Talk:Swedenborgianism

Biblical Canon

Is the Bible used by them the same as other Protestant or Christian groups. I think either way, someone who knows for sure, should put in a section 99.53.171.95 (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)eric

What connection does this have to the "Swedenborgian space" referred to in Steven King's Kingdom Hospital? --Phil | Talk 14:05, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

None. When the term Swedenborgian is used it refers to the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, in descriptions of things such as heaven, hell, angels and devils. Swedenborgianism is the religious movement founded after Swedenborg. --Fred chessplayer 15:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kingdom Hospital is based somewhat on a Danish television program which itself borrowed some ideas from a very loose reading of either some of Swedenborg's works, or of one of many derivative works that merely describe and interpret his works. Fred is right, though, that "Swedenborgian" in this case more properly refers to Swedenborg. However, the term "Swedenborgian" can also refer to an individual or an organization that is itself part of Swedenborgianism. --Mac 21:43, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Should Lars von Trier be mentioned then? And why is William Shatner here?--T. Anthony 10:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is probably in better need of more historical descriptions than of all the ext links, which is why I'm removing them. --Fred-Chess 09:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Membership Numbers

It has been mentioned in a couple of different venues that the denominational membership statistics look skewed and/or very old. However, I don't have recent data, myself. Could someone with better information verify/correct the numbers? --68.81.114.165 01:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) (aka --Mac 01:52, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC))

I'm not sure if the figures I put in are anymore accurate. Mostly they are based on that religious movement site. Numbers are a bit perplexing as they tend to have a small presence in several nations. I've heard rumors there are even Swedenborgians in North Korea, but so far thet are only rumors. It sounds like they are also becoming an "open" church which possibly complicates things further depending on what it means.

A Contra Costa Times article in 2005 backed up the figure of 50,000 internationally[1]. Although I'm not sure how credible that is. Most things I've read indicate they have around 25,000-30,000 members. The figure of 10,601 I gave is probably a bit too low. --T. Anthony 07:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I at one time removed several links to various organisations around the world, I remember for instance one being Czech. You may want to look into that in the edit history.

May different numbers perhaps be because baptised Swedenborgians are counted apart from people who are just affiliated with the church?

Fred-Chess 10:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'd wonder that. There does seem to be layers of affiliation or involvement. Possibly the number of active members is the lower number, 10,610 or whatever, and 50,000 is like the high estimate based on whoever was baptized or something. I might look through those older versions, but it'll have to wait as I'm hoping to take a few days off--T. Anthony 12:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Old discussion, I know. Does anyone have specific references to the 25,000-30,000 number? There's another reference to 50,000 members at adherents.com, although that does seem high to me.--207.8.197.2 15:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge from True christianity

The article True christianity is about Swedenborgian doctrine. It has been proposed that True christianity be moved into the beliefs section of this article. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Archola^Talk 00:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Moving this here would be ok with me. It should be noted that among New Church members freedom of thought and expression is allowed and there is no dogmatic standard, so it may be hard to find exact wording that everyone can agree upon in the explanation of doctrines.

Also, I am a so called "Swedenborgian" and I do not like to be so called, so it is somewhat bothersome to think of the New Church idea of True Christianity being put under the term Swedenborgianism. I follow the Lord, not Swedenborg, but I understand that there needs to be a place for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonschnarr (talk • contribs)

No offense meant. Arch O. La ^{Grigrory Deepdelver} 20:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge. This is very similair content and the title is very POV. —Aiden 03:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge. True christianity is inherently POV. I have to admit that until I read Archola's post on True Christianity, I had heard of the New Church but never of "Swedenborgianism" and (if asked) would have guessed it to be a wordplay joke based on the Chef in the Muppets. I've got a lot of new reading; this is REALLY good 19th C religious background. The article is succinct, readable, and informative with phenomenal source work. In fact, this might make a great Featured Article candidate after the merge. Comments? Kevin/Last1in 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I should ask, then: what's the difference between this article and The New Church? Arch O. La ^{Grigrory Deepdelver} 21:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, not much substantive that I can see. Good question. Looks like The New Church article was split off (I'm not kidding here) from a pro wrestling article. Maybe after a diff check we might do two merges for the price of one? I'd like to hear from regular contributors, though. Unfortunately, none of them seem to have active user pages other than Fred... Perhaps one is a subset of the other (i.e. Orthodox Church of Mount Sinai compared to the Eastern Orthodox Church)? PS to Archola: you asked about your sig line. It is still 255 code characters long. That's a bunch. I don't see why anyone cares, though. Kevin/Last1in 23:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I asked because someone complained about me using my Hobbit name, rather than my real name or username. I did, however, optimize my sig. Is this any better? Arch O. La ^{Grigrory Deepdelver} 00:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC) PS: 171 characters. That's a little better. Arch O. La 00:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I asked Fred, the only person with both significant contributions and a talk page, what he thought about a merge and got the following response: Well, I don't have much to say about it actually... but thanks for asking... The reason why the article name is Swedenborgianism because the 1911 EB, which the article was originally based on, had its article at that name. But perhaps two articles, The New Church and Swedenborgianism, is more suitable. Fred-Chess 09:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC) I don't know how much that helps us. I still think a merge and redir is appropriate. PS to Deepdelver: Yeah, that sig is shorter, but I don't see any reason to let anti-hobbit prejudice pressure you to use a muggle name instead of proclaiming your inner hobbit... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Last1in (talk • contribs)

