Thursday, April 2, 2020

Did the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg Influence Joseph Smith?


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/rels/restmov/people/acampbell.html.

[35] Millennial Harbinger, October 7, 1830, 447–48; http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/tmh/MH0110.HTM.

[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://eebo.chadwyck.com).

[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:
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:

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"

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:

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:

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

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

One can find the writings of Swedenborg online, including at the following Website:



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"

Blog Archive