Talk:Christian Science

Errors

Marrante, you said above that there were errors in the article. It would be helpful if you (or anyone else) would list the errors you've found. Something like the following would help us keep track. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

List of errors/proposals

Archived

"Normal school" needs link  Done No such thing as malping  Done (footnote removed) Wiktionary link to "at-one-ment"  Not done (not an RS for a dictionary definition, and not appropriate within a quotation) Add etymology of atonement  Done (added OED ref) [1] Normal class instruction not 6 weeks, it is 1 week (See Manual, Article XXX)  Done Stephen Gottschalk was not a "member" of the Committee on Publications – it is ONE person, as per first definition  Done (changed to "worked for") Dickey ref (cited in Gardner) is inaccurate - no names are mentioned on this page (I have the book)  Done (This is about footnote 91: Dickey 1927, p. 45, cited in Gardner 1993, pp. 116–117. I don't have the book in front of me, but Dickey is named on pp. 113, 114 and 116, according to Google snippet view [2] "According to Dickey" removed for now, added quote from Cather and Milmine to footnote. [3]) State time frame (1878 / witchcraft trial) - footnote makes time frame clear, but article creates false impression of watches (see discussion)  Done (Added "In preparation for the trial, Eddy organized 24-hour "watches" in her home, during which her students (known as "mental workers") were asked to use their minds to block MAM from Kennedy or Spofford. She continued to organize watches for the rest of her life. In her home at Pleasant View in Concord, New Hampshire, where she lived from 1889, she required the watchers to attend two hour-long daily meetings to address specific issues that might be manifestations of MAM, such as bad weather or a negative newspaper article. Gill writes that Eddy took the term watch from the New Testament story about Jesus's night in Gethsemane with his disciples.") McClure's not identified as prominent muckraking magazine  Not done ("muckraking" just means watchdog/investigative journalism; readers can click on the link if they want to read more about McClure's) "Mary is dying" story is inaccurate (is in MBE section, end of par. 2) - see discussion  Not done (we would need independent sources arguing that it was wrong) Add physicians who have become Christian Scientists  Not done (violation of UNDUE and lack of secondary sources) Add Helmuth James Graf von Moltke to list of people who grew up in CS, but left it (in his case at the age of confirmation in Germany) - not an "error" per se, but would broaden the list to include non-Americans  Done "given no formal education" – should be "little formal education" (she attended Sanbornton Academy and possibly Holmes Academy - see discussion)  Done Helmuth James Graf von Moltke should either not be piped or pipe it to be "Helmuth James von Moltke". His father was Helmuth von Moltke. That family tree is a nightmare to follow. I frankly would leave it unpiped, long as it is.  Done Remove Hemingway  Done Normal class - when I wikilinked this, I only did "normal" because I thought "normal class" would make it look like the link was to an article about CS normal class, when it was just the word "normal" that needed clarification ("normal" had been in quotes because not understood as referring to the training of teachers) - I tend to think it should remain that way, even though your change seems intuitive  Not done (linking "normal" alone would look odd) "Raised by Christian Scientists" (notable members) should be changed to "raised in Christian Science" – "by Christian Scientists" makes it sound like the parents were adoptive – would you write "raised by Jews"?  Done "Scientific statement of being" is not "repeated during services", it is read to the congregation at the end; footnote to branch church website with photos should be removed – it does not contain what the footnote says, no photo shows it being read, nor does text say so  Done (changed "repeated" to "read out") Tommy Davis ("Notable members") does not seem to be wikilinked to the right article  Done "The president for 2012–2013 is Chet Manchester.[217] The organization is presided over by a five-person executive" – the "president" presides, not the Board of Directors, who are executive administrators and stay in office indefinitely, unlike the president who serves 1 year. Manchester, btw, is no longer president.  Done Cult references (par. 2 of View of the Christian clergy, Mark Twain) highly misleading – the word is not a pejorative. The NYT reference should be removed as per WP:RNPOV and the definition of the word explained in the article (see discussion)  Done (added quote to footnote, which explains the usage of cult at the turn of the century) Christian Scientists do believe that Jesus died  Not done (sentence made invisible for now; update: unable to find CS or academic sources confirming that CS holds Jesus died, so restored some of prior text with in-text attribution) Christian Science is not part of New Thought - see section: New Thought/Christianity  Done (the article follows the academic sources; added "J. Gordon Melton writes that Christian Science leaders see their religion as part of mainstream Christianity, and resent being identified with the New Thought movement; he argues that there are nevertheless strong differences between Christian Science and traditional Christianity, including views about the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the creation and atonement for sin.") Change "contributions called testimonies" – remove "contributions called" (see discussion)  Not done ("testimony" implies that it is more than a claim) Theology misstated – story of creation is not "a set of allegorical narratives", the allegory begins with the second chapter of Genesis  Done (not clear what is being proposed; update: this now simply says: "Eddy saw ... the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis (c. 950–500 BCE) as spiritually authoritative, but not a literal account.") Payment of annual tax (Governance section, current par. 4) should state that the tax is a minimum of $1 – is highly misleading w/o this detail (amount is stipulated in Manual)  Not done (the article says: "Requirements include ... payment of an annual tax to the church ..." We would need a source to show that this is misleading as written, and/or that significant numbers pay only $1.) Eddy's second marriage description is highly misleading (see discussion)  Not done (the article says "Her second husband, who left her after 13 years of marriage ..." then discusses the guardianship; anything else is too detailed for this article, especially as the sources disagree) Gottschalk misconstrued in par. 1 of "Christian Science prayer and treatment" (see discussion)  Not done (not clear what is being proposed) Add that Introduce Christian Science as a Christian denomination. How many sources? 1. http://time4thinkers.com/t4t-events/christianity-beyond-borders/ Rev Doctor Michael Kinnamon, General Secretary of National Council of Churches. Perfect reference!!! Very lovely discussion about how Christian Science is Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.253.210 (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)  Done (worded differently and with a different source}

