Talk:Emanuel Swedenborg

Anonymous edits
The last few edits by anonymous User:209.53.208.35 are obviously motivated by religious devotion, clearly not NPOV and should probably be reverted wholesale. However, there may still be something of value in them. It would be nice if somebody with knowledge of Swedenborg's theology could look through the article. / up+land 23:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Erm - any idea where the edit history has gone? Only the last edit appears on the history page - I'd rather like to look at that to see where the non NPOV stuff came in! PaulHammond 16:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS - I'm not a Swedenbourg/Swedenborg expert - someone I know was just talking about how much they got out of his Heaven and Hell book and I looked him up and put in a redirect from the alternative spelling. I'll certainly have a go at copyediting it in a couple of days when I get time PaulHammond 16:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've made several changes. Will make several more now, and remove a lot, because the text basically still is as it was in the 1911 Brittish encyclopedia. Checked the edits from User:209.53.208.35. They are good in general. The only major edit he did was to add his beliefs in a last praragraph, and I changed them into something more appropriate. --Fred chessplayer 21:34, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have removed all theological material that came from the Brittish Encyclopedia and written it new. (written 21 Jan)

The user User:209.53.208.35 has once again added in his own ideas. He also removed almost everything I added to the article. I would like an explaination of why he did it, in order to understand why he detested my material so much. Comments from other users will be appreciated too! --Fred chessplayer 12:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is disconcerting that User:209.53.208.35 won't register and enter into some kind of dialogue on the content of the article instead of just entering his/her own POV. A solution might be to take the page to Peer review and ask for advice on the article. / up+land 11:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Peer review is good for other things (I just responded to Fred there), but for community input and advice on a serious conflict, the right place is Requests for comment. Enter the article under the "Article content disputes" heading, with a short description. What makes this conflict serious is the anon's disinclination to use the talk page, not the anonymity as such, which it is his/her right to maintain, so if you do list the article on WP:RFC, I'd advise you to emphasize the refusal to discuss.--Bishonen | Talk 20:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Two recent anonymous edits to this page, probably from 68.231.66.176, were from me before I registered. (Sorry!) Based on a long connection with Swedenborgianism, I'm impressed with the richness and balance of this article. VOdhner 04:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Anonymous edits are not problematic per se, it is only problematic with obivously biased edits, and if users are anonymous they can avoid disussing it. --Fred-Chess 15:26, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

"The theologian Henry James Sr. was also a follower of his teachings, as were Johnny Appleseed and Helen Keller." - I am removing the second clause, which is absurd.

--207.75.34.101 (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Matthew Robert Walther

Homosexual?
I've read elsewhere that he may have been homosexual, but find no mention of it here. Is it not accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.170.173 (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that almost every notable person has at one time or another been alleged to be homosexual.  Phil Burnstein (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are also evidence to the opposite: Robsahm writes that he asked Swedenborg if he had never been tempted by women (or "lust" or so) and Swedenborg had answered that he once had been so by a woman in Italy. His interest in women is also evident in his dream diary.
 * Fred-J 16:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice edits, capitalized book titles
Very nice edits, Fred! The bit on Jesper is lovely now. I only have a problem with the "anatomical system where mental attributes correspond to body parts, such as worrying to the stomach", I don't understand it and the syntax kind of collapses. Btw, I capitalized the main words in all your book titles, which is the primary recommendation in the Manual of Style, but I have some doubts now I've slept on it. Your system was consistent and perfectly good in itself, do reinstate it if you prefer it, maybe it looks better. (The MoS explicitly accepts all academic styles, its specific recommendations are more meant to help people who aren't familiar with any style.)--Bishonen | Talk 09:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edit conflicts
Hi! "The new guy messed up." That's me. I have tried to merge your edits back in, but please... could you go through it ...? Fred chessplayer 17:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No worries, it looks fine, sorry if I edit conflicted you. I'm out of there for the day anyway, so go ahead and edit in peace. Are you really new? I mean, I know you are, but I thought you must have experience from sv.wiki. You're just too good at this for a bona fide newbie! Best, Bishonen | Talk 17:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

