Talk:Christian Science/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Mary Baker Eddy section – subtle POV problems

Here is a list of questions and problems I have about this section. Repeatedly, information is included or excluded or stated in such a way to make Eddy and the church look as bad as possible, when secondary sources challenging the claims of those used in the article are readily available.

1. Eddy received no formal education. Little education, but some. See below quote from Gottschalk (and I have another one from Peel on this, but have to dig it up).

2. Eddy as hysteric. The article states:

Christian Scientists regard the criticism of Eddy as an "hysteric" as sexist and unfair, part of what Jean A. McDonald, a Christian Science writer, called the "biological rhetoric" of insanity and simple-mindedness that was regularly deployed against women in the 19th century. Eddy was an obvious target because she was challenging the hegemony of two powerful male groups: the clergy and the medical establishment.

Multiple problems here. Where is the proof that this is how Christian Scientists regard criticism of Eddy? McDonald is quoted by the source and a second footnote points to Gill, who identifies McDonald as a Christian Scientist. However in looking at the link to the first footnote, I see no justification for saying that Christian Scientists hold this view, rather just that McDonald states this. I question the whole business, that Christian Scientists say this charge is "sexist and unfair" (they would say neither; they would say it's untrue). Gottschalk states the charge is untrue and he was also a Christian Scientist? Why does the article quote McDonald and not Gottschalk? And why is Gill quoted to identify McDonald as a Christian Scientist, but not to challenge the claim's authenticity, as Gottschalk does below? He also cites the Baker family papers, so both he and Gill are strangely absent from the discussion of Eddy's alleged hysteria. Here is what Gottschalk writes:

Bloom, among others, accepted at face value what turned out to be a wholly unsubstantiated view of Eddy. In her biography of Eddy, written from a feminist perspective, Gillian Gill demonstrates that the picture of Eddy as a hysteric traces back to a single affidavit solicited by reporters for McClure's from one Hannah Philbrik, who conceived a strong dislike for Eddy after having attended school with her briefly. [...] From Philbrik's highly biased affidavit, Cather built up a portrait of the young Mary Baker as extremely nervous and hysterical, and, as a child and young woman, subject to violent seizures. Cather then proceeded to draw a trajectory from Mary Baker's presumed early hysterical fits, to symptoms of her illness in North Groton during her thirties, then to her later "obsession" with animal magnetism. With a sure sleuthing instinct, Gil—who also wrote a biography of Agatha Christie—points out that convincing evidence for Eddy's presumed hysterical behavior simply does not exist. The Baker family papers, which came to light only after the Cather biography was published, portray Mary Baker as frequently ill. But they give not the barest hint that she had hysterical fits of any sort or used them to control and disrupt her family. (Rolling Away The Stone, pp 383-384)

The above quote from Gottschalk also refutes the claim in the first paragraph that Eddy was given no formal education. She had little formal education, but the sentence about Philbrik makes it clear she did have some.

3. Fourth paragraph. Her second husband, who left her after 13 years of marriage... This phrase makes it sound like they had an actual married life together for 13 years, but in light of the hysteria asserted in previously in the section, after 13 years, he'd had enough. Only when you click on the footnote, do you see reference to his adultery and nowhere do you see any mention of the long periods when he left her alone. There is a long quote from Eddy, primarily about the loss of her son and mentioning that she had to ask for a divorce, which was granted. However, the explanation about guardianship rights is attributed to the church, which makes it seem defensive and suspect, when it was, in fact, the law. From Google: "When a husband died, his wife could not be the guardian to their under-age children." See here, paragraph 1 for the above quote, and whole article for historical American attitudes about poverty and women. Why is there an explanation offered for the guardianship, but not the fact that divorce was rare in those days and that the divorce was granted shows the court accepted the evidence of adultery?

4. Fifth paragraph. I know we already went over this sentence and it was restored after a consensus was reached. In reading it over again, though, coming as it does after Eddy's portrayal as hysterical, manipulative and apparently impossible to live with, I find myself objecting again. Where is the proof of "flattering when she needed to be? The footnote indicates a source for "charisma", but where's the rest? Even a critic (Bates-Dittemore, I think - have to find the quote again) called her a "gracious hostess", but I've never seen any accusation of "flattering when she needed to be". It's mainly this one phrase that I'd like to see improved. Lastly, while this quote from Milmine, recorded in Peel "Years of Discovery", doesn't address this claim of "flattery", I think adds to the reader's general understanding of Eddy's character. It refers to her interviews with disaffected students after decades of "estrangement" (Peel's word), she wrote:

[They] still declare that what they got from her was beyond equivalent in gold or silver. They speak of a certain spiritual or emotional exaltation which she was able to impart in her classroom: a feeling so strong that it was like the birth of a new understanding and seemed to open to them a new heaven and a new earth. (Years of Discovery, pp. 247-248)

— Marrante (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, the section about Mary Baker Eddy is positive about her compared to the views of secondary sources, and with (in my view) an independent reading of her own work. I felt I had to write it that way because there is limited space in this article for a focus on her, and to have reflected the secondary sources entirely accurately would have led to an extremely negative subsection, with no space available to redeem her. I therefore chose to err in favour of politeness, in the hope that one day someone will develop her biography so that the section links to a more rounded portrayal. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"to have reflected the secondary sources entirely accurately would have led to an extremely negative subsection" – but doesn't Wikipedia's policy on neutrality require us to be "entirely accurate"? I don't know ... sometimes I wonder if this article isn't bending over backwards just a little too far, and in fact this opens the way for the sort of lengthy re-negotiation exercises we are are seeing on this Talk page, whereas a blunter approach where the content was more straightforwardly defensible as stemming directly from sources might make things more easily decidable. (This is a genuine question BTW, as I was very happy with the overall direction of this article.) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Marrante, one thing I want to thank you for is the link about women's rights. I wrote "according to the church," only because I didn't have a legal source, not because I was doubting it. So I'll fix that now.

Alex, I've been writing about people on Wikipedia for years, and I think this was the first time I encountered such negative material about a person (at a personal level, rather than a political one) that I was left literally not knowing what to do with it. Quite a bit of it came from her own pen, so it was not just a case of unfair personal attacks. I had to make an editorial decision about how to portray it in that short space. I therefore aimed to make it three-dimensional enough so that people outside the religion got the picture, and that people inside the religion didn't feel insulted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

An additional factor that I meant to mention was the way women in the 19th century were treated, and in particular independent-minded women, which I had to take into account. That made it harder still to know how to approach the very negative portrayals of Eddy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Dang those edit conflicts. SlimVirgin, I will address your last post in a moment. Thanks for taking care of the women's rights issue. I can appreciate you not wanting to have a very long section on her in the article because frankly, I think it's too long as it is, given that the subject is not MBE, but Christian Science.

However, I do think that the McDonald ref about "the Christian Science view" (sexist, unfair) is not supported by the source, which shows it as being her view, so that should be corrected, should it not? And the charge that she was an hysteric is very important because it colors so much else. Is it then not POV to state that she was one without including sources that reveal the biased single originator of the claim? Does neutrality require one to repeat oft-told lies, but withhold the truth that is also at hand? I don't see how that can be—or how is that neutral and not POV. I would rather not have the claim in, but since it is there and I know it's not coming out, I think neutrality requires the article to show that Gill and Gottschalk dispute this with evidence.

Alexbrn, I don't want to open up a lengthy re-negotiation, but I would like to correct mistakes that are in the article. I was not here from the beginning, and while I've tried to read old archives, I also have other things to do, so I figured I'd just present my concerns and take it from there. Marrante (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, your last two posts just hit me. I come to this with so much prior knowledge, it's just a matter of checking details with sources. But I have written other articles about people on WP without knowing anything about them. My problem was that they were minor characters and often there wasn't a whole lot of information out there, but I did not have to wade through hostile sources too much. Honestly, in light of that, my hat's off to you. I would recommend you change your user name to Sisyphus, only you're being laden with others' lies. Marrante (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of sources saying or implying that Eddy was an "hysteric" (as it was called then), or whatever the current equivalent category is, including her own work; it couldn't be more obvious that she had long-term mental health issues. As for this being nothing but a sexist portrayal, this is not only McDonald's position. Gottschalk, another Christian Scientist, makes the same point: "there is simply no evidence to sustain this myth, propounded early in the century when Mrs. Eddy aroused storm clouds of controversy as a woman religious leader in a male-dominated society." [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the charge of sexism, rather it was the statement that Christian Scientists say the charge is sexist and unfair. Plus, the source cited in the article described it as McDonald's opinion, rather than one being held by "Christian Scientists" as a group. That was my point. Personally, I doubt that most Christian Scientists would describe the charge as "unfair". I think they would say "untrue". Marrante (talk)

Gottschalk says the same, and he was a member of the church's Committee on Publication for 13 years. Arguing that it's sexist and unfair is the same as arguing that it's false. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know he does, but he wrote that book long after he was COP, so it was not an official position. I'm also not saying that I disagree that the charge is sexist. But I don't agree that arguing "sexist and unfair" is the same as arguing something is untrue. I was once in a situation that the people with me described as inherently racist, but I just thought the behavior was rude. So to me, certain charges are very subjective, whereas "untrue" is objective; something is either true or false, but opinions change nothing. I'm going to drop this, though. In the scheme of things, this is a very minor point. I just wanted to point out that the source appeared to refer to McDonald's view alone. Marrante (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of sources

Jesus

I have a general question about what sort of sources are appropriate for explaining Christian Science theology. I have looked at some of the past discussion on this topic and it seems like there is a bias against church sources (at least that was my impression from the talk pages). While I agree that church sources are less reliable than academic sources for answering scientific questions (such as the effectiveness of prayer), I think that church sources should be allowed for explaining what Christian Science claims to teach. For instance in the Beliefs about God, Jesus, death [2] section there is a sentence which says:

Christian Science holds that Jesus did not die on the cross, but was conscious in his tomb, healing himself.[161]

However, I suspect that most Christian Scientists would not explain the crucifixion and resurrection in this way. It appears that this is the interpretation of someone who is hostile to Christian Science explaining how he interprets its theology. His interpretation may be valid, but it is probably not a valid statement of what Christian Scientists believe. My feeling is that a church source would be better for explaining what Christian Science teaches.

While the primary church source is Science and Health, and that should be treated like a primary source open to interpretation (similar to how the Bible is interpreted by various different religions), the church does publish article in the Christian Science Journal which can give some sense of how the church teachings are generally interpreted (and of course there are slight variations over time). I'm wondering if any other editors have thoughts about this. Because the way the article is currently written it relies very heavily on people who are critical of Christian Science to explain what Christian Scientists believe. Furthermore many of them appear to do so by applying their own interpretation of primary source documents (i.e. Science and Health) rather than any systematic study of church adherents.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the Eddy source for "Christian Science holds that Jesus did not die on the cross, but was conscious in his tomb, healing himself" this seems like a inescapable reading of the text. Note also WP is saying this is what "Christian Science holds" and not what "Christian Scientists believe" (much harder to know/state). Is there some other source offering an alternative interpretation of this passage? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that determining what Christian Scientists believe is a difficult task. And also looking at the quote from Science and Health I can see where this interpretation arises. I don't have a source handy right now to contradict it, if I find anything I'll add it. However, to me the statement sounds suspect, and I don't think it is something that a Christian Scientists would say. My larger point is that in this example the Wikipedia article is relying on a non-Christian Scientists who appears hostile to the religion to explain the religions theology. While in general I agree with using secondary sources, in this situation I think that the secondary sources gives a misleading pictures. Because the author is simply giving his personal interpretation of the primary source (i.e. Science and Health).

I recently ordered Stephen Gottschalk's book "The Emergence of Christian Science in American Religious Life" so once I get a chance to read it I'll see if it has a better explanation of this point. So for now I don't have anything to argue against this sentence. But it sounds suspect to me, and I think I also noticed someone earlier in the talk archive complaining about it.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Just entering this discussion here... Alexbrn, I think it's impossible to say that Christian Science holds that Jesus did not die on the cross. Science and Health has several statements that Jesus died, such as: "Those who slew him" (page 43), "He had power to lay down a human sense of life" and "Jesus could give his temporal life into his enemies' hands" (both on page 51). Another CS book, "Unity of Good" states, "In material sense, Jesus died, and lived." Nowhere does Science and Health state that Jesus did not die on the cross, rather it speaks of Jesus' triumph over death in the resurrection (page 54). I frankly agree with Wikiuser about reliance on hostile non-Christian Scientists for explanations of the religion's theology. I wouldn't ask a blind man to explain the rainbow to me, much less one who hated the rainbow he couldn't see. Marrante (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Another possible RS that might be of use here is here. If the sources are stating that Eddy's soteriology "departs utterly" from that of mainstream Christianity, WP needs to relay that. (Addendum: this source might also be helpful; as might this). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't really like any of these sources, I'm sorry to say, at least what I'm seeing in snippet view. In the second source, note it is the author and not Eddy who is stating that "he never died" and in the third source, that "he never suffered death". The quote from Science and Health, p 43, refutes that with "Those who slew him" as do the other references I gave above. The problem is that these sources try to combine "spiritual" and "material" which is impossible in Christian Science (neither can one combine math with the molecules of a rock). I find all three of these sources to be inadequate. They fall apart because they try to explain Christian Science from the standpoint of orthodox theology. I would compare this to learning a new language or monetary system, both of which I've had to do more than once. The only way to be successful is forget all that you previously thought or believed and just dive into the new and start from scratch. It's impossible to become fluent in a new language until you start thinking in it. These sources are trying to think in the old language while speaking the new. It's no wonder they make mistakes. to convey this theology, I'd rather use a primary source and get it right than use a secondary source and repeat the source's mistakes. Btw, for some reason, just now, when I followed your links from above, I only got snippet view, but when I looked before on my little handheld, I got the whole page and could even read other pages. Any idea why that is? Marrante (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the sometimes weird ways of Google Books links; but with a bit of navigating around one can usually end up with a full view (if available). As to the sources, WP policy prohibits us from building our own interpretation on primary sources, especially if it contradicts what the secondary sources state. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will poke around Google Books some more. I know I stated that I don't like the sources, but the reason is because they are incorrect statements about Christian Science. In a statement about the theology of a religion, is a secondary source that contradicts the primary nonetheless going to be considered more reliable than the primary? It's not my interpretation of the primary source that I'm arguing here, it's what the primary source itself says that is in contradiction with the secondary source. Because you stated that your reading of the primary matched the secondary source's claim that Christian Science holds that Jesus did not die on the cross, I attempted to show why this was incorrect. I will look for some other secondary sources to back me up and will try to get back to you in a few days. The weekend may not afford me much time. Marrante (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Errors, scholarship problems with sources

Here are sources that speak to what I've been trying to articulate, that what is being called a consensus of RS on CS theology, as well as its founder, is not of reliable, but rather of questionable sources. Hostile sources describing Eddy trace back to two people with a heavy bias (Woodbury and Peabody) and from which, authors of the earliest attacks expressed remorse and tried to distance themselves (see my previous post at 02:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC) ). According to WP:NOTRS, "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest."

From Robert Peel, "Years of Authority", p.60, (with its footnote, from p. 395, fn 81):

Through the coming century, nearly every extensive published attack on Christian Science would start with a pejorative account of Mrs. Eddy's life and character as the basis for its subsequent interpretation of Christian Science doctrine and practice.

[footnote follows]

It is interesting to note that even social scientists committed to hard facts have not been immune to the apparent compulsion to explain the institutional phenomena of Christian Science largely through dubious psychobiographical assumptions about its founder drawn from secondary or tertiary sources rather than through the empirical data simply available to them. [...] In a letter published in the "Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion", VI, 2 (Spring 1966), David E. Sleeper, then Manager, Christian Science Committees on Publication, commented on the edifice of academic theory regarding Christian Science which has been erected on an almost total absence of firsthand acquaintance with it:

"What these gentlemen and others seem to be doing is playing the game of a new sort of medieval scholasticism in which elaborate theories are developed in loving detail with a minimal attention to fact."

This next is from Britta Waldschmidt-Nelson (not a Christian Scientist), who reports the same lack of primary source knowledge about CS among the officials she talked with from "established churches" in Germany. (Note: the handbooks mentioned in parentheses are Lutheran and Catholic publications about other religions, sects and religious worldview.) From her doctoral thesis, published by Franz Steiner Verlag, "Christian Science im Lande Luthers: Eine amerikanische Religionsgemeinschaft in Deutschland, 1894-2009", ("Christian Science in the Land of Luther: An American Religious Denomination in Germany") p. 206 (unfortunately, the link is only snippet view, which starts roughly where the bolded word is below):

Those interviewed from the established churches, who were responsible for observing sects, did indeed, by virtue of their work, have better prior knowledge of Christian Science (especially since some of them number among the authors or editors of the handbooks on special religious denominations) but their knowledge likewise only came from secondary sources. None of the theologians themselves had ever sought a conversation with Christian Scientists, gone to a church service or a testimony meeting, or had themselves grappled more closely with Eddy's central texts (S&H, Manual).

From Stephen Gottschalk, "Rolling Away The Stone", p. 382:

After Milmine had been rebuffed by the staff at Pleasant View, she contacted Woodbury, who predictably put her in touch with Peabody. McClure's then hired Peabody to provide new leads for the staff's research. In Gillian Gill's words, "behind the unknown and subtly mythical Georgine Milmine, we find the well-known staff of McClure's, and behind the magazine loom the ghostly figures of the strongly implicated Woodbury and the avowedly prejudiced Peabody."

Also from Peel are numerous footnotes in all three volumes of his trilogy that cite errors in various hostile publications, calling into question the reliablility of these sources, as cited by WP:NOTRS above. Some examples from the first book, "Years of Discovery" are: the Cather-Milmine book removed or altered positive phrases and descriptions about the Baker family (see fn 6, p. 309 and fn 14 on p. 310), a misrepresentation or shoddy research (my words) by Bates-Dittemore (see fn 27 on p. 311; fn2 and 5 on p. 330; fn 6 on p. 345), by Milmine (fn 76, p. 318 and fn 118, p. 321; fn 74 on p. 327), and by Milmine, Dakin and others (fn 56 on p. 349). Marrante (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I just discovered another bit of either sloppy or intentionally misleading writing, this time with Fraser. This ref, used at the end of par. 2 of the MBE section, is a long passage from Fraser's book. In it, she talks about a chapter from "Retrospection and Introspection" called "Voices Not Our Own", where Eddy speaks of hearing a voice calling her. This story is not cited in the article, but I just happened on it and am presenting it here because it is indicative. Here is Fraser's truncated version below:

When she was eight years old, Eddy wrote, she repeatedly heard a voice calling her name three times in a row. When she went to her mother to ask what she wanted, her mother told her that she had not called. Alarmed, she read to her daughter the biblical story of the prophet Samuel, who was called three times by the Lord. Her mother told her to reply to the mysterious voice as Samuel did, by saying, "Speak, Lord; for Thy servant heareth." Finally, Mary replied to the voice in this manner, and it ceased to trouble her.

Here is Eddy's original. Note that Fraser neglects to mention the time period during which the voice was repeatedly heard, a 12-month period (not one day); she neglects to mention that Eddy had come to ignore the voice because her mother had never called; Fraser neglects to mention that it wasn't until after her cousin was visiting and also heard the voice and "said sharply" (after Eddy ignored her first urging) that Eddy should go to her mother; Fraser neglects to mention that Eddy's mother questioned her niece about the voice; Fraser assigns "alarm" to Eddy's mother when Eddy makes no such claim; she neglects to mention that Abigail Baker read the bible story hours later at bedtime (indicating she wasn't "alarmed" or she would have read to her daughter right away, no?) Nor does Fraser mention that Eddy failed to answer the next time she heard the voice, which makes Fraser's use of "Finally" a little odd. And as if all that weren't enough, Fraser puts her spin on the conclusion: the voice didn't merely cease, "it ceased to trouble [Eddy]". Why does Fraser not comment on the fact that Eddy was obviously hearing a woman's voice? She had two parents, but only ever went running to her mother, and Mehitable said, "Your mother is calling you". Eddy never went running to her father. Decades later, Eddy would call God "Father-Mother", a revolutionary concept. As someone who had previously been a Christian Scientist, shouldn't that have been a no-brainer for Fraser to mention—and relevant to her book's theme, too boot? But no, we merely have a severely truncated misrepresentation of what Eddy wrote, leaving only two possibilities: it was either sloppy or deliberate. Either way, can this source really be considered reliable? Marrante (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's yet another problem from a so-called "reliable" source. The section "Malicious Mesmerism" has this sentence:

According to Adam H. Dickey, her private secretary for two years before she died, Eddy would organize two-hour-long "watches" in her home throughout the night, during which her students (known as "mental workers") were asked to use their minds to block MAM from Kennedy or Spofford.

The sentence is cited from Gardner, quoting Dickey p. 45. I have Dickey's book. On page 45, he writes, beginning on p. 44:

Her secretary, at her request, prepared what was denominated a "watch". This consisted of typewritten sheets of paper containing in numerical order the names or description of the phases of error that Mrs. Eddy wished them to handle. She was constantly assailed by mental malpractice and it was necessary for some one [sic] to take up this work and aid her in freeing herself from these different attacks. She seemed to be the only one who was able to discern the course that error was pursuing. Sometimes she learned this through suffering, but she always knew it and would by means of these "watches" notify the workers what their mental work should be.

The next paragraph goes on to deal with problems of the church and how they affected Eddy and the page ends with the first line of the next paragraph, which is about important by-laws. No mention anywhere of Kennedy or Spofford—or of any person's name, for that matter. Not only that, but the watches are described as handling the names or description of the phases of error. "Names" here does not refer to a persons, it refers to "phases of error". I don't have the Gardner book, but if he indeed wrote that Dickey named Kennedy and Spofford, he didn't just make a mistake, he lied outright. Marrante (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Break

These issues have already been "done to death" on these pages. (Check the archives.) The main goal is to write an accurate article. After that, it's Wikipedia practice that secondary sources are preferred to primary. (Whether that's always a good idea is a separate question--normally in academic writing, it's the other way around. And it seems illogical that a secondary source that clearly and evidentially misinterprets a primary source should be preferred to the primary source.) However that may be, that's the way things are done around here. On the issue of death, the problem arises because Eddy is sometimes talking in the relative (Jesus died) and sometimes in the absolute (he didn't die, and neither does anyone else, because death is illusory). Also, the question of whether Jesus "died" or not is somewhat meaningless--even modern physicians and scientists have no consensus on what death is or when it occurs (an issue that raises serious legal questions in the context of organ donation etc.) Until scientists can tell us what death is, what precisely it involves in terms of the mind/body connection, and when it occurs, the question of Jesus' death (or otherwise) is fairly meaningless, and more an issue of affronted orthodox theology than anything else.89.100.155.6 (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources for Wikipedia. However, the source that I am questioning[3] is essentially a 1914 opinion piece. It's not a scholarly work, it's just the opinion of one person who appears to be hostile to Christian Science, at least as far as I can tell. Personally I don't view this source as superior to church publications, at least not for the purpose of stating what Christian Science teaches. Note that the question of whether Jesus really "died on the cross" or not, is not particularly relevant here. The question is whether the Wikipedia article is providing a balanced an accurate explanation of what Christian Science is. I did look at some of the archives and the article seems much better now than it used to be. But that does not mean that there isn't room for improvement. Also I haven't suggested any changes at this point because I would need to find an alternate secondary source that addresses this question. I agree that it is not sensible for various Wikipedia editors to offer their own interpretation of Science and Health in this article, even if they disagree with an interpretation that some secondary source provides.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem has already been pointed out of the poor quality of much secondary writing on CS. This has been a particular problem with the article (though admittedly it's come along a good bit since its earlier incarnations). I don't mean anti-CS bias (though much of the secondary writing is characterized by that). I mean basic inaccuracy and misunderstanding. I think it was Bertrand Russell who stated that as a philosopher he would rather be paraphrased by a hostile individual well-versed in philosophy, than by a friend innocent of philosophy. The problem with much writing about CS, is that it is both hostile and metaphysically ill-informed.89.100.155.6 (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

So far, I haven't found a quote that specifically refutes the sentence in question, but I did find a passage that may shed some light on the primary source. From Stephen Gottschalk's "Rolling Away The Stone" (p. 149), "[Eddy] conceived of an afterlife more as a continuation of present existence than as a radically altered kind of being. 'Mortals waken from the dream of death,' she wrote in Science and Health, 'with bodies unseen by those who think that they bury the body.' A number of informal comments made by Eddy in conversation about this subject indicate that, for her, death marked less of a rupture with what we know and experience now than is commonly conceived. 'If we were to pass on right here now in this room,' she told household worker Lida Fitzpatrick in 1904, 'we would waken right here, and nothing would be changed any more than you see it now.' Eddy taught that after death, individuals retain conscious identity; that they awaken at the same point of spiritual development with those who have gone before; and that they face the need for continuing spiritual growth and purgation until the belief of being a mortal separate from God is thoroughly extinguished. In her words in Science and Health, 'The sin and error which possess us at the instant of death do not cease at that moment, but endure until the death of these errors.' " I am continuing to look for secondary source material, primarily in books. Marrante (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's another quote, this one from a book recommended in a secondary source (by a non-Christian Scientist) that I'm looking through now, "Christian Science im Lande Luthers", Britta Waldschmidt-Nelson's doctoral dissertation about the history of Christian Science in Germany from 1894 to 2009 (when the book came out). She recommends "The Christian Science Way of Life" by DeWitt John (a Christian Scientist), which states on p. 31, "Every true Christian Scientist cherishes this emblem [the cross and the crown] in his heart. He accepts not only the crucifixion but also the resurrection and the ascension as literal facts." In addition, I found this in Eddy's "Miscellaneous Writings", p. 292, "Jesus, who so loved the world that he gave his life (in the flesh) for it, saw that Love had a new commandment even for him." (Eddy often uses the word "even" in the King James sense, which is akin to the German "eben".) I'm still going through this book by Waldschmidt-Nelson. The Dewitt John quote can be found online, but snippet view cuts off the sentence when I look at it, though if you type the whole thing into Google, it will show up as a single hit. Marrante (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is another quote from DeWitt John, "The Christian Science Way of Life", page 34:

Is it really true? Is it true that Christ's Gospel is more than a hallowed legend? Is it true that the Christian revelation of God, properly understood, can reach down to the very roots of one's being and meet his deepest cravings? To these questions Christian Science answers with a mighty shout of joy: Yes, it is true! It is true that Christ Jesus literally rose from the dead.