Ecumenical workshops

There has been a lot of activity recently aimed at having the article minimize the differences between Christian Science and mainstream Christianity, to the point of making the talk page hard to use at times. It's reasonable to suppose this might be connected to ecumenical workshops started in January by the Christian Science church's Committee on Publication. Entitled "Yes, we’re Christian. No, we’re not a cult!", the workshops are being offered to CS churches across the United States, and teach members how to engage in outreach to change the perception Christians may have that CS isn't Christian. [4][5] pdf flyer.

At the end of January Simplywater arrived after a long break and since then has posted dozens of times, including as several IPs, asking that we call CS a Christian denomination, remove the word cult, and remove the differences between CS and Christian theology.​ At the beginning of February Bridge bendek and Ath271 said that they were here on behalf of the church. [6][7] Ath has mostly supported Simplywater in her efforts.

The announcement of the outreach program and the increased activity here could be coincidence, but the problem we have now is twofold. First, most Wikipedians are volunteers and don't have time to respond to a high volume of (often long) posts. Second, because I've tried to accommodate requests, the article is being slowly slanted in favour of CS in violation of the neutrality policy.

Several things have to be taken into account when writing an article. Sources have to meet the minimum "reliablity" threshold. But they should also be appropriate for the point in question; they should not express tiny-minority positions; they should for the most part be independent secondary sources; and the overall content of the article has to comply with due weight. Googling for sources sympathetic to CS in an effort to change the article's direction ignores that for every source that says X, there might be half a dozen that say not-X.

With every respect to those involved, I think we have to be allowed to return to normal programming. If the church feels it needs representation on the talk page, I could perhaps suggest a different approach to Bridge bendek. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I take the point SV. I've no problem with fair-minded criticism of CS as long as it's accurate about the substance of the teachings. And for the record, I'm skeptical both of ecumenism and of the CS church's attempts to reconcile Christian Science with mainstream Christian thought. In fact, there's a case to be made that it is in fact the latter that is out of step with Biblical Christianity. (For example the notion of a soul in the body, or of hell as a state of eternal torture for sinners/unbelievers, both seem to be quite distinct from the original Jewish concepts.) At a guess, this may be due to the influence of certain Greek ideas that crept into Christian thought in the centuries after Christ. Also particularly notable is the historical supplanting of the influence of Plato within Christian theology by that of Aristotle - CS theology appears much closer to the ideas of the former than the latter. But this is getting into OR, so I'd better stop.Be-nice:-) (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Slim Virgin, I have no desire to minimize the differences between orthodox Christianity and Christian Science. Mary Baker Eddy was not an orthodox Christian. But as in Eddy's time, not all Christian Theologians agree. And it is worth allowing their voice to be heard. Let's not be afraid of the differences. It is fair to state Eddy's views on basic Christian Concepts quickly and honestly, from RS on atonement, resurrection, virgin birth, and trinity, the Christ AND THEN, state how others disagree with her. For example

For Eddy, Jesus, was the son of a virgin and while not God, he was the way to salvation. He 'was the mediator between Spirit and the flesh, between Truth and error." Christian Scientists believe that the crucifixion was effications because of the 'affection and goodness it demonstrated for mankind.' "According to Mrs. Eddy, Jesus' resurrection and ascension showed that a mortal man is not the real essence of manhood and that this unreal mortality disappears in presence of 'reality'. They are Trinitarian in an unorthodox way, and their doctrine of the Atonement, or one's unity with God, promises redemption from both sickness and sin. Judah, The History and Philosophy of the Metaphysical Movements in America, Westminster Press Pages 257-273.

