . . . I was introduced also to
Walter Scott, to Sidney Rigdon, to Adamson Bentley; which three ministers have
immersed, within three years, at least three thousand persons.”[35] While
it is impossible to determine the chronological order of the “traveller’s” June
21 reading of Swedenborg and his undated introduction to Sidney Rigdon, at
least this passage establishes that someone familiar with a specific
Swedenborgian text also knew Sidney Rigdon. Because Swedenborg’s Heaven and Hell is mentioned—a text which discusses the three-tiered
heaven—and because of Rigdon’s own intellectual curiosity, it seems reasonable
to infer that Rigdon could have possessed a basic familiarity with Swedenborg’s
view of the afterlife before he began his association with Joseph Smith.
Recognizing that any
further conclusion beyond this suggestive Swedenborg-Rigdon connection will be
speculative, it at least seems appropriate to say something about Rigdon’s
participation in the vision of the degrees of glory.[36] He had become the principal scribe
for Joseph Smith’s work on a translation or revision of the Bible. When they
came to John 5:29 in the translation work, Joseph Smith records that the verse
“caused [them] to marvel,” and it was while they “meditated upon these things”
that the vision opened (D&C 76:18–19). Could it be possible, then, that in
reflecting on the nature of the Resurrection, Sidney Rigdon brought up
something he had learned from Swedenborg’s idea of a three-tiered heaven or
that Joseph Smith may have remembered hearing something of the same? There are
other connected possibilities.
Joseph Smith worked extensively on his Bible revision and
translation for the first three years after the organization of The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints, from 1830 to 1833. Several of his recorded
revelations are directly tied to questions that arose during that translation
work. It is interesting to note that there is evidence that the translation did
not proceed sequentially in all cases. For example, Joseph Smith translated
John 5:29, which preceded receiving the revelation now contained in Doctrine
and Covenants 76, on February 16, 1832. A month previously Joseph Smith
recorded what is now Doctrine and Covenants 74—a revelation directly commenting
on 1 Corinthians 7:14.[37] Receipt
of Doctrine and Covenants 74 suggests that Joseph Smith had been involved, in
January 1832, with a study of at least 1 Corinthians 7. Interestingly, the
biblical passage most directly connected to the vision of the three degrees is
found in 1 Corinthians 15:40–42. Could it be that Joseph Smith was intrigued by
the notion of three glories implied in these
verses—perhaps even in part because of Swedenborgian doctrine—such that the
traditional understanding of John 5:29, which he read a few weeks later, and
its resurrection dichotomy seemed incomplete?[38]
As inconclusive as the investigation into the Joseph
Smith–Emanuel Swedenborg points of contact seem to be, these questions remain
open. Additionally, an examination of the similarities and dissimilarities in
the visionary texts speaks even more directly to reasonable limits on the
suggested extent of Swedenborg’s influence on Joseph Smith, because careful
readers of Doctrine and Covenants 76 will notice that Joseph Smith’s revelation
is built on a framework of direct quotations of biblical passages. . . . The
central New Testament passage that weaves itself throughout Joseph Smith’s
vision is 1 Corinthians 15:40–42. The Apostle Paul wrote, “There are also
celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is
one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the
sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one
star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the
dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption.” Readers familiar
with Mormonism’s conception of a three-tiered heaven will recognize the points
of contact between this passage and the Latter-day Saint description of that
heaven. Allusions to this passage from 1 Corinthians 15 abound in Doctrine and
Covenants 76: inhabitants of the highest kingdom of glory are “they whose
bodies are celestial” (v. 70); the glory of the celestial kingdom is such that
“the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical” (v. 70); the
difference between the celestial kingdom and the terrestrial kingdom is
analogous to the way that “the moon differs from the sun in the firmament” (v.
71); the summary description of the three kingdoms of glory follows—and even
adopts—Paul’s language: “And the glory of the celestial is one, even as the
glory of the sun is one. And the glory of the terrestrial is one, even as the
glory of the moon is one. And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the
glory of the stars is one; for as one star differs from another star in glory,
even so differs one from another in the glory in the telestial world” (vv.
96–98). It seems evident that Joseph Smith understood his visionary experience
to be related directly to Paul’s description of the Resurrection and thus chose
to present his vision as an expansion of that description.
