Jump to content

Talk:Religious Science

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Suntree (talk | contribs) at 05:43, 3 April 2008 (Mentioned SSMR as source for scholarly info on RS/SOM). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RELIGIOUS SCIENCE 3/23/08 RE-DRAFT BY WONBILLIONS

Dear Hrafn: The following re-draft incorporates most of your proposed improvements, including streamlining and/or more references. If it is OK now, please re-install the entry as indicated, with the old sections that were not edited. If more changes are needed, please let me know as soon as possible. Thanks again, --Wonbillions (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Religious Science, also known as Science of Mind, was founded in 1927 by Ernest Holmes (1887-1960) and is a spiritual/philosophical/metaphysical religious movement within the New Thought movement. In general, the term "Science of Mind" applies to the teachings, while the term "Religious Science" applies to the organizations. However, adherents often tend to use the terms interchangeably. Ernest Holmes stated "Religious Science is a correlation of laws of science, opinions of philosophy, and revelations of religion applied to human needs and the aspirations of man." He also stated that Religious Science/Science of Mind (RS/SOM) is not based on any "authority" of established beliefs, but rather on "what it can accomplish" for the people who practice it. [1] It differs from another popular New Thought teaching (Unity Church, a.k.a. Unity School of Christianity) because it generally does not focus on any single traditional religion.


History

Ernest Holmes did not originally intend for RS/SOM to be a religious "church," but rather a teaching institution. In that spirit, most of the member "churches" are now changing their names to "centers." The mental healing work of Dr. Phineas P. Quimby was a source of inspiration to much of the New Thought movement, including RS/SOM. Ernest Holmes was especially strongly influenced by Emma Curtis Hopkins and by the writings of Judge Thomas Troward and Ralph Waldo Emerson, as he developed his synthesis which became known as Religious Science.[2] [3]

Upon publication of his seminal book in 1926, The Science of Mind[4], Holmes established the Institute for Religious Science and School of Philosophy in Los Angeles. This organization would later become the Church of Religious Science. Holmes had studied another New Thought teaching, Divine Science (Holmes was an ordained Divine Science Minister). He saw humans as being "open at the top" - that is, open to evolutionary improvement of consciousness in all areas of life. [5] Holmes also published a magazine called "Science of Mind," which includes inspirational articles and daily readings/affirmations; as well as a list of member UCSL (see below) centers. [6] Another RS/SOM magazine is "Creative Thought," which includes daily "Spiritual Mind Treatments" (see Teachings and Practice below), short inspirational articles, and a listing of RSI (see below) centers..[7] His teachings attracted famous celebrities of his time, including Cecil B. De Mille, Peggy Lee, and Cary Grant. [8]

Except for one notable exception (see below) the concepts of "Open at the Top" and "New Thought" have inspired the organization itself and its teachings to evolve over the years. As stated in the book "New Thought: A Practical American Spirituality," "New Thought still is evolving; it may yet be the point at which religion, philosophy, and science come together as the most effective combination to move the world to greater peace, plenty, health, and harmony. Many believe it might be the quintessential spirituality for the next millenium." [9]

Although, in 1953, the (then) Church of Religious Science split into two organizations, known today as the United Centers for Spiritual Living, or UCSL (formerly the United Church of Religious Science, or UCRS) and Religious Science International, or RSI, on September 11, 2007, the two organizations met in Los Angeles, CA, and voted to begin a process of integration into a single organization once again. A third branch of RS/SOM, Global Religious Science Ministries, or GRSM, was founded by former RSI ministers who envisioned an expanded definition of ministry. In addition, there are some smaller branches, as well as independent RS/SOM centers. The teachings of the branches are generally similar and the organizations collaborate on events. For a detailed history of Religious Science, see the books "Spirits in Rebellion"[10] and "Open at the Top..." [11]