Then you can go at it and tell how the orthodox views it as unchristian. We are not minimizing the differences. We are stating the theology honestly to let the reader decide.Simplywater (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with SlimVirgin – a selective insistence on lesser sources is endangering this page's neutrality. A major strand of commentary in RS makes the distinction between the belief system of CS and than of mainstream Christianity, and the categorization of CS as a "cult" had been made to the extent it is worth recording. We need to make sure both these things are relayed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Due Weight - I'm happy to go through and count the lines and lines of text in the footnotes against Christian Science. Does the space allotted to text in footnotes count as 'due weight'?Simplywater (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Weight is not determined by balancing views "for" or "against" CS: that is an inherently POV-inflected way of seeing it. We apportion content in a way which mirrors how it is apportioned in the most reliable, independent sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. It was SV who said the article is being slanted in 'favor' of Christian Science. Is that a POV-inflected statement? There is only 'in favor' or 'against'. Can you clarify?Simplywater (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If editors are failing to apportion weight properly and instead picking content that advances a favoured position, then the result will be to slant the article. That would be strongly the case if the many changes advocated by CS spinners recently had been enacted, and there is a risk it may have happened by accident: the presence of WP:COI-tainted editors in a consensus process has a tendency to compromise it. It might worth revisiting and maybe unwinding some recent changes. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Could we avoid that kind of rhetoric please (ie "spinners")? If a passage is (a) sourced, (b) an accurate reflection of the source, (c) uses good (unbiased and accurate) sources, (d) is accurate in terms of reflecting the subject-matter and (e) the article reflects the academic consensus, I don't see a case for "unwinding" it. This is common sense, without throwing in a lot of wiki-acronymsBe-nice:-) (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If you mean spinners, do you a voice different than conservative orthodox writers? Much of this article is sourced by conservative Christian writers. It seems appropriate to look for others voices in the Christian Science theology section.

• SV said Gottschalk, whose books are RS, who thee most quoted scholar on Christian Science "can not be quoted in the Christian Science theology section" because he is a Christian Scientist.
• Could you imagine saying that the Catholics cannot be quoted on their own theology because they will add a 'spin'?
• Charles Braden was an ordained Methodist minister.
• Philip Jenkins and Rodney Stark, and Gordon Melton are at a Southern Baptist university with an orthodox Christian mission statement; faculty members must provide a statement of how their faith and research support one another.

In the field of religious studies, some sort of religious affiliation on the part of a scholar is not uncommon.

SV and Alexbrn, allowing a Christian Science Scholar speak about what Christian Science is, is not adding a 'spin'. It is being respectful toward the religion. Christian Science should be allowed the same respect as any other religion. Thousands and thousands of respectable people study this religion. They live in communities, their children go to school. Their friends go to Facebook. I am a volunteer also.

Every one of the above writers are adding a spin when they discuss Christian Science. They are viewing Christian Science through the lens of orthodox Christianity. Slimvirgin, you are doing a wonderful job.

It's fair that Christian Science views on these Christian concepts like trinity, atonement, resurrection, Christ be presented in a few sentences by someone who can honestly approximate Eddy's ideas. Without an 'orthodox spin' Simplywater (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

CS gets no more respect that any other belief system: WP does not have special policies for religions. We simply use the highest quality sources and reflect what they have to say about the topic. That CS adherents have personal quibbles with what they say are the biases of certain authors cannot be taken into account: if the work of those authors has been validated by being published through reputable channels, and accepted in mainstream scholarship, then those are what WP shall duly relay. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, I notice your use of denigratory rhetoric ("personal quibbles"), in this case as if the views of CS adherents were ipso facto of no importance. And is your use of "shall" a forecast, a recommendation or a command, or all three at once?Be-nice:-) (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The quibbles are of no import so far as source selection goes: established high-quality secondary sources can't be dismissed purely on the basis of personal doubts about the author, by CS adherents ... or anybody. "Shall" indicates a mandatory requirement. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Break 1

I'd like to take this back to the point of the discussion, namely the church's outreach activities and its involvement in this article. But first I have to correct one of Simplywater's mistakes, that I said Gottschalk could not be used as a source. That is false. As the article shows, I've used him as a source myself several times. (This is one of numerous mistakes in SW's posts.)

The point is that the church is a key primary source for this article. It can't also be involved in writing it, and in directing and taking over discussions on the talk page. Wikipedia is an independent voice, and its readers expect to find an article that has been written and fashioned by people other than the subject of the article. They can go to christianscience.com for the church's perspective. When they come to en.wikipedia.org, they expect to find something free of church influence as far as possible, and we want to be allowed to deliver that.