It is therefore surprising to note that Emanuel Swedenborg
apparently never quoted from, nor even referred to, 1 Corinthians 15:40–42 in
any of his voluminous writings.[39] Swedenborg
did call the highest level of heaven the “celestial kingdom,” yet because this
was a common synonym for heaven in the Christian vernacular, it would seem a
serious stretch to see in this shared vocabulary a direct borrowing of
Swedenborgian thought in Joseph Smith’s writings.[40] Joseph Smith, based on his
interpretation of the Pauline passage, called the second kingdom or heavenly
level “terrestrial,” while Swedenborg called that level “spiritual.” The phrase
“terrestrial bodies” and the single word terrestrial do appear
in Swedenborg’s translated writings, but never do they describe or even refer
to the inhabitants of the second or “spiritual” heaven.[41] The word telestial, which Joseph Smith used to describe the
lowest degree of heaven, never appears in Swedenborg’s works—and indeed seems
to be an invented word unique to Joseph Smith.[42]
Quinn, in his review of
similarities between Swedenborgianism and Doctrine and Covenants 76, candidly
admits that of “the names of the three glories (Celestial, Terrestrial, and
Telestial) in Joseph Smith’s 1832 vision, . . . only the Celestial corresponded
to Swedenborg’s theology of three heavens,” yet asserts that Swedenborg “stated
that the inhabitants of the three heavens corresponded to the sun, moon, and
stars.”[43] Such
an assertion, if true, would seem to imply another Swedenborgian parallel in
Joseph Smith’s use of 1 Corinthians 15:40–42. However, a review of Swedenborg’s
writings reveals that Quinn misappropriated or at least overstated the sun-
moon- star description in Swedenborg’s work, and subsequent writers may have
too readily accepted Quinn’s conclusions, thus exaggerating the perception of
similarity.[44]
Notes for the Above
[34] The two periodicals are the Christian Baptist (published
from 1823 until 1830) and its successor, the Millennial Harbinger (first
published in 1830). Both periodicals are part of the digitized collection of
restoration movement religious texts provided by the Memorial University of
Newfoundland at www.mun.ca/
[35] Millennial Harbinger, October 7, 1830, 447–48; http://
[36] Sidney Rigdon had a
falling out with Joseph Smith in the 1840s but did not officially break with
the Church until after Joseph Smith’s death. He was subjected to repeated
accusations that he had been the primary writer of the Book of Mormon, yet even
though he had broken with the Church, and even though he “never showed an
inclination to relinquish his due, [he] vigorously maintained throughout his
life that he had no part in the production of The Book of Mormon and
never saw it until it was published” (Donna Hill, Joseph Smith: The First Mormon,
reprint [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1999], 104). Significantly, and in a
similar way, even after his trouble with Joseph Smith, and soon after Joseph
Smith’s death, Rigdon still witnessed of his participation in the vision of the
degrees of glory (Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, 337).
[37] Robert J. Matthews,
“A Plainer Translation,” Joseph Smith’s Translation of the
Bible: A History and Commentary (Provo, UT: Brigham Young
University Press, 1975), 34–35.
[38] See Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 196, about the Prophet’s encounter with
John 5:29: “The scripture raised the question of how God could divide people
into stark categories of saved and damned when individuals were so obviously a
mix in ordinary life. ‘It appeared self-evident,’ Joseph wrote, ‘that if God
rewarded every one according to the deeds done in the body, the term “heaven,”
as intended for the Saints eternal home, must include more kingdoms than one.’
The question Joseph posed was a classic post-Calvinistic puzzle. For over a
century Anglo-American culture had struggled to explain the arbitrary judgments
of the Calvinist God who saved and damned according to his own good pleasure
with little regard for human effort.”
[39] This assertion, and
subsequent assertions about the use of certain words, phrases, and scriptural
passages in Swedenborg’s writings, are based on the searchable database of
Swedenborg’s religious works at theheavenlydoctrines.org. Although Craig
Miller, in the body of his paper, seems to imply that Swedenborg did draw on 1 Corinthians 15:40–42, in an endnote
Miller provides the important clarification that Swedenborg never referenced 1
Corinthians 15:40–42 and that “his followers generally don’t see the three
heavens in the words of these scriptures” (Miller, “Did Emanuel Swedenborg
Influence LDS Doctrine?” 14n8).
[40] For example, the
searchable database Early English Books Online lists seventy-three
seventeenth-century works—including the writings of John Foxe, Richard Baxter,
and early translations of Augustine, Jerome, Eusebius, and John Calvin—that
contain the phrase “celestial kingdom,” all of which predate Emanuel
Swedenborg’s writings (http://
[41] In all seventy-six
passages containing the word terrestrial, Swedenborg
uses it interchangeably with the associated (and most often listed) synonyms
worldly, corporeal, or material—in other words, terrestrial always
refers to the present life, and never the afterlife.
