Talk:Degrees of glory
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Degrees of glory article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- Article merged: See old talk-page Talk:Celestial_kingdom
- Article merged: See old talk-page Talk:Terrestrial_kingdom
- Article merged: See old talk-page Talk:Telestial_kingdom
I was shocked when I read this that mention of Swedenborg had been left out. As this is a stub, I went ahead and added a few paragraphs.~~
- Two paragraghs is definatelt WP:UNDUE. Please reduce it to 2-3 sentences, or I will take it out. Sethie 17:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I made a few reductions Sethie - down to 3 sentences, how does that look? Descartes1979 17:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, looks much better. If there are more sources, Swedenbord and LDS could certainly be it's own article. Sethie 19:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Merger proposal 
Merge Complete, I could use a little help cleaning up 
I got some time, and completed the merge. There were a lot more redundancies than I originally thought, so I am even more convinced this was a good idea. The article needs some proofreading though, I think with some final tweaking and references, this could be a really great article. Descartes1979 (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Separate Swedenborgism article 
I like the combined article, but I'm not entirely satisfied with how the only Wikipedia reference to the celestial kingdom of Swedenborgism is in a Mormon article. I think Swedenborg's kindgom probably deserves its own article. Plus, while the combined article is great, I see nothing wrong with continuing to have less-ambitious sub-articles for each of the three degrees. They will be short "definition"-type articles that relate only information specific to that particular degree. All the deeper discussion and historical context can remain in Degrees of glory. COGDEN 18:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
From the article:
The Latin word celestial means "heavenly".
Disputed sources removed? 
On Jan. 29, 2010 User: COGDEN stated that he/she, "remove[d] some heavy-handedness to restore NPOV. Remove[d] the polemical Hamblin citation (not a reliable source), but kept good citation to Bushman."
Why are the assertions of William J. Hamblin not considered reliable? Is it because he questions the assertions of D. Michael Quinn? Is it because William J. Hamblin is a practicing Mormon? Richard Lyman Bushman also questions the assertions of D. Michael Quinn, but his citation was not removed. The article by William J. Hamblin, (found here http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=12&num=2&id=364) meets Wikipedia standards as a reliable source.
If we're really wanting to keep a neutral point of view, should it not be noted that D. Michael Quinn is an ex-communicated Mormon? At least the the sentence could be changed from, "Some, including Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn..." to "Some, including historian of Mormonism D. Michael Quinn..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giordano1000 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's because FARMS Review of Books is not a reliable source for the purpose it was used for here, mainly because the FARMS Review is not cited as an authoritative source by any non-Mormons, and is not subject to any peer review by mainstream academics. Not that there's anything wrong with Hamblin or his research--and he has published a lot of peer-reviewed material which is eminently citable--it's just that we can't pit his non-peer-reviewed article against Quinn's peer reviewed book. It's much better to rely on Bushman's book here, which is also peer reviewed.
- Also, the fact that Quinn was excommunicated is irrelevant. He wasn't excommunicated for this research. He's actually still a faithful Mormon apologist--not that that matters for this article, either. COGDEN 20:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)