That doesn't mean the church's views are excluded, but it has to be kept at arm's length, and not allowed to become one of the authors or backseat drivers. (I'm pinging the church's media rep, Bridge bendek.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

SV, I am in awe of the careful work you've put into this article, but there is an error which is common to both Christian Scientists and non-Christian Scientists, and that is that the Christian Science church is the "voice" of Christian Science. It's not - the books of Mary Baker Eddy are. Nor is the CS church a key primary source for the article, except insofar as it is the main publisher of Eddy's published writings (the latter are now in the public domain in any case). Personally, I too would object if the church were "directing and taking over" discussions, but I don't think they have been, to date anyway. Having said that, as a Christian Scientist (and church member) I disagree with the current preoccupation of the CS church with trying to make CS palatable to mainstream Christian tastes. Imo they would be far better off clarifying and emphasising what CS distinctively teaches rather than trying to make it acceptable to religious orthodoxy; and indeed highlighting, if necessary, where CS differs from the millennial accretions of conventional theology.Be-nice:-) (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

. there is a difference between "church influence" and stating the theology of Christian Science correctly. This is an encyclopedia. People come here for information. There are a 'set of beliefs and practices called 'Christian Science'. I expect that Wikipedia wants to present that and all the arguments that go with it. They can go to a great variety of 'conservative' websites and get that anit-christian science view also. Wiki has the pleasure of presenting the variety of sides. Which is beautiful. It is the reason I trust it. I feel I'm going to get the complete story here. honest good and honest not so good. Simplywater (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

SV, it doesn't serve the interests of Wikipedia to try and 'out' others as if we lived in the middle ages. This isn't Survivor. Let's not try and turn people against each other.Simplywater (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

with regard to using Gottschalk in the Christian Science theology section you said

"Gottschalk was a Christian Scientist; we can't place anything he has authored or co-authored in WP's voice (unless it's entirely uncontentious, but then better to find a different source)"Simplywater (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Break 2

SV first,

• I have to say that I also appreciate very very much the thought you have put into this article. It has come so far from when I first saw it a few months ago and was stunned by what it said.
• I feel you are confusing "the church's views" with stating Christian Science theology accurately. I feel very comfortable with objections from orthodox Christian thinkers, as long as the theology is stated correctly with regard to ATONEMENT, CRUCIFIXION, VIRGIN BIRTH, RESURRECTION
• This article is about 'the beliefs and practices' of Christian Science as the first sentence of the article defines it. We can spend an extra paragraph on the beliefs since 90% of the article is about the denomination.
• A look at the Encyclopedia Britannia is very helpful for viewing a 'neutral view' of Christian Science. The article was co-written by Melton and Gottschalk. The theology is stated correctly, yet the objections are present. (I suggested this before but you said and I quote

"Gottschalk was a Christian Scientist; we can't place anything he has authored or co-authored in WP's voice (unless it's entirely uncontentious, but then better to find a different source)"

I have found several other independent RS that talk about Christian Science theology without the critical orthodox lens.

Braude, Ann, Women's Leadership in Marginal Religions: Explorations Outside main stream. University of Illinois Press (page 61)

The virgin birth was an important tenet in Christian Science because it showed that biological functions could be controlled by Spirit"

Lewis, James, Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions, Prometheus (page 176)

Christian Scientists accept the Bible as their guide to eternal life. They believe in God's forgiveness of sin through the destruction of the belief in sin. They believe that Jesus' atonement illustrated humanities unity with God, and that his crucifixion and resurrection demonstrated the power of God, Spirit, and the nothingness of matter.

Gooden, Rosemary, (introduction)Faith, Cures and Answered prayers. Syracuse University Press. (page xxx)

"In a letter Gordon wrote to Reverand Joseph Cook, a Congregationalist, and convenor of a weekly gathering, the Monday lectures. Gordon argued that Christian Science denied Atonement, a central tenet of Christianity and the personality of God. Eddy responded to Gordon on these points as follows

'Do I believe in the atonement of Christ? I do, and this becomes more to me since it includes man's redemption from sickness as well as from sin. I reverence and adore Christ as never before'

Rosemary Gooden argues that Eddy's concept of atonement, that it included salvation from sin and sickness, the same as the theology of the protestant faith cure movement.

"Christian Science has a doctrine of the atonement promising redemption from both sickness and sin" Here Mrs. Eddy was perhaps farthest from other metaphysical healing groups, which have borrowed from her, and closest to traditional Christianity"

Judah, Stillson, The History and Philosophy of the Metaphysical Movements in America, Westminster Press, page 281-282

In reading Science and Health, the textbook of Christian Science, one is immediatly struck by the centrality of the Christ in Eddy's teachings. As the son of God, whose incarnation as Jesus of Nazareth indicated the oneness of God and humanity, Christ serves as the divine principle that through the atonement has made reconsiliation with God possible. Affirming belief in both the crucifixion of Jesus and his resurrection as proofs of God's love, truth, and goodness"

Umansky, Ellen, From Christian Science to Jewish Science, Oxford University Press, (page 18 )http://books.google.com/books?id=R92T55BQzy8C&pg=PA18&dq=Mary+Baker+Eddy+atonement&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u_8hU63TMpCAogTCsoHACw&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q=Mary%20Baker%20Eddy%20atonement&f=falseSimplywater (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