I hope the above quotes (also from my previous posts) settle this question about Christian Science theology. The statement that Christian Science holds that Jesus did not die on the cross is incorrect. This is an important point in all Christian theology and the article should state the Christian Science teaching accurately, as it actually is; not what a critic thinks it is.

Marrante — I'm not seeing anything there that warrants a change to the article wrt Jesus; DeWitt John is RS for what DeWitt John thinks - but that's of little use to us. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I quoted from "snippet view", which is the 1962 edition. This shows that the book was published by the Christian Science Publishing Society, though I don't quite understand why some blurbs identify the publisher as Prentice Hall and others the CSPS (which Google Books states, as well), but I think it nonetheless establishes that this is RS for what Christian Science holds and proves that a change in the article is not just warranted, but necessary. I already have given you several quotes from Eddy, including one not from Science and Health, which states ""Jesus, who so loved the world that he gave his life (in the flesh) for it..." The problem of "seeking to impose the church's view on the article", in this case, is the goal, is it not? Marrante (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a WP:reliable source; those were are using are. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE states, Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field... This leaves no doubt that primary sources may be considered reliable in this case. They directly contradict the secondary sources. I think the quote that's in the article now should be removed and/or replaced by the reliable primary source. This is an article about a specific theology and it should be accurate. If there is a consensus to leave the contradicting secondary source in the article, then do as you have elsewhere and state the "minority position", the fact that the church's own textbook and members state the opposite. Marrante (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"... as sources of information about themselves ..." — so, as I wrote above, it's RS for what DeWitt John believes. But that is of no use to us. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The publishing information indicates he is speaking for the church, a fact well established by the policy of "authorized literature". I understand the Gill biography muddied this distinction, as did the Bliss Knapp book, hence the very public dispute over their inclusion as "authorized literature". There is no such dispute over the DeWitt John book, which predated this weakening of the meaning of "authorized literature" by several decades. Marrante (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

We'd need more than an "indication" to label it as such - but in any event it would not matter. We don't use primary sources to undercut high-quality secondary ones. We trust to scholars and experts to sift the primary materials and present their expert & scholarly view, and then we relay that. It is not for us to perform that job ourselves. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Your characterizations of these secondary sources as "high-quality" is your opinion. Other editors feel differently. When Wikiuser made an edit mentioning Gill's rejection of a position—for which the article was using her as a ref!—you called it "undue use of her opinion". But your opinion of certain secondary sources—that agree with you (you said that the claim CS says Jesus did not die on the cross was an "inescapable reading of the text")—these sources you now call "high quality". Furthermore, did you just accuse me of trying to insert original research? (It is not for us to perform that job ourselves.) WP:SELFSOURCE and the practice of including minority views justify including a primary source here. Why are you now changing your argument and saying we don't use primary sources to "undercut" secondary sources? I don't see any evidence of that in WP:SELFSOURCE. I will get a source to explain the implications of "authorized literature". Marrante (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Their high-quality is by the criteria set out in Wikipedia's policies: material publishing by Princeton University Press or Brill has a good degree of academic respectability, that makes it a suitable source in WP terms. You are claiming, on the other hand, some apparently self-published book from 1962 is significant, with no argument it seems other than your own say-so. Take a look at WP:PSTS for some relevant policy, and to see why what you are wanting would be in violation. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

DeWitt John had two masters degrees (in poli sci from the University of Chicago and in journalism from Columbia University), was a journalist at The Christian Science Monitor and later, its editor. According to the New York Times, while he was editor (1964-1970), the Monitor received three Pulitzer prizes. His book, "The Christian Science Way of Life", was first published by Prentice Hall in 1962 and later by the Christian Science Publishing Society. Neither of those publishers is fly-by-night; your characterization that DeWitt John's book as "some apparently self-published book" is apparently uninformed. DeWitt John is a reliable source, certainly no less than John Dittemore, who was ousted from the Board of Directors. DeWitt John was a Christian Science teacher, and taught the normal class himself in 1982, see here) was named to the Christian Science Board of Directors in 1970 and served until 1980 (see here).

I read WP:PSTS and what I am proposing in no way violates those guidelines. I don't want any interpretation of these primary sources, I want those sources to be allowed to speak for themselves without interpretation. I want something from them included so WP readers can see that the secondary source is in direct conflict with the primary sources. This is completely legitimate under both WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:PSTS, which says:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.

Both Prentice Hall and the Christian Science Publishing Society are reputable publishers and the author is clearly a reliable primary source. The DeWitt John quote is no more an interpretation than your secondary sources, which are all in direct conflict with DeWitt John and the quotes I provided from S&H and Miscellaneous Writings. The article is obviously not relying primarily on these sources. The DeWitt John book, as well as the others are all readily available, either for purchase or to read online (though I was only able to get snippet view of the John book).

The DeWitt John quote about Jesus having risen from the dead may be easier to understand. You say we must trust the scholars and experts, but your persistent arguments against anything that "undercuts" your chosen sources suggest you don't trust the reader. Marrante (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Marrante, would you mind posting the edit you want to make, so that we can see what you're proposing? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have repeated it. This is from my post at 21:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC) in this section. It's mainly the last two sentences that I want, but because it begins with "To these questions", I included the context.

From DeWitt John, "The Christian Science Way of Life" (1962), page 34:

Is it really true? Is it true that Christ's Gospel is more than a hallowed legend? Is it true that the Christian revelation of God, properly understood, can reach down to the very roots of one's being and meet his deepest cravings? To these questions Christian Science answers with a mighty shout of joy: Yes, it is true! It is true that Christ Jesus literally rose from the dead. Marrante (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you wrote (02:49, 30 May 2013): The question is: what do Christian Scientists mean when they say Jesus died and rose from the dead? Do they mean what other Christians mean? They mean what everyone else means, he "gave up the ghost" (Bible expression for "died"), was taken down from the cross, and buried in the tomb. I came up with the DeWitt John quote because I kept looking for something Alexbrn wouldn't shoot down. What is commonly meant by "death" is what CS says happened to Jesus on the cross. All the quotes I have provided use terms like "death", "gave his life" and "rose from the dead" (Eddy) and "[The Christian Scientist] accepts not only the crucifixion but also the resurrection and the ascension as literal facts" (John, p. 31).

It has been somewhat frustrating for me, continually finding these quotes, certain they prove that Christian Science holds that Jesus did die on the cross. Aside from the problem of the sources being challenged, the core question somehow keeps coming up, anyway. In Christian Science, as in other Christian religions, Jesus' death on the cross paved the way for the resurrection and the ascension. CS is rooted in the Bible; all of what is in Science & Health is backed up by one or more statements in the Bible—albeit CS explains them in a whole new light vis-à-vis other Christian religions. There simply is no biblical authority for believing that Jesus did not die on the cross, a claim which would imply he was merely unconscious and was somehow still breathing. But where other Christian religions consider the resurrection to have been a supernatural act, a miracle, or that Jesus was able to resurrect himself because he was God (still a miracle, I guess), CS says the resurrection was not a supernatural miracle, rather it was a "divinely natural" event. This understanding is fully explained in a Science that is above the physical, is metaphysical. The crucifixion is a key theological point in Christian Science because without the death of Jesus on the cross, CS would have so basis on which to claim one of its main beliefs, that death can be overcome. This is stated unequivocally in Science & Health on p. 427, line 18: If man is never to overcome death, why do the Scriptures say, 'The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death'? (The Bible quote is from I Cor. 15:26.)

This is why the article's claim that CS holds that Jesus did not die on the cross is incorrect and it is necessary to correct it. The fact that McKim's view of CS theology is supported by other non-Christian Scientists does not bring him or them any closer to an accurate statement or interpretation of CS theology. If you still want to quote McKim, you can only use his quote accurately if it is identified as his interpretation of CS theology. If you don't make that distinction and correct this mistake, the article will remain inaccurate on a major point and the GA designation is undeserved.

I will propose a correction for this problem later. Marrante (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've made the sentence about Jesus and death invisible until we find more sources. I'm not keen on McKim as a source, and there isn't much else out there. Prentiss is good, but probably not enough on his own if it's disputed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's worth checking-out Atkinson too (the book is based on his thesis - see p. 109) . I'm not sure that this notion is disputed by the sources, and I think it is important that what mainstream Christianity sees as a "cultic and heretical" departure in mentioned in this article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

[MORE] Also what Hoekema says may be notable: "Jesus' death, therefore, was not real but only apparent".

[MORE] A handy overview of some early reaction to CS theology from the mainstream church is in Raymond J. Cunningham, The Impact of Christian Science on the American Churches, 1880-1910. The American Historical Review, Vol. 72, No. 3 (April 1967), pp. 885-905. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you have finally stated what I've been arguing all along, that this is what mainstream Christianity sees as a "cultic and heretical" departure and not what CS actually says. I have no problem with this being included in the article—provided it is properly identified, as you have done above. Marrante (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It is "what CS says" it seems. If you look, for example, at this 1987 material from CSM you'll see it refers to the crux (hah!) passages of Eddy's: "The lonely precincts of the tomb gave Jesus a refuge from his foes, a place in which to solve the great problem of being. ... He proved Life to be deathless and Love to be the master of hate" and "His disciples believed Jesus to be dead while he was hidden in the sepulchre, whereas he was alive, demonstrating within the narrow tomb the power of Spirit to overrule mortal, material sense." (my emphases) — and then states (tortuously): "Instead of yielding to death, he [Jesus] wholly rejected that tomb perspective." Early commentators seems to have been particularly upset by these passages, as items from a Google Books search will show. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you have pointed out that "Early commentators seem [fixed your typo] to have been particularly upset by these passages". Your quotes from S&H above relate to my points in my earlier post about CS needing this event of the crucifixion and the three days in the grave and the subsequent resurrection as proof that death can be overcome. It is not easy to describe the infinite using a finite means (human language), hence the confusion many have in understanding S&H. From p. 520, "Human language can repeat only an infinitesimal part of what exists. The absolute ideal, man is no more seen nor comprehended by mortals, than is his infinite Principle, Love." Or this: "Ear hath not heard, nor hath lip spoken, the pure language of Spirit." (p. 117) The passages you are referring to above illustrate what she is talking about here. Your quotes are about the unseen, spiritual man, ("the absolute ideal"), not the material man, which gave up "his temporal life" (S&H p. 51), in other words, was dead and buried in the tomb. Without the death of Jesus on the cross, CS is left without a basis for the statement I quoted earlier, that death can be overcome. If the CS view that death is unreal merely refers to what other Christian religions call the afterlife, there is no disagreement with these other Christian religions, but as you keep insisting, and rightly so, there is a difference. CS acknowledges that Jesus came back from the dead, as reported in the Bible. In order to come back, you have to go there in the first place. Marrante (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I hear what you say, but your views appear to be in contravention of those of your movement, widely expressed, and (more importantly in the context of the task of hand) in contravention of the reliable sources we have. On the other hand there are no reliable sources supporting the view that CS holds JC "died" in the normal understood sense of the word, not least because (as anyone can see), Eddy's writings on this are, at the very least, heavily qualified. In my view if we left this material out, it would be airbrushing a significant strand of commentary out of the article, and so wildly POV. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite one or more sources for your statement my views are contrary to what Christian Scientists say on this point? I am unaware of any contravention or dispute. You stated that "Early commentators seems to have been particularly upset by these passages" and in a post before that, you wrote, "I think it is important that what mainstream Christianity sees as a "cultic and heretical" departure" is included in the article. Now that you claim to understand me, you want to go back to challenging me on the reliability of my sources. We have been all around the block on this. You claim that S&H and DeWitt John's book are not RS; I cite evidence, including WP rules, that say they are. Furthermore, S&H is already used as a source in the article. How can that be, if it's not RS? I stated in my post at 06:35 that I have no problem with your source being used—provided it is clear that the material is identified as the author's interpretation. If you want to make the point that others agree with that interpretation, fine. But let S&H speak for itself and let the reader judge. This would be NPOV, and it would make the article accurate, which currently, it is not (on this and other points). Marrante (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

A Google search will turn up from the Christian Science Journal Vol. 74 p. 74, "Jesus did not die out of his mortal body ...". But, returning to reliable sources - we cannot base the article on primary sources, they may only be used for analysis and interpretation as an adjunct to reliable secondary sources (as they are in this article). It would be a violation of WP policy to use them alone; even more so to use them to contradict what we all now know the high-quality scholarly sources state. The high-quality secondary sources we have (e.g. Prentiss and Hoekema) are explicit on this point, and they are in alignment with a good number of lesser secondary sources, and in alignment with the mainstream view as expressed generally on the web, and in alignment with a plain reading of Eddy's text. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I just copied and pasted your quote above and got nothing from Google. Could you tell me what month and year you're looking at, along with the name of the article's author? It will be easier for me to find it that way. I am continuing my search for sources that will satisfy you. As for a "plain reading of Eddy's text", this is no more possible than is a "plain reading of the U.S. Constitution", which I believe lawyers and scholars have been debating for over 200 years. You can cite all the sources you want, they are opinions and have no bearing on the truth, even when held by a majority. I want the article to tell the truth and I refuse to accept the claim that WP would rather tell a lie. I am not giving up this fight for truth. Marrante (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

All the info I had from Google was "Vol. 74 p. 74". I actually agree about the difficulty of a plain reading of Eddy's text (in fact I would cynically maintain that all successful religions need an incoherent text at their core as an essential part of the toolkit) – all the more reason why WP's policies on sourcing must be heeded when including interpretation. As to truth, Wikipedia - and this is crucial - deals in verifiability not truth. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be good if we could find a current Christian Science explanation, but I've been looking (at books and on their website) and can't find anything. There's a danger in relying on other Christian sources who may be out to show that Christian Science isn't really Christian. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Searching on JSH-Online.com using the string "Jesus did not die", I came up with four hits, including two replies by Committees on Publication:

• From the November 12, 1930 Christian Science Sentinel, a reply to something in a Scottish publication from someone identified here only as "Student": The last objection is embodied in the statements that Christian Science teaches that "Jesus did not die" but "he was hidden in the sepulchre alive." Although these sentences are given in inverted commas, following extracts from the Christian Science textbook, they are creations of "Student" himself.
• From the August 29, 1953 Sentinel, a reply to a Norwegian newspaper, (translated for the Sentinel): When the author writes, "Mrs. Eddy claims that Jesus did not die, and therefore cannot have risen from the dead," this is misleading. What Mrs. Eddy asserts is that Jesus went through what is called death, but that just as he had been able earlier to overcome death for others and call them back to life, he was able also to do this for himself. On pages 292 and 293 of Science and Health Mrs. Eddy writes, "In his resurrection and ascension, Jesus showed that a mortal man is not the real essence of manhood, and that this unreal material mortality disappears in presence of the reality."

I found the quote posted by Alexbrn. It's from "How To Understand Matter's Nothingness" by Floyd C. Shank, from the February 1956 Journal. When tiny excerpt quoted by Alexbrn is placed in its context, it becomes clear the author meant that Jesus did die on the cross and in so doing, "proved that death does not destroy" man. Here is the context:

Christian Science accepts and explains rationally Jesus' simple solution of the problem of escape from bondage to a physical body. Jesus did not die out of his mortal body. By his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, he completed his own liberation or adoption with the Father through spiritually scientific means.

If we accept the premise of the solidity, indestructibility, and eternality of Soul, Spirit, and its idea, man, the dream nature or unreality of the material physique is an inescapable and scientific deduction. Jesus healed sin and disease and raised the dead through his continuous, steady, spiritual awakening or ascension. By his own resurrection he proved that death does not destroy a material body and thereby relieve a mortal of further contest with it. After the crucifixion and resurrection he presented his body unchanged and unaffected by death. Freedom from the belief of a physical body comes, not through disintegration, but through complete spiritualization of thought, or spiritual ascension, as Jesus was shortly to prove.

The fourth hit was a testimony from 1890. So, that was four hits for "Jesus did not die" from 1883 to the present. I hope this clears up the question. And thanks, Alexbrn, for that quote, which led me to look for that search string on JSH-Online. Marrante (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I find this whole discussion rather meaningless, for the following reasons. No-one knows what death is, or when it occurs. There is no scientific or medical consensus on when death occurs, which sometimes leads to legal/ethical difficulties (eg in deciding at what point donated organs may be harvested). If we don't know what it is to die, it makes little sense to argue about whether someone actually "died", or not. There are probably hundreds of contemporary accounts of people who claim to have "died" and come back (often citing remarkably similar experiences). Yet there is no agreement on whether or not they "died", or indeed on what it means to die, or on the question of the point at which they would have been dead rather than alive. Jesus said of a young girl who had apparently died, "She is not dead, but sleepeth." Did he mean that she was really in some kind of coma? Or (as Christian Science teaches) that death is an illusion? And if death is an illusion, how could anyone (including Jesus) "really" die? Lazarus was four days in the grave when he was called forth and presented alive to his family. Did he "really" die? It's essentially a meaningless question, from a CS perspective at least.89.100.155.6 (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the rejection of that argument from different COPs, plus the quote from DeWitt John prove that the CS perspective actually does consider this an important point. Doesn't the resurrection require a death in order to be a resurrection? If you don't have a death, what is the resurrection then? Is it merely the "miracle" of moving the stone by someone who had been wounded and then buried for three days with no food or water? Can the resurrection prove the unreality of death if there was no "death" (in the usual sense)? Your point about medical/scientific debate over the meaning of "death" is important, but with this statement in the article, doesn't it lead the reader to understand that CS doesn't regard the resurrection as a raising from the dead? And if you don't have that, can CS really be Christian? Marrante (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'd prefer to go back to MBE for the CS perspective, with all due respect to DeWitt John and the CoPs. I did some concordance research on this in her writings (in the context of a previous Wikipedia discussion) and was surprised to discover how little she says about Jesus having actually "died" (whatever that means). Check it out yourself, if you have access to a concordance. If we don't know what death is, it makes little sense to say that the resurrection requires a death in order to be a resurrection. And even if there were such a definable thing as death and it could be physically observed and measured (which it currently can't) that would still only be in the relative, material sense of things (which CS claims to be illusory). (It wasn't just a question of moving the stone btw: post-Resurrection Jesus appears to have been non-constrained by material limits, according to the Bible accounts, and he eventually transcended the "Resurrection" state in the Ascension.) He was apparently in a different stage of consciousness/experience during the Resurrection state. But I repeat the point: if there is no death then I don't see how the Resurrection could be a raising from the dead (as distinct from a raising out of mortal consciousness). The problem here is that we are (necessarily) slipping between the relative and the absolute. In the absolute there could be no Resurrection because there is no death to be raised from. And in the relative, nothing one says can be definitive because (a) it's illusory; and (b) the realm of death is doubly problematic (even within the illusion, because unlike eg disease, it cannot be definitively diagnosed/measured). If being a "Christian" is dependent on believing in the reality of death, and evil in general, then that's a problem for mainstream Christians (which it is--a fundamental philosophical problem).89.100.155.6 (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Members sub-section

Below, are some comments and problems. I am only starting with this because the graphic is an easy element to see; I looked at it early on and found these mistakes, leading me to look at the accompanying section, as well.

1) Given the lasting fascination of the Titanic, I think readers would be interested to know that Lightoller wrote an account of his experiences in the Christian Science Journal of October 1912, page 414, also online here. Unfortunately, a subscription is required, but many Reading Rooms in English speaking countries will have a copy of the original print version. If other editors are interested, I will investigate posting a subscription-free link to the article.

2) I really don't like the little graphic showing pictures of "well-known Christian Scientists". While the list of notables includes people from all walks of life, the little graphic is entirely Hollywood. I understand that an article of this length often "begs" to have some graphic elements break up the grey page, but these little head shots aren't even thumbnails and worst of all, several of them were not actually Christian Scientists, but were either raised in Science or dabbled with it when it was popular in Hollywood to do so. I would like to move them to the appropriate list or drop them.

The caption on the graphic could be changed (rather than dropping photos), but it gets clumsy to include "Christian Scientists or people raised in the religion". Moving people out of the graphic is also challenging, but they could be replaced with photos of other people, which would also keep the graphic from being so Hollywood. Judge Griesa, the man who sent Leona Helmsley to prison and stopped Westway would be a great switch, for example. (If there's a photo of him.)

The list of misidentified people and the documentation backing me up are as follows:

Andy Rooney: Was raised in Christian Science, but in an interview with him (Associated Press, March 11, 1981), he indicated he'd been out of it most of his life. He said he'd recently "returned to the early teachings in my life", but then referred to "Jesus Christ" (Christian Scientists almost always say Christ Jesus) and then he tells of having been offered money to become a preacher. This last bit is obviously not something that took place within the Christian Science church. His name should be moved to the "raised in" list and his image pulled from the graphic.

Carol Channing: Was also raised in CS, her father in particular was a well-known teacher and lecturer, among other things. Both her parents were Christian Scientists, but in her interview with Larry King on CNN she avoids answering his direct question as to her membership in the church. In fact, her verbatim answer is "no", although this goes into a sentence that makes the "no" possibly vague. What is not vague, however, is her statement that she used doctors. Also, there is a bio of her on PBS that mentions her father, but says nothing whatsoever about her own religious views. I think she's shaky at best to include as a Scientist and should be moved into the "raised in" list.

Cecil B. DeMille: Lyman Powell states in his 1930 biography of Eddy (p. 39) outright that DeMille was not a Christian Scientist. Via Google, it's clear he had some interest in religion, wrote an essay called "The Screen as Religious Teacher" but the only thing about his own religious identification said he was the son of an Episcopalian lay minister (p. 147 Encyclopedia of Religion and Film"). Additionally, another WP article lists him as an adherent of Religious Science.

George Hamilton: He is all over the place, but I think in the aggregate, it's clear he's not really a member. His mother went to Principia and apparently read CS materials, but aside from a few mentions in his autobiography, the only thing I could find really identifying him with CS was a newspaper article from 1966, when he was dating Lynda Bird Johnson, daughter of the then president and the press followed them everywhere, including to a CS church one Sunday. Many websites referring to him say "religion: Christian Science" but in his autobiography, he talks of wanting to be a doctor, of making plans to go to England to go to medical school, of not following through with those plans only because he was in love with someone who wanted to be married to an actor, not a doctor; he writes of going to a chiropractor and to the doctor. He has a kind of casual belief in God, but does not in any way lead the life described in the article's mention of the Manual rules for members. He belongs in the "raised in" list or should be dropped altogether, since his autobiography is mainly about life with the rich and famous.

Robert Duvall: He was raised in CS, went to Principia, but now doesn't go to church. I saw Duvall interviewed on tv (probably [[Charlie Rose) just after he'd made The Apostle and so much of the interview was about Duvall and religion; CS never came up. Furthermore, his manner of speaking about religion was not at all that of a Christian Scientist. This site has a number of quotes, including one where he calls himself "a believer", a term not used in CS. I think he really belongs in the "raised in" list.

Speaking of which, why does the list begin "raised by Christian Scientists" instead of "raised in Christian Science"? It makes it sound like the people who raised them were not their real parents. If one reads "so-and-so was raised by Jews" or "raised by Catholics", one immediately assumes an adoptive relationship. This sentence should be changed. It's not just phrasing, there is a nuance here that fits a generally negative tone in the article, that while improved somewhat, still exists.

There are a number of people on the list who I don't like seeing there because I don't think they deserve to be there, such as John Erlichman and Haldeman, but in compiling the list, above, it was their general behavior as adults, not their worst behavior that I went by. If they genuinely practiced CS on some identifiable level, such as Doris Day (who was somewhat mixed and at the end, really did leave it) I didn't include them. I'm not trying to cover up crimes or careers I don't like, though I do wish there were more like Judge Griesa, Ginger Rogers and Jean Stapleton. I'm mentioning this so it can be seen I am not just trying to exclude people I don't like, but looking at actual adult behavior and involvement with the religion.

3) The annual tax to the church required by the Manual is mentioned in the article, but I think it would be very interesting to readers to know that the Manual sets this at one dollar. More may be contributed, but the Manual stipulates the minimum of one dollar and that is all it ever has been and ever will be. To leave this information out is very surprising. when people hear "tax", I doubt they assume the amount is a fixed minimum that will never change, and that said amount is just one dollar. Such a fact is inherently interesting, especially in these days of financial crisis and ever-increasing tax burdens, and I think it's a curious fact, especially put in context with all the other details about the church. Marrante (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be very interested in reading and linking to the Lightoller article, if you can arrange a subscription-free link. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link. The publishing details are: The Christian Science Journal, Vol. 30, Issue 7, October 1912. I don't have a page number for the original print version, but can get that for you, if you need or want it. Whoops, I had it up above. It was page 414. This was the first testimony in the testimonies section of that issue; it is not an article. The "title" is just the first several words of the testimony; testimonies had no titles until very recently (and I'm guessing they were instituted because of the understanding they'd all need them one day as digital files). Marrante (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Here and here are links to the testimony by Lawrence Beesley, also a Titanic survivor and also a Christian Scientist. His testimony appeared in the Christian Science Sentinel, Vol. 16, Issue 16, December 20, 1913. I don't have a page number for that at the moment, but can get it for you if you need/want it. I want to check on the report (a commenter) that Beesley was a practitioner. Marrante (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, Marrante, very interesting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph in the members sub-section should address a concern mentioned by another editor (the post is now in Archive 6), "Personally I would like to see a better explanation of why Christian Scientists have tended to avoid medical treatment." (From 02:27, 30 May 2013). Robert Peel addresses this in "Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age", Harper & Row (1987) in his chapter, "Faith and Works in a Pluralistic Society". He writes on p. 39:

The vital distinction between nonmedical treatment and no treatment at all is often completely lost by the public and the media.

