And I’m your host Shawn McCraney. We praise the True and Living God for allowing us to participate in this ministry. May He be with you (and us) tonight.

Got this email from Lois after last week’s show and a comment I made that suggested Joseph Smith borrowed from Emanuel Swedenborg when it came to his notions on pre-existence:

Hi Shawn,

Last night (11/5) you mentioned Swedenborg in connection to JS’s idea of pre-mortal existence. My dad was a Christian church minister for many years (he passed on 24 years ago), and he was introduced to Swedenborg’s writings when he was in his 40’s, and they answered a lot of questions for him. It took me awhile, but eventually I began reading his books too. I’ve been reading them for 30 or 40 years now, and I’ve never read anything that connects to the idea of pre-mortal existence.

She continues.

“There was a lot of talk last night about the genius of JS, but it doesn’t begin to compare w/the genius of Emanuel Swedenborg . . . (and she goes on to articulate many of his vast accomplishments.

Thank you Lois for taking the time to write. Admittedly, over the years of investigating Smith and his claims I have run into a number of references that suggest Smith he got his ideas (or some content on the subject of a pre-existence) from Emanuel Swedenborg but I have never read much of Swedenborg’s writings myself and I take your education and insights on the man and his work seriously.

Swedenborg’s Influence on Smith

That being said, people (even active LDS continue to suggest that Swedenborg did touch on the topic but mostly as a means to clear up misunderstandings about it and NOT so much in an effort to promote the notion. Maybe in this context Smith was inspired?

Nevertheless, Lois got me interested in the subject so I thought we’d spend a few moments tonight on the man Emanuel Swedenborg. The man was born in Sweden in 1688 116 years before Joseph Smith. At the age of 57 he claims to have been visited by Jesus Christ who commanded him to write the inner meaning of the Bible – especially as they relate to life after physical death. This revelation sort of launched him into a visionary period (with angels) that would last for the rest of his life. Apparently, Swedenborg was able to actually visit the other side (so to speak) and gain insight on what the Bible was actually saying (and by the way, Swedenborg had a great love for the Bible.

In the midst of these visionary experiences, he wrote thousands of pages of his inspired insights which he claimed came directly (and only from) the Lord. We literally could spend weeks and weeks covering the writings of this man, and if you are so inclined the study is really interesting. But for our purposes (meaning relative to Mormonism) let me sort of summarize some of the areas I believe Swedenborg influenced Smith (and I apologize to Lois for areas not given the time and attention they deserve).

Swedenborg's Concepts and Smith

First, Swedenborg divided the heavens into three: celestial, spiritual, and natural, Smith into Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial. He noted, like the LDS do today, that the lower heavens cannot see or communicate with the higher.
Within the highest celestial heaven Swedenborg taught there are three levels. So did Smith.
In his visions Swedenborg saw that there are robes worn in heavenly marriage ceremonies. Swedenborg witnessed a marriage ceremony in heaven in which the husband wore robes like those of Aaron while the wife was arrayed as a queen. This imagery is pictured in LDS temple ceremonies.
Swedenborg (and then Smith after him) taught that a person must be married in heaven to inherit the highest heaven.
Swedenborg’s “middle heaven” (which he labeled “the world of Spirits”) is very similar to the LDS version of “the spirit world” in that it is a place of preparation for either heaven or perdition. Mormonism and Swedenborgians both teach that the “world of spirits” (or spirit world) is a portal through which all mankind passes on to prepare for heaven or perdition. Swedenborg’s views and Smith’s are very similar when it comes to the place of preparation this spirit world turns out to be, with the LDS saying it is a place where

Swedenborgian and Mormon Doctrinal Parallels

Earthly inhabitants are both teaching and learning in preparation for their future eternal state.

Swendborg first likened his three heavens to the sun, moon, and stars and Smith followed (even though there are some dissimilarities between the two which we won’t cover tonight).
Swedenborg also taught that the Church Christ established died spiritually and no longer serves as a link between heaven and earth. Of course Smith agreed with a universal apostasy – the difference was Swedenborg said it was a loss of truth and Smith said it was a loss of priesthood authority.
Both men taught that the Lord would establish a New Church on the earth again.
Swedenborg taught that when little children die they go directly to heaven – so did Smith after him.
He taught that God created man to have free will – Smith agreed.
Swedenborg spoke of something he termed, “an equilibrium between good and evil,” as being absolutely necessary to the ways and will of God and Smith later proposed what the Book of Mormon calls, “an opposition of all things.”
Swedenborg rejected salvation by faith alone – in fact he said it was one of the great errors in Christianity. Mormonism agrees. (even if they pretend otherwise today).
Swedenborg taught that to qualify for perdition a person had to literally know the truth and then fight it – Smith taught something very similar.
He taught that celestial beings consecrated all things to the common good . . . so did Smith.
He taught that all material things on earth have a spiritual form first – Smith did the same.
And in Arcana Coelestia, Swedenborg wrote: “God is very man.” In his King Follett discourse, Smith in many similar ways echoed these sentiments.