Teaching and Practice

The RS/SOM teaching generally embraces the Idealism and Panentheism philosophies. It teaches that all beings are expressions of and part of Infinite Intelligence, also known as Spirit, HigherConsciousness, or God. It believes that, because God is all there is in the universe (not just present in Heaven, or in assigned deities, as believed by traditional teachings), Its powers can be used by all humans to the extent that they realize Its presence. Ernest Holmes said "God is not ... a person, but a Universal Presence ... already in our own soul, already operating through our own consciousness."[12]

The Introduction to "The Science of Mind" text[13] describes "The Thing Itself" (God or Infinite Intelligence), "The Way It Works," "What It Does," and "How to Use It." Although Holmes was criticized for not focusing much on love, he did say that "Love rules through Law." (i.e. the Law of Mind or Cause and Effect) and "Love points the way and Law makes the way possible." [14] [15]

RS/SOM believes that people can achieve more fulfilling lives through the practice called Spiritual Mind Treatment (Treatment), or Affirmative Prayer. Spiritual Mind Treatment is a step-by-step process, in which one states the desired outcome as if it has already happened. In that way, it differs from traditional prayer, since it does not ask God for assistance. It declares human partnership with God to achieve success. Treatment is to be stated as personal (first person), positive, powerful (with feeling), and present (is happening right now, or has already happened). The goal is to gain clarity in thinking that guides action to be consistent with the desired outcome. The Treatment sets off a new chain of causation in Mind that leads one to act according to the good for which one is treating. [16] Spiritual Mind Treatment, as currently taught in RS/SOM centers, contains five steps: Recognition, Unification, Realization, Thanksgiving, and Release. [17]

Classes and seminars at RS/SOM centers teach techniques for fluently conducting extemporaneous Spiritual Mind Treatments. Someone who is certified to conduct Treatments during services or to assist people through Treatment is called a licensed Practitioners (who carry the designation RScP) . A professional Practitioner is available for spiritual counseling by appointment and may perform some ecclesiastical functions in association with the Minister, such as giving Treatments during services or making announcements. Everyone is also encouraged to do Spiritual Mind Treatment on their own to solve various problems in their lives. Sermons of ministers and Practitioner classes often use the phrase "Treat and move your feet." That is, Treatments are not effective unless they are applied in every day life. Personal responsibility is a major tenet of RS/SOM. Another tenet is the "Law of Attraction," as presented in the popular self-help movie "The Secret". Further, RS/SOM focuses on a state of "heaven" or "hell" in this dimension, rather than the next. [18]

Some people effectively combine Spiritual Mind Treatments with various forms of meditation and a recently developed practice called "Visioning." [19]

While UCSL, RSI, and GRSM have standardized Science of Mind curriculum and course materials, the approach to the teachings may vary from center to center. Because Ernest Holmes studied numerous spiritual teachings before founding Science of Mind, Religious Science centers have ministers who bring relevant aspects of a variety of teachings into their services, including Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism (including the mystical Kabbalah), Islam, or Taoism. [20] Many Religious Science centers have active Sunday Schools, Youth Groups and Young Adult programs.

Religious Science / Science of Mind can be summarized by its "Declaration of Principles." We believe in God, the Living Spirit Almighty; one indestructible, absolute and self-existent Cause. This One manifests itself in and through all creation but is not absorbed by its creation. The manifest universe is the body of God; it is the logical and necessary outcome of the infinite self-knowingness of God. We believe in the incarnation of the Spirit in everyone and that all people are incarnations of the One Spirit. We believe in the eternality, immortality, and the continuity of the individual soul, forever and ever expanding. We believe that Heaven is within us and that we experience it to the degree that we become conscious of it. We believe the ultimate goal of life to be a complete emancipation from all discord of every nature, and that this goal is sure to be attained by all. We believe in the unity of all life, and that the highest God and the innermost God is one God. We believe that God is personal to all who feel this Indwelling Presence. We believe in the direct revelation of Truth through the intuitive and spiritual nature of the individual, and that any person who lives in close contact with the indwelling God may become a revealer of Truth. We believe that the Universal Spirit, which is God, operates through a Universal Mind, which is the Law of God; and that we are surrounded by this Creative Mind, which receives the direct impress of our thought and acts upon it. We believe in the healing of the sick through the power of this Mind. We believe in the control of conditions through the power of this Mind. We believe in the eternal Goodness, the eternal Loving-kindness, and the eternal Givingness of Life to all. We believe in our own soul, our own spirit, and our own destiny; for we understand that the life of all is God." [21]