SW, do you mind if I split this post of yours off from the discussion above? I would like the thread to focus on the church's involvement, rather than any specific issues or arguments. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't really speak about the churches involment. Can you give me a specific example of what you mean?Simplywater (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added another sub-section header. I'd like to keep the thread above (Break 1) focused on the church's involvement in this article and talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Protestant Theology

I've changed this to be more in accord with the sources given: "Christian Scientists see their religion as consistent with Christian theology, despite key differences from traditional Protestant teaching.[7]"Be-nice:-) (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it, as it unduly picked out part of the cited text. You could equally have picked out that it "radically reinterprets" or "conflicts with" mainstream Christianity, which would be bad in the other direction. The consensus text is a good neutral summary of the text cited as source. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind "radically reinterprets".Simplywater (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Nor do I. In fact I don't see a problem with saying that CS conflicts with mainstream Christianity (but that may be just me so let's ignore that)...How about this: "Christian Scientists see their religion as consistent with traditional Christian theology, despite the fact that it radically reinterprets the latter." (Or leave out "traditional" if you like.) Consensus?Be-nice:-) (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't see what's wrong with the current wording, namely "key differences." If it radically reinterprets, it means there are key differences, not least of which is that CS says the world does not exist. That's a fairly major difference right there! :) (Just from a writing perspective, fewer words are always good for the lead, so "despite key differences" is better than "despite the fact that it radically reinterprets the latter.") SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I would leave out the 'traditional'.Simplywater (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, first of all I am amazed that you can make such a basic error as stating that CS believes that "the world does not exist." CS certainly does teach that the world exists, as evidenced by the following quote from Science and Health (definition of "Earth" on p. 585 of S&H): "To material sense, earth is matter; to spiritual sense, it is a compound idea." CS teaches that the world is real and that it exists, but that it exists as spiritual reality rather than as materiality - the spiritual world is the only world there is, but it is misperceived as being material. The closest parallel I know of in philosophy is Platonism, though Platonic philosophy is not exactly the same as the philosophy of CS. (Indeed, Platonic ontology/metaphysics is sometimes defined as "realism" since, like CS, it teaches the reality of a world of forms or ideas beyond our current experience.) More recently, Berkeley argued that there is no reason to use the term "matter" to describe what we perceive as the world around us. In contemporary philosophy, materialism and realism have been fighting a losing battle with anti-realism and perspectivism for decades. Quantum physicists debates whether we are just one of a multitude of parallel worlds, or alternatively whether we are creating the world as we go along via the process of observation. All we know about a material world comes to us through photons, vibrations and molecules and corresponding electrical signals which are interpreted by mental expectations and remembrances etc that we bring to bear on them. (We might as well be brains in a vat for all we know, or victims of mechanical energy-vampires living in an illusory consensus reality a la The Matrix.) Anyway, apart from all that, the problem with the current wording is that (a) it doesn't accurately reflect the sources; and (b) it states (erroneously) that there are key difference between CS and Christian theology per se, rather than between CS and mainstream (or traditional) Christian theology. By the way, if we had been having this discussion a thousand years ago, mainstream Christian theology (under the influence of Plato rather than Aristotle who later came to dominate it) would have been much more in accord with CS teaching than is the case today.Be-nice:-) (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I meant the material world. :) As for that sentence in the lead, it used to say "traditional," but Simplywater removed it. [8] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

OK...anyway I enjoyed the philosophical riff...speaking of which, I just ordered the book "CS and Philosophy" and hope to make some use of it if I get the time (which doesn't exist according to CS...) And Simplywater, could you have another look at what SV says above? I think we're both trying to say the same thing, but let's keep it as simple as possible! ThanksBe-nice:-) (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I worry in general that the secondary sources impose a coherence on Eddy that isn't really there. For a lot of the sentences in which people say she argues X, I'm pretty sure I could find something where she seems to argue not-X. But maybe I need to sit down and read Science and Health from start to finish, rather than dipping in and out as I have; I think I've read it all, but I've done it by bobbing around. Interesting that you ordered that book; I look forward to hearing more about it if you have time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't sentence my worst enemy to read Science and Health from beginning to end. I suspect most Christian Scientists have not. It is more than occasionally a flavour of 19th century expository prose that makes Henry James look transparent. By that token (and this may be part of the problem here) it almost requires interpretation by secondary sources to be accessible to modern readers, including students of Christian Science, not familiar with CS language. How to make sense of (always my favorite) "Ancient and Modern Necromancy, alias Mesmerism and Hypnotism, Denounced" to a 21st century reader? --Digitalican (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I find I need to press the "reverence" button in my consciousness to read S&H with some understanding. (Even then, the mind has a tendency to wander into the byways of materiality and relativity.) There is a dialectical relationship between understanding the whole and the parts - a familiar issue in exegesis. BTW in regard to issues of interpretation, Nietzsche - perhaps the dialectical opposite of Eddy in ideological terms - suffers from the same syndrome of apparent lack of straightforwardness. (Though in his case there seems to be almost a wilful delight in making contradictory statements.)Be-nice:-) (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, Eddy often shifts between an "absolute" and a "relative" mode of description. One needs to bear in mind the absolute/relative dichotomy in her thought in order to understand what she is saying at any particular point.Be-nice:-) (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

misquoting Ann Taves Christ/Truth/God

Why was my edit reversed. The text you give totally misquotes her. This is her text.