Sources and Spread of Swedenborg's Ideas

The question is, did Smith channel Swedenborg on these issues? Are these “insights” sort of like eternal truths that hang out there for the spiritually attuned to grab hold of?

Or . . . did Smith, like he did in the construction of his Book of Mormon, borrow from the concepts of Swedenborg, written down a hundred years before him, and then sort of create his own theories in and around Swedenborg’s original thoughts?

I would say “yea, yea” to the latter. But the question is, “where’s the proof?”

By the time Smith was born (and remember, he was born into a house that talked about and orbited around religious thought) it is quite possible he could have had access to many of Swedenborg’s unique insights. Followers of Swedenborg in America were part of what was called, The New Church, and during Joseph Smith’s life members of the New Church in New York initiated a newspaper campaign to teach the public about Swedenborg.

In fact prior to the Smith family moving to New York the newspaper ran a front page article on Swedenborg, and while the Smith family was not living there yet, talk and topics of Swedenborg could certainly have been alive and well in the area. Then in 1826, while Smith was writing the Book of Mormon, a mail-order newspaper advertisement for “Heaven and Hell” one of Swendborg’s books appeared in the Canadaigua newspaper.

Connections to Joseph Smith

Also, many of Swedenborg’s works were distributed to the public and at least 7,000 copies of Swedenborg’s books were produced in the United States prior to the organization of the LDS Church in 1830. D. Michael Quinn, a well known Mormon historian, indicates that Joseph Smith did read books that contained information about Swedenborg and his doctrines, including a 20 page summary which seem to have been taken from Swedenborgs most popular book, Heaven and Hell.

Additionally, there were three congregations of The New Church within 75 miles of the Smith family home. Then there was Sarah Cleveland, one plural wife of Joseph Smith who, according to LDS historian Todd Compton was sealed to Smith around 1842. At the time of her plural marriage, Sarah Cleveland was married to John Cleveland, a Swedenborgian who apparently knew nothing of her plural marriage to Joseph Smith.

Sarah joined the LDS Church in 1835 and in 1836 she and her husband moved to Quincy, Illinois. When Nauvoo became the center of Mormonism in 1839 after the saints were expelled from Missouri, the Cleveland’s found themselves living near the center of the Church. The Smith’s and Cleveland’s became friends after Emma Smith and her children lived with the Cleveland’s for a short time in 1839 while Joseph was in jail. Joseph rewarded the Cleveland’s with a plot of land in Nauvoo.

Finally, Joseph Smith himself did reveal at least a knowledge

Emanuel Swedenborg and Joseph Smith's Interactions

of Swedenborg when, in 1839, he said:

“Emanuel Swedenborg had a view of the world to come, but for daily food he perished.”

It was a comment directed to Edward Hunter, a Swedenborgian convert who later became a presiding bishop in Joseph Smith’s Mormon Church.

Brother Hunter took this statement from Smith to suggest that Swedenborg’s teachings were incomplete and from that point forward turned from Swedenborg’s teachings all together. But prior to converting to Mormonism, Edward Hunter spent three days with Joseph Smith and together they discussed a number of topics, among them the teachings of Emanuel Swedenborg. It is thought that when the conversations were done that Smith made his opinion known of Emanuel Swedenborg, and Hunter left the teachings of the man behind.

Brent and Wendy Top wrote a book called “Beyond Death’s Door,” which quotes quite a bit of Swedenborg’s book, “Heaven and Hell.” Mary Ann Meyers, wrote “Death in Swedenborgian and Mormon Eschatology,” where she too outlines some of Swedenborg’s teachings and hints that Joseph Smith may have borrowed from him. BYU Studies has included some articles which briefly mention Swedenborg, and D. Michael Quinn dedicated a few pages to Swedenborg in Early Mormonism and the Magic World View.

Last week we mentioned that of all things, Smith was a tremendous synthesizer of information. I remain convinced this was the man’s greatest asset, and he used it to take, borrow, steal, and counterfeit another Gospel… which continues to beguile and convince people to believe His insights… over the Word of God.

And with that, let’s have a word of prayer.

Calvin's Theology

And while one of the world's great religious synthesizers, Smith was also very adept and knowing what types of teachings and doctrines to reject – especially the junk proposed by Jean Calvin. For this I congratulate the man.

In the past few weeks we have talked about the T of Calvin's theology (Total Depravity) and the U (Unconditional Election). Total Depravity says nobody will choose God, and Unconditional Election says that as a result, God chooses, due to His own good will and pleasure, those he will save and those He will damn to an eternity in hell. This brings us to the L in the T.U.L.I.P – “Limited Atonement.”

Understanding Limited Atonement

It is really important to know that the Five Point Calvinists worldview does not hold water if ANY of the Five Points is proven faulty. In other words, there is truly no such thing as a four or three or two or a one point Calvinist. Jean Calvin had a steely, legal mind and in the face of Luther’s reformation saw that “salvation by grace” truly needed some detailed, methodically explained parameters for the masses… to be forced to follow. And so he produced this enormous volume of a “seamless” theology compiled into one book called, Institutes of the Christian Religion. I mean the LDS talk about Smith’s genius (and he was truly a great synthesizer and assimilator of external information) but compared to Calvin and Swedenborg, he was nothing more than a carney guessing peoples weights and astrological signs.