Comments

  • Having just spent considerable time beating Wonbillions' last proposal into some semblance of order, I am not interested with attempting the same on a wholesale rewrite -- particularly as it is based on Wonbillions' last proposal without including my corrections (even to the extent of continuing to mispell "Higher Consciousness", causing it to redlink).
    • I would therefore suggest limited additions/alterations to the current article, rather than wholesale rewrites based upon an imperfect draft.
  • As it is currently formatted, it messes up the references (most probably due to a missing </ref>-tag

HrafnTalkStalk 03:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC) HrafnTalkStalk 03:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Hrafn

Greetings Hrafn....Although your edit is very concise, it includes most of the essential elements. However, there are some important but relatively minor changes and additions needed, as follows:

1. Please change the title of the entry to "Religious Science / Science of Mind"

This is not possible. Wikipedia software interprets a slash as a subdirectory/subarticle. Also I am not convinced that this clumsy double-banged nomenclature is necessary or helpful. What wording does Vahle most commonly employ to refer to this movement? HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. The logo which was originally in the upper right side of the page should be re-installed.

Done. HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. History, second sentence, should read: "... are now changing their names to "centers" - many calling themselves "Center for Spiritual Living." "

Done. HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. History, end of first paragraph: Please re-install the removed sentence, as follows: " His teachings attracted famous celebrities of his time, including Cecil B. De Mille, Peggy Lee, and Cary Grant. [22] "

Done. HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. History, middle of second paragraph: The parenthetical "(see below)" is no longer applicable because of your edit, and should be removed. In its place, I suggest a concise parenthetical, as follows: " Except for one notable exception (the separation into two major groups, which are now working toward re-unification), the concepts of ... "

Done. HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Teachings and Practice, first sentence: I think this would be more understandable as follows: " The RS/SOM teaching generally incorporates idealistic and panentheistic philosophies. "

7. Teachings and Practice, end of last paragraph: I found a good reference for visioning. Please add this sentence (with the proper link code): " Some adherents of RS/SOM also use supplemental meditation techniques, including "Visioning" [23] "

Done. HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8. Teachings and Practice, end - new paragraph sentence needed: Since you appear to be adverse to listing the "Declaration of Principles" (which is really the best way to describe the beliefs of the teaching), please at a minimum add the following sentence as a new paragraph (adding the proper code for the web link): " For greater detail about the beliefs of RS/SOM, see "What we Believe" on the website of the United Centers of Spiritual Living[24] "

Done. HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9. The last original sections are missing, as follows: Key contributors to Religious Science The following individuals have figured prominently in the growth and evolution of Religious Science: Ernest Holmes </wiki/Ernest_Holmes> Ralph Waldo Emerson </wiki/Ralph_Waldo_Emerson> Phineas Parkhurst Quimby </wiki/Phineas_Parkhurst_Quimby> Thomas Troward </wiki/Thomas_Troward> Emma Curtis Hopkins </wiki/Emma_Curtis_Hopkins> Louise Hay </wiki/Louise_Hay> Emanuel Swedenborg </wiki/Emanuel_Swedenborg> Michael Beckwith </wiki/Michael_Beckwith>

Done. HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also New Thought music </wiki/New_Thought_music> International New Thought Alliance </wiki/International_New_Thought_Alliance> Association for Global New Thought </w/index.php?title=Association_for_Global_New_Thought&action=edit&redlink=1>

Two redirects & one non-article. HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links United Centers for Spiritual Living (UCSL) <http://www.religiousscience.org/> Religious Science International (RSI) <http://www.rsintl.org/> Global Religious Science Ministries (GRSM) <http://www.grsm.org/> RSI Youth Program <http://www.rsyouth.org> UCSL Youth Program <http://www.religiousscience.org/youth/> Retrieved from "<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Science>"

This seems an overly-long & duplicative list. Will include the first link. HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your objective and diligent efforts. --Wonbillions (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO HRAFN..TWEAKING

See my answers below yours. --Wonbillions (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Hrafn....Thanks for incorporating most of my recommendations. I have some questions and further suggestions on the rest of them.

