Talk:Christian Science/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Christian Science. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Idealism proposal

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

We have this sentence in the lead: “they subscribe to a radical form of philosophical idealism…”

Nothing turns up on “philosophical idealism” in the three sources cited. Wilson 1961 uses “subjective idealism” once in relation to CS (134). Battin doesn’t use “idealism" at all. Looking at other sources, Schoepflin uses “radical idealism” (2003, 28). But I don’t find any sources that use “philosophical idealism.” Gottschalk 2006 calls MBE’s theology pragmatic over against philosophical.

So proposal is to remove “philosophical” and just keep “idealism.” Or cite Schoepflin 2003, 28, and revise e.g. "they subscribe to a form of radical idealism" ("radical" is used pretty often to describe CS, but Wilson’s “subjective idealism" appears to be a singular use). Ath271 (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

From the entry on "idealism" in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy: "The philosophical doctrine that reality is somehow mind-correlative or mind-coordinated - that the real objects constituting the "external world" are not independent of cognizing minds, but exist only as in some way correlative to mental operations. The doctrine centres on the conception that reality as we understand it reflects the workings of mind. Perhaps its most radical version is the Oriental spiritualistic or panpsychistic idea, renewed in Christian Science, that minds and their thoughts are all there is - that reality is simply the sum total of the visions (or dreams?) of one or more minds." While the description is (at least) incomplete (it leaves out the core issue of God as the one Mind) this is a reputable scholarly source that includes CS in the most radical category of philosophical idealism. I would be concerned that if "philosophical" is left out that the everyday sense of "idealism" (motivation by human ideals) would be understood, which would be incorrect.Be-nice:-) (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

BN, so terribly sorry to let your comment languish. As I explained to Cpiral above (in the 15 mins I had over the weekend), I put this page on watch a few weeks ago (probably the day you replied) and figured I'd get email notifications re: changes. That hasn't been the case! I'm not sure why, but at any rate, I'm back to manually checking and hope you won't give up on me.

The problem with the "philosophical" characterization is that the sources cited don't use it. Idealism, yes; philosophical, no. I think I see your concern with "idealism" alone: that it suggests a type of humanism. I'm not sure whether I agree that this is the case, and overall I feel that possibly suggesting something is better than inaccurately stating something.

Yet both concerns can be satisfied rather easily. The Cambridge Dictionary entry you quote could be sourced, along with Schoepflin 2003 p. 28, to replace "philosophical" with "radical." Would you support that?

NB: You may recall that this same Camb. Dict. entry was once sourced on this page to describe CS as "panpsychistic," but that was removed because it is an isolated source and thus considered "tentative" by WP standards. But the "radical" characterization appears pretty regularly and so could be used. Ath271 (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ath, sorry for delay replying. "Radical" is fine, but since the idealism in question is in a dictionary of philosophy I don't see why "philosophical" shouldn't apply. Idealism in a non-philosophical sense can mean simply being motivated by non-materialistic ideals, which is not really what CS is about, at least not essentially. For example, Schopenhauer was an idealist in a philosophical sense, but not in the everyday sense; and Marx was (perhaps) an idealist in the everyday sense, but not in the philosophical sense. Mary Baker Eddy would have been an idealist in both senses: but in her case the philosophical sense is the most important.Be-nice:-) (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem, BN, and thanks. "Philosophy" is often a cognate for "religion" in a certain sense (one usually divorced from praxis), so the issue isn't with the use of that word per se. It's with the particular phrase used here, which invokes an idealist tradition (Hegelian) CS isn't a part of. I'm on the run but will clarify what I mean later today, and think on your examples a bit more. Ath271 (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay BN, I've given more thought to your examples and want to be sure I'm following the logic in them. A) I'm not sure what the end argument might be here, but it seems that CS could be (and has been) very much described as "being motivated by non-materialistic ideals." What instead do you see it motivated by, if not by non-materialistic ideals (principles, values, standards, patterns, models)? B) When you separate "philosophical" from "everyday" idealism, what exactly do you mean? Theory vs praxis? That would make sense given your Schop./Marx examples, but I want to be sure I'm following you. Ath271 (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A little more on this when you're able to have a look. I wasn't sure I was right in equating phil. idealism with Hegel strictly speaking, so after getting a bit confused looking through the Stanford Encycl. of Phil., I asked a friend from Stanford with a BA in philosophy and PhD in phil of religion. Her acquaintance w CS is through doctoral exams and readings in American religions. She says (just pasting verbatim): "If you're talking with people most familiar with continental traditions of philosophy/theology, then yes, "philosophical idealism" will most certainly conjure Hegel. I wouldn't really say it's a cognate for german idealism, though - yes there are many idealisms (Husserl's, for example - and tho he's German, it's an entirely different century...). If your readers know Anglo-American philosophy, however, they may not think about Hegel at all. There are, no doubt, strains of idealism in Anglo-American phil, not that I could really describe them to you. So: as to whether Xn Science is a philosophical idealism, I really don't know, but... [to] emphasize praxis and the "radical" part over the idealism makes me think that it's all quite different from "philosophical idealism" - both the German kind and whatever Anglo-American kind there may be. On the other hand, the key feature of idealism is that it posits the reality of ideas over material or empirical objects/objectivity. So by that measure, Xn Science might be an idealism (?)"

She articulates my hunch (and refines/corrects it) far better than I could. "Phil idealism" recalls specific German or Anglo traditions CS isn't grouped with (from the perspective of those traditions, not the perspective of CS per se). And "phil idealism" is generally conceived over against praxis and "radical idealism." It's odd to describe it as both. So from a phil. perspective it appears to be an "idealism" and a "radical idealism," but not a "phil idealism" (which helps clarify why none of our sources describes it that way). Ath271 (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Note how at the bottom of the page, on the expandable "Idealism" template, the single word "idealism" is used to convey "philosophical" idealism when used by itself. Expanding that we have many kinds of philosophical idealism, mostly fitting for CS. I think our article could define CS by placing it in the areas of how it fits in philosophies of yore and science today. — Cpiral Cpiral 00:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, idealism is a topic within the discipline of philosophy. But within that discipline, the descriptor "philosophical" has special meaning in contrast to "radical," "pragmatic," and so forth. That more fine-grained level is what this minor proposal concerns itself with. (The macro level is interesting in its own right, though a different conversation - linked in a cosmic sense, but not a specific one!) Ath271 (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits again

Latest comment: 10 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

Would like to raise again concerns with biased and vague language in last paragraph under the Metaphysical Family section: currently "they differed in that, where New Thought was inclusive, Eddy's philosophy was dogmatic and sectarian". Dogmatic and sectarian are both words that don't contribute much to the facts but do have negative connotations. I would suggest changing to "they differed in that, where New Thought was inclusive of many beliefs, Eddy's philosophy was strictly Christian" Playdoh poetry (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Ok, going ahead Playdoh poetry (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Playdoh, your edit changed the meaning of the sentence, and moved it away from its source material. It also left it making no sense. The issue is not related to Christianity (other New Thoughters were Christian too); it is about how Eddy's views were dogmatic and sectarian compared with other New Thought groups, and how she saw herself as delivering a final revelation. The next section (Christian Science theology) deals with Eddy and Christianity. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi SV, what do "dogmatic" and "sectarian" mean to you? Could you elaborate on what you think those words convey? Playdoh poetry (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Great to see improvements and a move toward more balanced perspective in this paragraph. I think this sentence should be removed: "Eddy's idea of malicious animal magnetism marked another distinction (that people can be harmed in some sense by the bad thoughts of others), introducing an element of fear that was absent from the New Thought literature.[23] ". It now seems like a rather random point; there are of course many distinctions and this is a fairly minor one. It also seems rather sweeping to say that fear was entirely absent from New Thought literature - that would need more backup. The paragraph would run more smoothly as follows:

New Thought and Christian Science differed in that Eddy saw her views as a final revelation.[22] Moreover, Eddy dismissed the material world as an illusion, whereas New Thought viewed matter as merely subordinate to Mind; this led Eddy to reject the use of medicine, or materia medica, and made Christian Science the most controversial of the metaphysical groups. Reality for Eddy was purely spiritual.[24]

