NOM

Well...I finally broke down and purchased the audible of Heaven and Hell by Emanuel Swedenborg. I'm not all the way through it...but learned a few things right off:

1. It goes in circles quite a bit.
2. It spends a LOT of time in the ethereal philosophical plain.
3. Its declarative in nature: not a lot of "this is what happened to me" kindof talk. Maybe that is coming up.

One thing that I have to back-check, but which is VERY VERY LDS came across in a way unexpected.

Swedenborg differentiates the inner heaven from the middle and outer regions. Those who are in the inner region are there because they incorporate, without reservation, the divine nature of God. They take in God's love and incorporate that internally, without question or reservation. However, those who are in the middle realms take God's love concepts into their intellect and then choose to either incorporate it or not. The act of making the choice disqualifies those souls from the inner and higher realm.

This idea struck me strongly when I considered Fowlers Levels of Faith, and how the LDS church creates and cements people in the external locus of control level 3 as being superior. Those who go through levels 4 & 5 often leave the church, are thrown out, or simply drift away because of the holes in theology, culture, and morals the church reflects.

So...unless I really misunderstood Swedenborg, it appears the mindless people who reflect God's love and don't choose, are the inner angels with all the glory. In a similar fashion, those in the LDS church who follow the prophet without asking questions--but "stay in the boat" because they are told, are the "golden saints".

What a really strange twist to discover.

Great write up. I totally agree with your thoughts on Fowler and how the church glorifies blind unquestioning obedience to the leadership, and pushes out Stage 3 and 4 members.

I haven’t read Swedenborgs book so I’m tossing this out there based on pure ignorance, but from the thoughts you shared it seems he may be referring more to how a person should intuitively act, in a Christian since, rather than blindly following.

Maybe “divine nature” could be thought of living the admonitions of Christ, and “without question or reservation” not so much of blind obedience, but more of having those virtues so deeply a part of us that it we don’t even have to think about whether we should act on them. Sort of the how there is: the person who lies, the persons who thinks of lying but is honest, and than the person who is such an embodiment of honesty that it would never even occur to them to lie. The most Christlike person doesn’t have to think about being Christlike etc.

IF this was what Swefenborg meant then I quite like it. But maybe it’s not at all what he’s saying and like in Mormonism fidelity to the church is far more virtuous than fidelity to a loving gospel. Blind obedience as a virtue is troubling enough that even earlier Brigham saw it as dumb. Or so he said.

Lucidity wrote: ↑Thu Nov 01, 2018 2:56 pm Sort of the how there is: the person who lies, the persons who thinks of lying but is honest, and than the person who is such an embodiment of honesty that it would never even occur to them to lie. The most Christlike person doesn’t have to think about being Christlike etc.

Problem is that the LDS church teaches all this agency stuff, and that we can't choose for ourselves and gain wisdom unless we are enticed by bad choices--the opposition in all things in 2nd Nephi. And its stuff like that, even if its subtle, that always baffles me.

I mean we have the church touting that we should read the scriptures, and even Paul says: "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." And then guys like Oaks comes along and says that if we choose contrary to what the Prophet teaches, or receive divine direction opposite to what the Prophet teaches, we have been influenced by the devil.

It makes no sense to me; and because of that, I'm of the opinion that the church really does employ cult-like techniques. They don't want you thinking, they don't want you choosing, they don't want you learning (except from them)--they want you praying, paying and obeying.

Having said that and reflecting on what Swedenborg says, I think his attitude about Christianity is similar to the LDS church's attitude: enthrone a level 3 stalwart person to the cause, and turn off the thinking part because to even consider something other than what God gives is anathema to the whole plan.

Such doctrine, when considered, is really laughable. I mean think about it. Follow us,...but don't think about choices or why you choose to follow us...just do it. Oh wait...didn't Lucifer get cast out for wanting to take away people's choices?

Ooops...I guess the LDS church (and Swedenborg) didn't get the memo...

Lucidity wrote: ↑Thu Nov 01, 2018 2:56 pm Blind obedience as a virtue is troubling enough that even earlier Brigham saw it as dumb. Or so he said.

I think Brigham felt he was so much smarter than everyone else, there was no one who would challenge his authority. Sad,...but this is a very good example.

I may not be reading Swedenborg right,...but I think I got a good idea. He circles back a lot, so this idea was said multiple times. Also, the way he slipped into the bible as ways to reinforce his points made if VERY clear this work is one of devotion, even a work with an agenda. Swedenborg CLEARLY was a bible scholar--he knew his stuff for that period of time.

Besides having used the terms Celestial and Terrestrial Kingdoms, Swedenborg also introduced the concept of Celestial Marriage.