an. edits 2
Bishonen expressed his/her worries, on a talk page that Uppland guided me to, that a new anonymous user might make pov edits. This is not really a problem. The last edit was not wrong, as expressed in the "Claims of Veracity". The edit may not be true, but can't be discarded – Whether Sw. experienced a crisis or a Close Encounter with the Lord is something which the authors are still debating. We can't assume that he did not have a close encounter with the Lord unless we can certainly assert there is no God or that Sw. was a madman. I hope the rest of the article makes the POV's clear so that the intro itself is not the final word. --Fred-Chess 11:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether it was a spiritual or a psychological crisis, it was still a personal crisis (decisive turning point in his life, and likely emotionally stressful, if not an unstable condition). That is why I removed the "extreme encounters with God" which is not a very encyclopedic term, and replaced the previous "psychological crisis" with the more neutral "psychological-spiritual crisis", which covers both points of view.  --Blainster 17:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Blainster. Incidentally, I feel the need to recognize excellence here: Blainster's copyediting has been fabulous altogether, IMHO. Way to add style and panache! --Bishonen | talk 18:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Peer review again?
I think it is time for this article to be taken to peer review again, but as I have not really contributed anything except minor details, I don't want to be the one taking the final step in doing so. up+land 19:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have felt that the article is still in somewhat of a state of undress. The threat of inviting more critical eyes inspired me to do some re-organizing.  There were things like a paragraph about his diet stuck under Psychic abilities, which was in turn listed under Scientific contributions.  I attempted to rearrange things so they made more sense, and do a little more copyediting so we wouldn't be embarassed by the expert editors around here.  IMHO, it is much closer to being presentable now, but it could still use (at minimum) a careful look at how to divide events of his scientific life between the Biography and Accomplishments sections. Feel free to weigh in with anything else.  And thanks to Bishonen for the kind words.  --Blainster 23:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article is/was messy. The main reason for this are interveaved sentences from the 1911 British Enc. --Fred-Chess 19:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Nobody is really working on this article. Too bad. What the thing about the trinity has to do here I don't know. --Fred-Chess 18:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I feel this entry is completely lacking in regard to Swedenborg's actual impact on Victorian culture; but I wanted to register my sentiments here before editing the entry. In the first place, Swedenborg's visions of communication with angels largely laid the foundation for that great spiritual pandemic known as spiritualism. Because of the importance of spiritualism in Victorian life, this deserves a serious look. As if that weren't enough, several biographies of Ralph Waldo Emerson seem to suggest that Swedenborg's ideas on sexuality were even more influential. It's currently believed that both Charles Fourier and Wolfgang Goethe were inspired by Swedenborg's notion of "spiritual affinities" (which Goethe called "Elective Affinities"). In a world in which the pressure to marry young was high and the social penalties for that failure known as "divorce" were even more onerous, the notion that one might be tethered by a higher law to one's true "spiritual affinity" outside marriage exerted for many an irresistable attraction. Moreover, Swedenborg's assertion that souls were essentially androgynous fascinated a society that struggled with harsh, iron-clad gender roles. Emerson, for instance (a mystic who was nontheless also a rational Freethought philosopher), hotly rejected spiritualism, and never gave any indication that he believed Swedenborg actually spoke with heavenly visitors. It follows that Emerson and some of his liberal contemporaries actually reverenced Swedenborg's "spiritual affinities" and spiritual androgyny. 70.59.148.221 22:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Although it appears to be mostly speculations, you are free to write what you want. Also see Swedenborgianism for related info. Fred-Chess 02:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but "Swedenborg's assertion that souls were essentially androgynous" really confuses me. That souls have distinct gender and that the afterlife is one that includes regular marital relations between men and women is essential to Swedenborg's whole theology. In what works did he assert that souls were androgynous? --Mac 13:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sound file
The sound file is fine and correct, and I appreciate it.