On p. 38, he quotes from "A Century of Christian Science Healing":

...the student of Christian Science who has accepted its mental and moral discipline and demonstrated for himself the unfailing goodness of God is not likely to look elsewhere for help. [...] Puzzling as the Christian Scientist's confidence may be to others, it is rooted in concrete experience and reasoned conviction as well as in the Christian promises.

The first paragraph describes the members in terms of statistics, but Britta Waldschmidt-Nelson writes of her impression of the Christian Scientists she met when researching her doctoral thesis, "Christian Science im Lande Luthers: and it should be included in this paragraph, which otherwise says little about the actual people. Waldschmidt-Nelson starts the foreword of her book with her impression and ends the first paragraph with an explanation of why Christian Scientists don't go to doctors.

My first contact with Christian Science was in 1988 during my stay as a visiting student at the University of California, Davis. As part of a seminar on "American Religion," each participant was supposed to become acquainted with one of the religions represented in Davis. I sought out the Church of Christ, Scientist because I had already often passed by their reading rooms and wanted to know what was with this strange group of people, who "only prayed instead of going to the doctor". Visits followed, to their reading rooms, church services and testimony meetings, as well as several interviews with members of the Christian Science church in Davis. These experiences moved me to considerably revise my prejudice, held up to that point, that this was a "dangerous sect" of irrational, religious fanatics. Even though I did not then really understand the basic principles of Mary Baker Eddy's teaching and had no familiarity with their history, standing before me, the followers of her teachings were friendly, relaxed, quite educated people, and in no way irrational. Their decision, to forego medical help, was apparently not due to blind obedience to a dogmatic church rule, rather to an individual, deep trust in God and his healing all power. (See page 9 of file for original German.)

— Marrante (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism accusation regarding Science and Health

Several editors have objected to the sentence: This is the chapter some commentators say relies heavily on, or was plagiarized from, Quimby.[176]. After looking at the Fraser citation I asked for additional citation since Fraser does not make this claim in the pages that were cited. Gill was added as a citation, but when I looked at what Gill actually wrote I was interested to see that Gill herself does not agree with the plagiarism charge. I added a note to the citation to that effect. This note is in addition to a lengthy quote from Gardner. Peel is another scholar who disagrees with the plagiarism charge so it is not only Gill. I don't think that every opinion should be listed in the footnote, but this is a disputed point and as such it is reasonable to provide context for the dispute. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

First, you are engaging in edit warring. In the case of a disputed change, discuss on the talk page to achieve consensus: do not continually revert to your preferred version of the text. Also in the case of dispute, the status quo version of the article should hold while discussion takes place. I have restored the status quo version. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The change of "commentators" to "critics" implies that only those attacking Eddy (rather than disinterested scholars) would mention plagiarism. This is a POV edit and would need to be sourced. Otherwise we are getting into the situation where the article is eroded by a succession of small POV edits, as has been outlined elsewhere on this Talk page. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

And Gill's view as Gill's view is not, I think, notable enough to be included. Gill is an outlying commentator in many respects who has been called out for an over-partial presentation of Eddy in her work. If there are better/weightier sources, where are they? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the "commentators" to "critics" change I agree that is a POV edit. For sourcing I would point to the fact that those making this claim tend to be highly critical of Eddy. The claim does not come from disinterested scholars, as can be seen by looking at the sources making the claim. But if other editors do not agree with that change I won't argue it too strongly. However, I do think that Gill's conclusion that Science and Health is not plagiarized needs to remain in some form (possibly not the quote that I included, but there should be something). You cited Gill as a source of this claim when a citation for it was requested, but in fact she provides a detailed and convincing explanation as to why the plagiarism claim is likely false. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, she also acknowledges her view is swimming against a "strong current" - I think we'd need rather more to render her novel view worthy of mention, especially given the controversy surrounding her work. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll defer and wait for others to weigh in regarding the validity of Gill's biography. But Fraser can hardly be called a disinterested scholar (read the preface to her book). Whereas in fact Gill does not have the personal bias that Fraser has, although Gill did end up writing a sympathetic biography of Eddy. As for including Gill's opinion, it is essential if her citation is to remain (which you originally included). It would be highly misleading to cite someone as a source of material when in fact they say the opposite thing. You cited Gill as a source of commentators who claim that Eddy plagiarized; however, in fact Gill herself was a commentator saying the exact opposite. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC).

Again, this is a case where the best thing is for you to look for other sources that support the material. If you know the sentence is true – "This is the chapter commentators say relies heavily on, or was plagiarized from, Quimby" – but you don't like the sources, just add others. It's only appropriate to remove or question if you believe the sentence is wrong (commentators have not said this), or misleading (most commentators have said otherwise), or there are no appropriate sources. But in this case it seems to be the clear consensus outside the church that that chapter relies heavily on, or was copied from, Quimby. I've added more sources, and left out Gill as you feel she says otherwise (but does she? What she wrote is very unclear).

It would help if you could clarify whether you're unaware that commentators have said this about Eddy, or whether you're familiar with it but want to add the church's perspective. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that the "commentators" making this claim are confined to those who are critical of Eddy and personally I would not include this statement at this point in the article but rather would leave it in the section discussing Quimby. But I'm not arguing for that now since I see that there is an existing consensus for including this claim here. I do not want to add the "church's view" on this topic, but rather an alternative viewpoint held both other scholars and commentators (I would count Twain as a commentator, also a critic, and you cited him earlier on this topic). As for Gill my opinion is that her work represents that best modern scholarship that we have on Eddy. Perhaps one could argue that she favors a feminist perspective, but I don't see this as obscuring her objectivity and has produced a well researched comprehensive biography. I have not read all of the other scholarship, but I am not aware of anything that is as thoroughly research or objective (Peel's biography is likely more comprehensive but his objectivity is obscured somewhat because of his relationship with the church). As for whether Gill believes that Science and Health is plagiarized, I think her conclusion is pretty clear. She says that she argues "... insistently upon the radical originality of Mrs. Eddy's work in Science and Health." (Gill 1998, p. 230). Although she surveys the earlier objections to this conclusion, she does so mainly to point out why she disagrees with them. Ultimately I'm not sure why there is such strong opposition to adding clarification to the citation note. Obviously the claim is disputed and refusing to admit this seems like an attempt to mislead the reader. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

My point is that if you knew the sentence – "This is the chapter commentators say relies heavily on, or was plagiarized from, Quimby" – was correct, you could have added better sources if you were not keen on Gill. (Your view that all the commentators are critics may boil down to a matter of definition, by the way.) This is the same situation as the first edition being criticized as poorly written; editors knew it was true but wanted to remove it anyway.

We can't have a situation where the Christian Scientists edit only in support of Eddy and the church, and try to remove anything not to their liking, but everyone else is expected to be neutral, and to supply perfect sources on demand. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Gill, what she writes about this (pp. 230–233, 312–317) is quite confusing. I've read it several times and still don't fully understand her point.

The issue is that what Eddy's early students thought was an Eddy manuscript/teaching aid was Quimby's. Eddy says no, she helped Quimby write it, or wrote it all for him, so it was hers in the first place. The issue may therefore boil down to whether people believe Eddy was honest. Did she steal from Quimby, or did her and Quimby's work get mixed up to the point where the original authorship became too confusing for outsiders to pick apart, and we have to rely on someone's memory and honesty?

The place to start is to compare Eddy's earliest text (the very first The Science of Man manuscript that she claims as her own) with Quimby's published work. It's not clear to me that Gill has done that on p. 231 where she says she is making the comparison. Cather and Milmine say that the first Science of Man pamphlet is not the same as the first Science of Man manuscript. Is that correct, and did Gill take it into account? I don't know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear what the objection is to saying "some" commentators but I see it's been removed. So I've added "several" instead. It's true that "commentators" doesn't necessarily imply "all commentators", but it could have that meaning. For example, if I wrote that "scientists believe GMOs (or whatever) are safe" that could be read as implying that all scientists do, which is not the case. Consequently it would be better to include a qualifier such as "many", "most", "a majority," a minority," "some," or "several" (or whatever formulation is most appropriate in the case in point). In any case I would appreciate it if my change is not reverted prior to consensus being achieved on this page. Thank you.89.100.155.6 (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Please wait for consensus to form in favour of your change before restoring it. If you were to write "several climate scientists agree with the idea of man-made climate change," it implies that a significant number don't. But in this case all independent commentators who have commented on this, with the exception of Gill, say that chapter was plagiarized from/relied heavily on Quimby. And it's not really clear what Gill is saying; in addition she is problematic for other reasons which I will write up when I get a chance. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the use of "several" here is attempting to water-down the well-sourced view the article is relaying. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It is factually incorrect to say that "all commentators" believed that the chapter was plagiarized. And in reality we don't know the breakdown of what commentators think. Many editors here seem to believe that Christian Scientists are incapable of independent critical thinking, and thus that anything published by the church is suspect. However, in the grad scheme of things church publications would counts as commentators. Rather than try to quantify the number it probably makes sense to indicate in some way that this point is disputed. My primary complaint with the editing process is that some editors refuse to acknowledge a legitimate concern about the article and the good faith efforts that are made to improve it. You might not agree with "some" or "several" but what is the alternative that you propose? Clearly multiple people think that simply saying "commentators" without qualification implies all. Even if you don't think that is the case why do you refuse to consider other editors viewpoints? Constant reverting and denigrating suggestions that are made basically tells people that you think their opinion is valueless. I don't even really care what the article says, I'm more interested in the sociological implications of how editing Wikipedia works. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

By "commentators," we mean secondary sources who have written about this issue, and the only one I'm aware of who questions the plagiarism charge is Gill – and even there it's not clear which texts she has compared. Christian Scientists would be thrown out of the church if they were to publish that Eddy was a plagiarist. Again, "climate scientists believe in man-made global warming," means there is a consensus, not that every single one does. Similarly, "commentators believe that Mary Baker Eddy plagiarized, or borrowed heavily from, the work of Phineas Parkhurst Quimby," means there is a consensus. "Some" or "several" commentators implies that there is no consensus.

Bear in mind that this is just a remark in passing; we offer who-says-what in the other section. If you want to get into the plagiarism allegation in detail, you could write a dedicated article about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone can summarize here what Gill says about this, that would be helpful. I intended to include her argument, but when I came to write it up I found myself unable to summarize it. So for now there is just Eddy saying she influenced Quimby, not the other way round, sourced to Gill. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I just looked more closely at the above three posts last night. To compare Gill's book to the other secondary sources and weigh them all equally without taking into account the strong bias of the others and the COI especially of Dittemore and even Milmine, who was guided by Peabody & Woodbury, is disingenuous. Gill was hardly without her criticisms of Eddy, she is as neutral as WP likes 'em. But where the others were content to interview any old reminiscence, no matter how laden with COI, Gill doggedly tracked the claims down ("sleuthlike" or some such Gottschalk called her). Another question: while the article says (1st sentence, last par "Plagiarism allegations"), "The Quimby Manuscripts were eventually published in 1921 by Julius Dresser's son, Horatio Dresser..." it fails to mention that those who claimed to be in possession of them refused to publish them up until them, as Peel notes. Why this omission?

I had a copy of Gill, but unfortunately no longer have it, or I'd take a stab at summarizing what she wrote on this. Can you tell me what page/s you're talking about? Thanks in advance. Marrante (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

In looking for other documentation, I came across this last night, which pertains to the plagiarism issue. While Eddy was a patient with Quimby, he had a patient in Maine, a young woman, Emma Morgan, who suffered from neuralgia, often in agony. Quimby came to her family's farm to treat her, but then himself became so ill from "taking on her disease", he had to be helped to a bed and stayed at the Morgans' overnight. In the morning, the patient was much improved and her father offered Quimby $1,000 if he would tell him the secret of how to relieve suffering. (Just to put the sum in context, according to this site $1,000 in 1862 is equivalent to around $21,500 today.) Quimby declined, telling the father, "I cannot, I do not understand it myself." On leaving, his advice to the mother was, in the event of another attack, to "Tell your daughter to put her mind on me, and drink all the water she can." During a later visit to his office, Quimby introduced her to another patient, "Mrs. Daniel Patterson". Quimby told Morgan "This is a very wonderful woman, and in comparison I am the man, but Mary is the Christ." (More than two decades later, Morgan—then Thompson—learned as she entered the room to take a class from the author of Science and Health, that it was written by the woman she'd met in Portland 24 years earlier.) Source: Christopher L. Tyner, "Paths of Pioneer Christian Scientists" (2010) Longyear Museum Press, pp. 32-34. Although this doesn't directly address the plagiarism charge, these details suggest that Quimby himself saw Eddy as being beyond and above him; they do not support the notion of Quimby as the originator of Eddy's system. Marrante (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The source of that comment ("This is a very wonderful woman, and in comparison I am the man, but Mary is the Christ") seems to be Lyman P. Powell, Mary Baker Eddy: A Life Size Portrait, 1930, p. 98, followed by footnote 69. This says:

"Abigail Dyer Thompson's letter of January 20, 1930, states: 'With regard to the statement made by Dr. Quimby in introducing Mrs. Eddy to my mother, I have heard her tell the entire experience, including that statement, repeatedly since my childhood; and also know that when mother recalled it to our Leader's mind, Mrs. Eddy replied that Dr. Quimby had paid her the same tribute many times during her stay in Portland.'"

The mother (Emma or E.A. Thompson) gave at least two statements about Quimby as part of Eddy's efforts to address the plagiarism issue; see here and search for Thompson. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I see the exact same quote is in Powell, but Abigail Dyer Thompsen must have written it more than once because the footnote attributes it to a reminiscence in the Archives (formerly so-called, now the MBE Library) but the Longyear book quote is from a document in Longyear's own collection. The Longyear book provides other details than Powell. It quotes her remark to Calvin Frye, "Mrs. Eddy has not changed much since I saw her last" and tells the entire story of Emma Thompson's experience with Quimby, including a quote from a 1907 affadavit about Quimby's treatment of her. "His treatment consisted in placing bands on his wrists, plunging his hands in cold water, manipulating the head and making passes down the body. He asked me to concentrate my mind on him and to think of nothing and nobody but him." On page 34, the Longyear book states:

As the second day of teaching was about to begin, Mr. Frye went to inform Mrs. Eddy of Mrs. Thompson's statement about their prior aquaintance in Portland. Mrs. Eddy entered the classroom and asked her to stand and relate to the class her experience with Quimby. Mrs. Thompson described the attacks of neuralgia that had led her to Quimby and then in 1884 to Science and Health. Only after reading Science and Health, she told the class, did the disease disappear for good and she found herself permanantely healed.

Mrs. Eddy replied, "I have waited long years for this testimony."

Mrs. Eddy later told her that she (Mrs. Thompson) had virtually come to her rescue by making a clear firsthand statement about the distinction between the hypnotic nature of Quimby's treatment and the spiritual nature of Christian Science.

In the footnotes, the comment to Frye and the quote also found in Powell are from Abigail Dyer Thompson's memoir in Longyear's collection; the 1907 affadavit (dated February 23, 1907, County of Hennepin, Minnesota) is in the MBE collection at the MBE Library. While Peel has a similar description of Quimby's treatment and statement of his own lack of understanding of his power ("Years of Discovery" p. 339, fn 39) , Emma Thompson is the only one who had experience with both Quimby and Christian Science. Marrante (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Woodbury

This is a question. I was just going through this section again and I looked at what is currently footnote 82 (second one in 2nd par.) and it refers to Woodbury's child and her rather remarkable claim. Shouldn't this just say "immaculate conception"? If I remember correctly, Woodbury did use the term. I think it's much better than "[gave] birth to a child without having had sex" because the claim was implicitly a reference to the virgin birth of Jesus and "immaculate conception" is the usual way of referring to that. Of course, it means the same thing, but the inference is somewhat obscured with the non-standard phrasing. This isn't a POV issue, since it's Woodbury's claim, therefore it doesn't indicate a Wikipedia position on whether there ever was such a thing or not. Marrante (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's better to use ordinary language than a religious term. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Better to avoid using a religious term in an article about a religion? Why? How so? My point is that using "ordinary language" obscures what Woodbury was saying about herself. "Birth to a child without having had sex" makes it sound like she just made a phenomenal claim to explain her out-of-wedlock child, but by claiming "immaculate conception" and naming her child "Prince of Peace" (a biblical name for Jesus from Isaiah, which the article does mention), she is claiming a religious miracle and comparing her child to Jesus. That's pretty bold and may not be clear to the reader without explanation. I think a mention of (or link to) the verse in Isaiah is warranted and that the sentence obscures, rather than clarifies the facts by avoiding use of "immaculate conception". The whole episode was quite a spectacle even if one doesn't understand all the implications, but I don't see how avoidance of "immaculate conception" here helps the reader understand the information. Marrante (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, the footnote now reads: "In Gill's view, the author of the New York Times article was Frederick Peabody, a lawyer who had represented one of Eddy's students, Josephine Woodbury. Woodbury, who said she had given birth to a child without having had sex (she said the boy was the result of an immaculate conception and called him "Prince of Peace") had commenced an unsuccessful libel action against Eddy and the church in 1899. See Gill 1998, pp. xxxiii, 425–428." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That looks better. Thanks for making the change. Marrante (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I like the other articles you're creating, by the way. They're very interesting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It's been interesting to work on them. Marrante (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that this use of the term immaculate conception is not consistent with its actual meaning. I don't know if Woodbury used the term "immaculate conception" or not. Eddy's use of the term immaculate conception does indicate that she was confused it with the virgin birth of Jesus. However, "immaculate conception" is a part of Catholic dogma which claims that Mary was born without original sin. This is different from the claims about the virgin birth of Jesus. I'm not sure if this matters for the footnote or not but I wanted to point it out when I read this discussion. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Good to see your name again, Wikiuser. Peel writes on p. 144 of "Years of Authority" that Woodbury claimed an "immaculate conception". I felt that it was right to use it since it was the term she used and more accurately conveyed what she was claiming. Marrante (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Woodbury or Eddy used it, but incorrectly, which is why it's better for us to use ordinary language; that way, we don't have to worry about religious issues the source may not have intended or even been aware of. Gill discusses the apparent mistake too (p. 674, footnote 12).

This is in a footnote that few will read, and we can't get into the details of the Woodbury dispute, so it might be better simply to remove the phrase. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

I came across this today and find it interesting. It's the description of a 1903 letter to Woodbury's lawyer, Frederick W. Peabody, written and signed by Mark Twain, making clear both the connection to Peabody that Twain had and the debt he felt toward him in acquiring information with which to write his anti-CS articles. The link has an image of the front and back and the description has the contents of the letter typed out. Twain was also in contact with William D. McCrackan, whose name is mentioned in the letter. My point in mentioning this is that Gill and Gottschalk both said that Peabody and Woodbury were behind much of the hostile criticism directed at Eddy. This letter certainly supports that assessment. After reading this letter Twain wrote to Peabody, I was reminded of the comment Twain made to McCrackan, that Twain would wake up in the middle of the night feeling "an impelling force" to write, as Gottschalk calls them, "abusive letters" to Eddy. ("Rolling Away The Stone" p. 382.) I mentioned this last reference in another post, but it may now be archived.

The article is very heavily weighted with critics and failures, such as the sections on medicine, and on clergy and Twain. But there was also Lyman Powell, who started out as a critic and later became an admirer of Eddy. The rector of an Episcopalian church in Massachusetts, he wrote a biography of Eddy. He never left his religion, but other ministers did, such as Irving C. Tomlinson, a Universalist minister and Severin E. Simonsen, a Methodist minister, both of whom wrote books about their experiences. And there were contemporaries who praised Eddy and CS, such as Clara Barton and Benjamin O. Flower, who wrote articles condemning the attacks against CS and a book about CS as a therapeutic agent—including several medical accounts of experience with CS. There was a particular interview with Barton where she praises CS, which was reprinted in the Journal. I have not found an archived newspaper of the interview, but Longyear Museum has a newsprint copy of it. It was originally published in both the New York American and the Boston American on January 6, 1908. See here for Longyear's description and image of the original and here for the full text of the interview, plus some details about Barton's interest in CS, which was uneven. I know WP:NPOV requires neutrality based on reliable sources, but many hostile "reliable sources" are tainted by Woodbury and Peabody while there are other sources (not hostile) that have not been presented at all. Marrante (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me separate two things. First, you say some sources are "tainted". That's the job of scholarship to sort out, not us. Per WP:OR, I can't take your word for it. I need reliable sources which say that other sources are tainted. Second, you raise the issue of neutrality. Can you point to something specific? TippyGoomba (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I began listing some of the examples of why these sources were not reliable, but that section is now archived here. The first two deal with the lack of scholarship in many of the sources as noted by Robert Peel and Britta Waldschmidt-Nelson. Then there's a quote showing that behind Milmine were Peabody and Woodbury, highly prejudiced and with a major axe to grind. I posted the thing about Twain's letter (here, above) because I was so stunned to see it and I thought it was interesting. Plus, it directly supported what Gill and Gottschalk had written.

Back to the archived section, then I showed a bit of sloppy work by Fraser. This isn't OR, it's simply comparing what a secondary source says about a primary source with what is actually in that primary source. According to WP:RS, sloppy scholarship is a reason to not consider a source to be reliable, even if the publisher is established, so it is perfectly legitimate to see if what a secondary source says reliable and I showed here that the secondary source (Fraser) misrepresented the primary source (there's a link to the passage). Now, this particular passage is not mentioned in the article, but it shows the willingness to distort a primary source in order to advance a point of view. That's hardly reliable or respectable scholarship. This is not original research on my part. I'm simply verifying that the secondary source is reliable and it is not. It's not the first mistake I have pointed out coming from Fraser and there are others.

Peel lists many mistakes made by Milmine, Dakin, et al. and I am in the process of listing them, but it's a long slog because of the length of this article, plus I'm trying to do several things at once. With regard to POV, my understanding of WP:NPOV is that just including the critics and the failures is demonstrable POV, if another point of view exists, even if minority, it can and should be included. This is what I'm saying. Twain is quoted several times, but Clara Barton is ignored. The article writes about clergy, but fails to mention those who weren't hostile and even converted. It discusses the view of medicine towards CS without mentioning that there have been medical professionals, such as Edmund F. Burton, John M. Tutt and Jer Master who have quit medical practice and become Christian Scientists, even practitioners and teachers. Gottschalk talks about Burton and a former dentist on pp. 333-334 of "Rolling Away The Stone". I will be listing more errors in article, but it's long and I have gone through the about six books I have here that identify numerous mistakes in secondary sources. Please note that my goal is to improve the article. Marrante (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Marrante, it would be easier to know how to proceed if we had concrete proposals: e.g. the article should say this (proposed text plus sources), or should not say this (proposed removal plus explanation). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I know. You've said that before and I apologize for making you say it again. I am working on it. I've got a pile of notes and need to methodically go through the article and get everything organized. In addition, I'm working on other articles that support these points, so it's slow going. I will try to get back here with something concrete later on today or tomorrow. Marrante (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Atonement

I will get to this, though weekends tend to offer me little time. Monday, I'll have more time. Quick question, though. I forgot that quotations were not supposed to have wikilinks. Is there a way to explain that "at-one-ment" is not original to S&H but is its etymology (according to my 1940 Webster's)? Thanks – and thanks for all your work here. Marrante (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

All you need is a secondary source directly referring to the use of that word in S&H -- reflinks to individual words in a quotation are, indeed, possible, though unusual. It is only bluelinking inside a quotation which is irregular. Collect (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Collect. I see this has now been resolved. Marrante (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm adding a few things to this list. Marrante (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, #8 was not clear what I was referring to by "page". I meant Dickey's book, not Gardner's. Please see my post at 00:07, 12 June 2013.

Committee on Publication

Re: #7, I just googled for "member of the Committee on Publications" + "Christian Science" (to remove the many unrelated organizations with the same committee name) and came up with exactly two hits, a newspaper in NC and one in WI. I don't doubt that there are sources that get this wrong, it's an archaic use of the word. Gottschalk (2006, p. 255) writes, "Eventually, she assigned this work to one-person Committees on Publication in each state and later in foreign countries." Could you please provide an example of where the church refers to "members of" this committee? Thanks in advance. Marrante (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, just spotted my typo, adding an "s" to "Publication". That does change the number of hits to 8 and does offer two examples from the church, one that is unclear "member of the Committee on Publication team", where "team" is probably a reference to staff, and one from a 1909 Sentinel. Gottschalk just writes "eventually" she made them be one-person, but I don't know when that was. Suffice it to say that the committees are not groups, they are one-person, as many of the links about lawsuits against CS state, and it is more accurate to say "Gottshcalk was COP", as I did in my reply to you at 23:36, 3 June 2013 (scroll all the way down). Just googled quickly to see if Gottschalk had been Manager of the Committees on Publication and got a lot of hits for "member of" and mentions of other managers, so perhaps he was just a staffer with the COP, which the manager in Boston certainly has. Marrante (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Amended. Marrante (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There are one-person Committees on Publication around the world, but sources regularly refer to them as members. For example:

• Stephen Gottschalk, Rolling Away the Stone, Indiana University Press, 2005, p. 485: "Stephen Gottshalk was an independent scholar, an authority on Christian Science, and a former member of the Church's Committee on Publication ..."

• Caroline Fraser, "Suffering Children and the Christian Science Church", The Atlantic, April 1995: "Gottschalk was a respected member of the Committee on Publication, an office set up by Mary Baker Eddy herself to correct what she called the "impositions" of the press. The committee, which has representatives in every state, monitors everything that is said about the Church and churns out letters to every newspaper, magazine, and TV station that reports something the Church doesn't like."

