# Talk:Death in 19th-century Mormonism

This review is transcluded from Talk:Death in 19th-century Mormonism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 07:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Starts GA Review; the review will follow the same sections of the Article.   --Whiteguru (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 


### Observations
Causes of Death → Mortality rates were high for all 19th-century Americans, particularly infants and children. What were the mortality rates in those times? The reference given is about Mormon women's experiences of death, and does not indicate mortality rates.
 opposed heroic medicine is confusing. This might benefit from the inclusion of techniques (bloodletting, purging, and sweating)
motivated deep and searching questions about death, salvation, and the eternal nature of families → this is the key spiritual point of this article.
Some sources have reported that Joseph Smith Sr., the first patriarch in the LDS Church, blessed a handful of Latter Day Saints with the power to raise people from the dead.  → What are the sources?
the healing section is good, and well handled (because they resembled Catholic ceremonies.)
Some early Latter Day Saints also believed that being rebaptized could serve as a healing ritual; but this idea was officially rejected by church leaders in the early 20th century.[3]:83–84 → perhaps belongs in another section. It is a bit early to be placing this here.
The heading Comfort in Theology might be better stated as comfort in belief. There are no theological statements in this section.
People believed that angels – particularly deceased ancestors – also attended these events, visible only to the dying.[21] The person near death was to describe aloud a view of where they were headed.[18]  → In this section, you might also consider NDE studies and the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying which both make reference to perception (sight) during the process of leaving the body. These two traditions refer to visitation from the deceased, visibility of beings from other realms (angels) and acute vision of blue skies, etc, as death become nearer and nearer. Reference 21 cites "expressions  of  Loss  in  Early Seventeenth-Century  England:  Historical  Accounts  of  Death  and  Disposal,”, is explanatory of similar traditions in other countries
The opening statement of Burial and Funeral (Corpses were seen as sacred) is not supported by content in Reference 21. The integrity of the body between death and resurrection was of immense importance → this is the context of the citation. Corpses were seen as limnal, neither alive nor dead. Hence the creation of rituals to preserve bodily integrity for the resurrection.
The (disposal ) of the bodies of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, while significant, are not the essential character of this article.
dedicating their grave assured that their bodies rested well until the community could be again reunited is an excellent reference defining the purpose of burials and the needful integrity of the burial process that must be maintained.
The paragraph on Mormon eulogies is missing the unfolding of a tradition of speaking at funerals. Some clarification or introduction is needed here.
Reference 21 gives accounts of people wishing death upon themselves during mourning;
The tradition of relics is also confirmed in several references
The death poetry section is well noted in references
The title Theology for this section might be misleading. The section speaks of Eschatological beliefs and teachings, and this (Eschatology) may be a more appropriate title.
The Brigham Young citation (reference 32) is not necessary to this section.
Doctor of history Klaus J. Hansen → drop the title.
the encounters with brother Alvin  lead to the teaching about children under the age of 8, with regard to soteriology, salvation. We need to make distinctions between teachings about salvation and Eschatology per se. There is 'being saved' (salvation, soteriology) and the 'end times' or the 'end of the world' (Eschatology). This entire paragraph might be dropped.
The Book of Abraham is not included in the Canon of revelation for LDS. NO point in introducing controversy.
Death and Temple rites presents a challenge between soteriology (being saved, baptism for the dead) and sealing, and the belief in eternal marriages. Eternal marriages are a belief about the afterlife - this is Eschatology. Introduction of exaltation in this section (that mankind can reach the highest level of salvation) introduces more confusion  (exaltation is about being saved; this is salvation or soteriology).
 

This is good work, good scribing, and represents significant research, summary of research and clear representation of historical material in the article.
@Cstickel(byu): May we address the issues above?  Thank you. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely. Thank you for your review. I'll get right on it, and I'll ping you when I've done some improvements. Cstickel(byu) (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


### Response
I took out the general statement about high mortality rates; couldn't find a source that solidly/plainly backed it up.Y
Changed the wording from Smith "opposed heroic medicine" to "spoke of his distrust of traditional physicians"—I think that coincides more directly with the source.Y
The sources on Joseph Smith Sr.'s blessing people with the power to heal seem to have been some personal accounts. I don't think listing them out would be pertinent, so I changed the sentence to say "Joseph Smith Sr., the first patriarch in the LDS Church, purportedly blessed a handful of Latter Day Saints with the power to raise people from the dead." I think that kind of general statement works best here, seeing as how the following sentence points out that Oliver Cowdery refuted the claim, so readers are to take it at face value. Best not to spend too many characters on it.Y
I'm unsure of where to move the sentence about rebaptism; I want to make sure the distinction is made between baptism for salvation and rebaptism for healing. Later on, the article transitions into a focus on salvation.
Changed the heading to Comfort in belief. I agree that it works better.Y
It would be interesting to draw connections to other theologies, but I think that would work best in a discussion of 20th- or 21st-century Mormonism. The faith was fairly isolated in the 19th century, and I want the article to reflect that. Y
Removed "Corpses were seen as sacred".Y
Condensed the information of Joseph and Hyrum Smith's burial.Y
Added introduction information on eulogies in the second paragraph of Funeral sermons. That article had the most introductory/general information on Mormon funeral sermons that I could find. this is a good resolution of this matter, well scribed.Y
Changed Theology to Eschatology.Y
Removed Brigham Young quote (reference 32).Y
Removed "Doctor of history" before "Klaus J. Hansen."Y
Removed the story about Smith and Smith Sr.'s visions of Alvin. It did seem fairly extraneous.Y
The Book of Abraham was canonized by the LDS Church in 1880; I think we can keep the information about it.Y
I made Death and temple rites a level 2 heading, so that it's not nested under Eschatology. Does this help with the eschatology/soteriology issue? Conversely, we could label the level 2 as Eschatology and soteriology—though I think that having those two terms together would introduce some confusion. Y
We could divide what is now the existing Eschatology section into eschatology and soteriology sections, but I anticipate this resulting in the prose feeling a little choppy. Teachings about salvation and the afterlife are very intertwined in LDS doctrine. I do, however, agree that soteriology shouldn't be nested completely under eschatology. Perhaps the Eschatology heading could be erased altogether, and those two paragraphs could be the introduction to the Afterlife section? I am reading as a theologian; the article is written for your basic encyclopaedia reader seeking information. You have brilliant resources from BYU especially Reference 21 and the Relief Society. I think it best to leave things as they are as you have referenced Mormon eschatology in the lede.
 

@Whiteguru: Let me know what you think. Cstickel(byu) (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@Cstickel(byu): All your work resolves the issues raised, and we can leave your edits as they are. Over time, you may encounter opportunities to clarify your thinking between eschatology and soteriology as these teachings are so important to your church. Go well in your labors. --Whiteguru (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


### Final
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
 Passed