However, Swedenborg is an international character, he is the internationally most read Swedish 18t-century author next to Linneaus, and his name is probably pronounced in a different way in the Swedenborgian Churches in the United States and by the 50,000 followers worldwide. (His works were also translated first to English I think, and first later into Swedish?)

Taking into account that this is English Wiki, I'm not sure the sound file is necessary?

Welcome to explain your thoughts, Karmosin.

--Fred-Chess 21:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

about in text references
If some sections are doubtful or you want to know exact references about who claims what, just write it here, and I will try to add it to the article.

--Fred-Chess 18:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

bust images
For the record, i don't like the bust of Sweden; see now reason why it should be in the article, but will leave it there out of respect for the uploader.

--Fred-Chess June 29, 2005 19:00 (UTC)

Phrenology
I am considering inserting something on the theft of his skull by a phrenologist. My sources are not totally infallible, so I am here to ask if anyone can confirm that he was headrustled. --Adamrush 6 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)

Coffee Talk
It is possible for an etiologist to infer that Swedenborg's mystical pronouncements were "just the coffee talking."Lestrade 13:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Just Some Confirmation of the Article
sorry if i'm doing this wrong. i've read plenty from the wikipedia website, but never tried to comment before. anyways, I thought this was a subject which i may be credible in, and while I don't really have much to add, I thought I might as well go ahead and confirm some things. the reason I feel I am credible, is that I have been raised Swedenborgian (funny, i actually don't know how that's spelled) and am currently attending school in a Swedenborgian (New Church) Highschool.

There are just a few things I would like to comment on: First of all the sound file was... well I'm not going to call it wrong, because i've never heard it articulated by an actual Swedish person, but it's certainly not pronounced in any way i've ever heard. The way i've always said it was just as you might expect by sounding it out: I(pronounced the same way as the "i" in "big")-manuel(like a manuel you read) Sweden(like the country)-borg(like the aliens or whatever the borg is... maybe i should look that up on wikipedia. i know i've heard it before.) not that the pronunciation matters at all, but i thought i'd clarify before someone said it like that and made themself sound silly.

As an ending note: I see nothing that conflicts between the teachings i've learned and the way it's been written here, and i'm fairly certain the author was a Swedenborian like myself, or atleast grew up in a New Church community as i have (judging from their accuracy and their screen name). On that note i'll go back to my homework (i'm studying swedenborg's flying machine incase you're interested. There was an article about it on Wikipedia last i checked.)


 * While I'm not Swedish and my knowledge of Swedish is very superficial, the pronunciation in the OGG file is precisely what I would have assumed it to be in today's Swedish. Of course, it's entirely likely that Swedenborg pronounced it a bit differently, as IIRC Swedish has had some particularly dramatic evolution in the last few hundred years (at least as compared with English and French, for example). Tkinias 20:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Promotion
I have recently reviewed the article & found that it fulfills the criterion for being a good article. So I have promoted it to GA status. My congratulations to all the article's contributers for doing a fine job.

Cheers

Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  )  01:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Lord", "Lord Jesus Christ", etc.
The article is filled with the above religious phrasing and in addition capitalizes "His" and "Him" in reference to deity. I've added an NPOV tag so that someone who has time can remove all this religiosity and piousness. JadedKat 11:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That is not the right tag. I will restore to previous version. Please select a different tag from Template messages/Cleanup or Template messages/Maintenance. / Fred-Chess 15:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

intelligence
it doesnt talk about his extremely high IQ and him becoming mad in his later life.

Why do you think he was mad? There are no signs of this other than the fact that he experienced what many would call delusional hallucinations, but his explanations of what he experienced remain quite solidly grounded in sanity and reason. If you beleive the spiritual world exists there is no reason to think that he went crazy. Jasonschnarr 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * IQs weren't measured until the twentieth century. Previous to that time, the concept didn't exist.Lestrade 17:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Reasons for GA Delisting
This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;


 * (b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors &mdash; see talk page).

LuciferMorgan 00:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now added inline citations, and I've rewritten large parts of the article, including the lead section. / Fred-Chess 14:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Image
Inserting image here temporarily.