Playdoh poetry (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No, MAM was a crucial distinction, not a minor one at all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there a source for that? It seems like there are a lot of major distinctions - focus on Christianity, Biblical emphasis, etc that are discussed only later. Not sure why harm from bad thoughts (or MAM as you term it) would be such a focus at this point in the article. Also, I'm not sure what "introducing an element of fear" is mean to indicate. I don't think there is evidence that Eddy intentionally tried to introduce fear to her religion, nor is there evidence that New Thought is completely free from the notion of fear. At the very least, I think "introducing an element of fear" should be removed. It seems very subjective. Playdoh poetry (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The sources for any given point in the article are in the footnote that follows it, at the end of the sentence or paragraph. There are many sources that discuss the importance of MAM to CS, and how it served to differentiate CS from the New Thoughters. I used independent sources to support the material, but it's worth noting that a key CS source – Stephen Gottschalk (The Emergence of Christian Science in American Religious Life, pp. 128–129) – is in agreement with them. He contrasts Eddy's focus on MAM with the New Thoughters' avowed optimism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, have also done a bit of poking and agree that consensus is that this was an important distinction. Interesting. I think the bigger issue here may be that though this is relevant in this section, it is also a relatively minor point in the subject of CS in general. So perhaps the sections could to be reorganized. I am going to have a closer look at how encyclopediae structure their articles on CS and then propose something. Playdoh poetry (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a key difference described in the lit. The way the popular cultural/scientific term "animal mag" was integrated into religions emerging in the late 19th c. differed across the board. Taves 1999 traces how what she identifies as the mesmeric and NTh tradition adopts this European-derived term as its practitioners commonly used it, to describe a healing force; whereas CS adopts it as a unique way of describing the human concept/experience of evil. The term phased out of Nth usage (argues Taves) with the advent of psychiatry, which began to culturally embody the functions previously held by "animal mag" in its mesmeric-healing sense and eclipsed it as a "scientific" practice, partly by introducing hypnosis as a therapeutic.

So, a historical and theological difference. The larger picture seems to be that these two religions have very different theodicies. Ath271 (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra context, Ath. What might be useful then is to have a bit of this in the paragraph. The current wording "MBEs idea of MAM" implies she just came up with this out of the blue, but you seem to be saying (based on Taves) she was responding to and utilizing a popular term. Also I've seen less of the "malicious" AM in the lit that I've looked at, though it does pop up. Do you have any suggestions on how the sentence in question could instead highlight the historical and theological differences between Nth and CS's definitions of AM? It seems like that would be relevant to and improve this paragraph. Playdoh poetry (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Theodicies, how evil could exist. (CS had no theodicy?) MAM, how another mind is evil. CS was formed before psychiatry. Hmm, CS was formed before the light bulb. MAM, then is history. MAM was Eddy saying her detractors were hurting her church, a church which was (and still is) a thing of good intention (per extreme judicial and social scrutiny), and so the obstructors/doubters were an evil (if only because they were a distraction from her personal contemplation and compilation that was constructing the church that was to do the good in the world). In her effort to see the world as having no evil, she must have been having personal difficulties to the extent that she asked those other people to work to dispel the MAM influence coming from her personal detractors, and it must have worked for her personally because she kept doing it. So what? MAM is not part of CS theology. (It's part of the History section in the Eddy article?)

Besides, it might very well be a category error for us to try to compare the MAM in her personal experiences of her mind vs the evil in a theodicy of a religion vs the vague generality of a cultural historical movement (NTh) that said there was no MAM: the MAM and fear just get further and further removed of course as we reach NTh. The thing about the Mind: it's supposed to be one, but just try that oneness thing and see how hard it is to accept someone else mesmerizing you (for better or for worse) when Christianity has an inner personal healer/mesmer that is a mind (Jesus) that is the mind of the Mind. Unlike Quimby/NTh Eddy rejected mesmerism as a theology and accepted it as a personal necessity, so MAM's not a CS theology, just as Eddy is not CS theology. Here's one for ya: Solipsism, the belief that all is one's own mind. (It is a weak philosophy in the sense that it has been refuted soundly several times, for aesthetic and pragmatic reasons, as either a "scientific" truth or a computable/logical truth.) — Cpiral Cpiral 10:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Theology has a history. That's all I meant to imply! And that the sources here seem to be saying that based on its use of the term "AM," CS has a distinct theodicy, compared to Nth. The question of how MBE's personal experience was and was not interwoven with her theological choices is a rich one, though not one I imagine can be settled here. Likewise I'll leave the ins and outs of theodicy as a larger discipline and inquiry for another time, though I duly note and appreciate your points. Ath271 (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Playdogh poetry, at this stage of the section of the article in question, the appropriateness of noting MAM is, to me, now a relatively minor issue for discussion. There are bigger problems. (In the article I think we agree it is awkwardly developed, stands out sorely.) I believe you'll find a Criticisms section is an encyclopedic style (and discussed in the MoS). Now as for the reason for "recent edits", (our discussion topic), I think the section Metaphysical family is trying to be encyclopedic, is carrying on in an almost detached and neutral way about CS (which is a doctrinal religion) and NTh (which is a general religious movement, and so a poor comparison) having a worldview about influences: how influences are to us, how they are mentally powerful, how we can interpret influences being mental only (radical, yes) and thus achieve a spirit to fight the good non-fight against a non-existent evil. This is the aim of CS theology, but this context is blown away, lost, by surprisingly dramatic (surprisingly disrespectful) personal statements like "Eddy this" and "Eddy that". The comparison being defended by SV to showcase the theology is an historical comparison. This works until, as you said, the last part; there it starts up the drama and personalization implicit in all historical contexts; as a theology explication the historical method (a kind of comparison) is poor for this reason. I would argue the entire section should be radically changed to be written in active voice, not past tense and to use better comparisons that aim more to show what the CS theology is not, or to show what the CS theology is indirectly, rather that what it is from within historically or fom within by direct philosophical statements. Of course direct statements must be made, but the abstract nature of the topic means it can't be said directly as a method to achieve full coverage for the entire CS theology. (Few if any comprehensive attempts exist, ask Ath271.) Rather we poor sobs can only start accepting into this wiki article lots of cherry picked comparisons to illustrate the major premises of CS theology. (Seems doable.) And the historical method is, well, read it and weep. We need a receptive structure and a set of scholarly watchers, something vastly different than what we have, which is a sort of enchanted fortress.

Even if the drama is true (e.g. the "Science" of "Christian Science" is entirely Quimby's idea) it is out of context in a theology section about a very abstract metaphysics concerning the mind/Mind of a new and fantastically miraculous, heavenly utopian, ancient resurrected, Christian worldview and objective "scientific" reality. In their proper context in this article (Eddy has her own), the dramatic truths will be carefully and considerately respectful to Christian Science, (that living religion in our world right now today, the practiced, the doctrinaire religion), and not attack Christian Science theology by stabbing Eddy in the back in that (or any other) section. When I read the section now the changes in order are clear. Get the Eddy and Quimby drama out of there. (Turn them into role playing with each other in a Criticisms scene in a play focused on what CS is to scholars.) Get CS theology as the central topic, and compare its metaphysical stance to comparable religions (mainstream or not) and philosophies. By setting up a more structurally receptive reformatting of sections, wiki can cite those comparisons as they are discovered during the course of religious and philosophical studies in general, uncovering (valid) comparisons in the remembrance of stated major premises we could make in the section lead. Derive the theology by making comparisons, and by direct statements, but don't try to derive the theology by saying what it is indirectly via Eddy (her alleged methods of acquiring the theology, her questionable stances on her theological development at that time), or spend too much indirectness by using historical/cultural comparisons. (We have an article on NRM and an article on NTh.) The proper, revealing, comparisons need to be side by side right here, not paragraph (after paragraph) by paragraph, and not by history as is done at the beginning of the (Theology subsection) Metaphysical family. — Cpiral Cpiral 10:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Cpiral, which specific section are you talking about ? The Overview? It sounds like you are talking more about the History & Development. I do agree with you that considering there is a MBE page, there seems to be a lot of overlap. I'm going to be mainly offline for a while but am interested in continuing this conversation. Playdoh poetry (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Playdoh, I just saw your post to me above. You’re welcome, and so sorry to have missed your comment and question at first! I’ve learned by trial and error that WP asks us to put ALL our comments at the end of any given post. Even if several paragraphs from another user intervene, just specify who you’re addressing, and the content you’re speaking to will be clear. That way the most recent posts are always at the bottom of the thread, easy to identify.