I guess we'll leave those two articles as they are then. BTW, I had heard of the Swedenborgian Church of North America, but not The New Church. I never thought of the Swedish Chef. I did, however, think of Star Trek. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So, it seems we have five votes for merge: Homestarmy, myself, Aiden, Kevin and Wesley. (Some of these votes are at Talk:True christianity.) It seems unananimous. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Guys, hold on. What about merging "True Christianity" with "The New Church". I would prefer that over merging it with Swedenborgianism. Also, can someone explain to me why when I wrote the article for "The New Church" it was not separate from the "Disciples of the New Church" wrestling thing? Can't there be an article for both?

And can I just do it myself or what? Obviously the beliefs would not need to be listed twice, but the True Christianity part could go below them. Jasonschnarr 17:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, merge it with one article or the other (or both). I don't have a preference, although I can't speak for everyone. Yes, if you wish, go ahead and make the merge yourself. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge with The New Church?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into The New Church. -- Doug Webber (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

---

I know it's being talked about in the section above, but I thought maybe a new topic was in order. I'm in favor of merging The New Church and Swedenborgianism under the new title "The New Church (Swedenborgianism)". There really isn't much of a difference between the terms. "Swedenborgianism" was used in Swedenborg's own time to describe his theology, and he disliked the term, preferring "True Christianity" (hence that section's title). Within his works, Swedenborg refers to "The New Church" far more often than he does to "The True Christianity", and most of his followers have taken on that name for their church. The Swedenborgian Church of America did adopt the "Swedenborgian" title in the second half of the twentieth century (they were previously known as The General Convention of the New Church); but as far as I know, most people in that branch of the church still consider themselves members of the New Church. On a completely different note, I'm new to Wikipedia and don't know if there's some method of merging articles other than cutting and pasting and putting in a redirect. If no one seems to object, I don't mind merging The New Church and Swedenborgianism. Coleman Glenn 03:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also in favor of merging this entire article on Swedenborgianism with that of The New Church, and just have the term Swedenborgian redirect to The New Church. If there are differences, explain it on the page, I think the only one is in regards to the writings of Swedenborg himself. It is very minor and does not justify having two articles. Swedenborg wrote anonymously, and he constantly refers to the doctrines as those of "the New Church". I was planning on doing this myself until I discovered this talk page, but I am new to Wikipedia and I am not sure how to do that. DougWebber (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe "Swedenborgianism" is entirely different than "The New Church". There are those who believe they are following Swedenborgs words, hence "Swedenborgianism" and those who believe they are following the words of the Lord, God, Jesus Christ, who call the works the doctrines of "The New Church". I would love to crush the idea of "Swedenborgianism", however I don't believe "The New Church" and "Swedenborgianism" can dwell in harmony on the same page. We each have our own agenda and wish to represent different movements, although both movements are based on the same text. Each with our own page, we can represent each side of the movement more freely. Jasonschnarr 20:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC) I reccommend putting a "see also" on each page.