Fred-Chess 15:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Who keeps changing "Swedenborg" entry?
I am perplexed as to why the edits I make are hours later undone and returned to the old article... For instance, "Emanuel" is not spelt "Emmanuel". I correct that and it is returned to the incorrect spelling. I added THE ANGEL FESTIVAL to the list of outside links and it is removed. The Angel Festival was created because of what Swedenborg wrote about angels. This is a major Southern California festival and would be fascinating to readers of Swedenborg. Why is it removed from the article? Other small changes I have made as well. CandaceFrazee 19:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In what way would the Angel Festival be of interes for casual readers of this article? Is the Angel Festival mentioned somewhere in the article text? There are thousands of pages on the internet about Swedenborg that would be interesting in one way or another, I do not see why the Angel Festival should be more interesting that those.
 * Fred-Chess 21:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear "Fred Chess",

Is that your name or are you a Fred that likes chess?

Are you employed by Widipedia to monitor and edit articles about Sweden? I understand from your user data that you are living in Sweden. If I am wrong, please info me where you live. If you are an official from Wikipedia, then we need to have a more open dialogue. What is your email address and your office phone number? If you are not on staff with Wikipedia, I will then ask that you and I take my comments to arbitration, because I do not agree with your stopping me from making changes to the Swedenborg entry. Are you a Swedenborg expert as I am?

While there are many websites that are about or include Swedenborg, how many of them have tried to put their websites on this Swedenborg page as I have with http://www.theangelfestival.com? The Angel Festival is an important item for the Wikipedia Swedenborg entry because a festival was created for Swedenborg and his findings! That's a big deal! Did you take the time to visit our website? The Swedenborg Booth at this festival is visited by hundreds and they can purchase Swedenborg's books there as well as pick up tens of free pamphlets, brochures, newsletters, flyers, etc. about the man.

The fact that a festival was created because of Swedenborg makes him current and not a figure for history buffs to argue about.

I will make more changes to the Wikipedia Swedenborg entry at another time and trust that they will stay. If they are removed, I will take them to arbitration. Just because a book can be quoted, does not necessarily mean that that fact is correct. That's my job - I make sure facts about Swedenborg are correct. If you would like me to mail you some back issues of my SILA newsletter, I will. Postal mail only.

Thinking of you, Candace Frazee, Madam Chair of SILA (Swedenborg Information of Los Angeles) P.O. Box 273, Pasadena, California, 91102 USA.

CandaceFrazee


 * You are welcome to discuss any significant changes that you make to the structure of the article. That you are an official of SILA does not mean you have the authority to decide how an Wikipedia article will look.
 * I am not an official of Wikipedia. There are very few employees of Wikipedia.
 * Fred-Chess 17:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am from Third opinion, I would like to tell CandaceFrazee that Wikipedia is ran by it's editors, a group of administrators(with no extra authority), and Policy. While the foundation does have a few employees they do not regularly govern the site, except in extrordinary circumstances.


 * That being said, editors are encourages to discuss matters and avoid original research. Personal credentials are not generally excepted unless you can refer to published work by a reliable source to back up you statement. This is in line with our goal in creating an encyclopedia.


 * If you need any help, please ask me on my talk page by clicking the Ask me button on my signature. I will look at the disputed content and add my opinion in a moment. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * After looking at the link I don't think it provides much encyclopedic information about Emanual Swedenborg, the subject of the article. I don't think it is relevent here.


 * Also, when you said how many of them have tried to put their websites on this Swedenborg page, did you mean to imply that you are personally involved with this site? If so I think you should look over our conflict of interest policy. If I misunderstood, pleaase forgive me. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-nomination
Some minor things, but cleaned up the reason for delisting.Balloonman 04:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Swedenborg's father was a minister it appears? This isn't readily apparent.
 * the most liberal place in Europe for philosophical discussion and freedom of speech---needs to be cited or deleted.
 * fix the links in the quotes at the end.
 * I'm not sure where you want this listed as a GA, so I'm leaving it up to you to classify it.Balloonman 04:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you re-list it as a good article?