1. OK...SOM link to RS works now...it didn't before.--Wonbillions (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Please see the home page of UCRS at http://www.religiousscience.org/xindex02.html . Although the name of the website has not yet been updated from UCRS to United Centers for Spiritual Living, they state "Welcome to..... Please update the logo name accordingly.--Wonbillions (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the official title that the source (the USVA) gives to this emblem, so is the most appropriate caption. If you don't like this, then I suggest you take it up with them. HrafnTalkStalk 03:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. OK...I see your point. Then please just name them within the suggested sentence. The section would not be complete without them. It would then read: " Except for one notable exception (the separation into several major groups (United Centers for Spiritual Living, Religious Science International, and Global Religious Science Ministries, which are now working toward re-unification), the concepts of ... " --Wonbillions (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First provide me with a WP:RS mentioning these groups as significant constituents of the Religious Science movement. HrafnTalkStalk 03:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. OK...thanks--Wonbillions (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. OK....thanks--Wonbillions (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, --Wonbillions </w/index.php?title=User:Wonbillions&action=edit&redlink=1> (talk </wiki/User_talk:Wonbillions>) 21:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religious_Science>"

Two Remaining Issues

Hi Hrafn...Please see my responses below yours:

Wonbillions: please STOP creating new sections for this! Read WP:TALKPAGE to learn proper talkpage etiquette. HrafnTalkStalk 03:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please see the home page of UCRS at <http://www.religiousscience.org/xindex02.html> . Although the name of the website has not yet been updated from UCRS to United Centers for Spiritual Living, they state "Welcome to..... Please update the logo name accordingly.--Wonbillions </w/index.php?title=User:Wonbillions&action=edit&redlink=1> (talk </wiki/User_talk:Wonbillions>) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the official title that the source (the USVA) gives to this emblem, so is the most appropriate caption. If you don't like this, then I suggest you take it up with them. Hrafn </wiki/User:Hrafn>Talk </wiki/User_talk:Hrafn>Stalk </wiki/Special:Contributions/Hrafn> 03:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The USVA appears to have simply collected all symbols. Why are they the source of every spiritual belief? Why do I need to contact a reference when the REAL source (UCSL) is saying they have changed their name from UCRS? Isn't that overkill? There may be other references...do I need to contact them all? Please update the name.--Wonbillions (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The USVA is the source for this image, so if we use this image we should follow their nomenclature for it, lacking compelling reasons or evidence to the contrary. HrafnTalkStalk 03:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. OK...I see your point. Then please just name them within the suggested sentence. The section would not be complete without them. It would then read: " Except for one notable exception (the separation into several major groups (United Centers for Spiritual Living, Religious Science International, and Global Religious Science Ministries, which are now working toward re-unification), the concepts of ... " --Wonbillions </w/index.php?title=User:Wonbillions&action=edit&redlink=1> (talk </wiki/User_talk:Wonbillions>) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

First provide me with a WP:RS </wiki/Wikipedia:RS> mentioning these groups as significant constituents of the Religious Science movement. Hrafn </wiki/User:Hrafn>Talk </wiki/User_talk:Hrafn>Stalk </wiki/Special:Contributions/Hrafn> 03:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