[42] Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 602n11: “‘Telestial’ was not a known
word. It has the ring of telos, meaning ‘end’ or ‘uttermost,’ a Greek word that
appears in the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 15:24, a few verses before a
passage on bodies celestial and terrestrial in verse 40.”
[43] Quinn, Early Mormonism, 217, 219.
[44] See, for example,
Brooke, The Refiner’s Fire, 205: “Michael Quinn has noted that the
idea of three heavens, or degrees of glory, was available in Emmanuel
Swedenborg’s cosmic system, in which three heavens—topped by a ‘celestial
kingdom’—were associated with the sun, the moon, and the stars.” See also
Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 198:
“Building on Paul, ‘The Vision’ [of Joseph Smith] made the three resurrected
glories of sun, moon, and stars into three heavenly realms. The same scripture inspired eighteenth-century Swedish
scientist and visionary Emanuel Swedenborg to divide the heavens into three
parts, ‘celestial,’ ‘spiritual,’ and ‘natural,’ equivalent to sun, moon, and stars”
(emphasis added). Bushman cites Quinn’s work in his notes (Rough Stone Rolling, 602n16), but he then adds this
important caveat, which parallels the argument of this paper: “Since Swedenborg
attracted the attention of New England intellectuals . . .his ideas may
conceivably have drifted into Joseph Smith’s environment, but it was more
likely the passage from Paul sparked the revelations of both men” (Rough Stone Rolling, 198–99).
Those reading Bowman’s book might get the impression that the case for
Swedenborgian influence on Joseph Smith’s theology (possibly via Sidney Rigdon)
to be much better than it truly it (a stretch,
to give my opinion, after having read some works by Swedenborg and various
works pro- and con-).
A number of years ago, on an old LDS-related forum, Ben McGuire
discussed the purported parallels between Joseph Smith’s theology and that of
Swedenborg. I saved the discussion onto a word document, and will reproduce it
as some might find it useful and informative:
Interesting because in this thread we have an
individual who does it: Tithulta does. I note this is the third time they have
brought up this series of parallels on this forum (although I have also seen
the same list from this poster over on Josh's forum). This list comes
originally from this website (I suppose it would not be plaigiarism if Tithulta
is really Jim Day):
http://trialsofascension.net/mormon/plagiarism.html
Then we have Platypus Man who says:
http://trialsofascension.net/mormon/plagiarism.html
Then we have Platypus Man who says:
QUOTE
|
I wish I could read Heaven and Hell
so I could compare the similiarities myself. The first comparison is a
perfect example.
|
For your viewing pleasure, I offer this link:
http://www.newcenturyedition.org/HH_Translation.pdf
From this, we can get a good text of Chapter 5. And then we start to wonder exactly how this represents a connection between Joseph and Swedenborg. The author of the above linked website mentions the differences, but doesn't do either the similarities or the differences justice.
It is true that they both talk of three heavens. So does Paul in the New Testament. And in fact, before the later the expansions of the notion of three heavens into seven and ten heavens (there are a couple of further expansions, but none that reached the popularity of these two), three heavens was quite widely accepted in Jewish and Christian literature. Thus, for example, we also have the Testament of Levi (in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs) in which the earliest MSS have three heavens while the later expansions went with seven. In any case, there is enough in Paul to create the speculation in both Joseph and in Swedenborg independantly. So the logic has to go further. So Day suggests:
http://www.newcenturyedition.org/HH_Translation.pdf
From this, we can get a good text of Chapter 5. And then we start to wonder exactly how this represents a connection between Joseph and Swedenborg. The author of the above linked website mentions the differences, but doesn't do either the similarities or the differences justice.
It is true that they both talk of three heavens. So does Paul in the New Testament. And in fact, before the later the expansions of the notion of three heavens into seven and ten heavens (there are a couple of further expansions, but none that reached the popularity of these two), three heavens was quite widely accepted in Jewish and Christian literature. Thus, for example, we also have the Testament of Levi (in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs) in which the earliest MSS have three heavens while the later expansions went with seven. In any case, there is enough in Paul to create the speculation in both Joseph and in Swedenborg independantly. So the logic has to go further. So Day suggests:
QUOTE
|
Those of a lower heaven are unable
to see those in a higher heaven. Furthermore, the celestial kingdom has three
divisions.
|
The first challenge is that while many (probably most)
Mormons believe that the celestial kingdom has three divisions, this is based
on an interpretation of the D&C which require equating the phrase
"Celestial Glory" (which is elswhere used as referring to all of the
degrees of glory) as meaning "Celestial Kingdom". Some LDS do not
believe in a formal distinction between degrees of glory within the Celestial
Kingdom, and apart from this interpretation of the text of the D&C, there
isn't significant evidence that Joseph Smith held this view.