 * I have relisted it. / Fred-Chess 14:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Change of name
'''It was common in Sweden during the 17th and 18th centuries for the children of bishops to receive this honour (ennoblement) as a recognition of the services of the father. The family name was changed from Swedberg to Swedenborg.''' There is a weak implication here (due to proximity) that part of the process of Swedish ennoblement involves changing the family name. If that is so, please state it explicitly - "As part of this honor, the family name...". Otherwise, someone please explain why the family name was changed, and explain that in a relevant section.

Trinity in lead
I don't think Swedenborg's idea of the trinity should be mentioned in the lead. It does nothing to summarize the article's content, and I don't think most people would find it fundamental to know his view on the trinity. / Fred-Chess 16:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. The paragraph I added didn't really summarize anything. It was too little to be a paragraph in the lead. I happen to think that "too little" is better than "nothing," but others disagree and are welcome to do so. A Christian's Christology might be considered weighty enough in its own right, but not necessarily. In any event, I took a crack at a real summary. What do you think? Jonathan Tweet 21:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it reads very good :-)
 * Fred-Chess 13:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Automatic addition of "class=GA"
A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Bilocation
I've often read that Swedenborg exhibited bilocation. Is this just something that people said about him with no actual evidence to back it up, or were any documented cases? Google confirms the rumours, but I couldn't find any details of an actual case.-- JackofOz (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The article mentions such an account, I believe. Search for "Gothenburg" in the article. I am however not aware of any other such incidents of Swedenborg.
 * Fred-J 19:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Fred, but this isn't the case I'm thinking of. It's one where he personally was seen by documented witnesses in 2 different locations far apart at exactly the same time.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh!
 * (Sorry for not having replied before, I haven't been to active lately)
 * I have not read about that anywhere, and Bergquist's book was really thorough in my opinion and would have mentioned it if it was of importance. Reports like that always make me skeptical, it is like reports of Elvis sightings.
 * Personally I don't think one should put too much interest in the miracles and reported mental powers of Swedenborg. Sw himself said that miracles don't happen these days. Sw had noticed that he "always" had good weather on his boat journeys abroad but said that he didn't think too much about it, because the Lord does not let miracles happen these days... (Robsahm)
 * Fred-J 18:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a section on his clairvoyant abilities titled "Psychic accounts." I notice that there is a bit of confusion on the date of the fire in Stockholm (July 19, 1759) and the date of Swedenborg's dinner party (July 29, 1759), and it is written in such a way to cast doubt on the episode. I have not researched this in depth, but could it not be that the most simplest explanation is that Sweden at that time may have still been following the Julian calendar in certain areas? This would put Sweden's dates 10 days behind dates in Germany. According to the article on the "Gregorian Calendar" the calendar in Sweden was poorly administered, and they finally switched to the Gregorian calendar in the year 1753. This date discrepancy suggests that some of the accounts were still using the Julian calendar. IMO this part of the article needs to at least mention this calendar discrepancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Webber (talk • contribs) 18:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