Fraser wrote in her book (pp. 373–374) that Gottschalk worked for the Committee on Publication for 13 years, but I don't have the book in front of me so I don't know what she said exactly. If you don't want the article to say he was a member, how do you think it should describe him? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Changed to "worked for". SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Watches

What does Dickey say on the relevant page(s)? The sentence in question is: "According to Adam H. Dickey, her private secretary for two years before she died, Eddy would organize two-hour-long "watches" in her home throughout the night, during which her students (known as "mental workers") were asked to use their minds to block MAM from Kennedy or Spofford."

The references are Dickey 1927, p. 45, cited in Gardner 1993, pp. 116–117, and Cather and Milmine, July 1907, p. 346. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Since most of the "member of" references are from sources that apparently didn't understand the usage of "committee" in this case (Gottschalk may not have written the one in his book; he barely finished writing the book and did not live to see it published), it may seem semantic, but if you know or later learn that the committee is just one person, "member of" just sounds silly. I think "worked for the COP" or "worked for the office of COP" or "was on the staff of" are better ways to state it.

I wrote out the complete paragraph from p. 45 of Dickey's memoir in my post at 00:07, 12 June 2013. In that same post, I split off (from the "Jesus" subsection) my list of scholarship errors; the Dickey material is the last post there. The paragraph starts on p. 44, which does have more about the watches, but since the ref only cited p. 45, I confined myself to that page, except for the first two lines of the par., which were on p. 44. The remainder of p. 45 was not related to the watches, so I described the content, but did not copy it. If you wish, I can type out the rest of pp. 44 and 45. You will quickly see that there is no mention of either Spofford or Kennedy in the entire passage about watches or on p. 45.

Sorry about you having to scroll up for this (it wasn't until later that I got the idea to split this section). I wasn't sure where to put the paragraph from Dickey, since it seemed that adding it to the errors would make the list harder to read. Plus, the information calls into question Gardner's integrity, so I decided to add it to the list I'd been making of such problems. I split the section off so it would be easier to find. The degree and frequency of misleading, questionable and outright false statements from these sources is best grasped when seen as a whole. I'm not saying that these books are totally without merit, but that their assertions cannot be used without verification because they are so often inaccurate, sometimes, even outright lies. Marrante (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I checked out the Cather-Milmine ref the other night, but didn't see anything specific. I was pretty tired at the time and was having trouble getting the thing to display right at first, so I'll check this again later today in case I missed something. Marrante (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is about the sentence, sourced to Gardner and Cather/Milmine: "According to Adam H. Dickey, her private secretary for two years before she died, Eddy would organize two-hour-long "watches" in her home throughout the night, during which her students (known as "mental workers") were asked to use their minds to block MAM from Kennedy or Spofford."

I don't have Gardner anymore and it's not online. Cather and Milmine say in McClure's on p. 346 (in case this page shows up blank as it did for me, click on the page's forward arrow and it should appear), and in The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of Christian Science, p. 239:

"In preparing to prosecute the witchcraft case, Mrs Eddy first selected twelve students from the Christian Scientists Association ... and called on these students to meet her at her house and treat Mr Spofford adversely, as other students had formerly treated Richard Kennedy. She required each of these twelve students, one after another, to take Mr. Spofford up mentally for two hours, declaring in thought that he had no power to heal, must give up his practice, etc."

This is followed by a quote from an affidavit given by one of the 12 students saying this was done over a period of 24 hours: 12 students, two hours each. Gill also talks about the watches, in general terms, particularly on pp. 397–399. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I did finally figure that out about the arrow getting the C&M page to view, but at that point, was too tired and so I still have to go back to that, but don't have time at the moment. Time is an issue now, as well, but I did want to get this answered, since I finally figured out what was going on. I was initially surprised by the mention of Spofford & Kennedy because by the time Dickey was in Eddy's household, they were long out of the picture. The witchcraft trial was very early on, in 1878, long before Dickey or watches. Eddy set up a "Relief Committee" (or Committee of Relief - Peel uses both in his "Years of Trial"). This committee is mentioned on pp. 50 and 287; 287 has this:

"When he [Capt. Joseph S. Eastaman] first studied with her, Mrs. Eddy had not advanced to her later position of 'impersonalizing' evil, though she had emerged from the point of view represented by the Relief Committee of 1878. To that committee she had issued instructions about turning the evil arguments of the malpractitioners back on themselves. 'This is reformatory,' she had written, 'designed to do good and not evil[;] the Bible says the measure you mete shall be measured out to you.' At a considerably later period she wrote of that stage of thought:

I have never countenanced any method in Christian Science which is not to be found in the Bible. For a short time I permitted students when attacked, to defend themselves with the Old Testament method, but this I very soon countermanded."

Dickey's book is only about the period in Chestnut Hill, which began in January 1908. He arrived two days after Eddy and her household moved there themselves. Dickey just gives a basic description of what the watches were. Off the top of my head, I don't know when she really began having watches organized, but it was a standing thing at Chestnut Hill. I do know there was a special group called for the Next Friends lawsuit and this is described by Calvin Hill (who was asked to be part of that watch) in the third volume of the "We Knew Mary Baker Eddy" series. I read this recently. The instructions were brief and mentioned no names mentioned; even the outcome was not specifically prayed for, rather that God's will be done. I will get both the full Dickey quote and the Calvin Hill later today, but won't have time for several hours. I can't do any more on this at the moment, unfortunately. Marrante (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's the rest of Dickey's remarks on the watches. I'm going to re-paste the rest so it's all in one place. (pp. 44-45)

The most important work in connection with our Leader's home was that done by the mental workers, who were there because of their experiences in the field as practitioners and of their ability to handle the claims of evil as they presented themselves. This work was done under the direct supervision of our Leader, and through her secretary she informed the other workers just what phases of error should be given special attention. Her secretary, at her request, prepared what was denominated a "watch". This consisted of typewritten sheets of paper containing in numerical order the names or description of the phases of error that Mrs. Eddy wished them to handle. She was constantly assailed by mental malpractice and it was necessary for some one [sic] to take up this work and aid her in freeing herself from these different attacks. She seemed to be the only one who was able to discern the course that error was pursuing. Sometimes she learned this through suffering, but she always knew it and would by means of these "watches" notify the workers what their mental work should be.

Calvin Hill, from his reminiscence in "We Knew Mary Baker Eddy", Third Series (1953), pp. 53-54:

In 1907 the so-called 'Next Friends' launched a legal attack on Mrs. Eddy in an attempt to prove her incapable of taking care of her own affairs. Had these 'Next Friends' succeeded in their purpose they would have obtained possession not only of her property but also of the copyright of Science and Health.

On March 24 of that year in a letter to me Mrs. Eddy said:

My beloved Student

I beg that you will come to me March 26 or 27 to watch with me one or two weeks as the case may require.

This hour is going to test Christian Scientists and the fate of our Cause and they must not be found wanting. They must forget self and remember only their God and their Wayshower and their duty to have one God and love their neighbor as themselves. I see this clearly that the propserity of our Cause hangs in this balance. May God open your eyes to see this and to come to her who has borne for you the burden in the heat of the day.

Similarly she appointed others, until there were twelve of us who were asked to do special work.

I am still trying to see if I can pin a date on when she began having watches called as such. Btw, I got nowhere with the Cather & Milmine ref, meaning that I got it loaded & visible, but found nothing at all regarding Kennedy, Spofford, Dickey or watches. Are you sure you've got the right ref there? It's the one from the article because that's where I got it when I looked at it before, but it seems to be there by mistake. Marrante (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for typing all that out. I've removed "According to Adam H. Dickey, her private secretary for two years before she died ...", so the in-text attribution problem is dealt with. But the issue itself seems to be correct, or least reliably sourced. I quoted Cather-Milmine above (17:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)) from McClure's. It's also in their book, p. 239. You can also read it here if you search for the quote (search for the words "Spofford adversely"). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the Dickey ref. The section is still flawed, but to fix it would require a much better understanding of what "animal magnetism", evil is in CS. It's presented in a far more "personal" way than it is actually taught, using Eddy's very early grasp of it in 1878 to characterize her approach for the rest of her life, and by association, that of Christian Science. The Dickey and Calvin Hill quotes, as well as statements from S&H and Peel make it clear that animal magnetism was (is) handled on an impersonal basis. I'm sure I can find other RS to support this. The final statement in the first paragraph of the section, "Christian Scientists still believe in the notion of 'mental malpractice,' the unscrupulous use of mental powers" is also problematic for two reasons. First, the word "still" is silly, just as if the article said, "People still believe in the notion of evil." Secondly, "mental malpractice" and "animal magnetism" are very different things, but my impression from reading the section (and the sources) is that this is not entirely clear to those writing. I have to think about how to concisely explain this to make the section better.

Another point is that I don't believe the term "watch" was used in 1878, though I'm still trying to track this down, just when that started. It is the same general idea of defense, but whereas the first was called "relief committee", "watch" is a much stronger term with far deeper meaning. Btw, are you aware of the statement in S&H that says all animal magnetism is either malicious or ignorant?

There's a very interesting passage in Gottschalk (2006) where he talks about Woodbury's attempt to influence Twain. William D. McCrackan, a writer who became COP for NY, met with Twain several times and wrote that Twain told him that numerous times, he was "roused from sleep by 'an impelling force' to write abusive letters to Eddy. Although he generally tore such letters up (actually he sent two of them to McCrackan, who graciously returned them), he explained that 'something forces me to write them.'" McCrackan, felt it was "vulgar hypnotic trickery" stemming from Woodbury. (p. 382, Gottschalk, Rolling Away The Stone) Marrante (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Although the attribution to Dickey was removed, the sentence, "Eddy would organize 24-hour "watches" in her home, during which her students (known as "mental workers") were asked to use their minds to block MAM from Kennedy or Spofford" is still misleading because it makes it seem that Eddy had students "us[ing] their minds to block MAM from Kennedy or Spofford" for the rest of her life, when she did not. This only happened during the witchcraft trial in 1878; later watches named no individual, as Adam Dickey, Calvin Hill and others indicated. In "Years of Trial" on p. 278, Peel writes:

"When he [Capt. Joseph S. Eastaman] first studied with her, Mrs. Eddy had not advanced to her later position of 'impersonalizing' evil, though she had emerged from the point of view represented by the Relief Committee of 1878. To that committee she had issued instructions about turning the evil arguments of the malpractitioners back on themselves.

The time frame is essential to an accurate understanding of the facts here; without it, the sentence is very misleading. Marrante (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added a sentence to make it clearer. See List of errors section above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, the paragraph is much better, though I have a question. I have never read about required two-hour long daily meetings. Where did you get this from? What I've read is that the metaphysical workers were given slips of paper with the issue to be handled written on it and that each slip of paper for any given watch was the same for all the mental workers. Marrante (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It's from Gill; she says there were at least two hour-long daily meetings. There's a quote from her in the current footnote 96. She also writes that different watchers seemed to deal better with different issues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Sanbornton Academy

Peel and others speak of her attendance at Sanbornton Academy and Peel says she may have attended Holmes Academy. (See "Years of Discovery" pp. 54-55) and ths for more refs. Marrante (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

McClure's

McClure's is not identified for the kind of publication it was. If you google for "McClure's muckraking", the first hit you get is Wikipedia and when you go to it, the photo on the article is a McClure's cover. This is not an insignificant fact and should be mentioned in the article. The end of the section on McClure's mentions Gill's view of McClure's, but there are many others who disparage the magazine and Milmine (later understood to be Cather-Milmine).

Here is a paragraph from Book History, Volume 4, Ezra Greenspan, Jonathan Rose, Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America Eugene V. Gallagher, W. Michael Ashcraft editors uses the word and cites the book's inaccuracies:

On the other hand, in 1906 and 1907, "McClure's Magazine," the most prominent of the muckraking journals of the time, published a series of articles on Mrs. Eddy by Georgine Milmine that were reissued in revised form as the book, "Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy" (New York: Doubleday, 1909). Milmine's book is also well-documented (if inaccuracies can be "well-documented"), containing many eyewitness accounts of life in the early Christian Science movement, but radically biased against its subject, and is the first in a long line of debunking biographies of the founder of Christian Science.

Here's another reference from to the muckraking exposé of Eddy at the end of the first paragraph and see p. 223, footnote 9 from Religious Outsiders and the Making of Americans by Robert Laurence Moore, who refers to the "series of muckraking attacks written for McClure's". To call the articles "a devastating critique" without mentioning the muckraking aspect intentionally leads the reader to regard the articles as being more than they are, despite the brief quote from Gill and the mention that they became "the key primary source" at the end of par. 1 in the section. They were full of inaccuracies, as the paragraph above states and Peel documents.

One example is the MBE section, end of par. 2, the quote from McClure's about Mark Baker racing for Dr. Ladd. Peel writes in "Years of Discovery", p. 311, fn 30:

Many biographers, following Milmine, have projected back into the Bow days accounts which were gathered from critical sources in Tilton (Sanbornton Bridge) and which belong to the period after 1835. For example, Bates-Dittemore have an old neighbor from Bow remembering Mark Baker driving in haste "for Dr. Nathaniel Ladd" and shouting "Mary is dying." But Dr. Ladd lived in Tilton, and was known to the Bakers only after 1835. The Baker physician while the family lived at Bow was Dr. Peter Renton of Concord. (See bills paid to Dr. Renton in L[ongyear].)

This means the quote is substantially flawed. There may have been such an incident that took place in Tilton, but the quote is about Bow. Peel has identified the doctor bills from that period as having been paid to a different man. If the original McClure's publication of the story is substantially flawed, the mere repetition of it by other secondary sources does then make it legitimate. But this does bring the issue of reliability into question. Marrante (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The term muckraker isn't an insult, in case that's what you're thinking; it has been used that way, but is generally regarded positively. See the Britannica article, for example.

There were several people involved in compiling the 14 McClure's articles (which can be read here and here): the editor-in-chief S.S. McClure, the assistant/managing editor Witter Bynner, and five writers/researchers – Willa Cather, Burton J. Hendrick, Will Irwin, Mark Sullivan (a political columnist), Georgine Milmine (a McClure's researcher) and, for a short time, Ida Tarbell. There are bound to be errors in a work of that length, but by all accounts it was thoroughly researched. There are lots of original documents, affidavits, and material from Eddy herself.

The church has tried to discredit the articles, and bought the manuscript of the book that followed the series, The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of Christian Science, then kept it out of print (the current edition was published in 1993 by the University of Nebraska Press). The New York Times wrote in 1910 that it "ranks among the really great biographies – or would were its subject of more intrinsic importance. ... It is unanswerable and conclusive, and nobody who has not read it can be considered well-informed as to the history or nature of Eddyism." [4] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I know it's not intrinsically negative, but it does put the article in a particular context. They weren't just out to write about Eddy & CS, their goal was to dig up dirt. You didn't address what I wrote about the wrong name being used with the one quote, though, also the paragraph I cited that called the book inaccurate.

The New York Times has a very uneven record. While I have used them as a source plenty of times, I will never forget the role they played in getting the US into the war in Iraq and that wasn't the first time they traveled the low road. I would say that their description of McClure's is applies more to Peel's trilogy and that regardless of his religion and that he's widely recognized as "pro-Christian Science", "in-house historian", etc., I don't believe anyone pro or con has ever found fault with his scholarship. That cannot be said of the McClure's articles and Cather-Milmine book.

Btw, when I re-read about Woodbury and her out-of-wedlock son, "The" (with cap T) was part of his name. It was all in quotes, "The Prince of Peace". Marrante (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Muckraking shouldn't be confused with dirt-digging! According to Wikipedia, muckraking is characterized by writing which "investigates and publishes truthful reports to perform an auditing or watchdog function". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Peel is an independent source. The book was published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, not the Christian Science Publishing Society and Peel's scholarship has been widely recognized. (If you'd like, I can supply some comments about his work by others.) Two additional sources are Eugene V. Gallagher, W. Michael Ashcraft, editors, (see footnote 12, par 2) in a general comment about inaccuracies; and Gill, who is quoted in the article, so I won't spell that out here. More specifically, David Strouck on p. xvii in the 1993 edition of the Cather-Milmine book writes, "Burton J. Hendrick wrote the initial installment about Mrs. Eddy's early years; it was based chiefly on popular myth and the biased recollections of jealous relatives." Put together, don't these all argue that anything related to Eddy's early years, if taken from McClure's or repeated by others citing McClure's, need independent sources to prove it is not just "popular myth" or "jealous relatives" mouthing off to someone who will print what they say?

It's also noteworthy that Cather "denied any significant part in the Eddy biography" and it was only through the late discovery of two letters that this assertion of hers was proven otherwise. I will have to dig it up, but I also read that Milmine also tried to distance herself from the book and I already quoted her remark to Lyman Powell (mentioned by him in his biography, but without naming the source; Peel identifies it as Milmine in footnote 74, p. 328 of "Years of Discovery"), that not all of her interviews were "the kind of sources we would have chosen". The whole footnote is well worth reading for a sense of the kind of source Milmine was talking about. Marrante (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

With respect, that's somewhat selective. The other 13 installments were written by Willa Cather and have been spoken of highly, so why focus only on the first? Peel is not an independent source; he was a Christian Scientist most of his life. And "muckraking" refers to investigative/watchdog journalism.

Again, it would help if you would make specific proposals. Asking that we generally disparage the McClure's articles isn't going to work. Have you read them, as a matter of interest? The thrust of their claims (at least as far as the material in this article is concerned) can be gleaned from Eddy's writings alone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The comment about the first installment came from the introduction. I had the book in my hands in May, but was traveling and had no time to read it, just leafed through it a bit and read the intro & afterword. I have looked at that that one archive of the articles (we talked about it earlier, after I'd had display problems) but I haven't read them through. As for actual proposals, I've mentioned before that I'd like to see something about doctors who've left medicine for CS and the other day, I also mentioned ministers who left their churches for CS. I have been working on other articles to facilitate this and have some more I want to do in that regard. Peel's scholarship, plus the fact that he did not shy away from details that had previously been unknown or unconfirmed (causing him "darkened" later days as he was shunned by some in CS, according to Gill), and the fact that his trilogy was not published by the CSPS, make him undeniably independent. I can't write more at the moment, real life is encroaching. Marrante (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope you'll consider reading the articles before criticizing them, because the work that went into them is self-evident. Also, I would recommend that you read the articles rather than the book. They are slightly different, and the format of the articles makes them easier to read. The introductory editorial is here and the articles are here.

Regarding proposals, it would help a lot if you would write out the sentence(s) you want to add or change, along with the sources, and if they're new where you want to place them. Then we would have specific proposals we could look at. The thing about the doctors, for example, would depend on how it was written and where it was placed, and how strong the sources were; if you have only three doctors in over 100 years (for the sake of argument), and the only sources are themselves or the church, it would be difficult to justify. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I will read more of the articles, but it will take me some time. What I can tell you is that what I have read so far was worse than what I was expecting; considering how low my expectations already were, that's an achievement. Thank you for the links. Saves me having to hunt them down. Marrante (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read much of the Milmine articles so I don't know much about their reliability as historical sources. Most of what I know of them is from Gill's biography where she points out reasons she believes other biographers have made mistakes by relying on them too heavily. However, I think that the fact that Peel is said to not been an independent source ties in with other criticism of this article as not having a NPOV. Obviously Peel worked for the church and this colored his viewpoint. But it also appears that he produced high quality scholarly work, and he had some of the best access to archival material. His biography of Eddy confirmed facts that were embarrassing for the church (i.e. her use of morphine). So that points to the independent nature of his work. Whereas many other sources in this article are openly hostile to Christian Science (i.e. Fraser). That does not mean that they should not be used, but there should be an awareness of the POV of the writers. But I do agree that it's more useful to discuss specific concerns than general ones at this point and I don't see a specific change that was suggested in this thread, nor am I suggesting one.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, related to your post above (16:03, 24 June 2013) and the quote from the NYT book review, I have to say that the quote must be regarded in the context of the NYT's blatant contempt for MBE, CS and its adherents. Cather-Milmine didn't challenge their opinion of her or CS and it gave them an opportunity to indulge in sarcastic barbs about MBE and her church, such as the gratuitous "or would were its subject of more intrinsic importance." Other than to reveal the writer's own jealousy, where was the need to write that? If the subject had so little importance, why write the review at all? The review calls CS a "wretched cult" and then states, "It is impossible to forget, however, that Mrs. Eddy's influence on the world has been wholly bad. Even those whom she has 'healed,' and their number is not small, have been reduced to a state of imbecility for which their improved physical condition is a miserable recompense." What kind of a person is motivated to spew such venom?

The review's final claim before the ending statement you quoted above (after a rather big ellipsis) that "not one important statement of fact in [the book] has been disproved or even seriously questioned" is quite obviously no longer true—if it ever was. People who knew Eddy at the time, or in earlier years spoke out against the articles and are quoted in Peel. (I will address this in more detail later.) I am only writing this post because in looking for something else, I stumbled across the NYT's obit for MBE—similarly derogatory—entitled "The Strange Life of Mary Baker Eddy"; the first subhead a grudging admission of her success: "Her Ability to Gain and Hold the Loyalty of Thousands a Notable Attribute". After reading the obit and now the review as well, my earlier reply about the NYT sometimes choosing the low road seemed inadequate. I do respect you and your intentions regarding this article, but I'm sorry, the NYT's praise of the Cather-Milmine book is so motivated by jealousy and hatred, I find it to be of little "intrinsic importance". Marrante (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk page organization

I think that the "Errors" section in the talk page was a good idea for listing factual errors which could easily be corrected. However, it seems to have transitioned to a general discussion about things that are related to the POV of the article rather than clear factual errors. This is most notable in the Doctors section, though also true of the Robert Peel section. I recommend that those sections be moved to their own sections so that they can be properly archived after any discussion of each topic is finished and consensus has been reached. Also I recommend that the "Errors" section be used for discussing specific claims of factual errors rather than proposals for changes to the article. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I've broken up the sections so that the bot will archive anything not responded to in the last 10 days. We can extend that time if you'd like. I think it went to 10 days because the page was getting long. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on how quickly active editors seem to respond 10 days is likely to be fine, although I don't have any objection to increasing it if desired. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I put it up to 30 days with 5 threads left. We can always move it back down if needed. TippyGoomba (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Robert Peel

Some comments regarding Robert Peel and his work. The quotes address his reliability and independence as a scholar. These are being posted in relation to #11 on the errors list ("Mary is dying").

– Mrs. Eddy's most brilliant, informed and judicious biographer - Gillian Gill (1999), p. 40.

– the three volumes of Robert Peel, published between 1966-1977, are still unsurpassed. Gill, in fact, owes an important debt to Peel, who, she claims, displeased Christian Science with a biography regarded as not faith-promoting enough. “Although always remaining a loyal Christian Scientist”, Gill writes (581), “Robert Peel became estranged from The Mother Church, and I am told that his last years were darkened by the attacks and snubs he suffered from fellow Christian Scientists”. – CESNUR, Center for Studies on New Religions.

– A well footnoted (scholarly) biography which eventually became the church-authorized biography of Eddy is Robert Peel's trilogy Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Discovery, Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Trial, and Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Authority. (1966-1971) – blog included here because it succinctly states that Peel wrote the trilogy for himself, not the church, which did not publish it, but did later "authorize" it. Prior to that, the church's sole support consisted in granting access to the archives.

– Robert Peel, Mary Baker Eddy, 3 vol. (1966–77), is both detailed and sympathetic and is by far the most reliable and comprehensive biography. – Encyclopaedia Brittanica, here. Also note the descriptions of other sources used here: Milmine and Dakin are called "are dated and untrustworthy", the Bates-Dittemore book is called "interpretively unreliable, [but] contains valuable documentation". (Other sources are described as well.)

– The most insightful biographical investigations of Mary Baker Eddy's commitment to print culture and the appearance and use of "Science and Health" can be found in Robert Peel's magisterial three-volume biography... – Ezra Greenspan and Jonathan Rose, Book History, Vol. 4 (The sentence goes on to mention Gill and Thomas.)

– Robert Peel silenced much of the debate over the most peculiar aspects of Eddy’s behavior and teachings, confirming and documenting facts that the Church had long denied, such as Eddy’s occasional use of morphine during illness, in contradiction to her teachings. – Caroline Fraser, here, second to last paragraph. Note here Fraser's "occasional use of morphine" – not addiction, also her statement "in contradiction to her teachings", shown to be inaccurate by the first full paragraph on p. 464 of Science & Health.

– I first read this book upon publication in the 80's while studying at Harvard Divinity School, where the author had studied several decades earlier. (I re-read the book again last week, and found it still at the top of the class.) At the time of my first reading, I found little written on the topic of spiritual healing, even though I had access to Harvard's great libraries. In the interim, the literature on this topic has flourished, mostly from the pens of MD's who have earned the ire of their colleagues for breaking lockstep with the "church of medicine". And I've read most of those authors: Benson, Chopra, Segal, Dossey, Weil, et al. Those names are nearly 'household' while Peel remains unknown -- a travesty, as in many ways his intellectual rigor is their equal, and his familiarity with the subject eclipses them all. – Review of Peel's "Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age" by former Harvard Divinity School student Eric Chaffee, see here. Marrante (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It's important to note that the Encyclopaedia Britannica page linked to above was written by Stephen Gottschalk. Eric Chaffee, another reviewer cited above, is also apparently a Christian Scientist. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe "His three-volume biography is a tremendous source of information, though it is heavily biased in favor of Eddy." ? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering the apparent lack of reticence using Cather & Milmine, Dakin, et al., heavy bias isn't the issue. The reason I posted was not to demonstrate that Peel was not heavily biased against Eddy, but to demonstrate that many people, both pro and con, have found his trilogy to be scholarly and independent. You have concurred with "tremendous source of information" and there are sufficient quotes above to demonstrate that Peel's alleged bias was not a problem, particularly if Caroline Fraser credits his books with being the basis of her own very antagonistic writings. Marrante (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Except you've cherry-picked a bunch of quotations to try and prove a point. This Talk page should really be used for proposing edits which will improve the article: what is the point of all this, is there some specific change you have in mind? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"Mary is dying" 1

Apparently, you missed my introductory sentence above, "Some comments regarding Robert Peel and his work. The quotes address his reliability and independence as a scholar. These are being posted in relation to #11 on the errors list ('Mary is dying')." Peel indicates that the doctor's name was wrong, that this incident took place in Bow and the Bakers neither went to Dr. Ladd at that time, nor did they even know him. He points to records of medical bills being paid to another doctor (I mentioned him earlier by name), records which are at Longyear Museum. Furthermore, Dr. Ladd lived in Tilton (formerly called Sanbornton Bridge), where the Bakers moved in 1835, but the incident was said to have taken place in Bow. These facts throw doubt on the accuracy of the story, which I said earlier. In reply, it was claimed that Peel is not an independent source and so my post above was written to counter that. This is all in line with the purpose of the talk page, as you have described it. Marrante (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You quoted Peel (Discovery, 1966, p. 311, fn 30) above:

Many biographers, following Milmine, have projected back into the Bow days accounts which were gathered from critical sources in Tilton (Sanbornton Bridge) and which belong to the period after 1835. For example, Bates-Dittemore have an old neighbor from Bow remembering Mark Baker driving in haste "for Dr. Nathaniel Ladd" and shouting "Mary is dying." But Dr. Ladd lived in Tilton, and was known to the Bakers only after 1835. The Baker physician while the family lived at Bow was Dr. Peter Renton of Concord.

