Joseph Smith, the purported prophet upon whose claimed revelation the Mormon faith is built, wrote that, “We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up.” I am not a Mormon, but I certainly appreciate the wisdom of receiving truth from whatever quarter it may come.
I make no secret of the fact that I am a religious person, and lest you be mislead by this declaration, please understand that I am not merely spiritual, as is so much in vogue these days. No, I am decidedly religious. I am a Christian.
I make no apology for my inclination in this regard, and I require no apology from those who are otherwise inclined. While I appreciate a well crafted and eloquently delivered defense for most any faith or philosophy, I try not to forget that truth will yet be truth quite independently of my belief or yours, and I believe that truth comes to us by revelation rather than by reason.
So, what am I getting at? Just this…
I want to offer you a true principle for your own your store, a truth to add to your own treasury of true principles. It was revealed to me a long time ago and is the one truth I value more than any other, short of the Word itself.
Why do I want to pass this on to you? Because truth cannot be caged and admired. It insists on its freedom. It came to me quite unexpectedly and as a result of nothing I had done to uncover it, and I take joy in sending it on its way to the hearts of all whom it will visit. If it calls on you as a result of the words you read here, I will leave it to you to estimate its worth.
This truth is both useful and restorative, though obscured by thick and concentric circles of hostility laid around it by American modernity, hiding it’s light and making it ever more difficult to see. Once its torch is raised, this truth reveals previously dim and unexplored places. It is, in its simplest use, a lamp for the darkened mind.
So, now on to it.
Quite a long time ago I came upon the writings of Swedish scientist and Christian mystic, Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772). I found in Swedenborg’s voluminous writings illuminating and comforting accounts of life as it is to be after this life has fallen away, and I found a theological perspective on the uses and purposes of this life which often speaks persuasively to my heart and intuition.
Most importantly, though, I found the sequence of words, the theological expression, that embody what I had profoundly come to know at an earlier time—what God had shown me by revelation at that moment when my wife became my wife.
The conjugial inclination of a man to his wife is the jewel of human life and the depository of the Christian religion. – Conjugial Love, n. 457
The love in marriage is from its origin and correspondence heavenly, spiritual, holy, pure and clean above every other love which the angels of heaven or men of the Church have from the Lord. It is such from its origin, which is the marriage of good and truth; also from its correspondence with the marriage of the Lord and the Church.
If it be received from its Author, Who is the Lord, sanctity from Him follows, which continually cleanses and purifies it. Then, if there be in man’s will a longing for it and an effort toward it, this love becomes continually cleaner and purer.
All who are in such love shun extra-conjugial loves (which are conjunctions with others than their own conjugial partner) as they would shun the loss of the soul and the lakes of hell; and in the measures that married partners shun such conjunctions, even in respect of libidinous desires of the will and any intentions from them, so far love truly conjugial is purified with them, and becomes successively spiritual. —Conjugial Love, nn. 64, 71
Married partners, who have lived in a truly conjugial love, are not separated in the death of one of them. For the spirit of the deceased partner lives continually with the spirit of the other, not yet deceased, and this even to the death of the other, when they meet again and reunite, and love each other more tenderly than before; for now they are in the spiritual world. —Conjugial Love, n. 321
In the inmost heaven there is genuine marriage love because the angels there are in the marriage of good and truth, and also in innocence. The angels of the lower heavens are also in marriage love, but only so far as they are in innocence; for marriage love viewed in itself is a state of innocence; and this is why consorts who are in the marriage love enjoy heavenly delights together, which appear before their minds almost like the sports of innocence, as between little children; for every thing delights their minds, since heaven with its joy flows into every particular of their lives.
For the same reason marriage love is represented in heaven by the most beautiful objects. I have seen it represented by a maiden of indescribable beauty encompassed with a bright cloud. It is said that the angels in heaven have all their beauty from marriage love. Affections and thoughts flowing from that love are represented by diamond-like auras with scintillations as if from carbuncles and rubies, which are attended by delights that affect the interiors of the mind.