GA
There is some citation problems in article. Is it alowed for good article?--Vojvodaeist 18:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To be a Good Article, it must provide "references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout [snd] iin-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". Could you specify the citation problems so that they can be addressed?  Skomorokh   00:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Swedish Christians
Is the "Swedish Christians" category appropriate here? CopaceticThought (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite defintely yes. He was Swedish and he was a Christian - so into that category he should go. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Prediction of his death date
I have heard on other sites that Swedenborg predicted the day that he died, but didn't see it mentioned here. If he did, can anyone verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.136.190 (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Myopic commentary moved out of article
A recent series of edits by added the following commentary about this article into the text of the article itself. This does not meet wp:MOS, so it has been moved here: "NOTE ON BERGQUIST CITATIONS: More than half of the citations in this document cite “(Bergquist 1999)” and a few others without the 1999 notation . The full citation is not provided in either case. However, it seems clear that the work referred to is the original Swedish version of Begquist’s book, Swedenborgs Hemlighet, which was published in 1999. (The English version, Swedenborg’s Secret, was published in 2005). The problem is that all the references cited refer to the Swedish version, so the non-Swedish-speaking reader has no way of evaluating them.  There is a Swedish Wikipedia version  but it too cites the Swedish references. Given the possibly significant role these citations may play in understanding the book, it would be helpful for English-speaking readers if a list of translated citations could be added to this Wiki entry." -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet additional comentary along similar lines has been added to this article, and has been moved here: "NOTE TO THE READER: The citation 'Bergquist (1999)' appears repeatedly in the Notes, above, for the 2005 English translation of Bergquist's work that this website is built on. However the '1999' in the citation presuambably refers to the Swedish edition, which was published in 1999. It appears, then, that unless the reader has access to the Swedish edition and can read Swedish, the content of these citations is unknown." - 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Swedenborg and mystikos
In the previous version, the following statement was made: >>“ Swedenborg referred to himself as an initialis, in Greek μυστικός (mystikos), "an initiate" (Bergquist, 1999, p.451; in turn based on Arcana Cœlestia §4099)”

I have deleted this statement since I could find no mention in Swedenborg’s theological works of him referring to himself as a mystikos and the AC 4099 citation refers to the regeneration process and appears to have nothing to do with Swedenborg and mysticism.Future777 (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Swedenborg and vegetarianism
I will shortly be putting up a brief summary on this long-discussed issue.Future777 (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the statement here because it misquotes what Swedenborg wrote and then just reprints Nicholson's summary of AC 1002, which does not present evidence that Swedenborg was vegetarianFuture777 (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikify tag
I am removing the wikify tag since, as noted in the “No reason” comment, no reason is cited for the tag. One has to wonder if vandalism is involved here since the author does not appear to have read the article. There already are “relevant internal links,” the standard format with theologian infobox is already in place, as are “ ”, and it follows standard Wiki layout.Future777 (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Predicting the end of the world
I read in Robert Cecil's Masks of Death that his grandfather had had Swedenborgian servants who had climbed a hill on a certain day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events ) predicted by Swedenborg to be the end of days. This obviously was not to be and they had to climb back down again when nothing happened. --Wool Bridge (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Bergquist foonote problem
(Corection of "Myopic commentary moved out of article" above.)

The citation "Bergquist (1999)" appears in the “Notes” multiple times. The 1999 date of these citations would appear to refer to the original 1999 Swedish version of the book (Bergquist, L. Swedenborgs hemlighet Stockholm, Sweden 1999), not the 2005 English translation (Bergquist, L. Swedenborg’s Secret. A biography. London  2005). This raises question about the accuracy of the Notes’ Bergquist citations. Thus, for instance, reference 35 in the Notes, “(Bergquist 1999 pp. 114-115),” mentions the family name change but in the 2005 book pages pp.114-115 refer to metallurgy. Reference 36 in the Notes', “(Bergquist 1999 pp. 118-119),” refers to a job offer and Swedenborg’s stuttering but in the 2005 book pp. 118-119 refer to aspects of God. In sum, it appears that the reader would need to consult the original Swedish version of the book to determine what the Bergquist Notes actually refer to.Future777 (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The logic of this concern is faulty. The 1999 citations are accurately portrayed. Thus, please disregard this entry. Future777 (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The Extrasolar Issue
1. Reworked, clarified Swedenborg’s position.

2. Swedenborg said that spirits and angels could not see the physical degree, not that he himself could not thus see (#47), and I can’t see relevance of “fixed positions” statements here, so deleted this sentence.