The t in truth needs to be capitalized. This is just sound writing SV. It has nothing to do with pro or con Christian Science. It's just being honest in our writing.

page 214

"Thus, theologically, Quimby made a carful distinction between Jesus, the natural man with 'a natural body of flesh and blood' and Christ, or God. The distinction between jesus and Christ was crucial throughout. Thus, while the body of Jesus was crucified, it was Christ or Truth who was resurrected."

You don't need to include the quote, but truth needs to be capitalized to Truth, God to be consistent with her analysis of Quimby.Simplywater (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I've capitalized Truth per the source (Wilson 1961). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Who uses the word "simply"? Taves doesn't. Does Wilson?Simplywater (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The Qumby manuscripts show the same thing. Christ isn't "simply a synonmn for Truth". Christ is Truth, God. http://books.google.com/books?id=TcfD0jXRDbcC&pg=PA433&dq=quimby+eddy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jlAmU97sB8LaoAT-q4GoAw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Truth%20Christ&f=falseSimplywater (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Simplywater (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The word "simply" is not in the Wilson text or the Taves text. SV that is your perception. That is not what is written. It needs to come out.Simplywater (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Wilson page 121 - "Jesus is distinguished from Christ, the former name is given to the Galilean prophet, while Christ is a synonym for Truth which Jesus manifested and which can dwell in the consciousness of all men.Simplywater (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

RE "Like Quimby, she distinguished between Jesus the man and the concept of Christ; Christ was simply a synonym for Truth."[25]

Looking at both Taves and Wilson, neither one states a comparison between Eddy and Quimby. Let's keep with good scholarship.

• Taves is talking about Quimby. She does say "Eddy retained Quimby's distinctions between error and science, belief and truth"
• Wilson is taling about Eddy.
• This is a assumption SV that is being made.
• I am not an expert on Quimby, and it would take a scholar to say that the distinctions Eddy and Quimby made were similar especially since Eddy's idea of Jesus as the son of a virgin, the son of God, and the wayshower for humanity are GREATLY different than Quimby's view of Jesus.Simplywater (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Christian Science Prayer.

I would be most greatful if the first sentence of this section could start with something positive, as that is more inline with Christian Science. Always start with the good.

Here are a list of quotes from Eddy about how to start praying from S&H.

The prayer that reforms the sinner and heals the sick is an absolute faith that all things are possible to God, a spiritual understanding of him, an unselfed love.

Always begin your treatment by allaying the fear of the patient. The great fact that God lovingly

governs all, never punishing aught but sin, is your standpoint, from which to advance and destroy the human fear of sickness.

Christian scientific practice begins with Christ's keynote of harmony, "Be not afraid!" Said Job: "The thing which I greatly feared is come upon me."

The fundamental propositions of divine metaphysics

are summarized in the four following, to me, self-evident propositions. Even if reversed, these propositions will be found to agree in statement and proof, showing mathematically their exact relation to Truth. De Quincey says mathematics has not a foot to stand upon which is not purely metaphysical. 1. God is All-in-all. 2. God is good. Good is Mind. 3. God, Spirit, being all, nothing is matter. 4. Life, God, omnipotent good, deny death, evil, sin, disease. — Disease, sin, evil, death, deny good, omnipo‐ tent God,

If the Scientist reaches his patient through divine Love, the healing work will be accomplished at on visit, and the disease will vanish into its native nothingness like dew before the morning sunshine.Simplywater (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Simplywater, this is almost a poster example of why we must be careful in using primary sources. Although the language is meaningful to you, other Christian Scientists, and those learned in Christian Science -- it is absolute gobbeltygook to someone not versed in the language and concepts who comes to this page to learn about Christian Science. It is the same problem with the Tenets of Christian Science: Although they are factually the core of Christian Science belief they are incomprehensible to newbies without secondary source interpretation. In expository writing it is vitally important to keep the nature of your target audience in mind (a lesson for us all, I think.) When describing Christian Science prayer (which isn't prayer at all in the traditional notion of the term) it is important to be accurate about what it is in a way that everyone can understand. --Digitalican (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The page is already using only primary sources. I didn't write it. Have you taken a look Digitalican? I agree.Simplywater (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I have. The primary sources are used carefully. Like much of the article, however, the section is descriptively uninformative as to what mental work (jargon alert) actually is. I am not sure that quoting directly from S&H in the way that you ask will help the situation at all. --Digitalican (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

These are the problems with the recent edits. I've written this out in case it's helpful, but please bear in mind that this is time-consuming, so it's not something that can be done whenever edits like this are made.