The sentence in question has been altered, but the paragraph retains the implications that appear to trouble you. I also noticed that “MAM” phrase appears far less frequently than “AM.” In fact I see that “MAM” doesn’t appear at all in S&H. (This is true even in 1887, the first edition the term appeared in.) That makes me wonder where "MAM" is used and why (if not in her book), and how third-party sources distinguish between/use the two terms, and why this section makes mention of one without the other. This brief section could also be improved to WP expectations in other basic ways: it is almost entirely biographical, whereas we already have an MBE page; it defines this aspect of the theology by citing one or two brief, early incidents and alleged responses in MBE's life; these incidents and responses are interpreted very differently by other sources, yet our article cites only one viewpoint; the definition given isn't clearly drawn from a wide variety of sources balanced against one another; and touching on your specific concern, it would be helpful to have larger cultural context for the term "AM" contextualizing how MBE used it. I'll reflect on these needs in order to give a more proper response to your question. Ath271 (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

History and teaching --> Writing and development, along with much of the article's structure and content seems a charade, a farce on ~~Eddy~~ CS. The Mclure's magazine articles were done by those who sued her and lost? S&H 102:1 says "Animal Magnetism has no scientific foundation." Yet the article says 'Cather and Milmine wrote. "Those who did not believe in it dared not admit their disbelief."' 70.58.91.168 (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, there is an opportunity here to better conform to WP:RS. McClure's is also 110 years old with over a century's worth engagement, interrogation, and re-imagination by ensuing scholars. We can improve the article by representing those more recent findings and contextualizing McClure's as an influential primary source parallel with Sibyl Wilbur's sympathetic c. 1906 biography. For such reasons I don't see WP standards recommending either Wilbur or Milmine as a key source straight up. But if we're going to stick with the current strategy, at least it could be more balanced re: pos and neg sources. Here are search results for "animal magnetism" in Wilbur. Very different from Milmine's narrative. Ath271 (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Quimby

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

SV, I made some minor edits to try to give a more balanced, scholarly perspective on the very brief references to Quimby and CS in the Metaphysical section, which you have reverted. I imagine that part of your concern is that it is too specific in this section. I agree. However, we are not going to make it a more balanced survey than it currently is, I believe we should completely remove the Quimby material at this point and make this section much more brief. There is a Quimby section below where that material belongs. Moreover, as other on this page are saying, there seems to be a real confusion between MBE and CS (this is the CS) page, which I see much less of in published encylopedia pieces. So I propose removing Quimby from this section. (Moreover, saying that Quimby is the "father of mental healing" needs more serious qualification and citation than it currently has, so this would solve that problem as well.) Playdoh poetry (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Playdoh, I hope you don't mind that I moved your post to a new thread. Yes, it was too specific; also you removed that the movement traced its roots to Quimby, the "father of mental healing," which is the mainstream view; your own source says something similar. That section is a brief overview of the mainstream position; we go into more detail in the lower sections. Quimby is there because he was central to the metaphysical movement and a key link to Eddy. Is there something in the other sections that you feel should be added about Quimby? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi SV, Thanks for starting the new thread. And also for your slight adjustments to the article section which shift the focus more to CS and less on Eddy herself. I can see that "father of mental healing" is likely taken directly from Teahan 1979. To be honest, it is mostly as a feminist researcher that I have the most issues with the phrase. These days it grates to use the phrase "the father of" to describe the relationship of dead white men to movements, etc. It's just so patriarchal!! :-) What is lost in taking that out? What is added in keeping it Playdoh poetry (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I think it's okay. It succinctly sums up the view of most of the sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is a minor point and a more important discussion is the later Quimby section, however, I propose this instead: "The mental healing movement traced its roots to New England clockmaker Phineas Parkhurst Quimby (1802–1866)." More concise. Loses the repetition of "roots" and "father". As far as I can see though many sources link CS to Quimby, they differ significantly in how much they believe Quimby "fathered" CS. So I don't see any harm in dropping that and making the article seem a more balanced and current in its tone. Playdoh poetry (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a cult

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

"Eddyism" was regularly referred to as a cult; one of the first uses of the modern sense of the word was in A. H. Barrington's Anti-Christian Cults (1898), a book about Spiritualism, Theosophy and Christian Science.

Most people will read that thinking we live in modern times, even if the literati say post-modern. Melton quotes Yinger on the modern view of NRMs:

“

The term cult is used in many different ways, usually with the connotations of small size, search for a mystical experience, lack of an organizational structure, and presence of a charismatic leader. Some of these criteria (mysticism, for example) emphasize cultural characteristics that are inappropriate in our classification scheme; yet there seems to be the need for a term that will describe groups that are similar to sects, but represent a sharper break, in religious terms, from the dominant religious tradition of a society. By a cult, therefore, we will mean a group that is at the farthest extreme from the "universal church" with which we started. It is small, short-lived, often local, frequently built around a dominant leader (as compared with the greater tendency toward widespread lay participation in the sect). Both because its beliefs and rites deviate quite widely from those that are traditional in a society (there is less of a tendency to appeal to "primitive Christianity," for example) and because the problems of succession following the death of a charismatic leader are often difficult, the cult tends to be small, to break up easily, and is relatively unlikely to develop into an established sect or a denomination. The cult is concerned almost wholly with the problems of the individual, with little regard for questions of social order; the implications for anarchy are even stronger than in the case of the sect; which is led by its interest in "right behavior" (whether the avoidance of individual sin or the establishment of social justice) back to the problem of social integration. The cults are religious "mutants," extreme variations on the dominant themes by means of which men try to solve their problems. Pure type cults are not common in Western society; most groups that might be called cults are fairly close to the sect type.

”

(Note: 'primitive christianity', etc. are refs to CS not being a cult.)

The article's statement in question (at the top) should probably not be in the theology section, (esp. in the context of "modern"), but rather in the history section of the NRM article. New religious movement#Opposition makes the same error with cult as we do. Per Melton, in the linked paper above, an NRM is not a cult. (If it was a cult, it could not be an NRM.) Melton should know, he's, like, the father of New Religious Studies. To Melton (see the rest of the paper from the quote):

An NRM is not a cult.
CS is an NRM because it is classified as a primary religious organization.
NT is not an NRM because it's defining characteristics classify it as a secondary one.

Cult is the issue here; the term "dogmatic" is a past issue; the phrase "element of fear" is still an issue.

While I'm at it I want to use that same paper of Melton's to point something out about "element of fear". "Element of fear" is a characteristic made by a scholar we cite who compares CS to NT. But by citing that author the way it sounds in our article, we are comparing apples to oranges because CS and NT are in two different religious categories. Melton makes CS a primary religious organization in the metaphysical family. We say that. Then we pick a different scholar to (wrongly) compare the doctrinaire "animal magnetism"(a chapter in S&H) to NT. But NT is a secondary religious organization. I believe that means NT has no specific doctrine comparable to S&H, but that it has a general spirit meant to represent a broad cultural movement in an appealing and attractive way. (Afterall, it is our culture, and we've made "New Thought the Movie", a movie about what is called "Higher Thought".) So I think the comparison and characterization is entirely unfair for that reason.

Scholars can be biased and yet cited. Discussions are then in order.

The proper scholarly cite would say something that compares like things in a similar category (religious theology): "Unity Church (an NT member, not the class NT itself) has no element of fear and no dogmatic statement in its doctrine". But that proper scholarly cite does not exist anywhere because of course no specific NT church (Unity, Religious Science, etc.) or any church , or any NRM, is without "dogmatism" and without "an element of fear", (or any other institution on the planet). A label like NT, on the other hand, does not have dogmatism and elements of fear, just as an advertisement does not (or any other growth oriented, intake mechanism).