First, the January, 2008 version of the page (which included all three organizations) appears to have been written by an RS/SOM minister, who is familiar with the subject. Second, our Center used to belong to RSI and now belongs to United. And, thirdly, the splinter groups' websites are saying they are "Science of Mind," which is a registered trademark. See their sites at http://www.rsintl.org/ and http://www.grsm.org/about.htm . So please include them for completeness, as suggested above.--Wonbillions (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of this counts as WP:RS. If they are important constituent parts of a notable movement then why have no reliable sources written about their relationship to this movement? HrafnTalkStalk 03:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, --Wonbillions (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage errors

Wonbillions, your most recent edits screwed up the formatting of the section to the point that it was illegible (apparently by removing colon-indentations & replacing square-brackets with weird tags), and I had to revert. Evidence of them can also be seen in your copy & pastes above with normal formatting (from previous sections) being replaced with weird code like "</wiki/Wikipedia:RS>". In any case my responses to what you appeared to be attempting to say can be boiled down to "I won't make any further changes until you can provide me with WP:RSs explicitly supporting the changes." HrafnTalkStalk 05:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Several points, Hrafn: 1. I didn't do the formatting...I was relying on your expertise to do that - as you have in the past. The weird codes are due to the copy and pasting I did from my word processor. As I said on your talk page, I had to do it that way because I lost my text one time when time ran out on my log-in.

2. If you want to make the graphic description inconsistent with the present name for the organization, I give up with your lack of reason. It would be best to delete the description rather than make it wrong. I gave very adequate references to the fact that the name has been changed. It doesn't need to be "third party" in this case...It's even better...coming from the "horse's mouth"....their website. What about that don't you understand?

  • If their website is anything to go by, they're using both names (and the original rather more frequently). In any case, we have USVA to say that it is the UCRS symbol & now UCRS to say that it is a general RS symbol. Which is good enough for the time being, unless and until some other faction comes along to deny this generality. HrafnTalkStalk 05:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. However, I can't tolerate your refusal to include the name of the organization that comprises about half of the Centers. It was there in the original draft and should be there again. Again, I gave adequate references that don't need to be third party, since it comes from the "horse's mouth"...the website of the organization, as well as the separate magazine they publish.

  • None of the organisations are named in the article, because you have provided no WP:RSs discussing them. UCRS/UCSL is listed in the external links (EL) section because it is the owner of the "religiousscience.org" domain name, which at least earns them the presumption of relevance. If Religious Sscience is notable and if this "organization ... comprises about half of the Centers" then why can't you provide reliable sources discussing their relationship to the wider movement? The order of action (in quick succession) should be to (1) find such a WP:RS (2) mention their significance in the article body & (3) provide an EL to them once we've established that they're a significant part of the RS movement. HrafnTalkStalk 05:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. I would hate to do this, but if you can't see my point of view, I'll have to go over your head at Wikipedia.

--Wonbillions (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Independent Reference

OK Hrafn....I found an independent reference for this uncontroversial historical event. So the suggested new paragraph at the end of the History section would read:

The one exception to the evolution of the organization is the creation of a new organization with exactly the same philosophy. In 1953, Religious Science International (RSI) was created from the original United Church of Religious Science (which is now known as the United Centers for Spiritual Living - UCSL). Today both organizations have a significant number of member centers/churches. [25] [26] Since then, smaller RS/SOM organizations have formed as well. On September 11, 2007, UCSL and RSI began the process of re-uniting. [27]

One more nit... I forgot to put in the date of the Braden book (Spirits in Rebellion)...It's 1984. Please do it.

Thanks for making the graphic description neutral.

By the way, I didn't do anything on the RS page directly. After my first failed attempt at editing, I've been putting all my suggestions into this page and asking you to modify it and insert it with the correct codes. So it must have been another newbie.

Also, when we're done with this edit, I plan to solicit comments from other Religious Scientists, friends, and family on any further improvements they might suggest. I'll again run anything significant past you.

