Talk:Degrees of glory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Updated Diagram[edit]

I have created an easier-to-read diagram, but for some reason Wikipedia won't let me upload it. Error: "We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons." Or I get an error about "we're not sure if this is constructive..." Should I just fake the EXIF data so that Wikipedia thinks I took it with a camera? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neatly Wrapped (talkcontribs) 20:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)



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[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The result was merge excluding the article Outer darkness. -- Descartes1979 (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose that we merge Celestial kingdom, Terrestrial kingdom, Telestial kingdom, and Outer Darkness into this page. Combined, the article wouldn't be that long, and there seems to be a duplication of ideas across all five of the articles.Descartes1979 (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose (part). Specifically, I would not support merging Outer Darkness, as about half the article relates to interpretations in a Christian but non-Latter Day Saint context. Further, Outer Darkness is not a "degree of glory", and it also has an alternate non-permanent meaning, as outlined in the article, so it's not a great fit for merging with this article. Snocrates 05:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I can see your point about Outer Darkness, but what about Celestial kingdom, Terrestrial kingdom and Telestial kingdom? Descartes1979 (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, we could just merge the one section of Outer Darkness that deals with the Latter-Day Saint interpretation. Descartes1979 (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I would think that all the Outer Darkness information should remain together in one article, although certainly the LDS aspects should be mentioned if the merge goes forward. I'm neutral on the merger of the "kingdom" articles and would be happy with either merging or keeping separate, whatever the consensus is. Snocrates 21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral I am open either way, with a slight lean towards merge given how redundant the articles are. Sethie (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I think the merger makes sense; however, I agree with Snocrates that the Outer Darkness article should remain separate. In LDS doctrine it is not a degree of glory, but something wholly different; it is the absense of all glory or light. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support merging of all but Outer Darkness. There is significant redundancy between the other four articles, but further discussion needs to take place before merging Outer Darkness. — Val42 (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we are getting unilateral support for merging all except Outer Darkness. I will start the process later this week when I get some time. Descartes1979 (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merge Complete, I could use a little help cleaning up[edit]

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[edit]

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".

Umm, the English word celestial means "heavenly." Yes it's from Latin, I know, but it really isn't a foreign word. Incrediblub (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed sources removed?[edit]

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 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Campbellite influence[edit]

Alexander Campbell and related teachers strongly presaged section 76 and deserve a mention here. See "Hearken, O Ye People" by Mark Lyman Staker, especially chapters 25 and 26. RockRockOn (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)