<rant>Yet we actually compare CS to NT in our article; we are actually misaligned (categorically speaking), and therefore unschooled like the poor extremists and fundamentalists and propagandists and politicians having to cherry-pick citations from certain authorities by bending them out of context. Other cherries picked in our article are from the Christian Science religio-historical events, politico-historical events, gender issues, the CS board events, the events around church building, acting as if these things are not universal in each of the categories (all churches, all politics, all powerful women, all boards).</rant>

The literature, and the statement in question (at the top), says "Eddyism" in the context of a cult, and so does the literature bashing CS. Yet it is in the theology section. The CS glossary is full of Eddy's idiosyncratic interpretations of the Bible, like an Imam interpreting the Koran. There may be some evil in CS and Islam, but is there not something good about CS and Islam? And are we not responsible for taking the reader to a consistently neutral view of CS. letting the reader decide on the facts, before being taken to a (non-existent!) criticism section, as our MoS says? The literature says "Quimbyism" in the context of a mighty cultural movement. "Good and evil" is a worldview; it makes for good structure, good debate, good teaching; but neutrality is more Zen, and we can have both if we make the critical viewpoints a span of reading separate from the rest instead of peppering the content with it.

The incessant "Eddy this" and "Eddy that" (e.g. Metaphysical family section, last pgraph) seems to be cherry picking historical, gender, social-politics-related events at the CS board, the CS publishers I would make a radical proposal: don't mention Eddy if at all possible, or form a special section for it, away from the description of the living, breathing souls of the CS membership. The Sentinel has this to say about it "To call Christian Science 'Eddyism' is just as logical and fitting as to call algebra 'Newtonism.' Christian Science is a science and not contingent upon any human personality."

Eddy said that her true self was in S&H, and so to look for her there. In other words that giant, respectable, honorable, beloved, famous woman says "forget Eddyisms", look at the S&H theology, man! She herself was imperfect of course, and I say we should look at the S&H theology not as if it is a person, but rather as some kind of geological formation, with a special section on travel dangers. — Cpiral Cpiral 10:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems fair to note that CS has been referred to as a "cult" by those opposing themselves to it. (And it's also fair to use that term as scholars use it, but as you note above, that is a slippery slope requiring a very large contextual explanation, which this page has determined it doesn't have space for - all in archived discussions.) Yet I see your point that the sentence in question raises thorny issues it then doesn't address.

Do you have a specific proposal re: this, the "element of fear" phrase that concerns you, or how to more accurately/fully distinguish here between NRM/cult, CS/NThought? Or are you hoping other editors will engage here to further the conversation and jointly craft proposal(s)? Ath271 (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The "element of fear" is a theme throughout the article as it stands. The idea pops up in different sections and contexts as well. As does the (in this article) connected idea of "bad thoughts" being harmful and scary. This seems to me more of a tick than based in scholarship. If it is based in scholarship it needs to be explained further. I don't have a proposal, but would be interested if Cpiral has proposals about what/how to correct this, or if there is a way to approach it in a more scholarly and less sensational way. Playdoh poetry (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Playdoh, the “element of fear” view is a strong thread in early anti-Eddy polemics and sources that cite these authoritatively. Balance comes via arguments in RS that re-interpret, counter, and nuance this thread. See post in response to your question below (re: Balance in A.M. section).

Though not all CS views and terms are unusual, some are, and I can understand how the A.M. thing is hard to get a handle on in the article. There's a need for care to avoid painting indigenous beliefs and experiences as exotic/strange cf dominant worldviews (ie shades of Said’s orientalism). This lessens sensationalism. I think any of the quotes/sources in the new section below would help with this as the article develops. Ath271 (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Balance in A.M. section

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Here are a few arguments within RS that re-interpret, counter, and nuance the article's existing narrative. (Apologies for length; more relevant material exists.)

1. The focus on A.M. within the CS movement largely took place in the 1870s and 1880s:

Moore locates Eddy’s public focus on A.M. in the 1870s and “well into the 1880s” (112)
Gottschalk 1973, 149: “After this point [1880s] there appeared very few article on animal magnetism and mental malpractice in the Christian Science periodicals…the whole subject became much less a topic of conversation in the movement.”
Gill locates her discussion of A.M. in the movement’s early years (1870s-early 1880s).
Milmine, currently cited in footnote 151, refers to this early period as well; clarifying this would help context/accuracy.

2. After the 1880s, MBE and CS lessened their focus on A.M. (and the problem of evil generally) over time. Moore implies public focus lessened; Peel, Gottschalk, Gill, Wilson say or imply overall focus lessened:

Moore implies A.M. focus entered CS theology generally: “The invention of Christian Science, with its promise of dispelling illusion, had simultaneously created a counterforce that was just as strong.” (112)
Wilson (127) counters Moore’s idea that MBE “invented A.M.: “Mrs. Eddy denied that she had invented animal magnetism; she said that it had always existed in human consciousness, and that she simply pointed out its significance.”
Wilson (127) notes teaching on A.M. became less personal over time: “In her earlier years Mrs Eddy usually attributed mesmerism to her apostate students, but later she taught the unwisdom of taking up (in thought) individuals when treating animal magnetism; she then regarded it as impersonal in its operation and sometimes even as unconscious in its animosity.”
Gott. 06 p 267: “By the end of the 1880s, she came to see this phenomenon in far less personal terms and with a distinctly different emphasis. Addressing the subject in a class, she said she was going to ‘talk something up to talk it down.’ She took special pains to make sure that her students did not develop a morbid fascination with the subject...”
Peel 71 p284 - In 1889 a student named Joshua “Bailey proceeded to give excessive emphasis to it [ie idea of A.M.], frightening some of the readers and irritating others by publishing sensational accounts of the dire effects of unresisted mental suggestions. Mrs. Eddy several times took him to task for this and ordered him to publish nothing more on the subject until the overheated readers should be prepared to look at it more rationally and positively. In the Journal of August, 1890, she wrote: ‘The discussion of malicious animal magnetism had better be dropped until Scientists understand clearly how to handle error,--until they are not in danger of dwarfing their growth in love, by falling into this lamentable practice in their attempts to meet it.’”
Gill cites “early analysts” to call MBE’s initial focus on A.M. “obsessive” (205). She partly agreeing yet also feels Eddy was justified in this bc of the extreme “enmity” of early students (Gill 270). She calls “more important” Eddy’s focus on A.M. her “attempts to get beyond this focus and find some kind of serenity and control” (267).

3. The CS focus on meeting/overcoming/moving beyond A.M. is equal or superior to a focus on the problem of evil itself (note correction to misquote/partial quote and edition info):

Wilson (127) says integral to teachings on A.M., “The realisation of the impotence of mesmerism is the only effective remedy against its influence." This teaching of A.M.’s “impotence” should be accounted for, or only half the story appears.
Gill notes Eddy’s ultimate “rejection” of the power of mesmerism or a.m., her claim that Christian Science healing “is not one mind acting upon another. . . . It is Christ come to destroy the power of the flesh” (322).
The article currently says “In 1889 she called it “literally demonology," and argued that it had gained strength from Christian Science "as if to forestall the power of good."[149] However, the full quote is on CS overcoming the appearance of evil and establishing “harmony”: "Christian Science stands preeminent for promoting affection and virtue, in families and the community. Opposed to this healthful and elevating influence of Mind, as if to forestall the power of good, a baneful and secret mental influence has uprisen; but Science can and will meet all emergencies, and restore the normal standard of harmony (S&H 1889 p214- 40th ed.).
- NB: The above quote actually first appeared in the 1886 edition (p. 214), the same year the chapter title “demonology” was removed. The term “demonology” disappeared entirely from S&H after 1894, so while historically important for a short chunk of time, the article shouldn't give the impression this is a key term in the religion.
In footnote 151, Milmine is quoted as saying that Eddy’s students were always on guard and distrustful when they believed her teaching on MAM. Any of the above quotes would bring balance to this assertion.
The full teaching of what constitutes evil, and how God and God’s creation deal with it, is called theodicy in monotheistic religions. The main sources on this re: CS are here.