Thanks,--Wonbillions (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is hard to take seriously as a WP:RS a website that prominently features a map from J.R.R. Tolkein's The Silmarillion (not that I'm dissing Tolkein mind, but it is highly off-topic & fanciful in the context). Also, it is explicitly written from the viewpoint of an RS insider, so is hardly "indepedent" of the movement.
    1. Also your wording "was created from" is singularly uninformative of how/why this split occured.
  2. The directory listings cannot be used to establish "significant number of member centers/churches" without significant impermissible synthesis of these sources (see also WP:PSTS). They are also most certainly not "independent".
  3. You provide no source on "smaller RS/SOM organizations".


[Per 1] I beg to differ, Hrafn. Please look at the site more carefully. From the "About" page, I gleaned this description of the site: "The Piscean-Aquarian Ministry is a personal ministry devoted to introducing others to New Thought." So Religious Science is only ONE of the New Thought teachings the site talks about. It's perfect as an impartial reference, since it is not biased toward any one of the New Thought teachings.--Wonbillions (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "personal ministry" brings it under WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper). It is not a WP:RS (as the fact that it accepts uncited wikipedia material should clearly indicate). HrafnTalkStalk 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, it cites wikipedia as its source for re-uniting process, and wikipedia (or any wiki) is not a WP:RS for a wikipedia article (which should make sense, as otherwise we'd allow circular referencing, and thus any claim no matter how hair-brained).

I see your point, Hrafn. The 9/11/07 beginning of the re-uniting of the two factions was in the Wikipedia section that you deleted for lack of reference. The only thing I can say is that this is too recent an event to go into the history books yet. The minister at our center mentioned it in one of her sermons. I therefore included that sermon as a reference (see below). It that's not good enough, please just let it go and let later editors correct any discrepancies.--Wonbillions (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you minister said is not verifiable, so not an acceptable source. Plus we have no way of knowing where she got her information from, so no way of knowing how reliable it is. HrafnTalkStalk 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Per 3] Wouldn't it suffice to cite the websites of some of the smaller organizatiions, just to show (non-controvercially) that they exist? I didn't do that below, but let me know if that would work.--Wonbillions (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, again it would be considered synthesis of the material, as well as being very messy. HrafnTalkStalk 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, you're going to have to do better than this. HrafnTalkStalk 04:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Hrafn.... I can see where there might be some confusion. Here's another try at some language for a new paragraphe at the end of the History section:

The one exception to the evolution of the organization is the split from it of a faction which had exactly the same philosophy, but differed in its administration. In 1953, that faction separated from the United Church of Religious Science (which is now known as the United Centers for Spiritual Living - UCSL) and called itself Religious Science International (RSI) . [28] On September 11, 2007, UCSL and RSI began the process of re-uniting. [29]