In a word, heaven itself is represented in marriage love, because heaven with the angels is the conjunction of good and truth, and it is this conjunction that makes marriage love. – Conjugial Love, n.382
A couple of weeks ago on All Saints Day, at the church which has come to be of such importance in our lives, Mary Ann and I listened with interest to our pastor’s sermon concerning that which awaits us after death. Our pastor, a well schooled theologian and a fine man with more than adequate pastoral skills, observed that while we may all entertain such visions as may appeal to us, we can know only that what God has arranged will be good. For him, it was a message of optimism, hope and assurance, somewhat flavored with the excitement of a mystery.
For me, the message was meager and lean. The joy and light of revealed truth were blunted and dimmed, and the heaven which is so present, palpable and real even as I hold my wife in my arms, were hidden in the shadowy corners of a such a timid vision.
Do we choose the truths that we will know? Are our visions of what God has arranged condemned to remain nothing more than wishes and the fancies that wishes spawn? Or is it all nonsense, and is there nothing real to know? These questions I happily leave to the reasoned inquiries of theologians, philosophers and those who so efficiently compile, categorize and systematize the things their reason recommends.
The wonderful, beautiful truth is everywhere to be seen around us. It is to be held in our arms tightly, gently kissed and loved with passion. It shies from proof, and hides from reason, yet it is eager to be seen and cries out to be heard.
Emanuel Swedenborg was a celebrated scientist and inventor who claimed to experience dreams and visions of the other realms of life, of heaven and hell, and the meaning of sacred scriptures. His peers, variously, believed him to be an insightful theologian, meticulous scholar of the scriptures, and lunatic—all qualifications one might expect to be ascribed to a man pronouncing upon absolute truths.
I have no idea whether Swedenborg visited heaven and hell as he claimed. I have no idea whether he was more properly prophet or madman. But, I know that there is revelation to be found in his writings, the same truth revealed to me so many years ago, and reconfirmed in my heart every time Mary Ann places her hand in mine.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
I would love to find a Swedenborgian congregation in my area, but there does not seem to one even remotely close. I even thought of trying to form a New Church congregation on my own, but Swedenborg is so little known in America today that forming a new congregation would be near impossible in a smaller town such as where I live. Swedenborg’s insights are so interesting and exciting that it is a shame not to be able to share them with others.
Swedenborg is more influential today than many people realize. I am a Methodist and I have had two pastors in my life who were very interested in Swedenborg and quoted him often. I do not belong to a Swedenborgian church but I have been interested in his writings since I was a teenager. His views on marriage are nothing less than beautiful. My husband and I have made Swedenborg’s description of married life a reality in our own marriage and I have to agree with you that nothing is the source of such joy in my life except the knowledge of God himself. Thank you for this article.
Editor’s Note: Perkerson Park neither endorses the content of the following comment nor the book promoted by the commenter. As a rule, we do not allow outbound links to commercially available products in our comments section, but since what is promoted here is a book, we will make an exception in this case.
Am glad to see your enthusiasm for Swedenborg! You may be interested to read my book about him. THERE IS AN ANSWER: LIVING IN THE POST-APOCALYPTIC WORLD by Candace Frazee.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=there+is+an+answer+living+in+the+post-apocalyptic+world
THERE IS AN ANSWER has been honored as a “Finalist” in the “New Age: Non-Fiction” category of the National Best Books 2009 Awards, sponsored by USA Book News.
http://www.usabooknews.com
If you are a fan of Swedenborg’s, you may be interested in joining a page about him on Facebook.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/Pasadena-CA/SILA-Swedenborg-Information-of-Los-Angeles/96693387733?ref=ts
I was never been satisfied with the idea that there is no marriage in heaven. I have never thought that Christ’s meaning was understood when he said that we neither marry nor are given in marriage in heaven. I have always believed that the bond of marriage, at least for some people who have received this gift from God, is not breakable by death. I read the other article you have linked about marriage in heaven, and I am so happy to have the benefit of a reasoned explanation of Christ’s words and scriptural encouragement about being with the one I love forever.
Great article! I wonder if we could get you to come speak at our church? We have a marriage class where this message would be very well received.
Prentice, this is VERY tho’t-provoking! Starting with your opening reference to Joseph Smith — having been raised in Idaho I’m quite familiar with the “purported prophet” and the Mormon faith he founded.
Thanks for your tesimony to your own faith, and your musings about “truth”. I find the former to be a gentle example and the latter to be instructive — a link to the famous motto “the truth shall set you free” (if I remember correctly the Latin equivalent “Veritas vos liberabit” is the/a motto at Harvard or Yale). I’ve known for decades that it’s the second portion of John 8:32, where the Lord Jesus assures his disciples that “You shall know the truth. . . .”