The second challenge (as has been noted) is that there is clearly a difference in this notion over "seeing". Mormon views traditionally hold that those in a higher kingdom can visit a lower kingdom. But, the reasons for the fact that Sweedenborgian inhabitants of the other kingdoms cannot "see" each other is spelled out"
The second challenge (as has been noted) is that there is clearly a difference in this notion over "seeing". Mormon views traditionally hold that those in a higher kingdom can visit a lower kingdom. But, the reasons for the fact that Sweedenborgian inhabitants of the other kingdoms cannot "see" each other is spelled out"
QUOTE
|
By the same token, the perfection
of angels of the intermediate heaven surpasses that of angels of the outmost
heaven. Because of this difference, an angel of one heaven cannot gain
admission to angels of another heaven: someone from a lower heaven cannot
come up, nor can someone from a higher heaven come down. Anyone who comes up
is seized by anxiety even to the point of pain and cannot see the people who
are there, let alone talk with them. Anyone who comes down from a higher
heaven loses his or her wisdom, stammers, and loses confidence.
|
And we get this compared to the D&C:
QUOTE
|
And they shall be servants of the
Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without
end.
|
So this is the similarity. Then we get to the
differences. Here are two significant ones that I find from Chapter 5 (this
isn't anywhere near all the differences, as anyone can see from reading
Swedenborg's text).
- While Joseph follows Paul in describing the three heavens as the Sun, the Moon and the Stars, Swedenborg describes them as three parts of the body, or as three parts of a house:
- While Joseph follows Paul in describing the three heavens as the Sun, the Moon and the Stars, Swedenborg describes them as three parts of the body, or as three parts of a house:
QUOTE
|
There are three heavens, very
clearly distinguished from each other. There is a central or third heaven, an
intermediate or second one, and an outmost or first. These follow in sequence
and are interdependent, like the highest part of the human body, the head;
the middle, or torso; and the lowest, or feet; or like the highest, middle,
and lowest parts of a house.
|
In connection with Chapter 5, Swedenborg claims that
mankind was created as an image (literally a "miniature") of the
heavens while Joseph, following Genesis claims that man was created as the
literal image of God. This is one of the overarching themes of Swedenborg's
theology in this book. Thus Swedenborg:
QUOTE
|
The deeper levels of the human mind
and disposition are in a similar pattern as well. We have a central,
intermediate, and outmost nature. This is because when humanity was created
the whole divine design was gathered into it, to the point that as to
structure, the human being is the divine design and is therefore a heaven in
miniature.
|
- For Swedenborg, each of the heavens is broken down into two distinct regions:
QUOTE
|
There is an outside and an inside
to each heaven. The angels who are in the inner region are there called
“inner angels,” while the ones in the outer region are called “outer angels.”
The outside and the inside in the heavens (or in each particular heaven) are
like our own volitional side and its cognitive aspect. Everything volitional
has its cognitive side—neither occurs without the other. The volitional is
like a flame and the cognitive like the light that it sheds.
|
I want to make a particular point of this. Swedenborg
does not present three divisions of the "celestial" glory. He has two
divisions of his "central" heaven. it seems quite clear to me that
Day's assessmenet has been flawed by misapprehension of Swedenborg's text.
In any case, Joseph seems to have missed the forest of Swedenborg's theology for the shrubs (not even the trees). Most of the points from Day's list are not unique to Sweedenborg and Joseph Smith. (Apsotacy, Creation/Garden of Eden as allegorical for man, the birth of Christ in April, etc.) So to take a few fairly casual similarities and try and stretch them to cover the huge differences, seems rather silly to me. When I read the texts, I am not impressed by the similarities. And it seems rather likely that Joseph's comments on Swedenborg are directed more at becoming aware of Swedenborg after his own production of the Book of Mormon. Of course, we get the comments of MC:
In any case, Joseph seems to have missed the forest of Swedenborg's theology for the shrubs (not even the trees). Most of the points from Day's list are not unique to Sweedenborg and Joseph Smith. (Apsotacy, Creation/Garden of Eden as allegorical for man, the birth of Christ in April, etc.) So to take a few fairly casual similarities and try and stretch them to cover the huge differences, seems rather silly to me. When I read the texts, I am not impressed by the similarities. And it seems rather likely that Joseph's comments on Swedenborg are directed more at becoming aware of Swedenborg after his own production of the Book of Mormon. Of course, we get the comments of MC:
QUOTE
|
Joseph Smith's trick was to mine
the bible for nuggets of esoteric concepts and odd turns of phrase and expand
upon them.