Edit

The significance of this event which Mary Baker Eddy would later refer to as her "falling apple" "marked the abandonment of Quimby's mental and magnetic teachings". As she was alone, without her magnetic healer, Eddy's spiritual realization highlighted for her, Jesus as healer and that his powers "could be acquired by others."

Issues

1. Re: Lewis p 176: This is The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions, 2001, which isn't referenced already; the Lewis book already in use is Lewis 2003, so "Lewis p. 176" causes confusion.
2. Gooden isn't the author of that book (she just wrote an intro). The author is Mrs. Edward Mix, and the title is Faith Cures, and Answers to Prayer.
3. Gooden's intro isn't about Eddy (she is mentioned only in passing).
4. I can't find much of a publishing history for Gooden.
5. Gooden doesn't say anything about Eddy being alone without her magnetic healer, doesn't mention Quimby that I can see.
6. It wouldn't have been the significance of the event that marked the abandonment, but the event itself.
7. The edit assumes that the event (the fall) was significant at the time, but the rest of the section contradicts that. If you want to argue that it was significant for Eddy when it occurred, rather than something she invested with significance years later, you would need sources to show that (there aren't any that I'm aware of).
8. Minor punctuation issue: the period should be placed before the ref tags (i.e. after teachings).

Edit

As editor of the Christian Science Journal, Emma Curtis Hopkins secretly investigated the accusations of the Dressers. While Melton claimed Hopkins eventually left Eddy's movement because of philosophical differences, Harley claims and she may have been fired for her investigation. In 1885 Hopkins wrote of her findings "I found Eddy free to her own original inspiration. I saw all the letters said to be written to Dresser and Quimby and not one them could be held as argument against her supreme originality"

Issues

1. The article hadn't by this point mentioned the Christian Science Journal or Emma Curtis Hopkins.
2. The article had so far mentioned only one Dresser, not two.
3. Why did Hopkins have to investigate secretly? Needs an explanation.
4. Who is Harley? (needs full name, link or description on first reference)
5. That Hopkins might have been fired for this makes no sense, so would have to be explained (this is just a guess on Harley's part, and indeed she goes on to qualify it).
6. This is the first mention of letters.
7. Minor punctuation issue: the comma should be placed before the ref tags (i.e. after differences), and the final sentence lacks a period.
8. Minor referencing issue: the article uses short refs in the text and long refs in the References section.

An article has to have a narrative flow, so that someone reading it from start to finish will understand it. Material can't just be pasted in; each sentence and paragraph within a section should flow from the previous one. It's important to check that new material hasn't already been mentioned, and that it doesn't contradict other material without explanation. When a new name is introduced, it needs to be linked or described, sometimes both. When a new issue is introduced, it has to be explained.

Also, an effort should be made to determine whether a source is appropriate for an issue, rather than relying on the minimum threshold of reliability. It's worth checking, too, that the source is scholarly and rigorous, and doesn't express a tiny-minority view (which could mean the source should be used with caution and in-text attribution, or perhaps not used at all). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

continuing the denomination discussion

Not sure why this was archived.

Slim Virgin, we need to discuss why this article will not use the word 'denomination. Why aren't you participating in this discussion?

"The Christian Science Church is considered a religious denomination with an organization in the United States."http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/87563.pdf RS sources that refer to Christian Science as a denomination.

"Between 1900 and 1925 Christian Science was one of the fastest growing denominations in the United States"

Vorton, James C, Nature Cures, The History of American Medicine in America, Oxford University Press (page 123)http://books.google.com/booksid=N21eyOQlE0kC&pg=PA123&dq=women+founded+denomination+eddy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ymEPU6uzDeHQ0wHwkoDoBQ&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=christian%20science&f=false

".... women were preaching and some like the Pentecostal Aimme Semple Mc Phersm, the Shaker Ann Lee, The Seventh Day Adventist Ellen Gould White, and the Christian Scientist Mary Baker Eddy, founded their own denominations."

Oppenheimer, Mark; Knocking on Heaven's Door: American Religion in the Age of Counterculture, Yale Press (page 134) ://books.google.com/books?id=7j6wzn4Aoz8C&pg=PA134&dq=denomination+founded+by+women+eddy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lVwPU97vMO-50AGF4YGoBQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=denomination%20founded%20by%20women%20eddy&f=false

"Revivalism and the work of charismatic leaders had also been an important source of new denominations contributing not only to the schims of the Great Revival period earlier in the century but also to the later emergence of such denominations as the Seventh Day Adventist, Christian Science, Salvation Army, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Pentecostal Holiness Church."