Cather/Milmine (1909, p. 22) wrote that this incident took place in Tilton, where Nathaniel Ladd was the family physician, and they attribute the story to neighbours in Tilton:

Nothing had the power of exciting Mark Baker like one of Mary's "fits," as they were called. His neighbors in Tilton remember him as he went to fetch Dr. Ladd, how he lashed his horses down the hill, standing upright in his wagon and shouting in his tremendous voice: "Mary is dying!"

When first published in McClure's, Cather/Milmine (January 1907, p. 236) mentioned no location:

Mark Baker, standing upright in his wagon and lashing his horses, would drive for Dr. Ladd, the family physician. An old neighbor remembered him driving thus and shouting all the way: "Mary is dying!"

Perhaps Bates-Dittmore (1932) made a mistake by attributing it to a neighbour in Bow. Or perhaps Peel (1966) made a mistake by saying that Bates-Dittemore had so attributed it; all I can see from Bates-Dittemore is snippet view: "Then Mark Baker would drive in haste for Dr. Nathaniel Ladd. An old neighbor remembered him once shouting as he drove: 'Mary is dying!'". No mention (in that snippet-view window) of where it happened.

What makes you assume that it was Cather/Milmine who were mistaken? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It was the way I understood the footnote. Initially, I looked at it as a mistake of Bates-Dittemore, that they placed it in Bow, as had Milmine with other events, but at some point, I got to thinking of it as Milmine's mistake. The main point, for me however, was that the doctor's name was wrong and in light of evidence that they used a different doctor in Bow and Peel seemed to be saying that Milmine and others simply took details from Tilton and placed them in Bow, presumably to buttress the narrative about the earlier Bow years, for which details were sparse, the Baker papers not having yet turned up. I will try to nail this down a bit better. I am trying to find the footnote that says when the Baker papers surfaced. Unfortunately, I didn't write it down when I read it. Marrante (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on the material quoted above, this seems to be Peel's mistake. Cather/Milmine 1907 didn't mention a location in relation to this incident (that I can see), and in 1909 said it took place in Tilton, not Bow. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

More about Peel

As a counterpoint to some of the comments above about Peel, I've been reading contemporaneous academic reviews of his work. The reviewers generally agree that it's a fascinating, detailed and worthy contribution, but also that he is highly biased in Eddy's favour. For example:

• James Findlay, "Review: Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Discovery by Robert Peel", The Journal of American History, 53(4), March 1967: "The author paints a highly sympathetic portrait of his subject. ... The result is a flat, one or two-dimensional image that remains unreal."

• Charles S. Braden, "Review: Mary Baker Eddy, The Years of Discovery by Robert Peel", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 6(2), Autumn 1967: "[H]e follows the familiar pattern of refuting, one by one, the chief claims made against Mrs. Eddy. He comes out at the same place as most of her acknowledged defenders. ... Despite the impressive apparatus of scholarship employed, Mr. Peel's book must be taken for what it really is, an exceedingly clever piece of propaganda in support of the official view of the life of Mrs. Eddy."

• Robert C. Fuller, "Review: Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Authority by Robert Peel", Church History, 48(3), September 1979: "The author, who simply assumes that Mrs. Eddy's life is of monumental importance, offers little interpretive commentary which would force his readers to a similar conclusion. Another serious shortcoming is that this book neatly sidesteps subjects which Mrs. Eddy's detractors have made central to their analysis of her quirksome personality, without contributing any new ones of its own."

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't use him as a source, but we should exercise some caution, especially when he makes claims that contradict independent sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Peel has a POV strongly influenced by his belief in Christian Science; however, I don't think that McClure's or Fraser is any more independent that Peel. They both had a specific POV and were looking for information to support it. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That attempts to introduce a false equivalence between the proponents and opponents of a fringe position. Being biased in favour of 2 + 2 = 4 is a good thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really, facts should stand on their own, rather than relying on widespread acceptance as proof of their validity. As a counter example, it is interesting to look at the scholarly debate about the historicity of Jesus. As far as I can tell, one of the main arguments for the historicity of Jesus is that most scholars believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, most scholars in the field have a personal bias to accept that there was a historical Jesus. I'm not arguing one way or the other about the historicity of Jesus, I'm just giving that as an example where the mainstream position is to accept a religious claim as true and the "fringe" position is to deny it. For this article it's fine to report what the majority opinion is, but you should be aware of the biases of the authors rather than arguing that certain biases are a "good thing" and that other biases mean taint a source as not being independent. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, these quotes you cite are very interesting. Findlay is an honest, simple spin-free statement of his impression of the book. Braden, however, seems to be a demonstration of his own charge against Peel. Naturally, Peel was concerned about refuting the claims made about MBE; without refutation, the claims are repeated as though there is no contrary evidence (as is often claimed here). Is there something inherently wrong in this or different from Milmine? Is Braden implying that only critics should be allowed a forum? Even in giving reluctant and begrudging acknowledgement of Peel's scholarship, he spins it to further disparage the book. Doesn't that make this quote itself a "clever piece of propaganda"?

Regarding the Fuller quote, first, I was amused because one of the reviews I read of Gill complained that she was constantly giving her opinion, which the reviewer found distracting and annoying. But Fuller's complaint of a lack of commentary is a sign of our times—and Fuller says (to me, shockingly) "which would force his readers to a similar conclusion." Eh? What's wrong with letting readers think for themselves? But if Peel presents the facts with "little interpretive commentary", letting the facts stand on their own and the reader to judge them for himself, this would be called NPOV at WP, would it not? Fuller says Peel makes an assumption that he does not back up. That's criticism, but I don't see how it undermines Peel's independence, including the phrase "simply assumes that Mrs. Eddy's life is of monumental importance", which just complains that Peel read and wrote so much, since every author of a biography must feel likewise about his subject in order to justify the significant labor required. Marrante (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, I just came across your post of 16:15, 2 July 2013, or I'd have responded sooner. I was unaware that Gottschalk had written the Britannica review or that Chaffee is possibly a Christian Scientist. I had actually had an additional quote, but withheld it after discovering the reviewer was a Principia graduate. Although you are throwing the two reviews into question by identifying them with Christian Scientists, known and suspected, Gottschalk's independence is as well established as Peel's.

The underlying difficulty with understanding what MBE called the "Science of the Christ" was articulated by Jesus in talking about who could enter the kingdom of heaven. "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein" (Mark 10:15) and to the chief priests and elders, he said, "...publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before you." (Matt. 21:31) Publicans were the tax collectors, frequently dishonest and viewed as traitors and apostates, according to Cruden's (1979 revised edition, p. 520). In short, the worst sinners are better off than self-satisfied, learned men. Those with preconceived notions will be challenged to see the pearl, much less recognize its value (see Matt. 7:6 and 13:45, 46), the kingdom of heaven, which Jesus said was not "lo here" or "lo there" but "within you". (Luke 17:21) Those who begin to understand CS end up adherents, and many converts will tell you they had no intention of taking up the study and were initially much opposed to CS. The fact that there are few Christian Scientists and more of everyone else does not mean that everyone else is independent, but what the Scientists say is automatically tainted. Neither am I arguing that Christian Scientists are automatically right and everyone else wrong. But this is a case where the subject is widely misunderstood and misconstrued and, though others may not like it, those who best understand it have acquired this understanding through long years of study and practice, that (even) years of study are not alone sufficient—but as those who can demonstrate their understanding of CS will always say, it is best to let S&H speak for itself. To hold the views of hostile critics of CS to be more reliable than those of adherents simply because of affiliation is like demanding that the blind—in this case, blind with hostility—lead the blind (see here and here). I am not arguing against neutrality, rather for it. Marrante (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This is highly inappropriate, see WP:NOTFORUM. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

TippyGoomba, surely you don't mean it's inappropriate to argue for recognition of scholars who are Christian Scientists. That was the point I was making. The only difference here was that I tried to give my arguments more background to enable others to see the current discussion in the larger context. Did you not understand that? Marrante (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a bunch of WP:OR. It looks like you're trying to promote your religion. TippyGoomba (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Marrante, I think that the problem is your more recent post is not related to a specific edit. It seems that most editors have conceded that Peel can be used as a source, but also that he has a personal bias which needs to be accounted for. In the case of the "Mary is dying" quote, the evidence that Peel provides is not definitive to prove that the statement was never uttered. In the article the quote is attributed to McClure's, and it is noted that McClure's was highly critical of the church. If you were trying to include something else from Peel then it might be worth having a discussion as the reliability of his work, but in this thread the discussion of the reliability of sources seems disconnected from any suggested changes to the article. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

TippyGoomba, sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Were I to do what you accuse me of, trust me, it would not be online. If you wish to find out more about this, send an e-mail to me and I will write back to you. If you include your phone number, I will call you on the phone. I will not discuss it here. Marrante (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"Mary is dying" 2

Wikiuser, thank you for your post (at 22:08, 5 July 2013). I didn't mean to imply Peel said it never happened. It's possible it was in Tilton, but by citing the name of a doctor who was unknown to the Bakers at that time and considering the era, the means of travel and communication available then, which I think we hardly appreciate today, it seems to me unlikely that a neighbor in Bow would have made such a mistake, since Dr. Ladd, unknown to the Bakers, may well have also been unknown to others living in Bow. (See here. Bow is at A, Tilton is at B.) Bow is about 25 miles from Tilton, a whole days' journey on foot, according to Google Maps. No wonder Baker family records now at Longyear show their doctor bills were paid to Dr. Renton in Concord, a mere 6 or 7 miles away, which could be reached much faster (Google Maps says 30 minutes by bicycle).

Since Dr. Ladd lived in Tilton (formerly Sanbornton Bridge), and was known to the Bakers after 1835, the scenario could have happened there, but then why was the reminiscence attributed to Bow? Was it because there was a dearth of information about the earlier years, the Baker papers having not yet come to light? Did someone, as Peel said, "[project] back into the Bow days" to fill in a part of the narrative that was thin with details? Since the memory is clearly flawed—Peel cites the records of payment to Dr. Renton—the quote's inaccuracy makes it shaky. Doesn't that warrant at the very least a footnote, something like "Peel says Dr. Ladd, who lived in Sanbornton Bridge (later called Tilton), was unknown to the Baker family while they lived in Bow. Peel cites bills paid to Dr. Renton in the Longyear Museum collection." The information is from footnote 30 on p. 311 of Peel's "MBE: Year's of Discovery" Marrante (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake starting a new section here. Non-WP life interfered and I forgot what did and did not get archived. In my opinion, this section can just be moved to the end of first one, which is where I meant to put it anyway. Marrante (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Marrante, did you notice what I wrote above on July 1? The "Mary is dying" incident was first reported in 1907 by McClure's, and again in 1909 by the book based on the McClure's articles. Neither said that it had happened in Bow. The former didn't mention a location, and the latter placed it in Tilton, where Dr Ladd lived. (Eddy's family, the Bakers, lived in Bow until 1836, I believe, then moved to Tilton when Eddy was around 15.)

• Milmine and Cather for McClure's said (January 1907, p. 236; p. 236 is on that document's p. 10 if you click on the link): "Mark Baker, standing upright in his wagon and lashing his horses, would drive for Dr. Ladd, the family physician. An old neighbor remembered him driving thus and shouting all the way: 'Mary is dying!'"

• Milmine and Cather in the book said (1909, p. 22): "Nothing had the power of exciting Mark Baker like one of Mary's 'fits,' as they were called. His neighbors in Tilton remember him as he went to fetch Dr. Ladd, how he lashed his horses down the hill, standing upright in his wagon and shouting in his tremendous voice: 'Mary is dying!'"

It appears that Peel (1966, p. 311, fn 30) was mistaken in implying that McClure's had located this in Bow, even though Dr. Ladd lived in Tilton, and may have been raising it as a straw man argument against McClure's. Peel also said that later writers (Bates and Dittemore 1932) had located the incident in Bow too, but so far as I can see on Google snippet view they didn't specify a location. Based on what I've read so far, the error appears to be Peel's. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I did read what you wrote, but wasn't clear on some aspect and then forgot about the post. Snippet view is frustrating. I'm going to see if I can get the Bates-Dittemore quote somewhere else. Marrante (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this is an issue that speaks to Peel's credibility. He implied that Cather-Milmine had placed this incident in Bow, then argued they must have been wrong because Dr. Ladd wasn't in Bow. But they hadn't placed it in Bow (so far as I can tell). This may have been a simple mistake on Peel's part. But if he also said Bates-Dittemore placed it in Bow, and they didn't, then it begins to look less like a mistake and more like a strawman argument intended to discredit Eddy's critics. So I would be very interested to know what Bates-Dittemore wrote. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Cult

Before the 1970s, the word cult had no pejorative sense. For a discussion of this, see here, especially the section, "Past uses of the term 'cult'" and the definition at Merriam-Webster.com. As further indication of the way the word previously had nothing close to the sense it often is assumed to have today, see this book published by the Christian Science Publishing Society, where Archibald McLellan quotes from the Washington [D.C.] Herald, which reported that in a sermon by Rev. Lloyd Douglass, he said, "I am not a Christian Scientist, and my position as pastor of an orthodox church makes that point quite clear. Yet I had rather be identified with that cult than to be identified with the large and increasing body of people who are zealous in impugning all of its teaching without going to the trouble of investigating."

The book, a church publication, is publishing the word "cult" in reference to itself. As the foreword indicates, the book is a collection of articles published in December 1910 and January 1911, following the death of Mary Baker Eddy. It contains 173 articles by 167 newspapers, plus a few other tributes (see list, here). The New York Times also published an article, but it was not included in the book. Its article was titled "The Strange Life of Mary Baker Eddy" and the first subhead was "Her Ability to Gain and Hold the Loyalty of Thousands a Notable Tribute". This would have been offensive to the Publishing Society, which did not re-publish the article, but the word "cult" was no problem at all.

The part of the sentence after the comma, "and during Eddy's lifetime the New York Times regularly referred to Christian Science as a cult in its articles and headlines" should be removed as "misleading the reader" as per WP:RNPOV and the meaning of the word "cult" should be explained in the article (since footnotes are often not read), if the discussion of CS as a cult is going to remain. Marrante (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it depends on whether this information is coming from the Jenkins source or not. If the NY Times examples were added from a primary source then I suppose that could be RNPOV. But if Jenkins wrote this and the references to the NY Times articles are just additional information (which is what the footnote looks like to me) then I think that the information is properly sourced. In that case arguing that cult has a different meaning is OR, since the cited source already had the opportunity to consider this and still chose to mention it as something that he thought was relevant. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "cult" is sourced to multiple high-quality sources; removing it based on original research would be non-neutral and based on original research. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you need to quit taking unilateral steps here before a consensus is reached, especially before people have had a chance to weigh in. What Wikiuser said was it would depend on whether or not the information was coming from the Jenkins source and this has not been established yet, as far as I know. Furthermore, I'm not arguing anything, I'm simply stating a fact here, and for which I cited a reference. This is not OR. OR would be arguing it had a different meaning before the 1970s if there were no secondary source for this, but there is and I provided one. See cult for more information on how the meaning of the word has changed. And perhaps you'd like to explain to me why, if it's a pejorative, the church published something using the word, though did not publish anything from the NYT in the 1911 book they produced with articles about Eddy after her death. Marrante (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

We have a consensus, as reflected in the article. You have tried to challenge it, but without success. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't part of the earlier work on this article. Did your consensus include discussion of how the meaning of the word has changed? Your statement "You have tried to challenge it, but without success" is based on one comment from one editor and your attempts to cut off the discussion. I replied to Wikiuser, but have not heard back yet. I should add that after today, I will have only sporadic Internet access until September, so there will be little or nothing from me for about the next two weeks. Marrante (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added a quote from Jenkins to the footnote to explain how the word cult was used at the time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, SlimVirgin. Marrante (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Eddy's second marriage

The description of this marriage is highly misleading. The article (section on MBE, par. 4) currently reads, "Her second husband, who left her after 13 years of marriage" and then goes on to discuss the guardianship issue. After creating a depiction of Eddy as difficult and demanding from her childhood, and then describing the marriage in such oblique terms, it suggests that Patterson put in a good effort, but after 13 years, he gave up and left. Neither his frequent and sometimes long absences nor his adultery are mentioned (though a reference to the adultery is buried in a footnote) and there is no mention of the fact that she was granted a divorce – in that day and age. This is misleading to the reader, to leave out such significant details – particularly after having depicted Eddy in extremely negative and one-sided terms, and her marriage so obliquely that it is impossible for the reader to understand the real picture: infidelity and abandonment that supported a suit for divorce in an age when divorce was difficult and rare to obtain. Marrante (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism question

Slimvirgin, could you add the name of the person who actually did write "Taking Offense"? According to Peel, this article was written anonymously ("Years of Trial" (1971), p. 185). The sentence in the article makes it sound like Braden has identified the author. Thanks. Marrante (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Braden didn't identify the author. He wrote in a review of Peel 1966 (Charles S. Braden, "Mary Baker Eddy, the Years of Discovery by Robert Peel", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Autumn 1967), pp. 294–296):

The author [Peel] strikes out almost savagely at the claim advanced by the late Rev. Walter Haushalter, author of the book Mrs. Eddy Purloins from Hegel, that Mrs. Eddy borrowed heavily from what has come to be known as the Lieber Document, an essay purportedly written by a well known scholar, sometime Professor of Political Science at Columbia University and editor of the Encyclopedia Americana, to be read before the Kantian Society of Boston. Whatever the genuineness of this document, there are other grounds for the charge that she now and then used material as her own which was taken from another, without indicating her source. Such a case was that of the article, "Man of Integrity," taken with only the slightest modification from Lindley Murray's Old Reader, much used in an earlier day. Published first in the Journal, it is still published as her own in The Prose Works. This the author does not mention, nor does he refer to another article as long as 38 lines, "Taking Offense," which was also offered as her own when it was really an article which appeared in an obscure newspaper, was clipped and pasted in her scrap book, and later published. It is still published as though she were the author.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that. I don't have access to JSTOR, so was unable to read the review. I think for the sake of clarity, since all the other examples state authors, it should be stated that this article in Godey's Lady's Book was published anonymously. As far as I know, no one knows who wrote it. To say "written by somebody else" may be factually true, but "written anonymously" would be more accurate and clear, would it not? This could be cited to the page in Peel given above. Marrante (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that you pasted that quote into the footnote . I think you really do need to add the Peel ref now, since otherwise, the reader is left to assume this remained unaddressed. That was only true for five years, until the 1971 publication of his next book. Marrante (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I'd want a second source for that, unrelated to Peel or the church. The implication is that, if it was first published anonymously, Eddy might have been the author after all, so it ought not to be included as an example of plagiarism. I'd therefore prefer not to use Peel as the sole source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're okay with Peel. Here's what he wrote. I'm going to include the whole paragraph, though the first couple of sentences are just intro to the rest.

Some of the ephemeral articles and poems which she herself had written before discovering Christian Science were revised and refurbished to do metaphysical service in the "Journal". Stray paragraphs were used as fillers without attribution to any author, so that it is often difficult today to say for sure whether they are by Mrs. Eddy or not. One anonymous article from an old number of "Godey's Lady's Book" was reprinted without credit to any source, was then reprinted (in part) a second time by a later "Journal" editor, who introduced it with the phrase, "Somebody has written these wise words," and ten years later was gathered, with minor verbal changes, into the corpus of Mrs. Eddy's "Miscellaneous Writings," though differing markedly from her own work in style and content.

The footnote to this paragraph doesn't really add to the information here, in terms of Godey's or "Taking Offense", but it shows an example of how a poem she had read often as a girl pops up in later years in some word choices. He puts them side by side and I think anyone would be hard pressed to call it plagiarism, but certain words that are in the poem appear in the later passage as well, which was from "Prospectus" in the first issue of the Journal. I can tell you that when I first read this paragraph years ago (p. 185, not the footnote), there was no question in my mind as to Peel's meaning, which was that she had not written "Taking Offense". After you added mention of it to this section, I read the essay again and Peel's description is accurate, it is markedly different from her other writing. Marrante (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for typing that up. That passage doesn't say that "Taking offense" was first published anonymously. Also, the church is using that the author's name is unknown to imply that Eddy might have written the article after all. This is similar to the Quimby allegations – Eddy argued that she hadn't copied him because the Quimby text that seemed to have been plagiarized (the manuscript that later became The Science of Man, if I've understood correctly) had been written by her for Quimby, or as part of one of Quimby's manuscripts, in the first place. Or something like that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, I think you're wrong about this. The first two sentences are about other cases where it's not clear, but Peel is clearly saying that this is not one of those cases. Look at it again: "One anonymous article from an old number of "Godey's Lady's Book" was reprinted" sounds to me like it was printed anonymously in Godey's and "though differing markedly from her own work in style and content" couldn't be more clear that this is a unique passage that came from Godey's. The MBE Library wrote in its [www.marybakereddylibrary.org/files/Newsletter%202010_V4_N1.pdf newsletter] (2010, Vol. 4, No. 1):

Although no one ever charged Eddy with plagiarizing this piece while she was alive, in 1929, critics began to claim that Eddy had not, in fact, written “Taking Offense.” They cited the anonymous publications of the article in both Godey’s Lady’s Book and the Journal as proof. Peel makes the same claim in his biography. The truth is that the authorship of the article is still unknown. Given, however, its publication in multiple sources under Eddy’s name during her lifetime, we strongly suspect that the article was written by her.

I have another source that says "Taking Offense" is anonymous. It's a blog on CS history, unaffiliated and by someone who has an apparently significant personal collection of early CS literature. I don't know much about it, but it keeps popping up in my Internet searches. The owner of the blog seems to be very well informed. He is of the opinion that the essay was not hers. He also says that the Godey's was probably not the first printing because of the placement in Eddy's scrapbook. He says it appears to have been in the 1850s or 1840s. He also says the scrapbook clipping was anonymous, btw. Also, here's another link from the MBE Library regarding Peel. They write "Though biographer Robert Peel strongly felt that the piece was not hers, we really do not know who wrote it, and it is not impossible that the author is, in fact, Eddy." Marrante (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, I see now where Peel says it was anonymous. But you can see how the church is using this to claim that Eddy may have written it after all. Do you have a link to that blog? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted, of course. Regarding the MBE Library's claim, you come at this with far more indignation than I do. (I am more bothered by other things the Library has written.) Their claim is within the realm of possibility, it's just that the article does, as Peel says, "[differ] markedly from her own work in style and content and there is the intro written by the second Journal editor who published it. This is the link to the blog, right at the comments regarding "Taking Offense". The blogger signs as "Keith". Marrante (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Re: indignation, it's just that I've never seen the church say of a criticism of Eddy, "yes, unfortunately, this is true." If I'm wrong about that, I'd be happy to be corrected, by the way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, sorry for the delay in this reply. The lack of specifics in your statement made it somewhat difficult to address. A thorough investigation of all the information shows that much criticism of Eddy is based more on jealousy and hatred than fact. Despite claims by critics that the Peel books are flattering tributes to her, there are many comments written in plain, blunt language, references to her rebukes of others, for example, that can hardly be considered fawning descriptions. In addition, the Gill book has statements supportive of some of Eddy's worst critics, such as William E. Chandler and Twain and both this and the Peel trilogy are sold as "authorized literature". I should think your desire to hear an apology from the church must be mitigated at least a little bit by this. Btw, having not seen any reply from you here of late, I'm wondering if you're away. Marrante (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I just came across this today in Clifford Smith's "Historical Sketches", first published in 1934. On p. 105 of the 1941 book and p. 72 of the 1934 edition, he lists publications where MBE published in her earlier years. He writes that not everything was signed, making it difficult to locate these earlier writings and not all were known. He writes, "But the following are among the publications in which poetry or prose by Mrs. Eddy has been found: the Belknap Gazette, the New Hampshire Patriot and State Gazette, the Portland Daily Advertiser, the Portland Daily Press, the Lynn Reporter, the Connecticut Odd Fellow, the I. O. O. F. Covenant, the Freemasons' Monthly Magazine, and Godey's Lady's Book. Two of her poems were reprinted in Gems for You, a collection of selected verse published at Manchester, New Hampshire, in 1850, and again at Boston, in 1856." Yes, this was published by the CSPS, but this was in 1934, more than 30 years before Braden's review quoted above and as far as I know, the origin of the "Taking Offense" was not in question at that time. The passage does not specifically mention "Taking Offense", it just lists Godey's along with the others. Marrante (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Gottschalk cite

The first paragraph of the section "Christian Science prayer and treatment" has three sentences after the first ref. The second ref (currently ref 182) cites Gottschalk 2006, pp. 326 and 328. The article states:

They do not appeal to God for help, or see their prayers as faith healing or examples of miracles. Rather than focusing on what is wrong with the body, they try to re-adjust the apparent misalignment with Mind or God. They believe that the effect of this spiritualization of thought is moral, physical and emotional health.