I made a swift comment above. Now, I want to express clearly that I don't support a merge. IMO, Swedenborgianism is a denominator of a movement of anything and anyone following Swedenborg, while The New Church is an organized movement and could deserve its own article. / Fred-Chess 20:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point about the distinction between followers and an organized movement, but I think that the terms "The New Church" and "Swedenborgianism" usually apply to the same thing. In fact, the Swedenborgianism article says, "Swedenborgianism is the ecclesiastical organization of beliefs developed from the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, and as such, considered a religious movement by many", and, "Other names for the movement are also used, especially by adherents, including New Christians, Neo-Christians, The New Church, and Church of the New Jerusalem", which sounds to me like it is equating them. If they aren't the same thing, maybe the Swedenborgianism article needs to be changed to reflect that. I do believe there is a distinction, but it seems to me that it is that "The New Church" is not only a name for the movement but also an ideal for adherents, whereas Swedenborgianism is more limited in its meaning. On the other hand, it seems like any people who accepted Swedenborg's writings enough to consider themselves Swedenborgian would also consider themselves members of (or aspirants to?) the spiritual New Church that the writings describe; although I could be wrong. Coleman Glenn 12:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In writing "The New Church" article I was attempting to express that it is a spiritual concept that organized movements have sprung from. It is an idea written first in the books published by Swedenborg, but has been developed further by those in the movement. Shouldn't a movement be called the same thing that those in the movement call it, and not a name slapped on by those outside the organization. The term Swedenborgianism is more often used by those outside of the New Church in referring to it, or by those in the Swedenborgian Church of North America, so by sticking with that term it leads one to think of that small Swedenborgian group which uses that symbol on the Swedenborgianism page and displays the Wayfarers chapel rather than the Bryn Athyn Cathedral which is much more of a big deal to the New Church movement. The General Church is a much bigger proponent of the New Church. Why is it not represented so visibly on the Swednborgian page. These are some of the reasons I think keeping it split is better, to avoid conflict with opposing views of what the books published by Swedenborg really are. 68.54.134.222 16:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I put up a picture of Bryn Athyn Cathedral, but it had to be taken down for copyright reasons. If you check that article there's no picture of Bryn Athyn in it either. Anyway at present I'd be fine with this page just being about the philosophy/psychological-thought of Swedenborg and those influenced by it. There are other pages for such things named for people, for example; Adlerian, Kantianism, and Hegelianism. Then the religious denominations can be dealt with by using pages specific to denominations.--T. Anthony 06:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Image issue

Can anyone verify the copyright status of Image:Swedenborgianism.jpg? The image was originally uploaded by user:eequor who is no longer active, and will be deleted if no one can provide copyright information. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Titling issues

While this matter has been discussed, I am not sure if any meaningful conclusion was reached. While I suppose you could have a 'Swedenborgianism'page dealing very generally with Swedenborg's philosophy, the current page is really just a summary of Swedenborgian theology as it relates to the two New Church denominations. As such, I would advocate merging the Swedenborgianism article into the New Church article; it simply makes more sense that way. Also, I would like to see this page (should it stay the unchanged) modified to impart the fact that "Swedenborgianism" is a Christian denomination in the same vein as Lutheranism, Calvinism, Wesleyanism, Waldensianism, etc. There may be those who are closed-minded enough to classify it as non-Christian, but, well, there are people who claim similiarly that JWs, Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals are not Christians either. Would love to hear thoughts. 134.84.96.56 (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed work group

There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with this subject, among others, here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Influence"

Your list is a mishmash of persons who actually belonged to some Swedenborgian church, and others who merely expressed admiration for Swedenborg. Surely these belong in separate lists--with sources, of course. Dawud (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Plus no sources cited. I'm going to be bold and remove it.Simonm223 (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Article: List of Christian denominations

At Talk:List of Christian denominations#Nontrinitarianism, I've asked about moving certain groups. You may wish to post a comment there.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

The section about non organized swedenborgianism currently reads: "The term may be used to refer to people inspired by some part of Swedenborgian philosophy or theology who take an eclectic approach to spiritual topics. They may blend "pure" Swedenborgian thought with ideas from other systems, including Jungian psychology, Spiritualism, and "traditional" Christianity. Such Swedenborgianism bears little resemblance to the ecclesiastical form usually referred to by the term." There is no reference for this and I consider it merely somebody's opinion. I totally disagree with this. What is "pure Swedenborgianism"? Pure Swedenborgianism as per the Swedenborg Scientific association http://www.thenewphilosophyonline.org/journal/article.php?page=1013&issue=103 is a follow up on the work of Jakob Boehme, who was an occultist and promoted occult theosophy. How can you thus allow a statement like this that somehow there is a "pure swedenborg" group which in it's roots is not related to these philosophies? I request for this section to be removed. (Redeeminglove (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

Christian Appologetics Mission is not a WP:RS

And putting in this anti-swedenborgian propaganda will be reverted with alacrity no matter what subject hedder you put on it. Honestly don't christians have better things to do with their time than finding inventive ways of discrediting each other's denominations? Simonm223 (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is true that Swedenborg doesn't go down too well with mainstream Christianity, but such criticism will need to be referenced, and it will need to be based on actual mainstream authors. Citing criticism from randomly googled internet bible-thumpery such as "Matt, Ryan and Diane from Idaho" is not arguable. --dab (𒁳) 11:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all religion to me... Regardless, the thing that matters here is that sources for criticism be reliable and it's been well established that Christian Apologetics Mission is absolutely not a WP:RS for anything other than the Christian Apologetics Mission (where it is a primary source). Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Your approach is the correct encyclopedic form. People should learn to edit topics in which they have no vested emotional interest. An encyclopedia is for laying out the facts, not for winning or losing arguments. Of course, if you believe that 'religion is harmful to society', you also have emotional involvement, but not with Swedenborgianism in particular at least, and anyway you seem to be able to abstract from your ideological position when editing, so it's ok. --dab (𒁳) 10:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see Swedenborgianism as any more or less harmful than any other religion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)