Calvin’s “Reformed perspective” that says Jesus only atone for sins of some (meaning it is a limited atonement) is merely just an extension of his teachings that all people are depraved and God chooses to elect only some to salvation – and this was before He created any of us. To Calvin, since no one deserves to be saved, and since only God elect’s only a certain group to be saved, it wouldn’t make any sense for Jesus to then suffer and die for everyone… now would it? So Five Point Calvinists, carrying their insane doctrines out to further extremes, now go on and say that Jesus only suffered for the sins of those God elected before the foundation of the world – and the rest He has left to their face their own pre-determined destination – eternal burning hell.

Calvin's Position on Atonement

Some Calvinists today claim Jean Calvin did not really teach limited atonement. But take note that it was Calvin who said:

“The whole world does not belong to its Creator except that grace rescues from God’s curse and wrath and eternal death a limited number who would otherwise perish. But the world itself is left to its own destruction, to which it has been destined. Meanwhile, although Christ interposes himself as mediator, he claims for himself, in

Examining Salvation Doctrines

common with the Father, the right to choose. “I am not speaking,” he says, “of all; I know whom I have chosen” (John 13:18). He continues, saying: “This we must believe: when he declares that he knows whom he has chosen, he denotes in the human genus a particular species, distinguished not by the quality of its virtues but by heavenly decree.” He also said (listen closely) that “the doctrine of salvation, which is said to be reserved solely and individually for the sons of the church, is falsely debased when presented as effectually profitable to all.”

Bottom line, most Calvinists (who admit to embracing limited atonement) would argue that Jesus' precious blood would never be spilled or wasted atoning for the sins of those who God has always known were destined for hell. Therefore the atonement of Christ was Limited in scope. Interestingly enough, the LDS and biblical Christians come closest to agreeing with each other in their united disagreement against Calvin’s proposition of a “limited atonement.” The rub comes when Mormon’s and biblical Christians describe and define what atonement means, how it is applied, and what makes it efficacious to man.

Differing Views on Atonement

But biblically speaking, there is just too much evidence to support the fact that Jesus suffered, bled and died for the sins of the world – something the LDS and biblical Christians do agree upon – and Calvin says no to. Consider the biblical evidence, and ask yourself, does this sound like Jesus only died for a few “selected elected?”

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

1st John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

2nd Corinthians 5:15 “And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.”

1st Corinthians 15:21-22 “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”

1st Timothy 2:3-4 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

1st Timothy 4:10 “For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe.”

Salvation: A Biblical and LDS Perspective

Now, the Book of Mormon pretty much echoes much of what the Bible says about Jesus “atonement” (because it was for the most part modeled after the Bible) but as Smith grew in his imaginations the LDS view of atonement floated further and further away from classic Christian thought. So let me sort of summarize the spectrum of stances generally taken relative to the atonement of Jesus Christ – beginning with Calvin, who essentially said: “Jesus only paid for the sin of those God has elected to salvation.”

Then we have Arminiasts who say: “Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world but His gift must be accepted, in faith and in this life, to be effectual.” Because Joseph Smith was influenced by his universalist father and grandfather, Mormonism’s view of the atonement of Christ smacks of having a form of universalism. See, the LDS take some liberties with the salvivic work of Christ and while admitting that Jesus did, indeed, suffer for sin and death of the whole world, this work will grant a resurrected body to every person who has ever lived and a kingdom in which to reside.

However, for those who are to claim exaltation (which means living with the Father after this life and not just in some kingdom), the atonement provides an opportunity to repent of sin for those who believe (as a means to obtain forgiveness) . . . and when done right, allows them to enter into exaltation. In other words Mormon’s say, “Jesus paid for sin and death for the whole world (albeit in part in the Garden); and all people are gifted with

Joseph Smith's Teachings on Salvation

A resurrected body and kingdom of some sort because of this. But only those who repent and do what (the LDS Church demands) can reach the Father.

Founder Joseph Smith summarized his teachings and views well, saying:

“We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel”

Different Perspectives on Atonement

What do you think?

Do you accept Calvin’s idea which says Jesus atonement is limited only to those God has elected?

Do you accept the Arminianist idea that says Jesus suffered for the whole world but for His work to be efficacious, people must choose to believe or it was wasted?

The Role of Free Will and Salvation

Do you embrace Joseph Smith’s view that says Jesus saved the whole world, and to prove His suffering was not wasted there are gracious rewards for everybody who have ever taken on a body – but that only those who are faithful LDS believers will truly live with God after this life?

Or . . . or . . . is there another biblically based option you may not have considered that trumps them all – a response that truly proves God is love, He is just, He endorses the free-will of human beings, and implements afterlife punishment to achieve His purposes?

Think about it, folks.

And with that let’s open up the phone lines –

(801)

Mormonism and Five Point Calvinism, Part 5

Examining Swedenborg's Influence on Joseph Smith

Heart of the Matter