Presuming that all three sentences apply to the ref at the end of the third one, the second sentence and part of the third misrepresent what Gottschalk writes. He does not say that Christian Scientists "try to re-adjust" anything or that there is an "apparent misalignment" with God, nor does he write about "emotional health". The words "re-adjust", "misalignment" and "emotional health" do not appear anywhere on those pages, nor in any of Eddy's works on CS. They may be concepts from "new age" philosophy or something else, but they are not CS. They appear to be construed from Gottschalk's sentence on 326:

But her followers, she found, could not yet heal in this way, and thus needed the process of arguments as "reminders"—a useful discipline to prevent fear from dominating the human mind and to align thought with the power of divine Mind, which is the healing factor in all cases.

The first sentence after (current) ref 181, is fine as is. The other two should be revised to read as follows:

Rather than focusing on bodily ills, they use arguments to banish fear in thought as they strive to understand the facts according to Mind or God. They believe that the effect of this spiritualization of thought is moral and physical health.

— Marrante (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Doctors

Regarding the doctors, mention of them should be included, regardless of how many names I'm able to document. It is not difficult to justify because the exception proves the rule, therefore, the presence of even one doctor is significant and justifiable. You will be happy to know I just zapped about two paragraphs of this post and will save them for when I can put them in specific sentences that I am going to propose. Marrante (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Certainly not - it would be quite undue and would imply some kind of medical legitimacy to CS. I think if we are to place CS practices at all in the context of real medicine it is necessary to employ WP:MEDRS sources, and to make sure CS 'practices' are properly identified as a WP:FRINGE activity. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is fairly clear that it is not "medical" in the sense of modern organized medicine, but is only "medical" is pretty much the same sense as other religions and philosophical groups view their beliefs as efficacious for people. In the sense that all religions are "fringe" to someone else, such categorization here is of no benefit to the reader. Historical references to doctors would not affect the general view of this topic as religious, IMO. Collect (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh I agree. As the article is now, CS is framed in the main as a religious phenomenon - largely as a result of Slim's good re-write that took it away from being criticized in a scientific-rational context. If however, the article starts drifting back that way by implying things about the efficacy, desirability, or attraction of CS as a medical phenomenon, then those views will need to be properly contextualized as fringe. Also, if some doctors have 'gone over' to CS, it would still seem undue to mention it - as undue as (say) singling-out and mentioning CS practictioners who had committed suicide or been committed to mental institutions. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That's absurd. I'm not talking about describing examples of CS healing, rather of stating the simple fact that there have been doctors who have quit medicine for CS and for which there are books and newspaper articles as RS. You made it very clear that people can be RS for themselves, so in the articles I've created about such doctors, the reasons why these people took this step are in their own words, which simply explained it better. Let the readers have the opportunity to read the source material and make their own assessment. Not including this information in this article is omitting an interesting and significant fact that has nothing to do with MEDRS anyone's definition of medical treatment, rather this is part of the history of CS, that certain individuals who happen to have been medical doctors quit for what you call pseudo-science and fringe activity. This would be unexpected from reading the rest of the article and therefore would have to be an interesting detail to the reader. The information rightly belongs in this article. Marrante (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Not unexpected at all. Many quacks were 'medical doctors' at some point so it's not as if being a doctor guarantess lifelong rationality or ethical behaviour. In such a large population there are going to be cases of doctors becoming all kinds of things. In any event, we would need good sources establishing the significance of the phenomenon you are claiming. We would also need to invoke (e.g.) Quackwatch for the mainstream medical view of CS healing, as any implication that CS enjoys any sort of endorsement or favour from the medical profession would be a blatant POV violation. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

An edit conflict interfered with my last reply to you, which was as follows: You wrote, "Also, if some doctors have 'gone over' to CS, it would still seem undue to mention it - as undue as (say) singling-out and mentioning CS practictioners who had committed suicide or been committed to mental institutions." That's quite a comparison you make there, Alex, that doctors who "go over" (quit medicine and convert) to CS = the mentally ill.

But now to address your other post. I am talking about individual decisions that are part of the history of CS. Unless the existence of quack doctors can be construed as evidence that the entire medical profession should be avoided, I don't see how you can object to the mention of a historical fact that a few doctors have quit medicine for Christian Science. How can individual decisions be misconstrued as an endorsement of medicine? I'm sorry, but that's just absurd. Marrante (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The implication would be there. The present article tactfully skirts around the relationship between CS and mainstream medicine, except where it is unavoidable (i.e. major news stories or prominent controversies). Your proposed edits would start to explore that relationship again, and would cherry-pick one aspect: "some doctors become Christian Scientists". Neutrality would require in that case that we explore other relationships between 'doctors' and 'Christian Scientists' too - the view that it is quackery.

In any event, this is all moot unless you can produce some specific proposed text with sources ... an approach which would, BTW, make better use of people's time on this Talk page. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Marrante, it would be unexpected if large numbers of doctors were doing it, but if the numbers are very small there's nothing significant about it, and it would be a violation of UNDUE to pretend otherwise by highlighting it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that simply mentioning that some doctors have left medicine for Christian Science does not properly characterize the relationship between the medical profession and Christian Science. However, I think the characterization of this relationship is one of the weaker parts of the article. In particular the reasons why Christian Scientists have historically rejected medical treatment are not well explained, and the article includes a misleading quote from the NY Times which claims that the church now presents Christian Science as a supplement to conventional medical care (this is not true). Since the relationship between medicine and Christian Science is likely to be a highly contentious topic its not something that I am going to propose edits for right now. But it is an area that could use work.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

My purpose in proposing that the article mention doctors who have left medicine for CS is not to characterize the opinion of medicine to CS, but to state that there are exceptions to the wall of opinion against CS. I have read WP:UNDUE and it makes sense, but this is not an article about earth science, it's about a religion. The article should be about that religion, but it is not. It is an article about what critics and opponents think about CS. This article struck me from the beginning as having little to say about CS (as compared to, for example, the article on Mormonism). Even the "Further reading" section is heavily weighted with books that will inform the reader not about CS, but about what critics and opponents think of it. That's fine, but then let that be the title of the article. Btw, I'm writing now just to respond to recent posts. I'm working on material related to this article. I will come back when I'm done and will propose my specific changes. Marrante (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment that the article relies heavily on the opinion of critics to explain Christian Science. However, I still don't think that bringing up the fact that some medical professionals have renounced their practice for Christian Science is a solution. Medical treatment and Christian Science treatment are incompatible, but this is primarily because of what Christian Science teaches. There is nothing in the ethics of medical treatment which say that prayer should not be combined with medicine, but this is part of the ethics of Christian Science. For the most part anyone who chooses to rely on Christian Science treatment is rejecting standard medical practices, so this is only more noteworthy for the case of medical professionals in that they are changing their profession. But Christian Science practitioners are expected to have this be their full-time profession, so any practitioner is giving up some other profession. So it is only slightly more noteworthy if a doctor were to become a Christian Scientists than if I banker did. The more important problem with the POV of the article regarding the relationship of Christian Science with medicine is that it simply presents a laundry list of criticism without representing alternative views which do exist. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikiuser, according to John M. Tutt, Jer Master and Edmund F. Burton, it is somewhat more involved than your post implies for a doctor to leave medicine for CS. None of these ex-doctors gave up medicine right away; it took Jer Master ten years. Initially, none of them expected to give up their profession. They ended up doing it, not to become practitioners, but because at some point, they no longer believed in the efficacy of medicine. As a major shift in thinking took place with each of them, they found working in medicine to be untenable. The decision to go into the full-time public practice of CS was separate and came later. My point in bringing them up was not that doctors had given up medicine to become CS practitioners, but that they had given up medicine to study CS. Marrante (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I found a list of names with degrees and titles, so I now have four more doctors who left medicine for CS: John R. Carr, MD; Francis J. Fluno, MD; Walton Hubbard, MD; Abraham A. Sulcer, MD. I may have two more, but only have their titles at present, so I have to find out if they were Ph.D or M.D. or what. These additional names are from a list of CS lecturers whose lectures were published in one of the CS periodicals or another publication (many used to be published in local newspapers).

Btw, in looking for documentation on Dr. Walton Hubbard, I came across a book "Hemingway: The Paris Years" and at the top of the page, it states that Hemingway's father was an MD and that his mother was not a Christian Scientist, so it seems that Hemingway should come off the "raised by" list. Marrante (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Marrante, I still don't understand exactly what edit you are proposing. Do you simply want to list some doctors who have converted to Christian Science? I'm not sure what that adds to the article, and I can see objections about undue weight to something that is relatively uncommon. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to mention that there are doctors who have quit medicine for CS. To state this and even include one or more names is no more undue than including the anecdote by Spaulding Gray, which is not substantiated nor subjected to peer review by others who grew up in CS. There is no difficulty in finding posts and comments on the Internet by people who have negative things to say about CS, but they are equally anecdotal, though not more numerous than the thousands of reports, including of children, of CS healing published in the CS periodicals or given orally at Wednesday evening testimony meetings or as part of CS lectures or simply among friends. There are not more books written by disaffected Christian Scientists than there are doctors who left medicine for CS, but Fraser & crew are given much space; the doctors none. Nearly the entire section on children and CS comes from Fraser.

WP:UNDUE says, "For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." Are editors comparing CS to the article on Earth or Flat Earth? UNDUE states further, "How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief."

Though, like other mainstream churches, CS is a smaller organization today, it is still viable with adherents worldwide—far from the "few or no modern proponents" described in UNDUE. Yet the sections on medicine and children present nothing but stories of failure and exclude the body of CS testimony. If that evidence is excluded as "anecdotal" (and supporting reports likewise dismissed) and mention of ex-doctors is excluded as "undue", then Spaulding Gray and (at least in part) Fraser, must also be undue—they are just two of the many who have left CS; only a handful later attacked it by writing books. The undue weight given to such writers creates a sense of outrage against CS and the assumption that all those who leave CS despise it. How then can the mere mention of doctors who have left medicine—those I can name, in contrast, never disparage it, rather their published writings and lectures frequently praise the efforts and dedication of their former peers—how can mere mention of them be repeatedly characterized as undue? Their inclusion would help counter the strong POV currently present in the article.

I am working on a proposal regarding this, but I'm am still gathering source material for it. This post is just to answer a previous question and to address the charge of "undue". Marrante (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Imagine that the article said "some doctors have quit medicine for Christian Science." The problem with this statement is that it does not provide enough context or information for the reader. The reader is left to wonder how many doctors have switched from medicine, and the mere mention of it suggests that it is a noteworthy trend. However, we have no data available to quantify how many doctors have switched from medicine to Christian Science, but the evidence that we do have suggests that it is a negligible percentage.

I think that some sort of anecdotes describing positive experiences that people have had with CS would be appropriate for the article. Since currently it only has anecdotes from critics. But I don't think that saying some doctors left medicine for CS is an anecdote. That is a statement of fact which raises questions in the reader's mind about how significant the trend is. Since the trend of doctors giving up medicine for CS is likely to be insignificant that is why editors believe even mentioning it goes against WP:UNDUE. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikiuser, thank you for this last post, which clarifies for me what you have been saying. My idea was to state the fact differently, so I hadn't quite understood your concern. I am working on supporting articles (and a lack of time). I will state my proposal when ready. Marrante (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

We must absolutely not include "anecdotes" about positive medical experiences. Any claim or implication of medical effectiveness needs to be strongly-sourced to reliable mainstream scholarship. ("Negative" experiences of CS healing on the other hand, and in line with the mainstream and so do not need such strong sourcing). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• There is perhaps some confusion about what this article is. It is an overview of the independent or secondary literature about Christian Science. We can include primary sources (e.g. material from Eddy, the church and other Christian Scientists; witness affidavits and court documents) when it makes sense to do so, so long as there is nothing that raises a red flag. If we see any red flags, we defer to the secondary literature.

  If there are secondary sources that remark on how one particular group of people (physicians, serial killers, depressed people, fat people, clever people) have left their professions to become Christian Scientists, we can include that. We do already point that there used to be a lot of actors. But we can't do our own head count of (say) bankers who became Scientists and draw our own conclusions from that, either explicitly or implicitly (see WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:UNDUE, WP:CHERRYPICKING). It would therefore make sense to produce some secondary sources first, so that we have something to talk about. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, there is no confusion about what this article is about. The issue is a disagreement about what constitutes RS. I am saying that hostile critics are not RS, they are heavily biased, often suffering from poor scholarship (I have already pointed out several examples from Fraser, things I just happened on) and as such, should not be the basis of this article. I'm not saying they shouldn't be used at all, but to rely on them for details is foolhardy at best and POV at worst. My point before was that in denying the independence of perfectly legitimate scholars who are widely recognized as because they happen to be members of the church is the reason the article has problems with neutrality and mistakes. I'm slowly trying to clear up the mistakes and a number have been fixed, with your help, but there is more to be done. Progress is slower than I'd like, in part because of my own time constraints.

Regarding the doctor issue, I don't believe I ever suggested doing a head count or anything like that, though you did ask (more or less) how many there were (because you were trying to assess whether or not you thought inclusion of the fact was warranted). I replied at the time that I didn't believe there was a list of any sort, so I had no idea how many there were. I did later see a list of lecturers that included titles and university degrees, identifying more people with their former careers. This is not an exhaustive list, just a list of names I have (in addition to the few others I already knew). As for secondary sources, I'm just going to list some books of the top of my head because I'm in the middle of other things, (I will get page numbers later), but Peel mentions them, Gottschalk in "Rolling Away The Stone", Lyman Powell mentions them and half of a book by Benjamin O. Flower, called "Christian Science As a Religious Belief and a Therapeutic Agent" is related to medical professionals and CS. (Powell was initially a critic of CS and remained an Episcopal minister, Flower was a journalist/editor and not a Scientist.) Marrante (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Is any of this meant to address the request for secondary sources? It sounds kind of like you're disputing official wikipedia policy regarding secondary sources. TippyGoomba (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) If you have secondary sources that discuss the phenomenon of physicians becoming Scientists (not Christian Science source A mentioning doctor A, and Christian Science source B mentioning doctor B), please write up a proposal, along with a citation and link if available, and we can discuss it. But it isn't really possible to consider it before you've done that, and on its face it does sound as though you're engaged in OR.

As for your other point: it's a false equivalence to argue that sources who say the earth is flat should be treated in the same way as sources who say it is not flat – that one side is simply pro and the other side is simply anti, and otherwise there is nothing to distinguish between them. Numerous WP policies make clear that this is fallacious, including the NPOV policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not engaged in OR, nor am I disputing official WP policy on secondary sources. What I said was that I disagreed that certain sources were reliable. I also am not saying that this is a simple pro and con issue. That is your position and comes from your belief that CS is a fringe theory—you just compared it to flat earth. It was recently stated on this page that this article has been re-written, moving it away from its description as a fringe theory toward treatment as a religion. Yet, it's being compared to flat earth. This bias is the central problem with this article and colors the ability to assess RS, hence the article's strong POV.

Lyman Powell's first chapter cites numerous individuals from various walks of life and countries who were then embracing CS, so it's not just doctors alone. Interspersed are favorable remarks from individuals who did not become Christian Scientists. See here. Dr. Walton Hubbard is quoted on p. 32. For the book by Benjamin O. Flower, see Chapter III beginning here. Neither of these authors were in CS. Gottschalk discusses medical professionals on pp. 332-334 of "Rolling Away The Stone". I will deal with other references tomorrow. Marrante (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you still suggesting an edit? If so, can you please restate it? TippyGoomba (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Marrante, I think that there is some confusion about what it would mean for a secondary source to analyze the phenomenon of doctors giving up their practice for CS. It does not simply mean finding secondary sources who identify some doctors who converted to CS, rather it would involve a systematic study of the trend which considered the number of doctors who converted to CS relative to the total number of doctors in society. I am not aware of any such study. I think that there could be some value in including perspectives found in sources other than Fraser's book. But I think you would need to reconsider what you are proposing if you hope to do so because right now I don't see any suggested edit that I would support, and other editors are likely to be more resistant to your proposed changes than I am. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

TippyGoomba, I am suggesting an edit, but have not written it yet. I am working on it (life outside of WP permitting).

Wikiuser, thank you again for your post. It may sound like a bland formality, but I mean these thanks sincerely. I am slowly making progress and will post my proposal as soon as I can. Marrante (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I am ready to propose specific wording regarding doctors who left medicine to become Christian Scientists. When I first began thinking about this, there was a section called "Members", which has since been split and renamed, which I think was a mistake. The paragraph that was moved into "Governance and services" has nothing to do with governance or services. I think it should be moved back to where it was previously and the section re-named "Members". I propose adding the sentences below, followed by the restored paragraph:

The earliest students of Christian Science were Lynn factory workers. By the 1890's, the church was attracting new members from all walks of life, including clergymen, physicians, lawyers and judges. Some, such as Irving C. Tomlinson, a former Unitarian minister and Septimus J. Hanna, a former lawyer and judge, became prominent members of the church.

Christian Scientists have tended to be white, well-educated, and comfortable financially.[221] Fraser writes that 42 percent have a college education, over 16 percent of Christian Scientist households earned more than $50,000 in 1990, and most Christian Science practitioners are women. Outside the United States, the religion is most prevalent in Australia, Canada, Germany, Scandinavia and the United Kingdom.[222]

The sentence referring to doctors and judges is based on Peel 1977, pp. 109 and 99. The relevant sentence on p. 99 reads: ""One curious phenomenon was the number of physicians and members of the legal profession who became Christian Scientists at this period, and for the next decade or two The Christian Science Journal and the sister periodicals which were soon to augment it were peppered with articles by judges and ex-doctors." The first sentence can be ref'd to Peel 1971, p. 10. — Marrante (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

this would have the effect of unduly puffing-up CS. So, no. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with the opinion that the proposed edit would unduly puff-up CS. However, the problem that I have with the edit is that it's based on a church publication from 1977 and it only considers the early years when the church was growing. Furthermore I don't know if the focus on members who were socially prominent accurately reflects the composition of the church. Stark (see Stark, 1998) writes that:

Christian Scientists are relatively elderly. Thirty percent are over 65, almost three times the proportion of the general population. They are overwhelmingly female, something that has always been true, as is discussed below . . . In 1906, 49% of the American population were female, but 72% of Christian Scientists were women.

Stark has more to say and I won't summarize his entire article here. But my point is that I don't know if Peel's mention of socially prominent members gives the most accurate presentation of the demographic trends of Christian Science. I do think that it is noteworthy that Christian Science first attracted working class members, but later members were primarily middle class. But there are other important demographic trends that also deserve to be mentioned if the section about members were to be restored and expanded. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion was actually to get a sense of history, not just to describe the members today. The article has a lot of history in it, even with references to estimated past numbers of members, which I suspect is mostly included to highlight the fact that there are fewer members today than 50 years ago. It is also important to note that the decline in numbers and the age of members are hardly unique to CS, rather it are visible across all mainstream churches — and not just in the US, but also in other countries. Islam and fundamentalism are where the growth have been, though I don't know if fundamentalist churches are still seeing growth. Wikiuser, I know that the conversion of medical professionals still occurs, but at the moment, I have no other statement about them as a group. I can only point to specific articles by or about individuals. Also, the source is not a "church publication". The publisher was Holt, Rinehart and Winston; it was not published by the church. I agree that there should be more of a bridge to the next paragraph and I am working on it. Marrante (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: "getting a sense of history". I would not be opposed to that, but I think if the article were expanded in this way it is important to be sure that the information accurately reflects the historical trend. Stark writes:

Why did Christian Science so over-recruit older women? It was not a matter of specific policy—indeed, Mrs Eddy preferred male disciples and in 1910 wrote of the urgent need to recruit more men (Wilson, 1961). I think part of the answer is that people do best at recruiting people much like themselves and that by the time she got her movement launched, Mrs Eddy was a widow past 60. It is well-known that religious movements spread through inter-personal attachments. The fact is that the majority of our extra-family attachments tend to be with those much like ourselves. Few people of 60 have many friends of 20 or 30, and vice versa. Moreover, women are more apt to have (and more easily form) attachments with other females, just as men tend to have male attachments. Simply because Mrs Eddy was an older woman, she most easily attracted followers like herself—and even when she attracted women younger than herself, they tended not to be young.

I don't know if his conclusions are correct or not, but he provides some data to support his position. If Stark is correct, then the fact that a large percentage of CS converts were women is at least as noteworthy as the fact that some "clergymen, physicians, lawyers and judges" were also converts and should be included when talking about membership history.

Re: "I know that the conversion of medical professionals still occurs, but at the moment, I have no other statement about them as a group." I think that Wikipedia has to work with published data rather than things that editors know about. If no one has taken the time to write about this trend then it is probably not noteworthy enough to include in the article. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikiuser, sorry for my delayed reply. Peel mentioned the phenomenon, B. O. Flower wrote about doctors and CS and there may be others. I am looking for information, while doing other things as well. Too many sources have limited online access and require other access. In addition, my time for this will limited to non-existent for the next 3 weeks. I'm plugging away, though. Marrante (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikiuser, I just came across this today, in connection to what you were saying above, that a lot of converts were women. There were also a lot of Jewish converts. Peel writes in "Years of Trial", p. 370, fn 3, that "as Christian Science healing became better known, a considerable number of Jews became Christian Scientists. It was largely to counteract this tendency that Rabbi Morris Lichtenstein started the movement known as Jewish Science." The footnote goes on with a lengthy quote from another Rabbi in 1912, which as Peel describes it, was both analysis and warning, acknowledging that while CS did not deify Jesus, Christ Jesus was certainly a central figure, mentioned in S&H on nearly every page. The passage then quotes (without quotation marks) S&H in describing the CS view of Mary's conception and describes other CS views. The footnote also contains an interesting quote from MBE correcting what someone had said to a Jewish person who had come to the student for CS treatment. Marrante (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've also heard that there were many Jews who converted to Christian Science, although I don't know any statistics. However, I don't think that these sources are comprehensive enough to justify adding information to the article. And I'm likely to be more sympathetic to your suggestion than some of the other editors. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I should have looked for this yesterday: Jewish Science. This suggests it is indeed worthy of mentioning in the article. I don't have any other information on it at the moment and no time to look for more, but will look into it in about two weeks. Marrante (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments called testimonies

Here is the full sentence:

The Journal and Sentinel include comments, called testimonies, from people who say they were healed through Christian Science prayer.

This is such clear POV, it really shouldn't need explanation. How does a "GA" article contain wording like this? If someone testifies in court, it may be true, it may be false, but is it ever called a "comment"? You have already qualified the word "testimony" by writing "people who say they were healed through Christian Science prayer." So, what purpose does the insertion of "comments called" have but to further attempt to diminish the subject of the sentence in the eyes of the reader? They are not "comments called testimonies", they are "testimonies". Whether you want to believe them or not is another matter, but they are testimonies, period. Calling them anything else is just blatant POV. This needs to be removed. Marrante (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the word "comments" is indicative of POV. The term "testimony" is widely used by religious groups, but the legal usage is probably more common for a general audience. So explaining what "testimony" is probably helps make the article more readable for someone who is unfamiliar with it. I don't have a problem with the word comments as an explanatory term, but if you think there is something better then you could suggest it. But I think you are misinterpreting how the term is used here by saying that it is POV. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If you think the word needs clarifying, then "reports" would be an accurate description. "Comment" is often equivalent to "opinion" and while some editors here may feel that's what they are, that is their opinion. The sentence is already qualified by "what they say..." To add to this is by characterizing testimonies as mere comments rather than reports of personal experiences is an attempt to prejudice the reader. This is why I said it was POV. Marrante (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"Contributions" ? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Alex, actually, "contributions" is more or less the same as "comments". People who write articles or poems are called "contributors". These are written for the sole purpose of sharing personal experience of healing, they are distinct from all other contributions, so they should be called "reports" or just plain "testimonies". I would appreciate it if you would change this word "contributions" accordingly. Thanks. Marrante (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

A "contribution" (to written work) is that which is contributed - dead neutral without any connotation. A "report" suggests an account of something that happened, so won't do. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The sentence already has a qualifier in there: "from people who say they were healed through Christian Science prayer" so it's very clear the reports are people speaking of themselves and people are allowed to say they have been healed. You don't have to believe them, but they are still reporting what they say happened. According to this definition at Merriam-Webster.com, your definition is your own, it's not what the word actually means. And you made a change that was under discussion without waiting for any consensus. Marrante (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of style, I'd prefer something like The Journal and Sentinel include comments from people who claim they were healed through Christian Science prayer. But I also don't understand your objection. TippyGoomba (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is another suggestion: The Journal and Sentinel have sections called "Testimonies of Healing" comprised of contributions by readers who say they have been healed through Christian Science prayer. Now you have your word "contributions", Alexbrn and there is no personal opinion in the statement, it is a purely neutral statement of fact. Marrante (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Metaphysical-New Thought Family

This section is greatly in need of correction/clarification.

The first statement from Caroline Fraser is of questionable relevance, since Christian Science does not "sanctify the power of self" but does the exact opposite. (I don't have the source so I don't know if she is claiming that CS does in fact sanctify the power of self, though I would be surprised if such a well-known commentator on CS would have got that basic issue wrong.)

Subsequently in this section, CS is mentioned separately from New Thought, then it is cited as being "part of the metaphysical-New Thought family of new religious movements." Then there is a reference to "The Christian Science-Metaphysical Family. This family, known also as 'New Thought' in academic literature..." After that, there is a reference to "the metaphysical (Christian Science–New Thought) tradition." Then we are told that "the New Thought Movement ... combines ideas from [Mary Baker] Eddy and the prominent faith-healer Phileas Quimby."

This is extremely confused/confusing and in great need of clarification. If there are conflicting or inconsistent accounts in the sources as to the relationship between CS and New Thought, fair enough and it should be pointed out, but let's not try to force a consistency where none exists.