3. Added new materials on extrasolar planets

4. The extrasolar question has been extensively reviewed elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Future777 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This source contains a (IMO disingenuous) misrepresentation of physics:
 * Finally, science has also been confronted with the apparent inconsistency  between the second “law,” or principle, of thermodynamics, which says that things “run down” into a state of energy homogeneity, and the life process, which does just the reverse (i.e. negative entropy).[4]
 * While carefully worded to avoid making a direct claim ("science has been confronted" and "apparent inconsistency"), the suggestion is clearly that the second law of thermodynamics, subjected here to another straw man misrepresentation ("things 'run down'"), had been violated. This has been much asserted – but not once demonstrated – by creationists, flat Earthers and other pseudoscience peddlers. Let's briefly review what the second law of thermodynamics actually says:
 * The total entropy in an isolated system does not decrease, and it is constant if and only if all processes are reversible.
 * The claim that life creates "negative entropy" is nonsense in the sense of the 2nd law because a lifeform is not by any means an isolated system. If you only looked at the organism itself, you could in many cases detect a decrease in entropy. But the same is true for a hot iron ball which gradually cools off – decreasing entropy. The iron ball could not cool off if it were an isolated system. It can only cool off because it is in contact with another system with which it is not in a thermal equilibrium, e.g. cooler air or some space where thermal radiation can go to. Likewise, lifeforms constantly exchange energy with their environment. They consume nutrients, excrete metabolic waste products, and give off or take in thermal energy directly. If you take even just the solar system as its own somewhat isolated system, it is clear that there is a constant and enormous increase in entropy as the Sun consumes its own nuclear fuel and gives off blackbody radiation, much larger in magnitude than all the local entropy decreases of life in the solar system as we know it combined.
 * I don't know what the process is or should be in such a case, but it seems fair to either remove this source or attach a warning to it that it may misrepresent science and the second law of thermodynamics in particular.
 * Aragorn2 (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The Fire Anecdotes
I can find no evidence in the literature supporting the 21st or 29th July as the date of the fire. I thus deleted all reference to both dates.Future777 (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In his Swedenborg biography (in Swedish), Bergquist writes: Swedenborg's "sight" aged place at July 29. He do also cite Immanual Kant, who claims a Sunday in Sepember 1756. Bergquist corrects Kant's date but not the day, i.e. he do accept Sunday as correct. And any calender shows July 29 is a Sunday, and July 19 - the day the fire broke out - a Thursday. Pål Jensen (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * One more comment about the fire. It is stated: "it had consumed his neighbor’s home". Then it says "the fire had stopped three doors from his home". > Seems to me not both can be true.

--A3Braam (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Why the Stockholm fire July 19, 1759, broke out on a Thursday
There are several facts about the fire and Swedenborg's vision:
 * 1) Any Gregorian calendar tells that July 19, 1759 was a Thursday. And Sweden converted to the Gregorian calendar at 1753.
 * 2) The original, Swedish issue of Bergquist's Swedenborg biography says (p. 313): The dinner and Swedenborg's vision aged place at Sunday July 29. Bergquist do also cite Kant. Kant dated Swedenborg's vision to a Sunday in September 1756. Bergquist corrects the date to July 29 - but he doesn't correct the Sunday. This is also consistent with the fact that July 19, 1759 was a Thursday.
 * 3) If Bergquist is right, Swedenborg could have got information about the fire without any "paranormal" abilities.

Why July 19, 1759 was a Thursday: Year 1759 (MDCCLIX) was a common year starting on Monday (link will display the full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar and a common year starting on Friday of the 11-day slower Julian calendar). 1759. Common year starting on Monday: July 19 is a Thursday, and July 29 a Sunday.

The confusion about the weekday of the fire is not caused by different calendars: Swedish calendar states: In 1753, one year later than England and its colonies, Sweden introduced the Gregorian calendar, whereby the leap of 11 days was accomplished in one step, with February 17 being followed by March 1. Pål Jensen (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that the dates in Kant’s letter to Knobloch, which contains the story of the fire, were later falsified by the editor/biographer Borowski to suit his own goals. Spiritual Vision and Revelation, Chapter VI, The Mystery of a Date – Fresh Light on Kant’s Criticism of Swedenborg (The New Philosophy, January-June 2001 ibid, p. 16) Add to this that the letter was not published until nearly a half century after the event (i.e. 1804) (ibid., p. 19) and that the original of the letter was lost and so could not be used for verification (ibid., p. 25) and it adds to question about the reliability of at least some of the dates reports of this episode. (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Future777 (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