That being said, I have some difficulty with the assertion that Heaven will be like marriage — or will contain marriage or be contained in marriage? The afterlife-denying Sadduccees (who for that denial were very “sad, you see”!) wanted to use marriage to show Jesus that his teachings about the afterlife could not be true. And Jesus asserted that marriage AS We KNOW IT HERE doesn’t exist there. C.S. Lewis had some wise and bordering on amusing words about this picture projected by our Savior.
So I wonder, as I contemplate couples I’ve been acquainted with, such as you and Mary Ann or Jim and Joanne Spiller, who are very deeply devoted to each other, what about THEM in Heaven?
I don’t know. On the one hand I want assurance that such “divine” marital relationships will be celebrated for all Eternity in Heaven. On the other hand there are Jesus’ words. Along with with that dilemma of those who had more than one spouse. How does one reconcile this?
I don’t know. I can guess that perhaps the answer is similar to my conclusion when I am confronted by the popular notion that those who have already “crossed over Jordan” are looking down and obseving us — and even intervening for us. My own feeling is that no, those now in Glory are so focused on adoration and submission and praise to Abba, that they are unaware of anything else — there or here.
But I don’t know. I haven’t been there — yet. So indeed it’s wise to keep our speculations to a minimum (e.g., that whatever else it is Heaven WILL be good beyond our highest expectations — “eye has not seen. . . neither have entered into the heart. . . what God has prepared” I Cor. 2:9) and leave the details to God for Him to reveal as and when Abba chooses.
As for Swedenborg, you’ve perked my interest. I read of him years ago, and that he was rather controversial, almost like Nostradamus in some ways (if I remember these earlier encounters). But I’ve never read any of his writings — think I’ll put him on my “to be read soon” list!
Oh, and should we make anything of Joseph Smith and Emmanuel Swedenborg being in the same post on ths blog?
Glen Alan, thanks for your comments. I am glad you find this subject interesting. The following are a few responses to the questions you posed and clarifications of a couple of points.
(1) You should make nothing whatever of the fact that Joseph Smith and Emanuel Swedenborg are mentioned in the same article. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Further, Swedenborg was in no respect similar to Nostradamus.
(2) Christ did not say that marriage will not be continued in heaven. On this subject I would refer you to another article on this blog that I posted back in April which directly addresses this topic.
http://www.perkersonpark.com/2009/04/is-there-really-no-marriage-in-heaven.html
(3) You ask how one reconciles the idea of a continuation of marriage in heaven with the dilemma posed by those who have had more than one spouse on earth. That would, indeed, be problematic were it possible for a person to have more than one spouse on earth. I do not believe that to be possible.
Certainly, one may enter into any number of social or civil arrangements which may from time to time, and from place to place, be referred to as “marriage” for the administrative convenience of regulating such arrangements. Such arrangements may be sanctioned by society and government, and they may serve useful and beneficial purposes within a population. They may even be recognized by the church as valid and worthy of honor as a class of “marriage” distinctly below that of a sacramental union. But, when I speak of “marriage” in a theological context, I am speaking strictly of sacramental marriage.
(Though my view of the nature of a sacramental marriage is very much like that of the Roman Catholic Church, I do not recognize all of the conditions imposed by the Catholic Church, such as the confirmation of couples seeking such a marriage and the use of the canonical form in the marriage ceremony.)
A sacramental union, or “marriage,” though entered into with the consent of the parties, cannot be formed by the consent of the parties alone. Couples do not have the power within them to so join themselves together. In marriage, it is God, and God alone, who does the joining. We may prayerfully seek this gift from God, but it is God who must bestow the gift.
Further, I believe that when God unites a couple in a sacramental marriage, a union is formed which mankind is utterly without power to dissolve.
In short, with respect to sacramental marriage, divorce is not a possibility. Men are altogether incapable of putting asunder what God has joined together.
(4) I wholeheartedly agree with you that we should “leave the details (of the afterlife) to God for Him to reveal as and when He chooses.” We differ, I think, in this regard—I believe that, with respect to this issue, we are speaking of something in the past tense. We are talking about a revelation which God has already made, and I am as confident of it as I am of salvation itself.