4. The CS focus on A.M. was part of a larger cultural and historical focus:

- Albanese 2006, 353, argues that teaching of M.A.M. existed cross-culturally: “Malicious animal magnetism, or its near relative, apparently inhabited the East as well as the West." (Albanese overall seems to agree with our article's existing narrative, but this particular point brings new context)
- Curtis 2007, 127, on caution re: A.M. existing in evangelical divine healing groups: “despite cautions and qualifications [against laying on of hands, baptism by non sanctified person, etc] such as these, however, the specters of animal magnetism, mesmerism, and especially Spiritualism continued to loom large for defenders of divine healing.”
- Taves 1999 provides a history of A.M. in the West and locates C.S. within it. Her arguments are complex, multiple, and highly influential (broadly quoted). The section on A.M. would be improved by noting them. Ath271 (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ath271. Thanks for all this info. I've reread the M.A.M section with this in mind and will think of how to incorporate some of it because it does seem like this gives a more balanced approach. At the moment it does seem rather sensational - as researchers and readers are increasingly aware it's always a warning sign in texts about women's literary history when the woman is depicted as (stereotypically) slightly hysterical or as involved in a variety of witchcraft. The article doesn't say that at the moment, but the implication is there. So we definitely want to neutralize that tone a bit. And it's useful to understand the wider context, including the antagonism of some of Eddy's students. More soon. Playdoh poetry (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Playdoh. I've been buried in professional stuff for the past few months but am here now. Sounds like you have your own take on how to interpret and present a more balanced approach, and how to use and retool the sources I've presented. I may not entirely agree but look forward to more. Ath271 (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi all, haven't had time to keep tabs on this entry recently due to work. Anyway, this is inaccurate (section on Metaphysics): "Adherents believed that matter emanated from a supreme cause or consciousness…" In context, this implies that Christian Scientists believe this, which anyone could tell you they do not. Can it be fixed, in the interest of the accuracy of the article? Thanks.Be-nice:-) (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Melton warned that no attribute (e.g. that matter emanated from mind) of any of his families (e.g. the Metaphysical Familey) applied to any of his religions (e.g. CS). Because we cannot expect readers to grasp this subtlety, we then must explain the inclusion of the section about "New religious movement#Metaphysical family" beliefs. But wait... it is clearly out of place in an article about CS beliefs, just as "Idealism", "Hypnotism", or "Mind/body problem" would be.

But this should present no problem to the wiki. 1) Just a simple wiki link has the power to remove clutter (material that is off-topic), bias (blinding by "structural brilliance"), and information bloat (that naturally trickles over other articles). 2) Anyone can do it. WP:Be bold. WP:There is no cabal.

Like fresh water there will be numerous and natural affronts felt by fresh readings against the way the current article reads. The content of the current article continues to fail tests of logic, rationality, neutrality, and being on-topic. (See the discussions above, and Cpiral prefix:talk:christian science/Archive) The context of the situation, being a wiki, means it won't stand forever this way. Happy editing!

— Cpiral Cpiral 19:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, this is me again (see first entry under this heading). Apologies - I'm on a different computer and I don't have my log in details to hand. Anyway, here is another inaccuracy, and I propose the sentence simply be deleted, since it is both inaccurate and unreferenced: "Adherents believed that matter emanated from a supreme cause or consciousness, variously referred to as Divine Mind, Truth, God, Love, Life, Spirit, Principle, reflecting elements of Plato, Hinduism, Berkeley, Hegel, Swedenborg and transcendentalism." This is certainly untrue about CS. It is also untrue about Berkeley (though for different reasons).89.100.155.6 (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Request edit on 21 June 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Done — Cpiral Cpiral 00:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

To state that "Eddy placed little emphasis on marriage and family" is wholly incorrect. Mrs. Eddy was in fact an advocate for harmonious relationships in both the community and the home. Her seminal work, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, includes an entire chapter on Marriage.

After reading this chapter, it will be apparent that the above statement is false, and should be removed from the article.

Thank you.

2605:E000:2247:2500:5472:D0DD:CF33:5AB7 (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I see the author of that removed statement twisting some religious scholars intentions, possible out of an innocent ignorance about New Testament Christianity (1Cor7), but certainly out of complete ignorance of Christian Science doctrine. — Cpiral Cpiral 00:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This is sourced to a high-quality, independent academic source, so please don't remove it unless you have an equivalent source that suggests it's misleading. Sarah ^(talk) 18:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The citation did not appear to cover the parenthetical removed, which was a interruption of a sentence covering a different subject that was cited. The "equivalent sources" that qualified the removal were stated above. — Cpiral Cpiral 19:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. The source is Stark 1998. Have you read it? Sarah ^(talk) 20:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I wish I could reference Stark easily. But wait, it simply cannot be said. Does CS have little or lots of "emphasis", i.e. doctrine? Lots, unless what does Stark mean by CS "emphasis" is not CS doctrine. Avoiding having children if possible, is pure Christian doctrine, but I doubt that causes religious decline. — Cpiral Cpiral 00:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed the Stark ref is solid and should be left in. Though his point is mostly quantitative (re: frequency of marriage in CS), while in our summary it sounds mostly qualitative (re: friendliness toward married couples in CS). Perhaps that can be tweaked. His point is mostly quantitative, but supported with a qualitative reading, so the summary as it stands fairly represents his views (and is actually moderately stated compared with Starks's wording). So the info below becomes quite relevant as a counter view.

We do have a few equivalent sources (at least on par with Stark in terms of independent imprint and weight) contrary to the summary as it stands. No one seems to disagree with relatively low reproduction rates, rather the implication that CS denigrates marriage, sexuality, and/or family life:

Robert David Thomas 1994, 250, states MBE was “not at war against human sexuality” and generally had a realistic view re: earthly marriage, including her own (having married three times).
Gottschalk 1973, 241-242 states MBE taught “sensual indulgence…must be overcome” eventually as a spiritual ideal but “at the same time,” in the human realm she “explicitly rejected asceticism” and taught “marriage must continue” and its sexual aspect fulfilled.
Peel 1977, 439n30, seems to acknowledge what Stark is getting at while also showing a fuller view. He says MBE’s comments on marriage “are apt to have two levels of application.” On the one hand, she sometimes seemed to hope promising students had reached a point where “they could find fulfillment by giving themselves wholeheartedly and singlemindedly to Christian Science.” OTOH, she warned against forcing the issue and clearly supported her students’ marriages. Peel cites several letters in which she warmly congratulates people on marriage ("I am glad that you are married to him you love. It was the right time to do so,” etc).

There are others. But that’s surely enough.

Anon IP also brings out that CS teachings and a primary text by Eddy (her chapter on marriage in S&H) apparently disagree with the assessment here. We need not favor primary texts, but for balance it seems the adherent text/view should be acknowledged in some way. Perhaps not necessary, though, if we take more secondary sources into account.Ath271 (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: If needed or of interest please note changes at Ath271. Ath271 (talk) 06:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Decline numbers

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Shouldn't the table under "decline" have an "in thousands" or "in millions" reference? Or am I to believe there are only 965 of them out there? ( and "per million" doesn't cut it) 03:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.249.235.44 (talk)

That is problematic. 1,820 total practitioners in 1995 and 6.9 per million people in the same year suggest 264 million people in the US in 1995, which seems about right. But these numbers might seem inconsistent with those in other parts of the article because "practitioner" a technical term here that does not refer simply to followers of the religion, whereas readers who skip to this section will not know that. For instance, the first paragraph of this section states that there were around 2098 Christian Scientists per million people in the US at the peak of the religion, whereas the numbers in the table never get anywhere close to that high. This will seem contradictory to a casual reader.Rscragun (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added figures for regular members, where these were estimated, so it should be clearer now. Sarah ^(talk) 00:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Christian Science and "orthodox Christianity"

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I anticipate that this edit may be disputed, so I'll explain my reasons for making it. The article stated that, "There are key differences between Christian Science theology and that of orthodox Christianity." That statement supposes that there is a single set of views one can describe as "orthodox Christianity", which is hardly true. The term Orthodox Christianity is meaningless unless it applies to Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy; that it is essentially a synonym for Eastern Orthodoxy and/or Oriental Orthodoxy makes it very confusing to use it any other way. What the book used as a source actually states is, "Christian Science differs considerably in various theological issues from more orthodox branches of Christianity", a very different statement from what appeared in the article. I think that "There are key differences between Christian Science theology and that of other branches of Christianity" is the fairest and most accurate way that can be summarized. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator, your change looks fine. I think it used to say "traditional Christianity." Sarah ^(talk) 01:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Wondollek quotation

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wondollek said, "[A]ll healing is a metaphysical process. That means that there is no person to be healed, no material body, no patient, no matter, no illness, no one to heal, no substance, no person, no thing and no place that needs to be influenced." This is a quotation not from writings, but transcribed from a video lecture. It has been taken entirely out of context, and gives a false impression. Yes, healing in Christian Science is metaphysical, but that does not mean it is entirely abstract and theoretical. A mere denial of the reality of illness is insufficient to heal on its own. The unreality of error is a necessary corollary of the allness of God, good. The thought of the patient needs both sides of the 'argument' if treatment is to be effective. After all, Eddy says, " Sickness is neither imaginary nor unreal - that is, to the frightened, false sense of the patient." (Science and Health p 460 line 14). ^[1]
The para should be removed. Bblandford (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It isn't intended to be a complete description of Christian science practice, but only of the basic issues the practitioner must be clear about.