Wuthhow, Robert; The Restructuring of American Religion, Princeton University Press pg 21

"In most books on cults published from the turn of the century inot the 1960's the largest share of space is devoted to movements that generally viewed themselves as Christianity and eventually would be recognized as respectable denominations: Christian Science and New Thought groups, the Latter Day Saints, apocalyptic sects like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Pentecostal Adventists."

Jenkins, Philip; Mystics and Messiahs, Cults and New Religions in American History, Oxford Univerisity Press. page 46

"Christian Science and Seventh Day Adventism were two denominations that institutionalized their approaches to healing and the body in religious context"

Harvey, Paul; Themes in Religion and American Culture; The University of North Carolina Press. p. 86

1. "It is by no means easy to produce direct evidence of the age structure of the Christian Science denomination in this country"
2. "Christian Science is one of the few denominations in the United States which had, even by 1926 spread.
3. " Christian Scientists had risen by 300 per cent in value, a figure approximated by only one other denomination - the Disciples of Christ."

:::Wilson, Bryan; Sects and Societies, Univerisity of California Press, pages 205, 149, 150

"In 1875 Mary Baker Eddy (1821-1910) introduced a new variety of Protestantism with a radical rendition of the modernist position: not only can Christianity accommodate science, it is science" :::Hillerbrand, Hans, The Encyclopedia of Protestantism,p 410

"Christian Science, religious denomination founded in the United States in 1879 by Mary Baker Eddy (1821–1910), author of the book that contains the definitive statement of its teaching, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (1875). It is widely known for its highly controversial practice of spiritual healing...." :::Melton, Gordon and Gottschalk, Stephen - Encyclopedia Britannia, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/115181/Christian-Science/8362/Significance

"The increasing pluralization and secularization of society, as well as the substabtial splintering of Protestantism and the creation of new non-orthodox denominations such as Christian Science and the Latter Day Saints, weakened the social and cultural consensus of traditionally Protestant nations."

Naphy, William, The Protestant Revolution: From Martin Luther to Martin Luther King Jr. Random House page clxxxii.

'"Fry eyed four major denominations which had doubled in size in the previous twenty years. These were the Church of Christ, Scientist, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the African Methodist Episcopal Church and the Churches of Christ."'''' :::Marty, Martin, University of Chicago Press, Modern American Religion, Volumne 2 1919-1941. p 33

"Seventh Day Adventism remains unusual among the new denominations which include the Church of Christ, Scientist, the Church of Latter Day Saints, and Jehovah's Witnesses in establishing training hospitals and contributing actively to medical research. Several but not all of the denominations have instituted strict codes of dietary practice. Between the physicians and the Christian Scientists, between the physcisians and the Jehovah's Witnesses, relations have been and remain strained" :::Faubin, James; An Anthology of Ethics, Cambridge University Press p 228

"Another illustration of the policy of the law in preventing religious opinion from resulting in overt acts of afforded by the Christian Scientists. This denomination believes that all the ills of the body can be cured by prayers." :::Zollermann, Carl; American Civil Church Law, The Lawbook Exchange pg 18Simplywater (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Break

Simplywater, I'm sorry but I think this is going to be my last response to you, barring anything unforeseen. (By the way, the more bold, italics and raw links there are in your posts, the harder they are to read.)

You are using the word denomination in a loaded way. Most people who use it simply mean religion or religious group. Just as it's best to avoid the words sect and cult, it's similarly sensible to avoid the word denomination in case it's understood in its loaded sense. (Sect is not used in the article at all to describe CS; cult is used only in one sentence to describe how CS was seen historically, and in a second to describe that some church people were angered by the Bliss Knapp book because it made CS look like a cult.) The article therefore sticks with terms that most of the academic sources (not only cherry-picked ones) use and would not dispute. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Due Weight.

Trying to understand what you mean by "loaded". It seems like a very normal word to me. Which you refuse to use. That is your perspective.

Could you give me a source that says that 'denomination' is a loaded word? Perhaps in a Orthodox Christian world that wants to control what is a denomination and what is not, the word is loaded. :But Wiki doesn't live in that world.

Your opinion needs to be sourced. Do you have one? Love to see it. Simplywater (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The word is used simply to mean religion most of the time. But there is an academic debate about the denomination–sect–cult divide, where the terms have particular meanings, and some scholars say Christian Science is not a denomination in that sense. (I had assumed you knew this; otherwise there would be no reason for you to keep adding it.) Because the word has a particular meaning within that debate, and not all academics agree about it, the article avoids it (so as not to take a "side"), and also avoids sect. It now also avoids cult, except for the two exceptions I mentioned above, where the use is unavoidable. Instead, the article uses terms to describe CS that no academic would object to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's count sources. How many RS sources do you have that say that say the words "It is not a denomination?".Simplywater (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)