Thanks for your comment. My thought would be that Swedenborg as to his spirit was in the spiritual realm, as we all are, and he interacted with spirits in that realm. But his physical body remained in the physical world. There was thus no crossing over of the physical into the spiritual, or vice versa, for him, suggesting that there was no such crossing over on other planets either. My understanding is that Swedenborg only communicated with spirits from other planets and not people alive there at the time.

I too was troubled for some time with Swedenborgs writings on other worlds.
Recently water was found on our moon. Where there is water there is, was or will be life.
More to the point is the question about there being no technology elsewhere in the Universe.
Swedenborg says that there are no sciences. That does not mean that people can not fashion cloth from nature or make simple tools for farming etc.
Swedenborg means that as here on earth in simple societies we all make things that are useful but we don’t make a science out of it. We are content that we have fashioned a cup from clay and hardened it with fire. Now we can drink water from it. We do not need to go scientific and make a complicated and decorated cup. It will not make the water taste any better.
Science itself recognises that the known Universe is immense. To think for one second that we are the only life in the Universe is utter arrogance and ignorance of the first order.
Those who question Swedenborg for not mentioning other planets like Neptune should remember that well over two hundred years ago Swedenborg wrote that the moon had no atmosphere. It is also more than possible that Our Lord creates new life on new planets as old planets die, much like people on our earth move to new areas when the trees and soil of their current location become less and of poor quality.
The comments about ET life are written as if they are fact. Somebody write a book or a web site publishes its opinions and suddenly people say it must be true and factual. That American defence companies got their technology from downed alien spacecraft is an insult to the people who invented these new technologies and is truly absurd. There are no aliens visiting Earth.
In other worlds people are closer to God and therefore do not feel the need to create sciences.
Much like a Buddist monk throwing away his material goods in order to live free of their influences and temptations. Just because he does that does not mean that he is stupid or crazy. Quite the opposite he is actually more intelligent than those who covet mere material things rather than concentrating on God and the rest of their eternity.
Life on Earth is not what life is about. Indeed one could argue that life doesn’t begin until death. For it is then that we find our eternal home.

I am with you 100% that the best way to handle doubt is to postpone judgment until the necessary data becomes available that will answer that doubt. That’s how the affirmative principle works, as I understand it. And we always have the assurance that we’ll get answers on the other side to any questions left hanging on this side!

I don’t have a full-proof explanation. To me, there does seem to be credible witnesses saying there are aliens visiting earth and spaceships in space along side ours.

It’s tough for me to swallow that no one else has technology. It may be true, but hard to believe.

As for Earths in the Universe, it seems we would have found life on the moon but haven’t. So things aren’t adding up for me.

So, I really put to the side ET stuff aside in the Writings until an answer reveals itself.

I’ve never read up on the issue of ETs visiting earth and so can’t comment knowledgeably. From a Second Coming teachings point of view, though, such reports at least support the teaching of there being other people in the universe than just us! The usual challenge to the teachings is just the opposite, of a disbelief in there being anybody else.

One interesting question arises if you believe the teachings in number 6, above, about no one else in the universe having technology. If they didn’t use technology how exactly could ETs get here? Some dimension-shifting method or ??

I have a hard time believing ALL of these people are lying. Not to mention on the History Channel the other day I watched a 3rd Astronaut claim there were spaceships watching the moon landing. I forget the astronaut’s name at the moment.

The conflict is starting to feel like the Creationist conflict. One in which reality is competing with revelation.

Kurt, I would ask you, if aliens landed on the White House lawn tomorrow in plain sight, would you disregard Swedenborg’s Writings?

Maybe it is possible the “aliens” are actually from the future? Who knows? The truth is I don’t know how to reconcile them.

I do agree with the point above that maybe we aren’t finding alien life as an act of Divine Protection. At least I would hope The Lord is protecting them.

(http://swedenborgproject.org/2007/06/10/10-religion-and-science-no-contradiction/)

also indirectly addresses the matter.)

My attempt has been to take the “affirmative principle” approach (Arcana Coelestia 2588, 2568), not only because we’re taught to do so, but because I think that approach will ultimately be the path to a full answer. I think your idea of “When and if this topic becomes relevant to me, I’m sure it will be made clear.” is both ingenious and in keeping with that principle. And I had certainly never thought of the idea of the quality of truth being dependent on the recipient as applicable in this context. Thanks for that!

So much of his work has touched me deeply–changed my life, in fact. I’ve been very conflicted about “other worlds” in many ways. Putting aside the obvious scientific discrepancies, his dissertations on extra-terrestrial life seem largely irrelevant.

All I can do is set my disbelief about this topic on the shelf and move on–certainly there is much more accessible truth within his work. When and if this topic becomes relevant to me, I’m sure it will be made clear. The quality of truth is dependant on the recipient, yes?