Can anybody help me find a logical explanation for this stuff?

[wardenclyffe]

OK, so perhaps the Bible is not an example that works for Zanders. How about this one. About a hundred years more recently than Swedenborg, a man named Joseph Smith was visited by an angle named Moroni. He gave Joseph Smith a book written on gold tablets. He translated the tablets into the Book of Mormon. All sorts of miraculous things happened after that. You will find many accounts of miraculous things happening. Perhaps most miraculous of all, the religion he founded is one of the fastest growing in the world, whereas Swedenborgianism........

More recent than your examples. Many many more people believe in these miraculous occurances. And they are probably just as true as the Swedenborg stories. You must be a Mormon.

Don't make me advance things another hundred years. Then I'll have to tell you the story of a young man named LaFayette Ron Hubbard. One day, he was flying his glider.....

Ward

 

[Zanders]

True. Another flaw worth pointing out in the case of John Wesley being so impacted by him is that there is only one entry in his journal about him. Most likely people went from there and added on to it. I will check again, but only appeared to be one person's testimony on him receiving that letter. You think John Wesley himself would have been asked, unless it was after his death when this was said. Which still makes it highly suspicious.

(The link was broken AGAIN)
Search some of the main keywords like "fire" "Receipt" and "Wesley"
http://www.swedenborgdigitallibrary.org/tafel/tafeltc.html

Edit: From what I saw, only one other person claimed they saw the letter, the rest were just certain that they heard the story told that way from Smith.

 

[Helen]

He always seemed to me to be a bit of a fruitcake.

I've only just read this thread, and I have to ask you if you are by any chance in training for the Understatement Championship of 2010? I think you would stand a really good chance of winning.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Fame exerts a sort of gravity. It attracts anecdote.

Winston Churchill never said half the things attributed to him, for instance- but he was known for barbed remarks, so barbed remarks are ascribed to him.

It is also clear that accounts of apparently paranormal events, like all intriguing tales, tend to grow in the telling.
Stories concerning a person famous for having said, or done something paranormal will gather about him - especially after his death- and will grow as they accumulate.

The opposite effect- that of accounts shrinking, or being forgotten, either is rare, or is not rare, but in either case we are unlikely to learn of examples...

There is a ratchet effect at work here.

The world appears to operate along reasonably regular lines. This is interesting in itself. Things might have been otherwise.

Arguably, violations of natural law do not occur. When they appear to occur in the present, wherever detailed evidence exists, they are inevitably false. As we go farther into the past, it becomes both easier for stories to have grown and gathered about a person and harder to find evidence with which to test such claims.

Where a person appears to be famous and therefore well documented, it may seem less likely that the tales are false- but it is necessary to examine such documentation very closely, due to the effects of inaccurate reporting and exaggeration.

I submit that Zanders is being misled by these effects in the case of Swedenborg. I expect that in each case where reliable information is available, the claims of paranormal ability will dissolve, leaving unsupported anecdote. Keep at it, Zanders and report back.

 

[Zanders]

I noticed that the subjects on all of these stories, no matter how many people claimed to have witnessed it, never seem to write about it themselves. If they witnessed such amazing phenomenon, wouldn't you think that they would have written about it somewhere? A journal/diary, letters to friends or family that would still be around? I have been digging through the documents listed in that book collection I posted, and so far have not really found any testimony from the subjects themselves. It is always about how they heard it from the person, or "so-and-so, who is a VERY reliable source. He never lies"

 

[Zanders]

I don't want to double post, but since I can't edit my last post I have to. Another keyword to search in the documents I linked to above is "Louisa", "Swedenborg and the queen" would also be good. I would appreciate it if people would actually take time to read some of the documents after searching the keywords to get better perspective on some of the events.

 

[timf1234]

Susan Blackmore

I'm trying to be as critical as I can and not just brush something off quickly with the most simple explanation I can find. I want to be very thorough and open minded before I discard claims. This is not the only event that has gotten me more interested in exploring phenomenon like this, and I can post some others later.

Read and learn from Susan Balckmore website about paranormal phenomena. She is an expert on this topic.
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/

 

[Zanders]

Read and learn from Susan Balckmore website about paranormal phenomena. She is an expert on this topic.
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/

Thanks for the link, there is some pretty interesting stuff on that site.

Regarding the stories about Swedenborg. I know this thread started out rather dumb, but with the most recent finds I have made it is a little more worth looking at. I would appreciate it if people would look inside the documents that I linked to above, because that is where the best information and references are. The keywords that should be searched for are "receipt" "Swedenborg and the Queen" "Wesley" and "Kant. Perhaps the most valuable testimony can be found if you search for a man named "Cuno". He wasn't a supporter of Swedenborg's doctrines, in fact, he criticized them. It appears that Swedenborg himself said that most of these cases were true in letters, so they can't be stories made up by others. This would mean that Swedenborg would have to be a liar, which contradicts even what critics said about him but is possible. The testimony of "Christopher Springer" and "Cuno" is worth readign along with the other cases mentioned above. Search for the "Bishop of Coimbra" to see a noteworthy case witnessed by Cuno, who didn't follow him. If anybody had enough time to waste, please do so by searching these things. Nobody has really tackled Swedenborg before, so whoever does this will be a first. Keep in mind that Swedenborg never brought up any of these cases on his own, only when asked by other people.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...It appears that Swedenborg himself said that most of these cases were true in letters, so they can't be stories made up by others...

It may appear so. But if, as seems very likely to me, people embellished stories about Swedenborg, then it's equally plausible that part of that embellishment could consist of misreported what, if anything, he said about the stories.

Sorry, but I doubt if I'll be reading any more about the man. I'm afraid I don't find him especially interesting.