Thanks--Wonbillions (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above comments. The problem that we face is that the Religious Science movement is very poorly documented in reliable sources. This means that there is comparatively little verifiable information to give on the subject. As WP:V is a fundamental policy for wikipedia, there isn't anything we can do about the fact. The article needs to be based on solid historical scholarship (such as Vahle's book) and quality news reports. (Oh, and I've taken the liberty of restoring my numbered-list of points to its proper formatting & referencing your replies to it by point-number.) HrafnTalkStalk 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Open at the top: The life of Ernest Holmes," by Neal Vahle, p. 7, ASIN: B0006QE8J2
  2. ^ "Spirits in Rebellion: The Rise and Development of New Thought" by Charles Samuel Braden, p.295, 289-291 ISBN-10:0870740253 ISBN-13: 978-0870740251
  3. ^ "New Thought: A Practical American Spirituality," C. Alan Anderson and Deborah Whitehouse, copyright 1995, revised in paperback 2003, ISBN-10: 1410701727 ISBN-13: 978-1410701725, pp. 26-28 Religious Science
  4. ^ "The Science of Mind," 1926, various available editions: ISBN-10: 0874778654 ISBN-13: 978-0874778656; ISBN-10: 0874779219 ISBN-13:978-0874779219; Audio Cassette edition: ISBN-10: 0917849078 ISBN-13: 978-0917849077
  5. ^ op.cit. "Open at the Top..." p. 146
  6. ^ "Science of Mind Magazine" ISSN 0036-8458, [1] 1-800-247-6463
  7. ^ "Creative Thought Magazine" ISSN 1093-8761, 1-800-662-1348, [2]
  8. ^ op. cit. "Open at the Top...," pp. 2-3
  9. ^ op.cit. "New Thought: A Practical American Spirituality," Introduction
  10. ^ "Spirits in Rebellion, op. cit., chapter 9 "Religious Science", pp. 285-311
  11. ^ op.cit."Open at the Top....," Chapter 1 "It Was Not a Planned Thing" pp. 1-5
  12. ^ op. cit. "Open at the Top...," p. 7
  13. ^ op. cit. "The Science of Mind," pp. 25-60
  14. ^ op. cit. "Open at the Top ..." pp. 12, 13
  15. ^ op. cit."The Science of Mind," p. 43.
  16. ^ op. cit. "The Science of Mind" by Ernest Holmes, Part Three: Spiritual Mind Healing, pp.181-323
  17. ^ op. cit. "Open at the Top ...," p. 150
  18. ^ various sermons of RS/SOM ministers at centers, including the Center for Spiritual Living in Albany, NY - many available on audio tape or CD
  19. ^ The technique of "Visioning" began in RS/SOM by Dr. Michael Beckwith, a former RS/SOM minister
  20. ^ op.cit. various sermons of RS/SOM ministers at centers
  21. ^ United Center for Spiritual Living website [3]
  22. ^ op. cit. "Open at the Top...," pp. 2-3
  23. ^ A description of the "Visioning" technique can be found at http://www.religiousscience.org/ucrs_site/education/visioning.html
  24. ^ http://www.religiousscience.org/ucrs_site/philosophy/believe.html
  25. ^ UCSL listing of member centers http://www.religiousscience.org/ucrs_site/directory/index.html
  26. ^ RSI search engine for member churches http://www.rsintl.org/churches/default.asp
  27. ^ Lessons in Truth website (The Piscean-Aquarian Ministry for New Thought) http://www.lessonsintruth.info/
  28. ^ Lessons in Truth website (The Piscean-Aquarian Ministry for New Thought) http://www.lessonsintruth.info/
  29. ^ Minister-in-training Joanne McFadden, Jan. 6, 2008 sermon at Albany, NY Center for Spiritual Living

Wonbillions -- STOP STUFFING UP THE TALK PAGE!

Your edits, such as this one repeatedly stuff up the talkpage's formatting by replacing normal formatting with weird & non-functional "</wiki/Wikipedia:RS>", "</wiki/J.R.R._Tolkein>", "</wiki/The_Silmarillion>", etc code & removing indentation/list formatting (":"s, "#"s & "*"s). This renders the sections you have edited illegible & so I have reverted again. I will continue to revert (and will not even attempt to try and decipher the contents of your comments) until you actually make a comment/edit that is intelligible. HrafnTalkStalk 07:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn...It read fine to me after I did it - codes and all. For some reason, codes get imbedded when somebody copies and pastes from the site to their word processor, and back...which I had to do, as I explained before. I suggest you bring that up to the webmaster of Wikipedia.

So I'll do it the slow way. Please see my responses to your comments above. Thanks,--Wonbillions (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I most commonly edit in wikipedia's edit window, I occasionally transfer text to my word processor to do repeated substitutions of text. I have never had this problem. In using a word processor to edit you should only be using it as a text-processor to type in the raw code, not as a WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) editor of the marked-up section. If you are doing the latter, it's your problem, not wikipedia's if it goes amiss. HrafnTalkStalk 03:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of the Society for the Study of Metaphysical Religion featured a scholarly article that covers the history of RS/SOM a few years ago. I may one of the only people to have belonged to churches affiliated with UCRS, RSI, and GRSM and also am a lifetime member of SSMR. Suntree (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Religious_Science&oldid=202984805"