[A]ll healing is a metaphysical process. That means that there is no person to be healed, no material body, no patient, no matter, no illness, no one to heal, no substance, no person, no thing and no place that needs to be influenced. This is what the practitioner must first be clear about.

Sarah ^(talk) 01:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Crossover material

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, everybody. Is it me or does this article have an awful lot of material which could be moved to the founder's page? Does anyone care whether this article is about the church or associated individuals, however important? I dislike to point out for the most part a deceased person is not likely to be conducting significant activities affecting the organisation, not on a day to day basis, anyhow. I'm sure she was the nicest of ladies, just do you think the article about the church should be about the church and the article about the founder should be about the founder? Incidentally, the persistent attributing of the 'no medicine just pray' shtik to these people may be being confused with the practice of bitten snake handlers going home to 'sleep' instead of to a hospital. Although god knows I've proved many, many times the snake venom (or whatever that is) jab can be overcome despite being denied health care. At the same time, I'm the last to recommend it. I mean, that's just beyond barbaric, folks. As a final point, in my personal experience the only thing you'll hear about this from a bona fide church member is an anguished 'for the love, of god, just go to a doctor!' Or at least I've proved so far it hasn't been immediately fatal. Not to me, anyway. Rest of you might want to get some kevlar shorts. I wish I had but it's too late. - 55378008a (talk) 09:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Shouldn't it be classed as pseudoscience? The definition seems to be something presented as science but not adhering to the scientific method. It would be pretty uncontroversial for me to say it doesn't adhere to the scientific method and it's even got science in the name.

WikipediaUserCalledChris (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC) WikipediaUserCalledChris (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

While I agree in principle, the denomination was founded in an era where the word "science" could be used to mean gnosis instead of theories supported by the scientific method (which is, in a broader philosophical sense, anti-gnosis). If you have professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that discuss it in the context of pseudoscience, it'd be more appropriate to add. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Christian Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Citations

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm about to add templates to the most-used citations so that we can have clickable links between the long and short citations. Per WP:CITEVAR, if anyone objects, please let me know. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Christian Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Request edit on 22 March 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

<<This request has been modified and resubmitted below since this thread got too long.>>

Please replace this phrase: "who argued in her 1875 book Science and Health that sickness is an illusion that can be corrected by prayer alone."

With this phrase: "who argued in her 1875 book Science and Health that because God, good, is infinite and ever present, sickness is an illusion that can be corrected by prayer alone.

Any accurate representation of the book, Science and Health, must begin by covering its primary topic, God. Mary Baker Eddy employed several different names for God, as other systematic Christian theologians have done since the time of the Patristic Fathers. Anyone can go to ^[2] and research the eight names for God that most frequently appear in Science and Health--God (1274), Principle (291), Mind (706), Soul (163), Spirit (566), Life (353), Truth (700), Love (363)--and see that the total number of instances adds up to 4,416. The concept of "illusion" shows up 70 times, or 1.6% of the times that God appears. Hopefully that resolves the question of whether the proposed edit is accurate.

I have a conflict of interest in suggesting this edit, in that I am a Christian Science Practitioner and I work for the Christian Science church. However, the church has not asked me to edit this page, I have taken it up as my own initiative.

Blessings, wikirookiewriter (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

^ Eddy. Science and Health. p. 460.
^ concordexpress.christianscience.com

Hi wikirookiewriter, thank you for using the template. The article explains lower down that:

At the core of Eddy's theology is the view that the spiritual world is the only reality and is entirely good, and that the material world, with its evil, sickness and death, is an illusion. Eddy saw humanity as an "idea of Mind" that is "perfect, eternal, unlimited, and reflects the divine," according to Bryan Wilson; what she called "mortal man" is simply humanity's distorted view of itself.

We don't really have space in the lead to unpack it. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin,

Because it is striving to maintain accuracy, Wikipedia should include a mention of God in any opening statement about the contents of Science and Health. There's no need to unpack the enormous topic of God in the first mention, since that would be impossible. Considering the simple research in a primary source that proves God's centrality to Christian Science and Science and Health, let's seek consensus about how to mention God.

The sentence in question is this: "It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy, who argued in her 1875 book Science and Health that sickness is an illusion that can be corrected by prayer alone."

First off, that sentence is too long. Let's add a "." after Mary Baker Eddy's name. Then let's write: "She argued in her 1875 book, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, that..."

Now, let's talk about what Eddy argued.

First, I propose "... that God, good, is infinite and ever present." Period. Because again, as simple research in the primary source we are discussing shows, God is the primary topic of Science and Health. All other topics are derived from it.

Bishonen raised a good question about my phraseology/style/use of commas, which is used by Christian theologians. For example, St. Athanasius (one of the Church Fathers), in his treatise "On the incarnation of the Word of God", writes of mankind, "Three ways thus lay open to them, by which they might obtain the knowledge of God. They could look up into the immensity of heaven, and by pondering the harmony of creation come to know its Ruler, the Word of the Father, Whose all-ruling providence makes known the Father to all. Or, if this was beyond them, they could converse with holy men, and through them learn to know God, the Artificer of all things, the Father of Christ, and to recognise the worship of idols as the negation of the truth and full of all impiety." (p.52-53).

Here, three times in three sentences, Athanasius employs the pretty common practice of mentioning God or Christ, adding a descriptor afterward separated by commas, and continuing the sentence. See how Athanasius identifies "the Ruler" as "the Word of the Father", and identifies God as "the Artificer of all things" and "the Father of Christ"?

My phrase, "God, good, being infinite and ever-present..." employs this same formating. If you would like to propose another phrase, I am all ears. I can see that you are an experienced editor here on Wikipedia, and I look forward to working with you.

Once we agree on how to mention God, I am happy to discuss whatever secondary themes you feel should also be mentioned, and how.

Cheers and all the best, wikirookiewriter (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello again SlimVirgin,

Bishonen and friends kindly explained (on his talk page) the grammatical reasons why they didn't like my phrase. It can simply be edited to say, "God is good, infinite, and ever-present." Any other suggestions?

One potential quote from the primary source that is repeated more often than any other, in both church services and Sunday School (this is not just my opinion, but a fact, as determined by the Church Manual), is this: "All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-all."

That brings us to here:

"It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy. She argued in her 1875 book, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, that 'All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-all.'"

Continuing along, we could say "As a result..." or "Therefore it follows that..." Your thoughts?

Warmly wikirookiewriter (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi wikirookiewriter, this article is about Christian Science in general, rather than about the theology, and the lead has to sum up the key issues. The key issue is the CS view of sickness as a mental error; that adherents believe illness can be addressed with prayer is what CS is known for. That's why we introduce the article by saying: "It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy, who argued in her 1875 book Science and Health that sickness is an illusion that can be corrected by prayer alone."