A final point: "Known as Mind Cure (or Mind-cure) and Mind Science when it first appeared in the United States, Dell DeChant writes..." This is an obvious syntactical error, but if someone is fixing the section as a whole, perhaps they could fix that too. Thanks.Be-nice:-) (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Caroline Fraser paragraph describes the religious turmoil around the time CS was founded.

The sources for the rest of the section use different terms, and there's nothing we can do about that – Christian Science-Metaphysical family, known as New Thought; New Thought movement; New Thought denominational family; New Thought–Metaphysical family; Christian Science–New Thought family; metaphysical (Christian Science–New Thought) tradition. The point is that CS and New Thought are grouped together by their shared history and beliefs, although they are also differences between them. In the article I've settled for the "metaphysical–New Thought family."

Christian Science is part of the metaphysical–New Thought family of new religious movements. The word metaphysical refers here to the ontological centrality of Mind, and to the idea that human beings are manifestations of it. Known as Mind Cure (or Mind-cure) and Mind Science when it first appeared in the United States, Dell DeChant writes that New Thought emerged as the popular expression of philosophical idealism, the idea that an ultimate reality lies behind the perception of the senses, a school of thought that stretches back to Plato (428–348 BCE).

I'm not sure that the mind-cure sentence is an error (a dangling modifier), because the parenthesis is understood: "Known as Mind Cure ... when it first appeared in the United States, (Dell DeChant writes that) New Thought emerged as the popular expression of philosophical idealism ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be made clear that different commentators have different ways of categorizing CS vis a vis New Thought. It's not made sufficiently clear in the text as it is. It assumes a uniformity where none exists.

The mind-cure sentence is certainly an error. It's incorrect even as you re-phrase it. I'll go ahead and fix it in the text.Be-nice:-) (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

They use different terms, but not different categories. The point is always the same, namely that there is something identifiable as a metaphysical–Christian Science–New Thought family of new religious movements. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

New Thought/Christianity

Christian Science is better classified as Christianity than as New Thought. Stephen Gottschalk in The Emergence of Christian Science in American Religious Life says that “…it is in Mrs. Eddy’s differences with New Thought and the variant forms of mind-cure which antedated it that one sees most clearly the essentially Christian nature of her teaching. The New Thought and mind-cure movements (with the exception of Unity) did not claim to be specifically Christian and drew inspiration from a variety of religious sources, among which the Bible was far from the most important. Mrs. Eddy, on the other hand, claimed most emphatically that her teaching was Christian, that it was founded squarely upon the Scriptures, and that it was in fact continuous with Biblical revelation.” (page 284) Gottschalk, on the same page also says that Christian Science “can be best seen as a pragmatic grasp of Christianity.”

Amy Voorhees, in the peer-reviewed journal Church History, says that “Gottschalk provides the most detailed description of the theological differences between Christian Science and New Thought and his findings mesh with … recent scholarship.” (“Understanding the Religious Gulf between Mary Baker Eddy, Ursula N. Gestefeld, and Their Churches,” Dec. 2011, page 829.)

Eugene Gallagher, one of the sources cited in the lead of this wiki article (footnote 2), says that Eddy “rooted her movement directly in the biblical tradition. A summary of the tenets of Christian Science affirms that “as adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life.” p.52

Dell deChant’s work, also cited in this article, in the first main section (footnotes 14 & 15), comes from a compendium that presents Christian Science and New Thought separately in distinct sections, with Christian Science placed within the section on Christianity. deChant’s chapter on New Thought is in the “Metaphysical, New Age, and Neopagan Movements” section. Meanwhile, the chapter on Christian Science written by John K. Simmons is in the “Jewish and Christian Traditions” section. (Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America, Eugene V. Gallagher and W. Michael Ashcraft, eds.)

Simmons also notes that, “There is no better compilation and explanation of the theologically intricate teachings of Christian Science than Stephen Gottschalk’s The Emergence of Christian Science in American Religious Life.” (“Christian Science” in Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America, Jewish and Christian Tradition, Vol. 2, Eugene V. Gallagher and W. Michael Ashcraft, eds. (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2006) pp. 89-112.)

In that same compendium, Timothy Miller also says that Gottschalk’s book is “A standard work on Christian Science.” (New Religious Movements in American History,” in Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America, ed. Eugene V. Gallagher and W. Michael Ashcraft (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood, 2006), volume 1, pp. 1-22.)

deChant also makes clear that New Thought and Christian Science are distinct religious traditions. p. 67

Going back to the sources cited in the lead (footnote 2), Melton lists Christian Science as a Christian religion in his Encyclopedia of Protestantism. New Thought is not listed in this work, except for its most Christian iteration, Unity. p. 146

Saliba, another source cited in the lead, bases his work on Melton. p. 25

Lewis, the other source cited in the lead, does not support his statement with any citation. Also, he does not say Christian Science is New Thought. He appears to categorize the two distinct groups under a metaphysical heading. p. 94

Gillian Gill, on page 340 of Mary Baker Eddy, also differentiates Eddy from early New Thought leaders by pointing out that while the New Thought leaders “found intellectual nourishment and spiritual inspiration in Eastern religions,” Eddy refused “to place the Upanishads or the Koran on the same plane as the Gospels.”

The Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religions likewise says that Eddy “dedicated her life to an emphasis on the healing aspect of Christianity.” (1981, p. 168.) Bridge bendek (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"Christian Science is better classified as Christianity rather than as New Thought." I agree with this. Given the impressive list of sources you give, the introductory material should be changed to reflect this.Be-nice:-) (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I also favor the classification of Christianity rather than New Thought. But when I was looking at the history of the article I noticed that it had been changed from that sometime in the past. So I would be interested to know what the reasoning was. I searched the talk archives, but I did not find any clear explanation for the change. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

This has long been a change I've wanted to see. Many thanks to Bridge bendek for compiling the sources. Marrante (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The article should not be categorized as Christianity because reliable sources do not commonly and consistently define CS as such. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The specialist academic sources classify Christian Science as part of the Christian Science–Metaphysical family of new religious movements. Some scholars equate this family with New Thought; others point out that there differences between CS and New Thought while agreeing that the former emerged from the latter. The paragraphs explaining this are based on these academic sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a divergence of opinion in the source material as to how to categorize CS, as evidenced in the references given in the main text and in the discussion above. Consequently, I suggest that the best way to deal with this is to insert something in the text reflecting that fact: eg "Some sources say Metaphysical/New Age, others say Christianity." Something like that? Or even "most/a minority", or whatever.Be-nice:-) (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The stuff above looks like a load of rather thin OR to me. Is there some reliable source that says, in so many words, that CS is classified as Christianity? Or have I mistaken what you are asking for? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the list of sources in Bridge Bendek's long post (above). I'm not familiar with most of them, but I don't know why they would be regarded as OR (thin or otherwise) in contrast to the sources given in the main text. (Additionally, I would say 100% of Christian Scientists --or as near to that as makes no difference--regard themselves as Christian.) This is not a big ask btw: just a suggestion that the article reflect the fact that some sources (even if a minority to whatever degree) regard Christian Science as Christian.89.100.155.6 (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops...sorry...done it again...that IP immediately above is me. I was away from my computer for a while and forget to sign in.Be-nice:-) (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The paragraphs about this in the article are based on the work of independent, specialist academics. If you want the section to offer another view, we would need an equivalent source. The sources offered above either aren't specialist academic sources, or it's not clear what they're saying, or the quotes have been lifted out of context. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you're arguing for an extremely restrictive interpretation of the kinds of sources that are permitted. (Also, you have an unwarrantedly dismissive perspective on the sources you reject.) Would the views of (eg) a practising Catholic be rejected as an appropriate source in the article on Catholicism? That's sounds like a rhetorical question but of course it has an answer: "No." What do others think about this issue?Be-nice:-) (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a question of what editors think. Wikipedia has a policy on sources that we are bound to follow. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added to the Christian Science–Metaphysical family section: "J. Gordon Melton writes that Christian Science leaders see their religion as part of mainstream Christianity, and resent being identified with the New Thought movement; he argues that there are nevertheless strong differences between Christian Science and traditional Christianity, including views about the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the creation, and atonement for sin."

This is sourced to Melton, J. Gordon. Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. Routledge, 1992, first published 1986, p. 36. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I've put a sentence about this in the Intro. NB there are no "leaders" in the Christian Science movement. The only person with such a claim is Mary Baker Eddy herself, and she is consulted only via her writings (for obvious reasons!) Also, there's a certain slide from describing Christian Science as being part of the "metaphysical-New Thought" movement to being part of New Thought (which the side panel on the right suggests). Christian Science can be described as a metaphysical religion, but not part of New Thought. This should be clarified somewhere I think.

Also, on a totally different topic--though relevant, given that IPs on Wikipedia are apparently a kind of no-no--whenever I go to log in the screen image is shaking from side to side and I have difficulty logging in. Anyone know why this might be? Is this a problem with my computer or the site?Be-nice:-) (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

There are leaders according to the church and the sources. The sentence you added is too much detail for the lead, and as written was OR; the majority view (overwhelming majority) is that CS is part of what academics call the metaphysical/New thought family.

Regarding your log-in, I don't know what the shaking means. Do you have cookies enabled, and are you ticking the box that says (something like) "keep me logged in for 30 days"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the scholarship on this subject to argue one way or the other about how Christian Science should be classified. But I think it's interesting that the New Thought info box does not say anything about Christian Science or Mary Baker Eddy. I'm still not convinced that New Thought is the best categorization for the article, but I have also not seen a convincing argument for changing the categorization, and I assume this is something that was considered during the GA review. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, the actual categories this article inhabits in Wikipedia are: Christian Science, Christian new religious movements, Christian denominational families, Christian terms, and Nontrinitarian denominations. The New Age/metaphysical description is in the narrative text. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest the box saying "Part of a series on New Thought" (on the right as you scroll down from the start) should be removed. Also, I've inserted "leaders" in the lead, though--as I pointed out--there are in fact no leaders in Christian Science apart from Mary Baker Eddy, as every adherent knows. (Once more, accuracy is sacrificed to consensus.)Be-nice:-) (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This article should also be in the "New Thought" category (I wrongly thought there was no such category; but there is!). Also your edit to the lede is undue; please stop trying to "spin" CS into alignment with mainstream Christianity via edits to the article. We must follow the sources. (Also, is "Nontrinitarian denominations" a correct category for CS?) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It's your opinion that the edit to the lede is undue. That's all. As I understand the term "mainstream," it's normally used to differentiate non-fundamentalist Christians from others. In that sense, it's applicable to CS. But in fact, there was no use of the term "mainstream Christianity" in the edit, so your argument is irrelevant. Also, your use of the term "spin" conflicts with Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith. The sources are given below in the text as I pointed out. In answer to your question, "Nontrinitarian denominations" is arguably a correct category for CS.Be-nice:-) (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at the Wikipedia entry on New Thought and there is only one reference to Christian Science, in the context of the ideas of Joel Goldsmith who, the article states, incorporates some ideas from Christian Science.Be-nice:-) (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The article reflects the views of the academic literature regarding Christian Science's place within the religious movements of the day. It's not intended to reflect the views of individual Christian Scientists or the church, though those views are included. But in general the point is to offer a summary of the historical/scholarly overview. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have Melton's book but I was read some of the Wikipedia article about him. I would be curious to know how he categorized Jehovah's Witnesses. The quote that was added from Melton to the article sounds accurate and reasonable to me. But I would suspect that the same would be true of groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and the Wikipedia article on them contains a Christianity info box. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The JW article has two infoboxes. I don't suppose there's any reason why we shouldn't have two also ... 14:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added the Christianity sidebar to the theology section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that SlimVirgin.Be-nice:-) (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Do you happen to know of a good source for a description of Christian Science healing? I'm looking for a description of what the practitioners actually do, what the special form of prayer is, and whether all treatments are absent treatments; or whether absent treatments are only preferred, and if so, why. We have some of the information in this section, but it's not ideal as written. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...MBE was a bit cagy about that. Here is a quote with her rationale: "Committing the bare process of mental healing to frail mortals, untaught and unrestrained by Christian Science, is like putting a sharp knife into the hands of a blind man or a raging maniac, and turning him loose in the crowded streets of a city. Whether animated by malice or ignorance, a false practitioner will work mischief, and ignorance is more harmful than wilful wickedness, when the latter is distrusted and thwarted in its incipiency." (S&H, p. 459: 14-23.) In fact, she begins the chapter on Christian Science Practice with a long meditation on the story of the woman who came to anoint Jesus' feet, and the values of repentance, reverence, meekness and affection that it teaches. She writes: "In order to cure his patient, the metaphysican [Christian Science healer] must first cast moral evils out of himself and thus attain the spiritual freedom which will enable him to cast physical evils out of his patient; but heal he cannot, while his own spiritual barrenness debars him from giving drink to the thirsty and hinders him from reaching his patient's thought,--yea, while mental penury chills his faith and understanding." (S&H: 366: 3-11.) And further: "If we would open their prison doors for the sick, we must first learn to bind up the broken-hearted. If we would heal by the Spirit, we must not hide the talent of spiritual healing under the napkin of its form, nor bury the morale [italics] of Christian Science in the grave-clothes of its letter. The tender word and Christian encouragement of an invalid, pitiful patience with his fears and the removal of them, are better than hecatombs of gushing theories, stereotyped borrowed speeches, and the doling of arguments, which are but so many parodies on legitimate Christian Science, aflame with divine Love." (S&H 366: 30-9 (next page)) However, she is more explicit here: "Always begin your treatment by allaying the fear of patients. Silently reassure them as to their exemption from disease and danger. Watch the result of this simple rule of Christian Science, and you will find that it alleviates the symptoms of every disease. If you succeed in wholly removing the fear, your patient is healed. The great fact that God lovingly governs all, never punishing aught but sin, is your standpoint, from which to advance and destroy the human fear of sickness. Mentally and silently plead the case scientifically for Truth. You may vary the arguments to meet the peculiar or general symptoms of the case you treat, but be thoroughly persuaded in your own mind concerning the truth which you think or speak, and you will be the victor." (S&H 411: 27-9 (next page). And again: "To prevent disease or to cure it, the power of Truth, of divine Spirit, must break the dream of the material senses. To heal by argument, find the type of the ailment, get its name, and array your mental plea against the physical. Argue at first mentally, not audibly, that the patient has no disease, and conform the argument so as to destroy the evidence of disease. Mentally insist that harmony is the fact, and that sickness is a temporal dream. Realize the presence of health and the fact of harmonious being, until the body corresponds with the normal conditions of health and harmony." (S&H 412: 16-27) If you're looking for a source other than MBE on this matter, I suggest a book entitled "Christian Science Class Instruction" (Santa Monica, CA: DeVorss & Co, 1950) by a dissident (though metaphysically "orthodox") Christian Science practitioner Arthur Corey, eg the chapter on "Treatment." In regard to the issue of absent/present treatment, as far as I know there is no difference--the physical proximity of the patient to the practitioner is not regarded as relevant one way or another.Hope this helps.Be-nice:-) (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, there is no "special form of prayer" for CS healing, it is just Christian Science prayer. The section on CS prayer makes it sound like CS treatment is called "absent treatment", but "absent treatment" simply means that the practitioner is not in the same location as the patient. There is no difference in the prayer. Absent treatment is generally a matter of convenience, time and/or proximity. The practitioner may be quite a distance away from the patient. Because CS treatment is mental, there is no need to call someone nearby, and some people do not live near a practitioner, or they like to call their Christian Science teacher, who may live in another city, state or country. Marrante (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

McClure's reliability

When I first looked at the McClure's article from the magazine and saw the first article, it became immediately clear they were trying to make her look bad: her eyes look lopsided there! Of all the photos I've ever seen of Eddy, I have never seen one where her eyes look like that. But McClure's stooped lower in their introductory article to the series. This is mentioned in Peel, "Years of Authority", p. 270, that the issue introducing the series (December 1906) ran with a full-page photo purporting to be of Eddy, but was not. One of Eddy's students who had seen advance publicity with the photo, alerted the magazine that they were making a big mistake, but they ignored his warning and published it anyway—with Eddy's signature underneath, as Peel noted, "giving the impression that she had signed it." In a book about Eddy's 1907 interview with Arthur Brisbane, in the introduction, it says on p. 16, "in its opening article, by way of showing that Mrs. Eddy was more aged in appearance than her followers had been led to believe, published a portrait which had no resemblance to Mrs. Eddy, but which was soon identified as that of an elderly lady living in Brooklyn." (What Mrs. Eddy Said To Arthur Brisbane, 1930. M.E. Paige, Publisher. The intro was written by Rufus Steele.) The quote from Peel mentioned above identifies the elderly lady as Mrs. Sarah C. Chevaillier, mother of an 1885 student of MBE. McClure's later received several other letters, either from people who had known either Eddy or Chevaillier (see additional in Peel, p. 477, fn 54). This is a glaring error on the part of McClure's and should be mentioned in the article. Marrante (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The McClure's articles consist of 14 installments published between January 1907 and June 1908, written and researched by several journalists, and published under the byline Georgine Milmine. In December 1906 McClure's published an unsigned editorial introducing the series. It was this editorial that published the wrong image of Eddy. That mistake is mentioned in our article about the series, The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of Christian Science. It has no bearing on the reliability of the rest of the articles, and it has nothing to do with this one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I found this (below) on the WP article about the series, from p. iv of the Stouck book:

Since the re-issue of The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of Christian Science went to press new materials have come to light which suggest that Eddy's enemies may have played a significant role in organizing materials for the "Milmine" biography. New information about Georgine Milmine, moreover, suggests that she would have welcomed biased opinion for its sensational and commercial value.

SlimVirgin, for me, your comment in the plagiarism discussion (19:37, 7 July 2013) about the church's attitude toward criticisms of Eddy is much echoed here, if you'll pardon me for saying so. The statement above is significant, especially when one considers who those enemies were (Woodbury and Peabody), and their interest in the pending lawsuit, plus the fact that both Milmine tried to distance herself from the work and Cather denied authorship. Juxtapose this with the very different portrayals of Eddy by people like Arthur Brisbane, well respected and not in CS. I can't get into this very much right now because I've got pressing matters that will occupy me for about two weeks, but I did want to reply to your response above. Marrante (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The church tried, from early on in the publishing history, to halt publication and distribution of the McClure's articles. Pressure was apparently applied to the University of Nebraska; hence the comment you quote above. There's no evidence that Milmine tried to distance herself, and Cather acknowledged authorship in letters to family and friends. If she didn't acknowledge it publicly, perhaps the reaction of the church had something to do with that. Anyway, the point is that the articles and book are reliable sources for material about Eddy and the early church.

Speaking of sources and accuracy, did you get to the bottom of the mistake Peel made (see earlier discussion), where he claimed (falsely, it seems) that McClure's had placed the "Mary is dying" incident in Bow, then used it as a straw-man argument against McClure's? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I have not been able to follow up on the Peel quote yet. I wanted to see what Bates & Dittemore had written and that is easier said than done. As for McClure's being reliable, by most news reporting standards that I know, one doesn't interview only those who hate the subject, one also interviews the friends, or one gets an extremely skewed, biased result. Milmine only interviewed disaffected students and enemies of Eddy. That can only be satisfactory if one is similarly disposed against the subject. I believe your conjecture about Cather is wrong. I read that her denials had to do with considering the work to be journalism. (Unfortunately, I have no time to track this down just now.) Regarding your comment, "Pressure was apparently applied to the University of Nebraska; hence the comment you quote above." That's quite a mouthful, SlimVirgin. First, you make a conjecture ("was apparently applied") followed by "hence", as though you're stating a fact. Marrante (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you read our article on the book? It says that an official from the church's Committee on Publication made the following statement at its 1993 annual meeting (my bold):

A major corrective opportunity this year involved the rerelease of one of the earliest malicious biographies of Mrs. Eddy, The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of Christian Science by Georgine Milmine. Dating from the yellow journalism period, this book was published in an attempt to discredit her. The current publisher, after much correspondence with our office, instead issued a statement accurately characterizing its bias. The book has received almost no attention in the public, proving if Truth isn't spoken, nothing is said.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, sorry for my late reply. The posts on this talk page are not called "correspondence", but there certainly is much discussion. The quote you cite above says nothing about pressure, it says "much correspondence". You are terming it "pressure", but can you quote from the correspondence and so prove its character? Wouldn't pressure include threats and be unfriendly? Was the correspondence unfriendly and threatening or was it polite and like the discussions on this talk page, with facts from different sources quoted to make points? Do you have proof that Stouck did not want to include the paragraph at the front of the Cather-Milmine book, but was forced to do it?

I don't remember if I read the entire WP article on the book or not, but I do recall my surprise at the characterization of publishing the wrong photo in the introduction as "an unfortunate start". Failing to check a photo used full-page in an important series on a major religious leader who was then big news is a bit more than "unfortunate". Marrante (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Brisbane interview with MBE

In August 1907, Cosmopolitan Magazine also ran an article about MBE, this one written by Arthur Brisbane, who was, at the time, far better known than either Milmine or Cather. His article was called "An Interview With Mrs. Eddy: Graphic Description of the Physical and Mental Condition of the Venerable Founder of Christian Science at Her Concord Home on the Eighth of June, 1907". The article was written at the request of Cosmopolitan. Brisbane was not a Christian Scientist, he was an eminent newspaper writer and editor, the magazine is well-known. Is there a reason why this article is not used as a source? It is RS that provides a stark contrast to Cather-Milmine. Marrante (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I should have mentioned yesterday that this article is reprinted in the book I cited earlier in the previous section, from which I just split the above paragraph. Marrante (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Jesus' death on the cross

Christian Science does say that Jesus died on the cross. Some time ago (now in Archive 7), I provided a number of citations proving this, both from MBE and other Christian Scientists, including Committees on Publication and a man who later taught the Normal class. To recap...

MBE wrote in Miscellaneous Writings:

Jesus, who so loved the world that he gave his life (in the flesh) for it, saw that Love had a new commandment even for him. (p. 292) (Note: Eddy often uses the word "even" as it is used in the King James Bible, which is like the German word "eben".)

DeWitt John, who taught the 1982 Normal class (class that creates new teachers) wrote in his book, The Christian Science Way of Life (1962),

Every true Christian Scientist cherishes this emblem [the cross and the crown] in his heart. He accepts not only the crucifixion but also the resurrection and the ascension as literal facts.' (p. 31) and "It is true that Christ Jesus literally rose from the dead. (p. 34)

From Committees on Publication:

• From the November 12, 1930 Christian Science Sentinel, a reply to something in a Scottish publication from someone identified here only as "Student".

The last objection is embodied in the statements that Christian Science teaches that "Jesus did not die" but "he was hidden in the sepulchre alive." Although these sentences are given in inverted commas, following extracts from the Christian Science textbook, they are creations of "Student" himself.

• From the August 29, 1953 Sentinel, a reply to a Norwegian newspaper, (translated for the Sentinel):

When the author writes, "Mrs. Eddy claims that Jesus did not die, and therefore cannot have risen from the dead," this is misleading. What Mrs. Eddy asserts is that Jesus went through what is called death, but that just as he had been able earlier to overcome death for others and call them back to life, he was able also to do this for himself. On pages 292 and 293 of Science and Health Mrs. Eddy writes, "In his resurrection and ascension, Jesus showed that a mortal man is not the real essence of manhood, and that this unreal material mortality disappears in presence of the reality."

Another quote from MBE (not previously mentioned) from Christ and Christmas clarifies the issue:

Christ was not crucified — that doom / Was Jesus' part:

This last quote points out the problem all these other theologians have, which is that they all consider "Christ" to be another name for "Jesus". This is not the case in CS. Jesus was the human who lived on earth, was crucified and died on the cross. His death on the cross is critical to CS because the CS belief in the unreality of death stems from this event. "Christ" was not crucified—did not die. But in CS, "the Christ" is not a person, but a "divine idea" (S&H p. 473). This does not mean CS says there was no crucifixion, rather Christians Science acknowledges the literal crucifixion, death and resurrection from that death of the "human man", Jesus.

In the footnote, (currently #37) the quote from MBE, taken out of its context, makes it sound like it supports the other references, when it does not, as the quotes above indicate. Marrante (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I objected to the previous version which said: Christian Science holds that Jesus did not die on the cross, but was conscious in his tomb, healing himself. I did not think that was in accordance with what Christian Science teaches, in particular the suggestion that Jesus was conscious in the tomb and that it took time for him to heal himself. However, I think that the current version (Craig Prentiss writes that, within Christian Science, Jesus did not die on the cross, but instead demonstrated the illusory nature of matter and therefore of death) is an acceptable statement of what CS teaches. Both because it is linked to a specific source and it talks about the illusory nature of matter. As for the footnote it seems reasonable to include what other sources have said on this subject. Is there a specific part of the footnote that you object to, or is there something you want to add? Also do you disagree with the sentence itself? To me it seems reasonably accurate now, whereas before I did not think so. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikiuser, I absolutely agree with you regarding "the illusory nature of matter" but I think it's important to correctly state CS teaching that Jesus died on the cross because this event is the foundation of the CS teaching that death must be overcome by all, that the death of matter is merely what the eyes see, but that the unseen, the spiritual, never dies and this fact understood overturns the material evidence, proving that death is unreal. To say that Jesus did not die implies that to CS, he merely awoke from a coma. This is not what CS teaches.

Regarding the footnote, the quotes by non-Scientists are not a problem for me. My problem is that the quote from MBE is used to support them, despite the fact this is not what she taught, evidenced by quotes such as "Jesus ... gave his life (in the flesh)". Therefore, her quote is out of context and misleading. It should be replaced with something as unambiguous as "gave his life".

I propose the following adjustment to the current sentence (proposed footnote adjustment in next par.):

Many outside the religion believe that Christian Science teaches that Jesus did not die on the cross, but the church says this view is mistaken, that Jesus' death on the cross and subsequent resurrection demonstrated the illusory nature of matter and therefore of death.