>> Hi, I've been looking into this matter for my website Anomalies, and what seems to be very clear but not generally acknowledged is that even if the 1804 letter attributed to Kant is real, then Kant was getting all of his information from other people. He never went to investigate, nor was he present at the event... so it's perfectly possible that Kant simply received incorrect information on the event, and it's being treated as authoritative only because he's a well-known figure from the time. Of course, the letter itself might not be real, and may be attributed to Kant for the same reason: false authority. In the reprinted letter in Borowski's 1804 book, not only is the date of the fire wrong, but the very date on the letter itself claims it was written before the fire took place! Under the circumstances, all details from the letter must be treated as highly suspicious, to the point that it may have been fabricated by Borowski himself. The 1804 letter also claims the dinner happened on a Saturday; so I'm not sure why the focus is on a Sunday other than the newer Bergquist book is said to make that claim... though the translated version does not include a mention of July 29 that I can find. Also, in regard to the one person worried about the quandry of a neighbor's house being destroyed even though the fire supposedly stopped three houses away from Swedenborg's: Swedenborg did not say a neighbor's house had burned, he said a friend's house had, which has no implied location. In the end, the only words that can be readily attributed to Kant are what he wrote in his own 1766 book, which does not give any of the details that are being disputed... but also is not as exciting a story compared to what came with Borowski's book. Borowski likely deserves credit for the modern version of the account. -- User: GarthHaslam 13:13, 26 May 2018

Footnote Citation Correction
^ STAIRS. "True Christian Religion 200". Kemptonproject.org. Retrieved 2013-07-14. The citation given is: However, The Kempton Project citation is incorrect. The original publisher for the passage cited is the Swedenborg Foundation. (Swedenborg E, The True Christian Religion Containing the Universal Theology of the New Church. Swedenborg Foundation 1946, # 200)Future777 (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

NPOV issues
Though the content itself appears largely factual, in many places the wording appears to take the POV of Swedenborg's writings being "the truth". It requires rewording from a neutral point of view. Instead of saying X, it should should uniformly say that he or his followers believe X. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.131.195 (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Swedenborg and Spiritualism
I didn't see it anywhere in the article, but Swedenborg was very important to the American Spiritualists who were trying to generate a Spiritualist theology - beyond parlor tricks, that is. It's been a while since I studied Spiritualism, so I can't give details and references. Maybe someone else can.

MarkinBoston (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Emanuel Swedenborg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110321164919/http://swedenborg-philosophy.org:80/journal/article.php?issue=sanity&page=1000 to http://www.swedenborg-philosophy.org/journal/article.php?issue=sanity&page=1000

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Metallurgy
I am most surprised to find nothing on his work on iron and other metals in the text of this article except the appearance of a three-volume work of 1734 in his list of publications. This is a significant work which is still referred to by historians of the industry and ought to have a paragraph at the end of the scientific section. Sweden had been the major European producer of copper, though the industry was by then past its prime; and was the most important exporter of iron in Europe. These were thus major factors in the Swedish economy of the period. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emanuel Swedenborg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130803110606/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Swedenborg to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Swedenborg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070811034143/http://www.thelordsnewchurch.com/online_books/english/Arcana_Caelestia_or_Heavenly_Secrets_chapter_16_1750_English_Translation_200dpi.pdf to http://www.thelordsnewchurch.com/online_books/english/Arcana_Caelestia_or_Heavenly_Secrets_chapter_16_1750_English_Translation_200dpi.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Emanuel Swedenborg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130924163247/http://heavenlydoctrines.org/Writings%20Latin_title.html to http://www.heavenlydoctrines.org/Writings%20Latin_title.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130403032241/http://www.newchurch.org/about/swedenborg/bibliography.html to http://www.newchurch.org/about/swedenborg/bibliography.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050114132548/http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/LEONJ/leonj/leonpsy/instructor/np98.html to http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy/instructor/np98.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)