|
Which is certainly the way that a non-believer is
going to approach the subject - although this approach generally goes against
the notion of plagiarism. And when MC writes:
QUOTE
|
This Swedenborg chap likely came up
with the same concepts and phraseology because he was doing the same
thing--ie, ripping off the bible.
|
I can only suggest that he actually read Swedenborg -
because he doesn't sound much like the Bible. "... the same concepts and
phraseology ..."? I don't think so. What makes Joseph and Swedenborg sound
the same are later individuals like Day who aren't actually quoting the texts.
Ben
Ben
Sep 27 2005, 10:08 AM So, Moksha, have you actually
read anything by Swedenborg?
QUOTE
|
Marriage in the heavens is the
union of two people into one mind. First, I need to explain the nature of
this union. The mind consists of two parts, one called intellect and the
other called volition. When these two parts are acting as one, we call them
one mind. In heaven, the husband plays the role labeled intellect and the
wife the role called volition.
|
QUOTE
|
We can see from this that marriage
love finds its source in the union of two people in one mind. In heaven, this
is called “living together,” and they are not called “two” but “one.” Consequently
two spouses in heaven are not called two angels but one angel.
|
QUOTE
|
The volition of the
wife actually belongs to the husband and the intellect of the husband belongs to the wife. This is because each wants to intend and think like the other, mutually, that is, and reciprocally. This is how the two are united into one. This is a truly effective union. The intent of the wife actually enters into the thinking of the husband, and the thinking of the husband enters into the intent of the wife, especially when they look each other in the face, since as already noted there is a sharing of thoughts and affections in the heavens. T h e re is all the more sharing between a wife and a husband because they love each other. |
QUOTE
|
Genuine marriage love is not
possible between one husband and more than one wife. Polygamy in fact
destroys the spiritual source of marriage love, whose purpose is to form one mind
out of two. It therefore destroys the deeper union of the good and the true
that is the very essence of that love. Marriage with more than one is like an
intellect divided among more than one will or like a person pledged to more
than one church. This actually pulls faith apart so that it becomes no faith
at all. Angels say that taking more than one wife is absolutely contrary to
the divine design and that they know this for many reasons, including the
fact that the moment they think about marriage with more than one, they are
estranged from their inner blessedness and heavenly happiness.
|
QUOTE
|
In a word, heaven portrays itself
in marriage love because heaven for angels is the union of the good and the
true, and it is this union that constitutes marriage love.
Marriages in the heavens differ from marriages on earth in that earthly marriages are also for the purpose of having children, while this is not the case in the heavens. In place of the procreation of children there is the procreation of what is good and true. The reason for this replacement is that their marriage is a marriage of the good and the true, as presented above, and in this marriage what is good and true is loved above all, as is their union; so these are what are propagated by the marriages in the heavens. This is why in the Word births and generations mean spiritual births and generations, births of what is good and true. The mother and father mean the true united to the good that is prolific, the sons and daughters the good and true things that are born, and the sons-in-law and daughters-in-law mean the unions of these [descendants], and so on. |
QUOTE
|
We can see from this that marriages
in the heavens are not the same as marriages on earth. In the heavens there
are spiritual weddings that should not be called weddings but unions of
minds, because of the union of the good and the true. On earth, though, there
are weddings, because they concern not only the spirit but the flesh as well.
Further, since there are no weddings in the heavens, two spouses there are
not called husband and wife, but because of the angelic concept of the union
of two minds into one, each spouse is identified by a word that means
“belonging to each other.”
|
Yes, Swedenborg believed in a
"Heavenly"/"Celestial" marriage. No, it doesn't resemble
what Joseph believed except in a very general sense.
Ben
Ben
On the topic of Joseph Smith's theology of the afterlife (per D&C 76 and related texts), see, for e.g.:
Early Christians and 1 Corinthians 15:40-42
Paul and the "third heaven" in 2 Corinthians 12:2
Paul's vision in 2 Corinthians 12 and Apocalyptic Eschatology
Possible Origenic Homily and the "Third Heaven"