The footnote only needs to be changed regarding the quote by MBE. It should be replaced with the one from the Norwegian newspaper, translated and re-published in the August 29, 1953 Sentinel (see my first post above). The Norwegian quote identifies and clarifies the mistaken theological point in CS. These changes present the case accurately to the reader, who can draw his own conclusions. Marrante (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Contributions called testimonies

I made a suggestion (recently archived) that involves fixing this problem of calling them "contributions" rather than "testimonies". My suggestion was a simple statement of fact, so it should be acceptable to all. Since I never saw any response to my suggestion and it has now been archived, I'm reposting it because this sentence should be changed. "Contribution" is inappropriate and insufficient to describe what they are. A "testimony" is a first-person report, also "a public profession of religious experience" according to Merriam-Webster.com. The assertion that the word "testimony" should not be used because of what the person is testifying about is absurd, as though only the prosecution should be allowed to give testimony, but the defense must be restricted to making "contribution". Such a distinction would be prejudicial.

Here is my suggestion to replace the current sentence:

The Journal and Sentinel have sections called "Testimonies of Healing" comprised of contributions by readers who say they have been healed through Christian Science prayer.

— Marrante (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Per capita tax

The response to this item in the errors list (currently #5) states:

(the article says: "Requirements include ... payment of an annual tax to the church ..." We would need a source to show that this is misleading as written, and/or that significant numbers pay only $1.)

I never asked for the article to state that "significant numbers pay only $1". Furthermore, why do I need to provide a source to show that this is misleading? Isn't it obvious? When a person reads "annual tax", do you immediately think "one dollar" or "double-digit percent" or sums of money in the hundreds or higher? Add to that the idea that this is a mandated tax and to the average person, particularly in the present world economy where most people are struggling and unemployment is high, and on top of that, the tax is mentioned as one of "83 requirements and prohibitions for members" listed in the Manual (as though you can get an accurate sense of any Bill of Rights by counting them). But the mandate is just for one dollar. It is irrelevant how many people pay $1 or how many pay $1 million. The point is that at one dollar, the tax is essentially voluntary, but one would never guess that from reading the article. And that's misleading. Marrante (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It's sourced. Do you have a better source? TippyGoomba (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The Manual itself: Article VIII, Section 13. Per Capita Tax. SECT. 13. Every member of The Mother Church shall pay annually a per capita tax of not less than one dollar, which shall be forwarded each year to the Church Treasurer. See here. Marrante (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone have a problem with something like:

Requirements include daily prayer, study of the Bible and Science and Health, payment of an annual tax "of not less than one dollar" to the church, and subscribing to church periodicals.

It might be misleading to call it a tax without context, if it's only a symbolic amount. Thoughts? TippyGoomba (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. However, looking at the church website it seems these days this "tax" is bound up with a donation members are assumed to make, and the mention of $1 dollar is, shall we say, not prominent. What's going on there? Perhaps this might be worth exploring a bit more and adding in a footnote? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI}

Since it's called the "per capita tax", I think it should just be called that, with a brief explanation, such as was written by Tippy Goomba.

There's nothing sly going on, nothing to look at with regard to the per capita tax, unless you want to look for information on how many are paying the minimum as a protest. It's clear that many are, but I doubt there's much written about it. However, regarding assumptions, I think it's safe to assume all church members have an interest in the financial well-being of their church. Therefore, I assume most pay more than the minimum. Per capita tax notices have always had line items indicating a few funds ("general fund" for normal operating expenses, or special funds for projects, such as building renovation, for example). It's not subtle pressure, it's an orderly way of letting members know what's needed so they can make extra contributions, if they wish, and earmark them. The notice always states the Manual by-law on it, so it's quite clear that the minimum is just one dollar. If the tax is not paid, no one calls or writes, there's no reminder notice, one's membership is not suspended or affected in any way, nor does the subsequent year's notice make mention of the unpaid tax. Like all the requirements of the general membership in the Manual, compliance with the "requirements and prohibitions" is individual, based on morality, not guilt or fear of church sanction.

Subscription to the church's periodicals is equally voluntary, since the Manual by-law includes the wording "who can afford it", which has a lot of nuance. (One might say, "I cannot afford to let my child think he's the boss.") There are members who don't subscribe to one or more of the periodicals because of present editorial policy. Some members see obedience to the Manual as mandating not subscribing to the periodicals at the present time. Marrante (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I'd like to see more secondary sources discussing it. If it's not a token $1 that's practiced, highlighting the $1 would be deceptive along the reasoning I used above. So far, we have one secondary source which does not see fit to mention the $1 minimum, perhaps it's not relevant. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion of looking for a secondary source before highlighting the fact that the minimum "tax" is only $1. One of the rules in the Manual prevents it from every being changed with Eddy's personal consent. I don't know when the $1 minimum was instituted, but it was at least a hundred years ago, and would have been a larger proportion of people's income than it is now. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The numbers of people who pay more or less is not the issue. The issue is that as set (in stone) in the Manual, the tax is essentially voluntary and the individual sets the amount. Do you know of another tax where this is true? Income tax, sales tax, VAT, car tax, hotel tax, airport tax, can you name a single tax that does not stipulate the exact amount/percent to be paid and from which there is no choice not to pay without incurring penalty? The description of the Manual is truncated to the point of absurdity. Clearly the source didn't understand it, or he'd have detailed the many far more rigorous by-laws rather than these few simple ones.

Btw, though the amount was set (as well as the fees for class instruction) at a time when money was worth more, $1 was never an exhorbitant amount. According to this inflation calculator, $1 in 1910 was worth $24.27 in 2012. An observation: it seems odd to me to hesitate to explain to the reader what this tax really is, while at the same time, referring to it as a "tax". Marrante (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If it's relevant there should be sources discussing it. I hesitate to add in WP:OR or rely on WP:PRIMARY, you should not find that odd. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems increasingly clear that any details that don't hew to the negative portrayal of CS are immediately branded "OR" or in violation of some other WP policy. There is no OR here. My suggestion falls exactly within the guidelines stated in WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." I am not looking to interpret the fact, I just want it stated, as I originally wrote in the errors list. As per WP:PRIMARY, there are no grounds to block this. As it now stands, the article is highly misleading for the reasons I've already stated (see my earlier posts). Marrante (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The WP:OR I was referring to was your suggestion to use the inflation calculator to "explain to the reader what this tax really is". I don't feel you've addressed my current concern: If it's not a token $1 that's practiced, highlighting the $1 would be deceptive along the reasoning I used above. Perhaps others would like to comment. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I can see where Marrante is coming from, but then I look at the current church site and see the "minimum" $1 payment is scarcely mentioned, that the tax seems to have been subsumed into an expected donation, and rather than emphasizing the minimum the church is rather emphasizing the maximum (inviting bequests of real estate and oil rights!). The nominal $1 tax was a brilliant strategy, as members cannot ever forget having to give money to the church - MBE was canny wasn't she? So, in this light I think it would be misleading to mention the lowly amount of $1. What we really need is not Marrante's OR (or even my OR), but some reliable source addressing this topic. Without that, I think it is best to say nothing. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding use of primary sources, if the article misstated the required "tax" then the manual and other primary sources such as the church website would be an appropriate source to correct if. For example there could have had been some secondary source that mistakenly said that tithing was expected, and the manual could correct that mistake. As currently written there is nothing that is factually incorrect about the per capita tax. Whether it's misleading or not is a matter of interpretation. While I would not be opposed to adding something to say it was only $1, I do understand the concerns that others have raised. I think most editors agree it would be better to find a secondary source that writes about the topic before trying to add more information about it to the article. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

TippyGoomba, what I wrote above was not OR. I never suggested mentioning the inflation calculator. Wikiuser said that $1 was worth more when the by-law was written, which is true. But $1 was never a huge sum and I went to the inflation calculator myself just to see how much it was (in 1910). I came back here and posted, including the link so others could check it out if they wished. Your concern (If it's not a token $1 that's practiced, highlighting the $1 would be deceptive along the reasoning I used above) is unfounded, since the statement in the article is not about what members practice; it is about what the Manual requires of members. What the members then do with the requirement is another matter, but the requirement itself does not change. This is what the article says:

Douglas Swanson writes that the Manual of the Mother Church lists 83 requirements and prohibitions for members. Requirements include daily prayer, study of the Bible and Science and Health, payment of an annual tax to the church, and subscribing to church periodicals. Prohibitions include engaging in public debate or writing about Christian Science without board approval, and engaging in mental malpractice.

Furthermore, the tax is not identified as a "per capita tax", which is a set amount, not pro rata (see Tax per head). The Manual does set, but not limit the amount of the per capita tax. MBE was very careful to write the Manual to function as the church's constitution for all time, according to Robert Peel, Stephen Gottschalk and others. Since this kind of tax is far less common today, the tax should be identified and not just called an "annual tax".

Alexbrn, most people who associate themselves with something they believe in strongly are quick to send in monetary support. MBE was not being "canny", she was merely establishing an orderly way for Mother Church contributions to be sent in. Marrante (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Marrante's point that the number of people who pay the $1 minimum is irrelevant, since this paragraph in the article deals with membership requirements rather than church finances. Even if most people donated significantly more than $1, the fact that the requirement is only $1 is significant because it lets members donate however much they feel is appropriate, and does not set an onerous required amount. I'm still not convinced that calling the "per capita tax" an annual tax is misleading but I can understand the concern. What would people think about adding the $1 minimum information to the footnote? I think that might be an acceptable compromise which keeps the prose in the article clean, but adds detail about a point which at least some people think is misleading. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any issues to include a footnote with a qualified quote from the primary source. TippyGoomba (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. The Manual by-law can be used in the footnote. As a non-controversial change, can the words "annual tax" be amended to "annual per capita tax"? This would be more specific and the words "per capita" appear in the by-law, even if they don't in Swanson. Marrante (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Does "per capita" have some hidden meaning I'm not aware of? TippyGoomba (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, it just means "per head". A "per capita tax" is not pro rata, however, it is the same for everyone, whereas other taxes are a percent of a sum of money (income or expense), so some would have to pay more, others would have to pay less. With a "per capita tax", the amount that must be paid is the same for everyone. For this reason, it should be specified. Since it is verifiable and is not controversial and on top of that, "per capita tax" could be wikilinked, what would be the argument against adding these two words? The class for teachers is identified as the "normal class", not just "a class". Is this not the same kind of specificity? Marrante (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a category error in there somewhere. A tax can be a fixed amount or proportionate, but whether it is applied per person (per capita) is a separate consideration. We can just say "members must pay an annual tax of at least $1" or something without any latin being needed at all! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Since there have been no further remarks, it seems like this is a workable solution for all. Marrante (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Some additions

I propose the following additions to the page which should not be controversial, however, they have been reverted. I do not have a cite at present, although I know their veracity:

• When a practitioner makes a house call, they typically charge more than their standard $25-50 rate:

House calls typically costing more.

• Normal class is additionally based upon the platform:

... based on both Recapitulation and the 32 point Christian Science Platform found on pages 330-340 of Science & Health.

• This one I cited, but it was reverted anyway, not sure why:

and have 3 attested healings,

• The following claim, while true of some students, is not true of all, wording should reflect such:

Students begin each day with Bible study and a study of the "scientific statement of being."

The manual states the daily duty, no mention of Bible study or scientific statement of being, a student may use those, but it is not absolutely applicable to all:

Daily Prayer. SECT. 4. It shall be the duty of every member of this Church to pray each day: “Thy kingdom come;” let the reign of divine Truth, Life, and Love be established in me, and rule out of me all sin; and may Thy Word enrich the affections of all mankind, and govern them!

• The following claim outlines one type of christian science treatment, but it is not the only kind, wording should reflect that:

A Christian Science treatment consists of the practitioner silently arguing about the nature of reality.

Here is a video that states treatment is not formulaic.

Science and Health p 365 describes another form of healing:

If the Scientist reaches his patient through divine Love, the healing work will be accomplished at one visit, and the disease will vanish into its native nothingness like dew before the morning sunshine.

• While a practitioner may give the patient something to study in the textbooks, this is not always the case, the wording should reflect that:

This process, which is known as "absent treatment," is often performed from the practitioner's home or office, although the practitioner also contacts the patient with advice about studying Science and Health or the Bible.

This is a harder one to cite because it is hard to prove a negative, while the above may be true, it is not necessarily true, not sure how to find a cite to state that.

Discussion

Hi William, I'd appreciate it if you would stop restoring your additions/removals/fact tags over an objection. See WP:BRD. The sources are in the footnotes. Are you saying the material isn't in the sources or that the sources are wrong?

Regarding the above, once you've collected your sources by all means post them here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought fact checks should remain until resolved, adding to above. Also, I thought portion cited should remain, also adding to above. WilliamKF (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can see, there were sources for the issues you tagged. So you would have to tell us whether the material wasn't in those sources, or you felt the sources were wrong or inappropriate, or whatever. It's better to explain those things on talk, rather than tagging. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The cites in the article for the above under question as being too absolute are not available online that I could see, but I expect if someone with access to them were to review them, that they do not claim to be absolute but only typical or an example. Does anyone here have access to test my hypothesis? WilliamKF (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's quite hard to see what you want to change and which source you want to use. Would you mind posting the material separately. For example, change X to Y (with the exact words you're proposing), using this source (with a full citation).

When you asked whether anyone had access, if you say which sources you mean I can take a look. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought I did that for the first three bullet points already, the text is an insertion, followed by a cite. How are those insufficient, I must be missing something. WilliamKF (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the Fraser 1999 cites, but now I'm also questioning using that source for the purpose of defining Christian Science treatment and related. WilliamKF (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have Fraser here and when I last looked it wasn't on Google Books, but it can be ordered from any library. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the article cites, it appears to me that there is way too much reliance on a single source of Fraser 1999. In my opinion, the Fraser book, given its title, God's Perfect Child: Living and Dying in the Christian Science Church, is not NPOV and has a particular slant of being anti-Christian Science, not a scholarly work such as the many Peel books with detailed footnotes and cites, therefore, I feel it is completely inappropriate to cite such a source for a definition of what Christian Science treatment is, instead, Mary Baker Eddy's works should be cited to define treatment or other people that are current Journal listed Christian Science practitioners. By analogy, you would not ask a person who believes the theory of evolution is false to define the theory of evolution, instead you would cite a practitioner of that theory to define it. I feel the same applies here to defining what Christian Science treatment is. WilliamKF (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

An interesting essay related to this question is at WP:FLAT. Just as we wouldn't use flat earth journals to describe why the earth is flat, we don't use CS-aligned sources to describe CS (especially those aspects of it which impinge on the real world). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying you would use a round earth journal to define the theory of flat earth? That seems illogical to me and I fail to see how the essay supports this position, can you please elaborate? WilliamKF (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The flat earth journal would describe the flat earth theory in a partial way attempted to lend it weight, coherence and legitimacy - which would of course be bogus. WP:PSCI is a policy governing WP's treatment of all manner of fringe views; so, when CS gets into fringe territory (by proposing certain mechanisms for medical treatment, for example) we are obliged to present them within the context of the mainstream, which views them as crazy. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

So to define Christian Science treatment it is incorrect to refer to the writings of Mary Baker Eddy because all Christian Scientists are crazy and their definition of what Christian Science treatment is, is not to be trusted? How is that possibly NPOV? How can we have an article about Christian Science if we are not allowed to cite Science and Health to define what Christian Science is? Must we avoid reading the source and only rely on outsiders? How is the definition of what Christian Science treatment (not its efficacy) fringe territory? WilliamKF (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

We use reliable sources who have construed MBE's writings (an expert job considering their nature) if we need to. This is quite normal for Wikipedia: for some writers (Nietzsche and Rudolf Steiner e.g.) there have even been explicit rulings that the original source cannot be used. We've already had a few instances here of CS adherents disagreeing about the "true" nature of CS -- we avoid this problem by using reliable, secondary, independent sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are some letters to the NY Times book review after they reviewed this book which put forth the idea that Fraser is "angry former Christian Scientists, driven by a strong animus against their former faith." WilliamKF (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That Christian Scientists don't like Fraser's book is hardly unexpected, is it? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is some more discussion of this book that I found. WilliamKF (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

William, this is a fairly well-developed article, so these issues have been discussed. Caroline Fraser's work is a reliable source for this article. She was raised by Christian Scientist parents (though so far as I know never became a Christian Scientist herself as an adult), obtained a PhD from Harvard in English literature, and became a writer. We know that Christian Scientists don't like her book because it is very critical of Christian Science, but that doesn't affect whether it's a reliable source.

That's a separate issue from whether the material you're questioning is in the book as presented here. You're welcome to question and check that. But trying to have the book deemed not reliable across the board is inappropriate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

My point is that the article is overly dependent upon this book as judged from the number of times it is cited. Further, I think it is inappropriate to take a definition of Christian Science treatment from anywhere other than the original source that defines Christian Science, MBE's writings. The definitions attributed to Fraser are loosely correct, but not definitively or precisely correct, hence my original edits, that were reverted, leading to this discussion. I've provided additional cites for several of my proposed changes, is there any reason not to make these corrections now for the cited ones? I'm unclear on why the one already cited was reverted. WilliamKF (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's one of the main secondary sources, so you'd expect to find it referenced a lot. Fraser 1995 or 1999 are cited 62 times, within 252 footnotes, many containing multiple sources. Gill 1998, which is sympathetic to CS, is cited 50 times. That sounds fairly even-handed.

Regarding primary sources, they're sometimes appropriate, but some caution is required. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn writes: "Just as we wouldn't use flat earth journals to describe why the earth is flat, we don't use CS-aligned sources to describe CS (especially those aspects of it which impinge on the real world)." This is insulting and gives a clear indication of the bias at play in the editing of this article. Flat Earthism is trivially false and can be easily disproved: eg by watching a ship disappear by degrees over the horizon, or by taking a ride in a high-altitude airplane and viewing the curvature of the earth. Whether CS can be proven or not--which is a moot point--it cannot be disproven in the way Flat Earthism can be. (Indeed, its lack of susceptibility to falsification in the Popperian sense is often taken as a fatal flaw in its claim to scientificity, but that opens up a whole other area of debate.) The philosophical aspects of CS (as distinct from the emphasis on physical healing) are a version of the philosophical idealism which has characterized (depending on interpretations) the teachings of major thinkers from Plato to Berkeley, Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer. Philosophical idealism (like philosophical materialism) cannot be proven but neither can it be disproven. Furthermore, the editorial approach that the quote from Alexbrn exemplifies seems automatically to rule out using as a source anyone who may have started off by examining CS from a neutral (or perhaps hostile) perspective and who then became convinced of its truth: such an individual would then become by definition a believer and not to be cited. So, by a process of automatic exclusion, only hostile sources are utilised. Putting it at its mildest, this is a flawed editorial policy. And it should be noted that the notion of a (knowable) "real world" has been marginalized in philosophy for some considerable time.Be-nice:-) (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Note I said: "especially those aspects of it which impinge on the real world". If you doubt this, perhaps some small skeletons could be exhumed as silent testimony? However, this Talk page is not the place for a general discussion. Please confine your contributions to content-specific topics. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe a lot of (small and large) skeletons to make a contrary point about the institutional medical system? See the Wikipedia article on "Iatrogenesis": "In the United States an estimated 225,000 deaths per year have iatrogenic causes, with only heart disease and cancer causing more deaths." My post is not part of a general discussion but is focussed on the Wikipedia article on Christian Science, ie the issue of editorial bias.Be-nice:-) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The "flat earth" comparison has been used here before. A better analogy is this: who would you use as sources for an article on color? Would you choose as reliable sources those who were sighted, blind, or born sighted but had lost their eyesight? If the sighted were generally members of an organization devoted to color, would their eyesight and membership make their books on color "tainted" and "less reliable"? Would authors who were born blind or had lost their eyesight be considered more objective and more reliable? Would criticism of the organization devoted to color be required to establish credibility and reliability? Would open bitterness, anger and even bias from the blind be recognized or would the sighted be chided for pointing it out? Would the article be required to dispute and disdain the existence of color because this was the consensus, which was weighted by the many works by the blind?

The "flat earth" comparison is also good — if one realizes that Christian Scientists argue that the earth is round. Alexbrn's comment, "The flat earth journal would describe the flat earth theory in a partial way attempted to lend it weight, coherence and legitimacy - which would of course be bogus," [emphasis, mine] is precisely the argument myself and others have made regarding the extensive use of Fraser, etc., yet supporters like non-Christian Scientists Benjamin O. Flower, Arthur Brisbane, Conrad Henry Moehlman and William Dana Orcutt are excluded. Brisbane and Flower were well-known journalists, Moehlman was a Baptist professor at Colgate Rochester Divinity School and Orcutt a book designer. (His book is primarily about his work, but relates his limited, yet long-term client contact with MBE and the CS Publishing Society. His few remarks about her are very interesting, particularly because he did not understand CS in the least.) Marrante (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Changes to the lede

An IP is continually trying (with no discussion) to modify the lede to remove (contrary to the sources) the description of CS as a type of New Thought. Anybody else got any input on this? I'm getting fed up with the daily revert without discussion ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page asking him to join the discussion here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the IP on this. It's certainly not how any Christian Scientists would see themselves. As far as I remember there was previous discussion on this and no consensus was arrived at, as to whether Christian Science should be under the rubric of New Thought. I can't quite remember the Wikipedia protocol about consensus: whether it means you need consensus to include something, or to change it once it's there. (Logically I would imagine it should be the former, but Wikipedia doesn't always function logically....) In any case I'm not up to speed on the secondary literature to say whether it's an accurate reflection of same. Anyway, my vote is to remove the description in the lede.

While I'm at it, the same IP (I think) tried to modify a quote by adding explanatory material in (parentheses) rather than [square brackets]. The latter should be used when inserting explanatory material that is not in the original quote, to differentiate it from the text in the original--otherwise there may be confusion as to what was, or was not, in the original.

Hello again to everyone and I hope you are all having a wonderful life! Be-nice:-) (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

For consensus to change, we'd need some weighty, convincing arguments (based on sources and Wikipedia policy/guidelines). What we have at the moment looks unassailable - but bring forth your evidence and I may be persuaded otherwise! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

At the (admitted) risk of over-simplification, here is what the references in the lede seem to indicate.

Let's say Christian Science = A, Metaphysical = B, New Thought = C, Quimby = D, and X = Other.

Saliba says that A + B = C

Lewis says A + C = B

Gallagher says A + D + X = C

So, you have two authors (Saliba and Gallagher) saying that Christian Science is one of the things that make up New Thought, and one author (Lewis) saying that Christian Science and New Thought are the two things that make up Metaphysical. So even given only three references (out of how many?) one of them doesn't substantiate the interpretation.Be-nice:-) (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I would love to weigh in here, but probably don't have enough material of the kind you demand. One question is simply a matter of logic, though. Even the article makes this point, though it doesn't address my question. The point is that Christian Science came first, a former student of CS is considered the founder of New Thought. How then, can the original be a part of the off-shoot?

In looking at the article just now, current ref #16 (John Saliba), both you and he have described New Thought, but utterly missed the boat on CS. Here's a quote from the article:

Although there are differences between Christian Science and New Thought, they have in common that, as John Saliba writes, "attunement with God" is the ultimate aim of each human being, and the human mind the key to physical health.

CS does not hold the human mind as the key, a major point that should already be obvious to you, being that it contradicts other statements in the article, such as this one, currently cited with ref #31:

In contrast to New Thought or Mind-cure, Eddy taught that mortal mind cannot cure disease, because it cannot cure what it has caused.

CS is not part of New Thought, even if some people think it is. The second sentence I pasted above is correct. Marrante (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Casting the net wider, I looked at Britannica's entry for New Thought. It said

Though it is difficult to summarize New Thought beliefs, since they are so varied and to so large a degree individualistic, it is possible to summarize some of the more prevalent views. As far as Christian Science is concerned ...

and although it goes on to enumerate differences between CS and NT, this generaral categorization looks like it aligns with ours (which says merely than CS belongs to "the metaphysical–New Thought family"). We're going to need a slew of weighty RS to overturn this, I think. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a danger of black-and-white thinking regarding the parameters, e.g. the argument that, because a student of Eddy's has been named as the founder of New Thought, New Thought can't incorporate Eddyism. The point is that there is a clearly identifiable genre, which scholars have various names for, one of which is "metaphysical-New Thought." It is identified by its argument that each mind is a manifestation of Mind, and by its focus on the power of mind or Mind over the body. That there are differences between New Thought and Christian Science (which may be more apparent to adherents) doesn't mean that there aren't overriding similarities (which may be more apparent to scholars). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Some scholars, SlimVirgin. Some, not all. Neither of you mentioned the contradiction I pointed out, though. Marrante (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, Christian Science does not teach that each mind is a manifestation of Mind. According to CS teaching, the spiritual idea (which is the reality of each of us) is a manifestation of Mind, a term which--when capitalized--is a synonym for God. What Christian Scientists call the "mortal" or "carnal" mind is a false, illusory sense of separation from God, which externalizes itself as a material body and (in a general sense) as a material world-- the latter being an illusory, material inversion or perversion of the spiritual creation. (Christian Scientists also refer to the "human mind" which is a term used to denote a suppositional mixture of the true and the false, the spiritual and the material.) But neither the carnal mind nor the human mind is a manifestation of Mind (God) according to Christian Science. Furthermore, there's a crucial distinction that Christian Scientists make between the power of Mind (God) over the body, and the (suppositional) power of the human mind over the body. The former is Christian Science; the latter may be something else (eg faith healing, positive thinking, the placebo effect, hypnosis or whatever) but is not Christian ScienceBe-nice:-) (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Check this out for a (very weird) parallel from contemporary philosophy regarding the nature of reality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnl6nY8YKHsBe-nice:-) (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

We even have an article on it: Simulation hypothesis. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks SlimVirgin, I hadn't come across that one. Mind-blowing!Be-nice:-) (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Some more stuff on the simulation hypothesis: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/11/physicists-may-have-evide_n_1957777.htmlBe-nice:-) (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

And some more: http://rt.com/news/space-evidence-universe-hologram-195/Be-nice:-) (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I wish I could understand it. I saw an article today that I thought you might be interested in: Health management system. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.Be-nice:-) (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)