Swedenborg and Smith
A variety of authors have long sought to associate Joseph Smith with ancient traditions variously termed hermetic, esoteric, gnostic, mystical, magical, or metaphysical. Many of those seeking to demonstrate an association between Smith and such thinkers (recognizing that these terms are not mutually inclusive and many will dispute the unity of thought these analyses imply) have sought the missing link in Emmanuel Swedenborg, perhaps the dominant image of American mysticism in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. As I’ve been researching Mormon cultural history, I’ve encountered a variety of possible associations between Smith and Swedenborg. The best known and most recycled is a stray, strange phrase from Edward Hunter’s late autobiography, though Parley Pratt’s response to La Roy Sunderland demonstrated some awareness of Swedenborgianism, and stray references in early LDS newspapers suggested at least superficial knowledge of Swedenborg. I’m finishing up a brief paper summarizing the evidence associating Smith with Swedenborg. Before I send it off, I realized I’m interested in hearing from the blog community a) whether they’ve heard rumors of other evidence associating the two thinkers, and b) what it would mean if there were reliable evidence of Swedenborg’s influence on Joseph Smith (traditionally, writers pin on Swedenborg Smith’s tripartite heaven, the persistence of family/reproduction in heaven, and the kinship/social encounters of humans and angels).
The two spirits from Alma actually bears a remarkable parallel to Swedenborg’s philosophy of the soul where there’s a dualism and one aspect “dominates” leading the soul to where it goes after death.
I’m pretty skeptical of direct Swedenborg influence, but given how widely he was known at the time there almost certainly was some influence.
But I think a lot of the parallels could be best explained as either expansions due to the so-called “hermetic culture” (i.e. paganism rediscovered in the renaissance including gnosticism, hermeticism, platonism etc.; influence from Jewish and Christian kabbalah, alchemy, etc.) The rest can be explained by dealing with the same NT verses.
And, from a Mormon perspective, one can’t discount personal revelation.
As you note the oft quoted Hunter statement is of dubious value, although Quinn’s point about Swedenborg’s book being in the local library is more valuable.
Getting to the parallels, I’d simply note that those pointing to parallels tend to downplay the common scriptural heritage of the NT and OT. The three glories has obvious parallels with the notions of three heavens - common in Biblical commentaries as well as fairly trivial to read into various NT texts. Add in the fairly widespread esoteric traditions in Europe I mentioned and Swedenborg is hardly the only place one need go. Likewise polygamy has an obvious parallel in the scriptures. Even the notion of pre-existence or the idea (not Mormon doctrine technically) of husbands and wives being prepared from the pre-existence can be found in many, many sources beyond Swedenborg.
When you start looking at the more philosophical and perhaps more narrow (i.e. less common) teachings of Swedenborg I believe there simply aren’t as many. (Not that I’m an expert on Swedenborg in the least - but I’ve read most of the claims about the Swedenborg connection and most I could find vastly better parallels from other sources)
Comment by Clark — December 29, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
If you haven’t, Sam, I suggest contacting Mark Ashurst-McGee, who drafted a chapter for his MA thesis on this topic but was advised not to include it because of length (the darn thing was already 399 pp).
Comment by David Grua — December 29, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
There’s a brief stub article at the FAIR wiki here.
The most extensive treatment I’m aware of is Craig Miller’s web article on the subject.
Comment by Kevin Barney — December 30, 2007 @ 8:09 am
You may wish to check out the New Church’s website or the website of the Swedenborgian Church.
If you are ever in the Philadelphia area, a visit to The Bryn Athyn Cathedral is highly recommended.
Comment by Phouchg — December 30, 2007 @ 9:50 am
When I was in Boston I saw a Swedenborgian Church. I had never seen one before.
Comment by Kevin Barney — December 30, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
I don’t have any practical information for you, but here’s a random story:
I was dating a Swedish woman some years back, and we went to the city of Upsalla to meet her parents. They were not terribly excited about their daughter dating a flaky American living in Finland. Her mother was a deaconess or some such thing in the church there, so we went to meet her there after a service. We were chatting, and I saw the out of the corner of my eye a crypt with EMANUEL SWEDENBORG on it. I knew him because of some writing I did about Emerson as a grad student, and I excitedly asked if that was THE Emanuel Swedenborg? I made quite a hit with the mother, knowing who he was and being enthusiastic about the crypt.
Sorry for the interruption, but there are very few situations in which that story makes any sense at all.
Comment by Norbert — December 30, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
They often have a booth at the AAR annual meetings, and they have grant fellowships to write about Swedenborg. The chapel in Cambridge sits right off Harvard Yard; it’s sort of sweet to have it vaguely across the street from William James Hall, the psychology building.
Norbert. Great story. If you had claimed to have a discussion with his ghost, it’d have been even better (Swedenborg was and is widely viewed as a proto-spiritualist).
Comment by Sam MB — December 30, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
That Miller essay is fascinating on a metatextual level as well. Anyone know anything more about Miller?
Comment by Sam MB — December 30, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
I think Clark’s point is probably the most compelling here: these are probably parallelisms based in common cause rather than contagion. Smith and Swedenborg are both known to have shared an interest in hermetic philosophy, and the parallel ideas largely either have clear sources in that tradition or are straightforward generalizations from it. Direct influence of course remains a possibility, but for the most part it seems a redundant hypothesis.
The Miller piece was delivered at Sunstone some years ago. As a matter of historical method, I’m fascinated by his assertion that “One such similarity would be an interesting coincidence, two completely unexpected, three a practical impossibility, and four a strong indication that there is something much more to the similarities than mere chance.” Okay, but when was a pure chance model a meaningful hypothesis in history? Smith and Swedenborg obviously shared a lot of cultural information, both being mystics operating within a Western European cultural context. How likely are parallels given that information? I don’t know, and it’s not clear to me how anyone else could write down a compelling probability model, either. As a side note, I’m fascinated that Miller’s solution to the challenges he sees as being caused by Swedenborg/Smith parallels is to regard Swedenborg as a prophet.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — January 2, 2008 @ 10:17 am