I'm not sure the readers would understand "that because God, good, is infinite and ever present, sickness is an illusion". The best place to explain the theology is in the section dedicated to it, which we do as follows:

At the core of Eddy's theology is the view that the spiritual world is the only reality and is entirely good, and that the material world, with its evil, sickness and death, is an illusion. Eddy saw humanity as an "idea of Mind" that is "perfect, eternal, unlimited, and reflects the divine," according to Bryan Wilson; what she called "mortal man" is simply humanity's distorted view of itself.^[1] Despite her view of the non-existence of evil, an important element of Christian Science theology is that evil thought, in the form of malicious animal magnetism, can cause harm, even if the harm is only apparent.^[2]
Eddy viewed God not as a person but as "All-in-all". Although she often described God in the language of personhood—she used the term "Father–Mother God" (as did Ann Lee, the founder of Shakerism), and in the third edition of Science and Health she referred to God as "she"—God is mostly represented in Christian Science by the synonyms "Mind, Spirit, Soul, Principle, Life, Truth, Love".^[3]^{[n 1]} The Holy Ghost is Christian Science, and heaven and hell are states of mind.^{[n 2]}

References

^ Wilson 1961, p. 122.
^ Wilson 1961, p. 127; Moore 1986, p. 112; Simmons 1995, p. 62.
^ For personhood, "Father–Mother God" and "she", see Gottschalk 1973, p. 52; for Ann Lee, see Stokes 2014, p. 186. For the seven synonyms, see Wilson 1961, p. 124.
^ Eddy, Science and Health, "Recapitulation", p. 465:
^ Wilson 1961, pp. 121, 125.

SarahSV ^(talk) 14:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello SlimVirgin, you have missed my most recent suggestion for editing, so I will submit a new request without deleting this one.

Best,wikirookiewriter (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit sentence

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

The request has been answered and closed. Bishonen | talk 22:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC).

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Please replace this phrase: It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy, who argued in her 1875 book Science and Health that sickness is an illusion that can be corrected by prayer alone.

With this phrase: It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy. She argued in her 1875 book, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, that "All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-all" (p.468) This provided the basis for her stance that sickness is an illusion that can be healed by prayer alone.

My reasoning: Any accurate introduction to the book, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, must include its full title and begin by mentioning its primary focus on God.

As simple research shows, God is the key/core issue in Christian Science. To omit God is to misrepresent Christian Science, Science and Health, and Mary Baker Eddy.

If some people think the main issue in Christian Science is its approach to disease, they are misinformed. Wikipedia, in its commitment to accuracy, should be willing to simply state the facts. You are right, the details of the theology can be further unpacked below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by wikirookiewriter (talk • contribs)

Please see above re: the theology section. Readers will not understand what "All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-all" means, and what that has to do with health. The approach to health is the key issue for independent secondary sources, and that is what we have to reflect (see WP:DUE). Finally, it wasn't called "with Key to the Scriptures" in 1875. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

If you think people won't understand her/my sentence about God, can you please propose one that you think people will understand?

If you can't propose an unbiased way to simply mention God as an important topic in her book--which appears an easily verifiable 4,400+ times and thereby dwarfs any other topic--then as a compromise, perhaps it would be most accurate to give no summary of Science and Health at all, and to instead, provide a link to the Wikipedia page.

Thus the phrase in question becomes, "It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy, whose primary work is Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Health_with_Key_to_the_Scriptures

Looking forward to more collaboration with you, wikirookiewriter (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

If you need some suggestions for ways to include God in the original sentence, here are a few: "Because God is good and infinite..." or "Because God is good and loving..." or "Because God is good and real..." or whatever you prefer. I look forward to any edits or suggestions you might have. And again, if you don't like the idea of mentioning God, that's fine. We can just remove all theology from these opening sentences and cover it more thoroughly below, as you suggested earlier. That makes for a very clean sentence: "It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy, whose primary work is Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Health_with_Key_to_the_Scriptures Warmly, wikirookiewriter (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Any thoughts SlimVirgin?

wikirookiewriter, the best independent academic summary of CS theology is in Bryan R. Wilson's Sects and Society. I'd like to take some time to re-read the chapter on CS, and if I can find a way to work "all-in-all" (or equivalent phrase) into that sentence without raising more questions, I'll post it here as a suggestion. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, thanks so much for your desire to consult with the best secondary sources! In that light, may I suggest that you find a more recent independent academic summary of CS theology? Wilson's book was published in 1961 and the scholarship is not that impressive. To say the least, the field of Christian theological study has changed in the 59 years since then. If you're not sure about that, just consider the dramatic ecumenical changes that have come about since Vatican II. To say the least, today there is a greater awareness of secondary source biases. Also, today the access to accurate primary Christian Science sources is greatly improved. So, in short, I believe you can find something better than what Wilson wrote. I look forward to knowing whatever you believe the best sources are. My best to you, wikirookiewriter (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The Christian Science chapter in Wilson's book is an excellent summary of the theology. Discussing the enormous Christian Science literature, Rodney Stark wrote in his 1998 paper "The Rise and Fall of Christian Science": "Amidst this sea of controversial literature, Bryan Wilson's (1961) brilliant social scientific study stands out. Although a reworking of his dissertation, it displays the careful scholarship and deft use of detail for which he became widely admired ...". SarahSV ^(talk) 14:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"Dear SlimVirgin, I think we need a different source--a more theological one--if we want to portray Christian Science theology accurately. If you look more closely at Stark's article and his quote regarding Wilson, you will find that neither Stark nor Wilson were particularly interested in Christian Science theology. They cared more about Christian Science sociology. In "The Rise and Fall of Christian Science" Stark writes, "As for doctrines, what matters is not from whence they came, but where they went: how were these ideas embodied in a social movement?" (p.190) Those are not the words of a theologian. A theologian would be interested in whether Eddy's ideas were Bible based or not, whereas in the paper we've both quoted, Stark completely eschews that line of inquiry. Also, in the sentences you quoted, Stark is not praising Wilson's command of Christian Science theology. He is praising his __social scientific__ study of Christian Science. So again, we will come up with a better description of Christian Science theology if we confer with theologians who have taken the time to digest the theological elements of the "sea of controversial literature" that Stark has written off. I look forward to whatever you recommend. Cheers and happy spring, wikirookiewriter

Dear SlimVirgin and/or others:

Can please replace this phrase: It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy, who argued in her 1875 book Science and Health that sickness is an illusion that can be corrected by prayer alone.

With this phrase: It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy. She argued in her book, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Health_with_Key_to_the_Scriptures that because God is real, good, and All-in-all, sickness is an illusion that can be corrected by prayer alone.

That's simple and understandable. Thanks!

I offered to re-read Bryan Wilson to see if I could work out how to add "all-in-all", or something similar, in a way that would reflect his disinterested approach, would not leave the sentence unclear, and would satisfy Wikipedia's policies. You declined that offer, arguing that Wilson is not an appropriate source for the theology. I don't have another suggestion. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear SarahSV It sounds like you haven't read any books about Christian Science other than Wilson. If that's correct, just let me know if I can help you find one.

In the meantime, since we agree that "All-in-all" is an accurate Christian Science adjective for God, why don't we start with this phrase and improve it as we find other adjectives we can agree upon:

"It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy. She argued in her book, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Health_with_Key_to_the_Scriptures that because God is All-in-all, sickness is an illusion that can be corrected by prayer alone."

Sincere thanks, wikirookiewriter (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

We've had people from the Christian Science church arrive before to offer help with finding sources. I'll decline now for the reasons I did then. As for your suggestion, it doesn't explain why God being all-in-all makes sickness an illusion. The third paragraph of the lead explains it, namely there is a CS belief that "reality is purely spiritual and the material world an illusion". Sickness does not exist because nothing bad or material does. Anyway, I'm going to close this request, because it has been answered, and if I want to be patronized, there are plenty of other places I can find that service on Wikipedia. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear SarahSV Wait! This request is not closed and it has not been answered. Wikipedia is about accurate scholarship. To be accurate, God must be mentioned in the opening sentence about Science and Health since it is by far the largest topic of Eddy's book (over 4,500 references). Numbers are not opinions and are easily verifiable. Until we find a way to include God in that first sentence, this request is not answered or closed. If you don't want to include a comment about God, then you need to exclude the comment about sickness. As you just said yourself, the bit about sickness is currently sitting there entirely unexplained. It would be much better to save it for the theology section in the third paragraph. That turns the phrase into the following:

"It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy and based on her book, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Health_with_Key_to_the_Scriptures

This is not patronizing, this is solution-oriented problem solving. The entire time I have worked with you, I have deferred to using the sources you have mentioned. When I showed you (in a scholarly way) why the source you suggested was not appropriate, I asked you to suggest another. When you refused to suggest one, I offered to help you find one. Because you are a scholar (as is needed on all Wikipedia pages) then you need to use appropriate resources and be willing to share them with others. I await your response.