 

[Zanders]

Is it really fair to write off any comments that clash with what you beleive as embellished? I understand that it is best to ignore things when they clash with well known facts and therefor couldn't be true, but that doesn't mean that everything that is different should automatically be shrugged off just because. It would really be a good idea to read through the "Documents concerning the life and character of Emanuel Swedenborg" that I posted a link to earlier on this page and search for the keywords I singled out in my last couple of posts. I would appreciate it if at least somebody here would give it a try.

 

[Sledge]

Yes, it really is fair to write these comments off. You're talking about events that happened hundreds of years ago. Which is more likely: that people were wrong and/or embellished some stories, or that one man had powers that no one else has possessed before or since?

There's nothing interesting here, just old stories. Stop wasting your time on them.

 

[Zanders]

I can write off the stories where people that supported him made claims, but have you read the comments made by people that were against him or indifferent? Try browsing through the documents with some of the keywords that I singled out in earlier posts on this page like "Cuno" or "Bishop of Coimbra" first. Also, a lot of this was written while Swedenborg was still alive so I doubt what he said about the events was misinterpreted. Except some the comments made about him acknowledging the events were rather vague. Like him saying it was true but saying it didn't mean much and quickly changing the subject, or one where he said a lot of it was true, and a lot of it wasn't.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm happy that you find the guy interesting enough that you want to research him, but honestly the rest of us just don't. If you find any evidence that you think is intriguing enough to renew our interest in Swedenborg, then by all means tell us what that evidence is, instead of offering us some links and suggesting we duplicate your research.

 

[Sledge]

I can write off the stories where people that supported him made claims, but have you read the comments made by people that were against him or indifferent?

No, I haven't. Because it's boring. You know why it's boring? Because it's stories from hundreds of years ago. There's no practical way to verify any of it, and there's a far more likely explanation.

Like Jack said, if you find some genuinely interesting evidence, please do post it. But in the meantime... not interested.

 

[Zanders]

I'm happy that you find the guy interesting enough that you want to research him, but honestly the rest of us just don't. If you find any evidence that you think is intriguing enough to renew our interest in Swedenborg, then by all means tell us what that evidence is, instead of offering us some links and suggesting we duplicate your research.

Well, I singled out some parts in my recent posts that I thought looked pretty odd when all of the information was put together. It is the amount an d variety of the testimony that makes it seem concerning. But I might just be neurotic, I don't know. I was hoping that some people could read through the testimony and give their thoughts after weighing all of it. There are even notes at the bottom to confirm some of the letters.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Zanders,

Have you read all the info about Joseph Smith (Mormonism) and L.Ron Hubbard (Scientology)? They are both more recent and have had miraculous things happen to them. Others will confirm these miracles? Why focus on Swedenborg when there are people alive today who knew Hubbard?

If you want a list of others who've come up with their own religions, I'd be happy to start one for you.

Ward

 

[BobR]

Abilities like those proposed in this thread must have a mechanism what could it be? Why hasn't anyone come forward with anything but anecdotes?

Anecdotes aren't evidence, that's the whole point of the JREF isn't it?

Well, I agree with you there. My question wasn't rhetorical, it was literal. What would constitute "non-anecdotal evidence"? Also, I've argued that we as a society often use anecdotal evidence to convict people in our courts. A confession of guilt would be the best example of that. That fact suggests that anecdotal evidence per se is not entirely without merit. However, as a basis upon which to form scientific conclusions, anecdotal evidence can only be considered a starting point upon which to form hypotheses, and nothing more.

I was really taking issue with the point upon which your response remains mute.

 

[Apology]

Zanders,

Have you read all the info about Joseph Smith (Mormonism) and L.Ron Hubbard (Scientology)? They are both more recent and have had miraculous things happen to them. Others will confirm these miracles? Why focus on Swedenborg when there are people alive today who knew Hubbard?

If you want a list of others who've come up with their own religions, I'd be happy to start one for you.

Ward

I've been looking into Mormonism lately, and what I've found out is amazing. There's plenty of nutty stuff in the Book of Mormon, but the stuff that Mormons believe simply because an Elder told them so is incredible.

Look here for more about weird Mormon practices:

exmormon.org

I have a lot of sympathy for the people who post there. They've come out of the worst woo possible and are struggling to lead a normal life post-Mormonism.

 

[Sledge]

Well, I agree with you there. My question wasn't rhetorical, it was literal. What would constitute "non-anecdotal evidence"? Also, I've argued that we as a society often use anecdotal evidence to convict people in our courts. A confession of guilt would be the best example of that. That fact suggests that anecdotal evidence per se is not entirely without merit. However, as a basis upon which to form scientific conclusions, anecdotal evidence can only be considered a starting point upon which to form hypotheses, and nothing more.

I was really taking issue with the point upon which your response remains mute.

How is a confession of guilt anecdotal evidence?

 

[Zanders]

Zanders,

Have you read all the info about Joseph Smith (Mormonism) and L.Ron Hubbard (Scientology)? They are both more recent and have had miraculous things happen to them. Others will confirm these miracles? Why focus on Swedenborg when there are people alive today who knew Hubbard?

If you want a list of others who've come up with their own religions, I'd be happy to start one for you.

Ward

Sorry for the late response, but I was on a trip without internet for over a week.

I have searched for the claimed "miracles" around L. Ron Hubbard and haven't found any claims of psychic power or other paranormal abilities made by anyone that met him or wrote about him. And as for Joseph Smith, I only found a very few claims of miraculous healingm which are very easy to expain away and common. Swedenborg is a different case. We have people that didn't care about his theological work or were even against him commenting abut him. Have any of you looked at the parts I singled out in one of my recent posts?