Respectfully, from one scholar to another, wikirookiewriter (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the request is closed. SarahSV closed it with her edit immediately above, as you can see here as well as in the pink box that now says "An edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered." If you think your request has not been answered, that's your opinion, but it doesn't mean it's up to you to say whether it has been closed or not. SarahSV won't answer further, I'm pretty sure, and I won't either, in this section, but I'll respond to your new section below. Just once, because I don't have even half of Sarah's patience. Bishonen | talk 22:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Streamlining and clarifying edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please replace these two sentences: "It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy, who argued in her 1875 book Science and Health that sickness is an illusion that can be corrected by prayer alone. The book became Christian Science's central text, along with the Bible, and by 2001 had sold over nine million copies."

With these: "It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy. Her primary work, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, became Christian Science's central text, along with the Bible, and by 2001 had sold over nine million copies."

Because: 1) The third paragraph of the lead is where Christian Science theology, including its stance regarding sickness, is more thoroughly and accurately described. 2) Sickness is not the primary topic of Science and Health (God is, with 4,500+ references that dwarf any other topic). 3) Eliminating the reference to sickness in the first paragraph streamlines and clarifies the article.

Please note: I have a conflict of interest but this is simply a clarifying/streamlining edit.

Sincere thanks, wikirookiewriter (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is simply a clarifying/streamlining edit, User:wikirookiewriter. It's an edit that moves the first reference to sickness not merely down to the third paragraph, but to a rhetorically humble position in that paragraph, the focus of which is instead "a radical form of philosophical idealism, believing that reality is purely spiritual and the material world an illusion". This belief includes the view about sickness. Includes it. Do you see how much not-the-main-topic of the third paragraph sickness is — how rhetorically pushed aside? The lead of this article needs to start with what's different about Christian Science compared to other forms of Christianity, because that's what's of interest to the general reader. That difference sure isn't the importance of God. He's important in all forms of Christianity, and it doesn't matter how many times he's referred to in Science and Health. Don't you think God is equally referred to thousands of times in other religious writing? Note also that the title of the book isn't Science and God; it's Science and Health.

It looks like you have worn out SaraSV with your insistence and repetitiousness, and she's apparently too polite to point out that she and you do not have equal time and energy to invest in this particular discussion. For you, the Christian Science article is your sole interest on Wikipedia; for her, a Wikipedia admin (and a volunteer like you), it's one of many. You may not realize how unreasonable it is to advise her to read more theology, or to keep insisting on variants of your suggested formulation. This is what is meant by WP:COIEDIT, that you have already been referred to on your page: when you have a conflict of interest, "you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise." Bolding in the original. WP:REHASH, part of the Tendentious editing definition, is also of interest here. Please read it. Bishonen | talk 22:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC).

Dear Bishonen, I too am sorry that this editing work has taken so much time. I read the section you suggested, more than once. Thank you, and point taken.

I don't think it is unreasonable to say that descriptions of CS theology should be derived from the writings of a respected modern theologian (instead of a social scientist from the 60s). I believe it is a kind gesture to offer to help a busy volunteer find such a theologian if they don't know one off hand.

You are right, the book is titled "Science and Health"--not "Science and sickness". In other words, health as bestowed by God and restored in the way Jesus taught (scientifically) is the primary focus of the book, not sickness. That is what makes CS distinct from other forms of Christianity.

You are right, sickness is "included" in the "illusion" category along with many other things. Not vice versa. So, the edit I suggest puts the mention of sickness where it belongs. The way sickness is healed is by making God primary--through a recognition of God's allness--not by making sickness primary. It is because I care so much about the health and healing of readers of Wikipedia and the world that I have persisted in my attempts to collaborate with Sarah in making a reference to God first instead of sickness. I hope you can respect me for that.

All the best, wikirookiewriter (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Christian Science prayer

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, I am an employee of the Church of Christ, Scientist and have previously declared my COI according to Wikipedia rules. More information about me can be found on my talk page, which includes my hope to help further Wikipedia’s goal of providing fair, reliable, and verifiable information.

I would like to comment on the subject of prayer in this article. Prayer is at the heart of a Christian Scientist’s life and spiritual practice, as it is for any Christian striving to follow Jesus’ teaching. As an essential aspect of Christian Science, it would seem important for Wikipedia to leave the reader with an accurate impression of it. However, this article, and particularly the “Christian Science prayer” section, does not truly do that. The article gives the misimpression that prayer in Christian Science is some kind of self-entwined mental conversation. And it misses the essence of Christian Science prayer, which involves a humble yearning and drawing nearer to God.

Karl Holl, who according to Wikipedia was “one of the most influential church historians of his era,” provided a clear summation of prayer in Christian Science in his article “Christian Science.” He wrote that in Christian Science “true prayer is a silent yielding of self to God, an ever closer relationship to God, until His omnipresence and love are felt effectively by man.”[1] (Man is used here in the generic sense, meaning any woman, man, or child). Yielding self, or opening one’s heart, to God is quite different from the impression the article currently mistakenly gives the reader of an essentially psychological or head-level argument “with oneself.” The article correctly points out that prayer in Christian Science does not involve formulas, but leaves out an essential aspect -- that it necessitates a whole-hearted reaching out to God and the humility to listen and respond.

There is much more that could be said about the purpose and experience of prayer for Christian Scientists, and I would be happy to provide more information, if editors are interested.

References:

1. “Christian Science,” Karl Holl, p. 7 https://www.johnsonfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/holl.pdf.

FirsthandPOV-CCS (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

No church requirement

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

Hello again. The first part of this sentence implies that the church requires members to avoid many areas of medical care. The church does not require that its members forgo any type of medical treatment. (Church website. See also: “The practice of spiritual healing is a conscientious choice for Christian Scientists rather than a dogma imposed by church rules.” Publicly accessible here.)

Is it possible to correct that sentence?

FirsthandPOV-CCS (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done: The existing claim is well sourced. Please provide an independent third party reliable source that supports your claim. Melmann 17:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Melmann, I appreciate your response. For clarification, the two sources cited do not support the part of the sentence that needs correcting. They support the last two parts of the sentence. The part I am addressing is the first part of the sentence, which is unsourced. FirsthandPOV-CCS (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Declined for the same reason as Melmann's. Quetstar (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

How would others feel about recommend instead of require? As far as I can tell, the current statement does imply that the church requires its adherents to abstain from at least some medical care. That implication doesn't appear to be sourced in the lead or body (though it may be in the Schoepflin lead source, which I can't access). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the word they have a problem with is "all", which implies some types of medical care that are required. I don't have a copy of Schoepflin either, but I don't see evidence anywhere that there are any requirements for certain types of medical care over others, so I would support just removing the word "all".

On a slightly related note regarding the same sentence: I've noticed that some antivax vandals seem to be trying to remove the mention of them using vaccinations, so I've added sources I found for that issue specifically. The articles I found don't talk about the issue of if there are/were requirements against other specific types of medical care in preference to others though, which is what FirsthandPOV-CCS has a problem with. 2603:8080:5D12:F389:B443:EB17:B7A5:7FD4 (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Etymology

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could I request a section to explain the etymology of the word science in this context? I think it might be in the same sense as "Gnosis", but I don't know. Either way, it is not the common meaning of science (in the way a physicist would use the word, to mean empirical/falsifiable insights into the rational, natural world). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.54.159 (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

I happened to look up "Christian Science" exactly because I was wondering what it meant and why it was called that. I think an etymology section is a must have, given what you have said about how it differs from the usual meaning of "science". NicolinoChess31415926 (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=n> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=n}} template (see the help page).

[1] Eddy. Science and Health. p. 460.

[2] rdexpress.christianscience.com

[3] Wilson 1961, p. 122.

[4] Wilson 1961, p. 127; Moore 1986, p. 112; Simmons 1995, p. 62.

[5] For personhood, "Father–Mother God" and "she", see Gottschalk 1973, p. 52; for Ann Lee, see Stokes 2014, p. 186. For the seven synonyms, see Wilson 1961, p. 124.

[6] Eddy, Science and Health, "Recapitulation", p. 465:

[8] Wilson 1961, pp. 121, 125.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[n 1]

[n 2]